avoid the Dangers that threaten us but on the contrary we shall be the better approved of by those that understand the nature of Affairs And again You must not affright the People by telling 'em we design to proceed any farther in this Reconciliation than we ought and as if we intended to change our ancient Customs and Ceremonies for those of the Latins and make the same Confession of Faith as they do Which Discourse does manifestly shew us three things First that there is a great deal of Difference between being silent in the Doctrine of the Latins not Disputing and Charging them with Error nay proceeding so far as a Union with them and the Imbracing of their Doctrines let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases For Michael desires but the first of these and protests he intends not thereby to proceed to the other The second thing that appears from the Discourse of this Emperor is that the Principle on which I ground my Answer and by which I pretend to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument is not a Proposition forged in my own Brain from the necessity of my Dispute but a Principle not only well known by the Greeks but approved and practised in an Occasion far more important than that now in question betwixt us For 't is far less important to lay aside one of the Doctrines of a Church and not Dispute on it than to be united with her and yet 't is certain the Greek Church consented to this Reunion in hope she should keep her Religion Intire and not receive any of the Doctrines of the Latins In fine I gather from Michael's Discourse and the Effect it had on the Minds of his Clergy that the only care the Greeks took was to keep their own Religion being willing to be silent and Imbrace the Union provided they were not forced to Imbrace the Religion of the Latins If it be replied that this was indeed the Disposition of Michael Paleologus but not that of his Church I answer that Michael engaged 'em to consent to the Reunion upon this Regard that each of the Churches should keep its own Opinions and not contend and charge one another with Error Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Principles which they do not acknowledg to be good and therefore plausible Pretences and fair Colours are made use to win them Whence it follows that the Greeks were far from imagining 't was the same thing not to dispute against the Latins on an Article and to receive and own it with them Whence it likewise follows that if this Reason or Hope which Michael proposed to them was sufficient to make them do a thing in which they feared he would deceive them as indeed he did a matter which was contrary to their Duty and Conscience and against which they had moreover the greatest Aversion it might likewise be sufficient to withhold and hinder them from doing another thing to which they did not believe they were obliged and from which they might refrain without the least Violence to their Inclinations THIS Reflection will be strengthened by considering after what sort Veccus the Patriarch justified himself when he became a great stickler in the Union which he endeavoured to promote as much as in him lay I never Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec Pag. 65. design'd say's he by any thing I either thought said or did to disparage any of the Ceremonies or Doctrines of the Greeks but only to establish the Peace of the Church If any Person in imbracing this Peace has despised our Rites and Ceremonies and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church before them let him be excluded the Kingdom of Heaven and have his Portion with the Traytor Judas and his Companions who Cracified our Saviour We see here this Patriarch supposes a great deal of Difference between the not Condemning the Latins and letting them alone with their Doctrines Nay so far is he from granting Mr. Arnaud's Consequence that he makes this a Principle whereby to justify himself to the Greeks which is a Sign that this Proposition agreed with the Genius of that Nation For People are not wont to justify themselves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred if Michael Paleologus Veccus or the Greeks in general have displeased Mr. Arnaud by this their Deportment they are excusable For in those Days the World was not acquainted with the Secrets of his Reasoning The Rules of his Logick were not then published They may henceforward become a Rule to Posterity but he must not expect they should be more priviledged than the Edicts of Princes which have no retroactive Virtue V. TO convince Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks are averse to Controversies I need only represent to him what Anthony Eparkus of Corcyra wrote to Philip Melancthon For having told him how careful the Turks are to establish their Religion every where and to extend the Limits of their Empire It Turco Grec 1 8. Pag. 545. would be very absur'd adds he for us to Dispute of sublime Matters in the Condition we are in It behoves us to watch and apply our selves diligently to the avoiding the Danger threatning us lest we lose our Possessions here on Earth whilst we idly and over curiously inquire into the things of Heaven 'T is certain the Greeks do not care to concern themselves overmuch about the things of the next Life Their Thoughts being wholly taken up with their worldly Interest this being the Key that opens and shuts their Mouths POSSEVIN the Jesuit distinguishes the Greeks into three Ranks the first of People who are very Ignorant The second of those that having some Biblioth selert de rat ag cum Grec lib. 5. cap. 24. Experience and beholding on one hand the Majesty of the Roman Church and on the other the Misery of the Greek one the Pomp of the Sacrament of the Latins and the Neglect wherewith the Greeks treat theirs conclude that the Roman Church is better beloved by God almighty than the Greek one The third is of those who having some knowledg of the World are yet transported by an habitual Hatred against the Latins altho their Bishops and most prudent Persons amongst them are of another Temper and not knowing for the most part what they say or would have they Compare the Greek and Roman Church together their Ceremonies with ours and prefer their Priests to our Latin Priests supposing them not so vicious as ours Yet they dare not affirm we are in an Error or that what we believe or practise touching the Sacrament is unwarrantable But they affirm as to themselves that they are in the right Way and do not doubt of Salvation in their own Religion Observe these two things first that the Greek Bishops and prudentest Persons in their Church are averse to Controversies And secondly that those that are not content themselves with maintaining their own Doctrines without condemning those of the Latins VI. BUT it will be
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
Souls and Bodys that 't is neither Consumed or Corrupted nor passes into excrements but into our Substance and for our Conservation We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread seeing it passes into that of our Bodies Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence Do's Mr. Claude say's he pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical Lib. 7. C. 4 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them Surely he will not proceed so far How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance And why do's he not conclude on the contrary that as these words in Consistentiam animae vadit do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul to conserve fortify and operate in it his Graces so this expression in Consistentiam Corporis vadit do's signify nothing else but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks there are two things in the Eucharist the Substance and the Spiritual and divine vertue which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things attributes one of 'um to the Soul to wit the Divine Vertue and th' other to the Body to wit the Substance and 't is in respect of this latter that he say's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not consuming nor Corrupting it self nor passing into Excrements God forbid but passing into our Substance and preservation He say's expresly it passes into our Substance Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists one of which respects immediately the Body and th' other immediately the Soul Under the new Law say's Cyrill of Jerusalem the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salvation Sanctify the Soul and Body for as the Bread respects the Body so the word that Cyril Hie Cal. myst 4. Epiphan in Anapcâ—hal is to say the Consecration performed by the word relates to the Soul The Bread say's Epiphanius is an aliment but there is in it a quickning Vertue And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist in respect of what it has material and in reference of the Prayer say'd over Origen Comm. in Matt. 1â— it THE III. Proposition censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract which has for its title Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta some places of Scripture misunderstood and is thus described Asserunt Legendum esse hoc est Sacramentum Corporis c. They affirm we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body c. Would Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition For whether these People pretended we must read the Text not this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ as the title of the Article insinuates Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church should either make this correction or seek this explication Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind that we must not read this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence Let Mr. Arnaud consult himself hereupon and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites or received by the Publick Consent and by Tradition and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical or Erroneous or Superstitious were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations so that what we now Rehearsed concerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schismatical Churches AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite who was of the Seminary at Rome Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person whom he perfectly knew being both of the same Country and having passed over a great part of their Life 's together he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testimonies and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down COME we now to the Jacobites Copticks and Ethiopians Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries which he used in reference to the Moscovites and Nestorians so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made and tell him that if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touching the Substance of the Sacrament several Authors and Emissaries would without doubt have informed the World thereof and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the Latins and them I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops and that when Eugenius IV. Raynald ad ann 1442. reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist holding as they do that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body there being only the Divine Nature in him Now that they hold this last Error may be proved by infinite Testimonies NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonderfull Hâ—â—t of the
dead in it self They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality recommending Hope Charity Humility Chastity Temperance Sobriety and condemn Pride Envy Hatred Variance Drunkenness Calumny Magick Divinations c. HERE we have without question very commendable endeavours but they reach no farther than the instructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality These Fathers in their greatest zeal to reform both themselves and others make no mention of the Real Presence 'T was not then above fifty years when the Dispute was very hot on this subject and Books were wrote on both sides Yet it seems they took no notice of it much less determin to instruct the people in what they ought to hold of it All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greatest parr spent their lives Now this shews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from these essays of a Reformation for supposing they had their whole effect they extended not so far as the question of the Real Presence because they suppose either that the people were not ignorant of it or that the Pastors were themselves so persuaded of it that t was needless to instruct them in it or exhort them to instruct their Flocks in it But what likelihood is there that this in numerable multitude of people of both Sexes and of all Ages and conditions of life that knew not their Creed nor the Lords Prayer and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Christian Religion should know the Doctrin of the Real Presence Were they all in those days born imbued with this Doctrin What likelihood is there those Abbots that knew not the Statutes of their Monasteries and who to excuse themselves from reading 'em when offered to them were forced to say nescimus literas were not likewise greatly ignorant of the Mystery of the Eucharist What reason is there to say the Pastors themselves were commonly instructed in it seeing Odon Abbot of Clugny as we have already seen testifies that those who pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paschasus his Book THERE were likewise other Reformations made in this Century but they served only to establish some order in the Monasteries and the observance of particular Statutes under which the Religious are obliged to live by their profession and this does not hinder but that ignorance and carelesness were very great in respect of the Mystery of Religion AS to the Conversions 't is certain there were some but Mr. Arnaud knows very well the greatest part of 'em were wrought by force or the interests and intrigues of Princes And thus those that were converted might well embrace their Religion implicitly or in gross without troubling themselves with particular Doctrins as the greatest part of the People of the Roman Church do at present In the year 912 according to Matthew of Westminister Rollon or Raoul Duke of Normandy embraced the Christian Religion to espouse Gill the Daughter or Sister of Charles III. King of France In the year 925 Sitricus King of Denmark caused himself to be Baptised to espouse Edgite the Sister of Etelstan King of England but a while after he returned to Paganism In the year 926 Elstan having vanquish'd in Battle several petty Kings which were then in England obliged them and their Subjects to receive the Christian Faith In the year 949 Otton King of Germany having subdued the Sclavonians these people redeemed their lives and Country by being Baptiz'd In the year 965 Poland was converted to the Christian Faith by the Marriage of Miezislaus its King with the Daughter of Boleslaüs Duke of Bohemia John XIII Anti-Pope to Benedict V. sent thither Gilles Bishop of Tusculum to establish under the Authority of the King his Religion in that Country In the year 989 Adalbert Arch-Bishop of Prague went into Hungary to endeavour the conversion of those people but this was under the authority and power of Geisa King of Hungary who was converted by commerce with Christians whom he freely permitted to live in his Kingdom So that all these conversions about which Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity make such a noise to advance the glory zeal and knowledg of the Bishops of the 10th Century do not at all conclude what they pretend LET the Reader then joyn all these things together and judg which of us two has most reason Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impossible that the belief of the Real Presence supposing 't were a novelty in the Church could make any progress therein in the 10th Century without Disputes and Commotions or I who maintain that these progresses were not only possible but easie to be conceiv'd First There were Disputes on this subject in the 9th Century which is a matter of fact not to be denied Secondly Altho the question was therein agitated yet was it not decided by any Council nor by the Church of Rome nor by any other publick Authority Thirdly Those of the 10th Century fell into a very confused knowledg of the Mystery of Christian Religion in general the People the Religious and the greatest part of the Priests and Bishops lived in very gross ignorance and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge as we have fully proved Fourthly Ecclesiastical Discipline was wholly laid aside in this Age and the temporal state of the Church lay in a perpetual and general confusion Fifthly It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Presence was therein preached in several places Sixthly It also appears that that of Paschasus was so too and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles and Pastors exhorted to read Paschasus his Book to be instructed in the Mystery of the Eucharist Seventhly To which we may add that the persons that taught the Real Presence in this Century were people of great credit and authority Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbishop of Canterbury and was in great reputation Th' other Odon who had such an esteem for Paschasus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny a restorer and reformer of several Monasteries of whom Baronius says That he was chosen by God as another Jeremiah Baron ad an 938. to pluck up destroy scatte◠plant and build in that wretched Age. ALL these matters of fact being clearly proved as they are what impossibility is there that the Doctrin of Paschasus which he taught in the 9th Century as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church confirming it as much as he could by several passages of the Fathers taken in a wrong sense no publick Authority having condemn'd it should have followers in the 10th That these his Disciples finding ' emselves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance carelesness and confusion reign'd have themselves communicated
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
nature but only in Sacrament contradict the Church Here he acts the part of a Disputer if his arguing be good we will believe him if it be a Sophism we 'll not matter it Now 't is a sophism for according to the maxim of S. Augustin The Sacraments assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments so that to deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Body of Jesus Christ BVT adds Mr. Arnaud 't is moreover false that this is only a consequence Book 8. ch 9. p. 852. For this proposition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Presence was included both in the Principle and Conclusion of Paschasus his argument He concludes That those who deny the Real Presence commit an horrid crime in opposing the Faith of the Church Here we have it comprehended in the conclusion Did ever man hear such kind of reasoning 'T is false that this is only a consequence because 't is a proposition contain'd in the conclusion This is just as if a man should say 't is false that it is day Why Because the Sun is at his heighth for for to be day and the Sun to be at its heighth are not more the same thing than to be a consequence and to be a proposition contained in the conclusion of an argument Are these the prodigious effects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick And the Principle of this conclusion is adds he not that the Church simply recites these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui but understands them in the sense of the Real Presence Which is what I deny The Principle whereon Paschasus argues is no other than this That the Priest says Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui and the People answer Amen That the Church did or did not understand this of the Real Presence is what Paschasus does not touch on He is careful not to advance so far Had he known says Mr. Arnaud that the Church took these words in another sense he must needs be a mad man to reproach as he does these persons for being contrary to the sense of the whole Church He supposes then this for a Princile that the whole Church took them in the sence of a Real Presence and consequently supposes she held entirely this Doctrin This is mere wrangling Paschasus does not say that these persons against whom he inveighs were contrary to the sense of the Church but only that they went against the Church to wit inasmuch as they went according to him contrary to the terms of the Liturgy Secondly Whether he did or did not know that the Church took these terms in another sense 't is not necessary to enquire seeing he does not explain himself therein and speaks neither far or near of the sense of these terms And 't is likely he knew there were at least three sorts of persons in the Church the doubters the ignorant and formal adversaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this sense Thirdly Supposing we say not that Paschasus was mad but argued like a Sophister what inconvenience will follow and what shall we say more than appears from the bare reading of his discourse He would have the Church on his side what could be more easie supposing at that time the conversion of substances and Real Presence were believed than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church Bishops Religious the Doctors and generally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor less and there only needed them to be consulted Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them His Adversaries could not have denied this truth and had they the impudence to do it they might easily be convinc'd by a million of persons then living Why had he recourse to arguing and consequences Why must this consequence be drawn by the hair out of a passage of the Liturgy which may receive I know not how many explications Why did he not at least say 't was certain the Church understood this clause in the sense of a Real Presence Wherefore was he silent touching the sense and argued only from the force of these terms Corpus dilectissimi filii tui c. as if all those that utter these terms or add to em their Amen believ'd the Real Presence Which shews us two things the first that Paschasus acted like a Sophister sheltering himself as well as he could under the Authority of the Church against the reproach objected against him of being a Visionary and an Enthusiast and the other that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud supposes he had which is that the whole Church was of his opinion and the people commonly believed the Real Presence and conversion of substances of Bread and Wine he would not have fail'd to make the best of it and o'rewhelm his adversaries with it Mr. ARNAVD will now then perhaps comprehend that there 's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain and of which he himself is a witness and one that draws a consequence and perhaps will no longer say That my distinction separates by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot separate And at the same time acknowledg that never pretension was worse grounded than that of the Author of the Perpetuity and his own They affirm the whole Church was of Paschasus his mind But whereon do they ground their supposition Were the Adversaries of Paschasus agreed about it No. Does Paschasus himself expresly affirm it No. But 't is because Paschasus insinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made use of But does Paschasus formally assert that the Church understood this term in the sense which he gave it No. But 't is because Paschasus must thus understand it says Mr. Arnaud to make his reasoning just Take away then from Paschasus his reasoning the justness which Mr. Arnaud would give it the subintâ—lligitur is annull'd and these Gentlemen bare of proofs THESE words of Paschasus says Mr. Arnaud Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem furnish us with another proof of the same nature For they shew that this solution of virtue was new and that Paschasus had not learn'd it but of late Mr. Arnaud does well to advertise us that 't is a proof of the same nature as the others for 't is so in effect that is to say a very slight one and scarcely worth offering Paschasus is astonish'd at what his Adversaries say in reference to virtue not that this solution appears to him new He says nothing of it in this respect but because it does not appear to him
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
As soon as they took any City there was established in it a Bishop of the Latin Communion with a sufficient Clergy for the Service of that Church Sometimes the Christians of the East ranged themselves under his Obedience and othertimes they were permitted to have a Bishop of their own Choosing He farther adds that after the taking of Antioch there was no other Patriarch established than him that was there before and that he remained for the space of two Years That after the taking of Jerusalem and other Cities of Syria and Palestine there was another Patriarch made and several Latin Bishops the Greeks and other Christians of Syria being left at their own Liberty as to their communicating with the Latins THIS pretended Moderation of the Latins is first of all refuted by the same Author whom Mr. Arnaud quoted who is James de Vitry James de Vitry saies he Testifies that the Christians of Syria who were of the same Religion with the Greeks had Bishops of their own 'T is not possible for an Ibid. Author to be cited with less Sincerity for these are James de Vitry's Words The Syrians exactly observe the Customs and Ordinances of the Greeks in the Celebration of Divine Service and other Spiritual matters and obey them as their Superiours But as to the Latin Prelates in whose Diocesses they live they Hist Orient C 75. freely affirm they obey them with their Mouths but not in their Hearts superficially and for fear of their temporal Lords For they have their own Greek Bishops and would dread neither the Excommunications nor other Laws of the Latins did they not fear our Lay-men would break off all Trade and Commerce with them For they say amongst themselves the Latins are Excommunicated Now where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's Sincerity in thus alleaging James de Vitry's Testimony to prove the Moderation of the Latins who obliged not the Syrians to communicate with them unless they pleased themselves These Words of his declare the Syrians did still acknowledg their Greek Bishops But then again on the other hand that they were constrained for fear of their temporal Lords to acknowledg the Latin Prelates and render them an external Obedience which is expresly contrary to what Mr. Arnaud concludes And yet he has not contented himself with thus alledging James de Vitry in a contrary Sence but has made a Principle of it From whence he draws this Consequence concerning the other Christians We ought Ibid. P. 194. saies he to conclude the same of the other Sects of Armenians Jacobites and Nestorians with which all Syria was at that time filled This seems to me to be a too free disposal of Principles and Conclusions IN the second place this pretended Moderation is refuted even by those very Letters which Pope Paschal the second wrote to the Latins in the East after the taking of Jerusalem in which he tells them he has charged his Legate Baron ad ann 1100. to endeavour the regulating of the Church which God has delivered by their Hands and that which should hereafter be delivered by them to correct whatsoever should be found contrary to sound Doctrine to Plant and Edify whatsoever he judged fitting by their Assistance which plainly shews that the Latins after they had freed these Eastern Christians from the Tyranny of the Infidels suffered them not to live according to the form of their own Religion and that in this respect they subdued them to themselves ALLATIUS a Latiniz'd Greek and keeper of the Popes Library has bin more ingenuous than Mr. Arnaud for he freely confesses that the Latins De Eccl. Occid Orient Perp. Consens L 2 C. 13. established Prelates of their own in the East and drove out them of the Greeks when they could do it with safety and severely chastized Schismaticks and Obstinate Persons And as to what Mr. Arnaud alledgeth out of Balsamon That Antioch only excepted in all other Cities the Latins permitted Ibid. P. 194. the Greek Bishops to exercise their Episcopal Functions altho they had established Bishops in the same Places I have not met with any such Passage in his Nomocanon of the Parisian Edition printed in 1620. Those that published it relate this Passage in a Supplement annexed to the end of the Book and tell us that these Additions are not to be found in any Greek Copy but only in the Latin Version of Gentian Hervetus so that the Truth of this Testimony is doubtful and Mr. Arnaud that seems to have taken his Quotation from Baronius ought to have more certainly informed himself Howsoever it be Balsamon lived towards the end of the twelfth Century about a hundred Years after the entrance of the Latins into the East in a time wherein their Affairs were in Disorder for the Infidels had retaken Jerusalem with a great part of those Places which were held by the Latins So that we need not wonder if the Latins slackned their Rigour towards the Greeks and so much the less because it appears by this same passage of Balsamon that the Infidels gave the same Liberty to the Greek Bishops to exercise their episcopal Functions in their Dominions IT is certain this Moderation Mr. Arnaud speaks of is a meer Chimera Guilliel Tyr. L. 6. C. 23. L. 7. C. 8. L. 9. C. 15. L. 10. C. 16. L. 11. C. 12. L. 1. C. 2â— L. 15. C. 11. of his own For immediately after the taking of Antioch there were Latin Bishops put into all the neighbouring Cities the Patriarch for some time kept his Dignity but at length was forced to withdraw to Constantinople and a Latin Bishop was substituted in his room After this Dabert Bishop of Pisa was made Patriarch of Jerusalem Baldwin Arch-Bishop of Cesarea William Arch-Bishop of Tyre Adam Bishop of Paneada and all other Diocesses furnished after the same manner as it appears by Wm. of Tyre's Account WE may then I think without farther Trouble conclude that the Latins did not omit so favourable an Occasion of Introducing their Religion and particular Doctrines in the East We may moreover consider another historical Passage of which Mr. Arnaud makes use according to his ordinary manner which is to hinder us from beholding the just Consequences may be drawn thence This History concerns the subjecting of the Grecian Empire to the Latins IN the Year 1204. The Latins took by Assault the City of Constantinople and seized almost at the same time on the greatest part of the Grecian Empire which they bestowed on Baldwin Earl of Flanders They kept it fifty eight Years till Michael Paleologus retook Constantinople and drove the Latins out of Greece The Greeks were no more moderately dealt with after this Conquest than they were after that of the Holy Land The Latins De Eccl. Occ. Orient Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 13. saies Leo Allatius established in the places they Possessed Priests and Prelates of their own who
thereupon to call him hominem subdolum Christianis rebus quae ad Latinos spectabant infestum iniquum Ration Temp. Part 1. C. 8. C. 21. adeo ut cum Saracenis in eorum conspiraret exitium that is to say a Person so deceitful and cruel to the Latine Church that he conspired its Ruine together with the Saracens yet should favour the Latins in his Empire and endeavour to procure the Re-union of its Church with the Roman But Allatius unties the Knot by shewing us in the Acts of Alexander the third that the Allat ubi Supra Design of this Emperor was so to bring it about that the Pope who was at Variance with the Emperor Frederick should take away from him the Latin Empire and render it to the Greeks to whom Manüel affirmed it did justly belong and for this Effect he sent Embassadors to the Pope and the Pope sent back together with his Embassadors the Bishop of Ostia to negociate this Affair at Constantinople Howsoever it was it sufficiently appears that all these different Interests yielded the Latins fit Opportunities to plant their Doctrines amongst the Greeks EMANUEL'S Intrigue was so far carried on that he assembled a Allat de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 2. Idem Ibid. Council at Constantinople where the Reunion of the Churches was proposed Some say the Latins required no more of the Greeks but the Acknowledgment of the Popes Authority the grant of Appeals and the Commemoration of him in the publick Prayers of their Church Others say the Latins would have intirely subjected the Greeks to their Wills and Customs That which is certain is they could not Agree and that the Emperor himself lent his helping Hand to separate them yet not daring to Anathematise Ancyr an apud Allat Ibid. the Latins because saies a Greek Author Cited by Allatius they were a great and famous People AFTER the Latins had established their Empire at Constantinople the Greeks withdrew into Asia where they chose an Emperor and Patriarch and the Affairs of the Latins falling to decay there was an after Tryal made upon the Greeks touching a Reunion Mr. Arnaud observes that the Pope wrote about it to Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople and 't is very L. 3. C. 2. likely he forgot not to sollicite the Emperor who was then John Ducas He sent two Dominicans and two Franciscans who caused an Assembly to be called for this Effect but to no purpose For each of them had his particular Interest and Design in this Affair THE Pope intended to subject the Greek Church to himself and the Emperor endeavoured to hinder the Pope from favouring the Latins who held Constantinople and to Regain this City as the Greeks did some time after Mathew Paris gives an account of these Letters of the Patriarch to the Mat. Par. in Henrico 3. Pope and of the Popes to the Patriarch concerning this Negotiation THEODORUS Lascaris succeeded John Ducas in the Year 1255. Raynald ad ann 1256. numb 47. Pope Alexander the fourth fail'd not to sollicite him to a Reunion he sent him an express Legate for that purpose but this Emperor soon died whereupon this Affair was no farther prosecuted ALLATIUS observes there was then a Greek Patriarch Named Blemmida Allat de Cons Perp. L. 2. C. 14. who was a Learned Man and very Zealous for this Union with the Latins MICHAEL Paleologus obtaining the Empire and having a while after made himself Master of Constantinople endeavoured above all others at L. 5. C. 1. P. 255. a Reunion with the Latines Mr. Arnaud acknowledges that having united himself to the Church of Rome he forced by all manner of Severity the Bishops and Religious Greeks to do the same This Prince Contracted a particular Friendship with Gregory the Tenth before he came to the Popedom according to Allatius which gave him the greater Facility to Negociate with the Allat de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 15. Church of Rome He sent several times his Embassadors and the Pope his Legates in order to a Reconciliation He held several Councils on this Occasion Ibid. and Inflicted the greatest Torments on those that had the Courage to resist him and promoted others who embraced this Union these are Allatius his own Words He falsly accused John Veccus Treasurer to the Church of Constantinople and caused him to be Imprisoned because Veccus had said in his hearing that altho the Latines were not respected as Hereticks yet were Pachymer Hist Lib. 5. C. 12. they such nevertheless which so greatly provoked this Emperor as caused him to think of nothing but Revenge And for as much as Veccus had sheltred himself in the Temple of St. Sophia and the Emperor daring not to Violate this Asylum he wrote to him very kind Letters intreating him to come to him which Veccus had no sooner endeavoured but was apprehended and carried to the Tower where he was sollicited to joyn with the Idem C. 13. Latins THIS Prince made and unmade Patriarchs at his Will he usurped saies the Historian Raynaldus the Ecclesiastical Authority placing and displaing Raynald ad ann 261. Num. 32. Vide. Pach. Patriarchs at his Pleasure He first of all constrain'd Arsenius to resign up his place to Nicephorus and after the taking of Constantinople he recalled the same Arsenius who had excommunicated him for what he had done against John Lascaris the Son of Theodorus to whom the Empire did of Right belong and whose Eyes he had caused to be put out and seeing he could not prevail on this Patriarch he raised up false Witnesses against him and caused him to be deposed in a Synod and Germain chosen in his place Germain not being sutable to his Humour he so far prevailed with him as to obtain a voluntary Resignation to Joseph but Joseph not consenting to the Reunion with the Latins nor the sending of Deputites to the Pope with whom the Emperor had charged them to conclude this Affair he caused him therefore to retire into a Covent upon Condition that if this Matter broke off he should enter again into his charge of Patriarch Now the Deputies being returned with the News of the Reunion accomplished the Emperor chose this same above named John Veccus who at length suffered himself to be won either by the reading of some Books put into his Hands or by the Miseries he had suffered during a long Imprisonment and hope of a contrary Usage Yet Veccus did not please him long IT would be a difficult matter to relate here all the Violences and Cruelties of Michael against those that withstood the Reunion of the two Churches It will be sufficient to relate here two or three of them by which we may judge of the rest He Imprisoned Holobulus Rhetor of the Church of Constantinople whose Office according to Codinius was to Interpret the Holy Scriptures and caused him to be cruelly Scourged and at length a Pachymer L. 5.
Instructions given them touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation do sufficiently shew that there can no Advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their belief Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice discovered WHOSOEVER considers the foregoing Chapters will not I suppose overmuch value Mr. Arnaud's Labours touching the Grecian and other Eastern Christians called Schismaticks For 't is certain there was never a more vain and fruitless Amusement than his whole Dispute on that Subject at the end whereof I am much mistaken if he finds not he has ill bestowed his time having given no light at all to the main Question which is to know whether the Doctrine of the present Roman Church is the same with that of all Antiquity But besides what I already offered it remains that I make some important Reflections on those things the most part of which Mr. Arnaud has past over in silence and which I shall recollect as briefly as I can in this Chapter to the end I may not any longer detain the Reader on a point which I believe I have sufficiently evidenced First Then I find in the Relation of the Emissaries of St. Erinys that one of the reasons for which they were sent was to endeavour the Advancement of the honour of the Holy Sacrament The Author of these Relations desirous to give the World an account of the Honours they have endeavoured to procure from the Inhabitants of this Island to the Sacrament begins thus I believe say's he the Gentlemen of C. 20. P. 304. the Confraternity of the August Society of the Holy Sacrament having testified so great Zeal for the Advancement of this Devotion especially in the Eastern Countries will approve of these Discourses seeing they will be inform'd by them that the Prayers and Vows they have made for the Conversion of these poor wretches were not fruitless These words sufficiently shew if I be not mistaken that one of the chief ends which the Emissaries proposed to themselves in the Conversion of the Greeks is to give them those Sentiments which they have not yet entertained concerning the Holy Sacrament and 't is unto this whereunto tends the Zeal and Prayers of the Confraternity WHENCE it follows that 't is no great wonder if they have accomplished their Design and that if these people do at this day believe Transubstantiation and Adore the Eucharist it cannot be hence concluded that this Doctrine has been amongst them ever since they first received the Christian Faith BUT the better to convince Mr. Arnaud of the vanity of his pretended Consequence and how little I would esteem his victory if it were as real as it is false and imaginary I need but set before him the means these Emissaries have used whereby to insinuate the Roman Religion in these Countries in all which I shall relate no more than what I learn from Authors no wise suspected by the Church of Rome THE first instrument they use is Money Francis Richard the Jesuit in the foresaid Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys plainly tells us so Above an hundred poor Greeks say's he became our own being drawn over to us by C. 16. P. 247. some small Charity we bestowed on them Money can do all things in these parts and we are certain that provided we had wherewithal to give the Greek Bishops they would suffer us to Confess Preach and Instruct them who are under their Charge in whatsoever we pleased So that are not these very fit people to determine the Antiquity of our Doctrines Anthony de Gouveau one of the Anthony Gouveau's Relation lib. 3. Emissaries of Persia in his History of the Reduction of the Armenians which were carried over into Persia under the Conduct of the Patriarch David expresly observes that one of the first courses the Missionaries took to draw these people to them was to distribute money amongst them by which means they were easily wrought on to come to Catechisings BUT besides Money they make the practice of Physick to serve as a pretence for the introducing of them into Houses where they take their opportunity Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys C. 16. p 248. to discourse of Religion By this means say's the Jesuit Richard we have free admittance into the Houses of the Greeks and many times gain by Conversation what we could not effect by Preaching THE knowledge of the Mathematicks draws to 'em several persons and furnishes them with occasions of entertaining them Besson the Jesuit speaking of one of their Emissaries at Damascus he drew say's he to our Holy Syria part 1. 3 Treatise c. 5. house several Greeks by the fame of his Skill in the Mathematicks which is a Science in great Esteem amongst the Levantine People and especially Astronomy upon which account our Emissaries have easie admittance into great Houses whether of Turks or Christians THEY endeavour more especially to gain the Bishops and Patriarchs and that with success as it will appear by the Testimony I shall produce Father John Amien say's Besson speaking of the Emissaries of Tripolys gain'd Ibid. Treatise the 4. c. 4. the Greek Bishop of Tripolys to the Romish Religion The same Besson discoursing of the Mission in Aleppo and of one of its Fathers he hath intirely won say's he Philip the Patriarch who is Patriarch Ibid. Treat 1. C. 9. of great Armenia whose Seat is in Persia at Eschiniadzin This venerable Prelate being come to Aleppo to visit the holy Places received the Father with great Expressions of good Will and shewed him that he was a Catholick in hit Heart being of a very frank Nature he farther declared this in the presence of another Patriarch He say's moreover that this same Emissary converted an Armenian Bishop who was afterwards forc'd by the Schismaticks to leave his Country and retire into a Monastery in Cappadocia and would turn Jesuit but say's he whatsoever great qualities he had it was not judg'd meet to deprive the Armenians of this Pastour Speaking in another place of an Emissary of Aleppo he has brought over say's he to the Roman Church another Greek Bishop and with this person endowed Ib. chap. 10. with such good Qualifications he doubts not but he shall gain several others who will 't is likely follow so great an Example Certainly adds he in these Missions of the Levant there ought to be a particular regard had to the Bishops whose Example the people will not fail to imitate Discoursing elsewhere of the Emissaries of Seyde We are obliged say's he to the Bishop of the Greeks who besides his being won to the Roman Church Treatise 6. c. 7. by one of our Fathers lays other Obligations on us For he opens to us his Heart as well as his Church and publickly declares to his hearers that the Frank's Church and that of the Maronites are the true Churches These Conquests cannot be lost unless by the ill conduct of the Pastours and the pernicious Maxims they may give out
Gain but one of them and you gain them all but if one of 'em holds out and will not yield what you have done already signifies nothing Discoursing of the Mission of Aleppo he say's that the Bishop of the Syrians at Aleppo before his Ordination conceived a great hatred against the Syrian Heresie and turn'd Catholick and within a while went to Rome from whence returning he was Consecrated by the Patriarch of the Maronites and settled in the Syrian Church at Aleppo From whence being constrain'd to withdraw he was brought there again at the request of the Curats and by the Assistance of Mr. Piquet He generously serves adds he Almighty God amongst his own people whom he exhorts to keep stedfast to the Church of Rome And thus have the Endeavours of our Emissaries been assisted by the Divine Grace which we doubt not but will prove of great consequence to the Syrians seeing that in gaining a person of his merit they have done as much as if they had converted a whole Nation The Sieur Stochove speaking of the Jesuits at Galata These Fathers Endeavours say's he have not been ineffectual amongst the Hereticks and Schismaticks Stochovius ' s Voyages p. 98. for they converted several Greek Bishops and disposed others in case of any Revolution to abhere to the Roman Church I acquainted my self say's Busbequius the Emperour's Embassadour with Metrophanus the Metropolitain and Superiour of the Monastery of Chalcy he Busbeq Voyages lib 4. p. 5. 26. is an honest and learned Man and one that passionately desires the re-union of the two Churches contrary to the custom of his Nation who detests them of our Communion as prophane and impure Persons GOUVEAU the Monk relating how he and other Augustin Portugaises Gouveau's relation lib. 5. 3. proceeded in order to the Re-union of the Armenians in Persia to the Roman Church tells us that they particularly applyed themselves to the winning David their Patriarch making use of him afterwards as an instrument to prevail on the Bishops and all the rest of the People NOW tell me I pray after this with what sincerity the Greeks and other Eastern Christians can be alledged in this matter they are won by Money several pretences are made use of by the Emissaries to introduce themselves into their houses they prevail on their Bishops not making them publickly change their Religion but leaving them in the same Communion wherein they find them to the end that they may likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith Now what can be said of these people but that if they believe Transubstantiation it not appearing they believed it before all these Intrigues they have received this Doctrine from the Emissaries by these indirect ways which they practise BUT this is not all for one of the most usual and effectual Courses they take to establish insensibly and without any noise the Roman Religion in Greece and amongst all other Nations is the instruction of their Youth which employment they commonly take upon them wheresoever they come for under pretence of instructing them in Human Learning they instil into their minds the Principles of the Romish Faith so that a great part of the Greek Prelates are of this number that is to say their Schollars having received from them in their tender Age a favourable Opinion of the Roman Church WE are inform'd by the Author of M. de la Haye's Voyages who was Voyages of M. de la Haye c. 5. pag. 125. Embassador to the late King of France that the Jesuits at Galata are very succesful in their undertakings in this kind for besides their Preaching and Confessions they instruct all the Youth as also the Schismaticks whom they have convinced for the most part of them of their Errors so that several Principal Greek Bishops and Archbishops who have been their Schollars do favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and are capable of doing it great Service THE Sieur Stochovius speaks to the same effect the Greeks say's he do Stochov Voyages pag. 98. not at all scruple the sending their Children to School he means to that of the Jesuits wherein they are instructed as well in the Catholick Religion as in Human Learning And discoursing of the Isle of Chios he tells us that the Jesuits have a strong-built Convent there besides a fair Church that they are twenty in number who are all of them naturaliz'd and take upon them according to their custom the instruction of Youth and bring divers over to the true Religion The Carmelites adds he have a Church and Convent there who likewise apply themselves to the instructing of Youth and convert divers from the common Heresie of the Greeks THE Sieur du Loir tells us likewise that the Jesuits of Galatia keep Loir's Voyages pag. 67. Thevenot part 1 c. 61. School for the Children of the Greeks and Armenians And the Sieur Thevenot informs us that in the Isle of Chios there is a Convent of Capucins who teach human Learning and the Christian Doctrine to several Children who repair thither He tells us in another place that in the Isle of Andria the Capucins do greatly ease the Bishop by their Preachings and Confessions and by Chap. 13. their School to which go all the Greek Children and that some are sent from Athens for that purpose LA Boulaye le Goux tells us that the Jesuits have a convenient House at Boulay's Voyages part 1. c. 9. Relat. of St. Erinys c. 5. Smyrna wherein they instruct the Greek Children And the same do they at St. Erinys as appears by the relation of Richard the Jesuit who introduces another Jesuit speaking as follows I set open my School every day to all that will come and learn any thing being ever ready and most willing to instruct Youth as well out of Obedience to my Superiour who earnestly recommended to me this course as for that likewise it has been revealed to me from Heaven that this is the surest way to reform by degrees the Greek Church and perhaps one of the most likeliest means to maintain us in these forraign Countries IT already appears by these Testimonies that one of the principal things recommended to the Emissaries when they are to be sent abroad is the Education of Children as an infallible means to set up the Romish Religion in the midst of these people and that the Emissaries on their side do well acquit themselves in this particular But the Author of the Book called A Description of the Holy Land delivers himself more plainly For discoursing how the Jesuits employ themselves in the City of Aleppo he tells us that their chief business is to instruct Youth which has always been esteemed a matter of great importance and highly conducing to the reformation of these Nations Observe I beseech you what he says that the Emissaries do not only carefully apply themselves to this and that by order from their Superiors but that
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
these and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie full of piety and free from contradiction She affirms then that the Bishop or Priest in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ making the Propitiation for the sins of the People and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine and changes them not into the sensible but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ if they understand hereby a supernatural change after a spiritual manner those that do thus speak concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church But seeing they will have this to be sensibly effected our Church does therein disagree with them altho they have recourse to another way of speaking in telling us of Accidents and Species and such like things which none of the Ancients ever thought of much less mention'd For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Contentions which tend to the ruine of Souls not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical and divide the Church but which in disturbing its Peace eclipse its Glory The Superscription is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author yet does it confirm and illustrate several matters First that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the Latins and Protestants Secondly That although the Greeks do use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 change yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another which the Latins have invented but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine Thirdly That when 't is said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ this must be understood in a spâ—ritual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church Fourthly That those of the Church of Rome understanding it as they do in a sensible manner the Greeks reject them and their Communion Fifthly To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visible and palpable in its natural form in the Sacrament he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions namely of Accidents and Species meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's proper Substance is in this Mystery although covered with the Species and Accidents of Bread And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof MATTHEW Caryophilus titular Archbishop of Iconia a Latinised Greek and almost of the same stamp and temper as Arcudius and Leo Allatius has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Catechism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus Allatius say's he was a Bishop But be he what he will Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner terming his Propositions Blasphemies and calling him Serpent Basilisk Wolf the Devil's Instrument worse than the Devil himself a Lutheran But 't is a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries when their Doctrines agree not with theirs They thus begin continue and end their Refutations It cannot then be taken ill if laying aside their Injuries I only affirm that Caryophilus very impertinently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites and what he say's in his Preface that he was a true Greek and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church and moreover a real lover of his Country He opposes amongst other things the addition of the filioque in the Symbol and attacks the Azuma of the Latins He affirms there is but one Holy Church which is the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran and 't is plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen and hinder us from any advantage by his Testimony SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus being not sufficient to hinder us from considering this Author's Testimony notwithstanding his pretended Lutheranism I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositions which he himself has taken out of his Catechism The LXI is this Râ—futatio pfeudâ—-Christianae Catechesis editae à Zacharia Gergano Graeco Auctore Matthaeâ— Caryophil Romae 1631. Blasph 61. The Holy Communion consists of two Substances the one visible and th' other invisible the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ This is my Body this is my Blood The Question in this Dispute being only Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony that the visible Substance of Bread and Wine remain so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification but in respect of the Words of Christ which in effect are not Substances it is likewise apparent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence seeing by it is meant no more but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacrament is contain'd in these words This is my Body because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine but as the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Mystery Which is what he understands by this invisible Substance that is to say the force and efficacy of the Sacrament for had not our Saviour said of the Bread This is my Body it would be no more than Bread proper to nourish our Bodies whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance which nourishes our Souls THE LXV Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion Ibid. Blas phem 65. for it contains these words That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind receive an imperfect Communion which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation which is the Concomitancy And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition as if he would say only that this
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
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
was not then wholly extinct that is to say in the beginning of the 11th Century when Berenger appear'd THESE are Mr. Arnaud's first objections which as is plainly seen are not over demonstrative that the change we suppose is impossible Those which follow are not much better as will appear from the reflections we shall make on ' em The second order of these pretended Machins which he attributes to me is what he calls Machins of Preparations and he draws these from two passages the one of my first answer and th' other from my second The first is contain'd in these terms In this dark Age that is to say in the 10th the distinct knowledg of the true Doctrin was lost not only in reference to the Sacrament but almost all other Points of the Christian Religion The second speaks of the Ages which followed the first eight in these terms The first light which was taken from the people to keep 'em in ignorance Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 3. was God's Word The second was the clear and solid Expositions of the Writings of the Holy Fathers in reference to the Sacrament The third the knowledg of other Mysteries of Christianity which might strengthen mens minds and encourage their zeal for the truth The fourth was suffering natural reason to decay and fall into a kind of languishment And as to their senses they had open War declar'd against ' em THOSE that shall take the pains to read the 4th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's Chap. 4. page 891. 9th Book which has for its title The Machins of Preparation Examin'd will find therein a prodigious profusion of words much heat and vehement declamations but very few things worth regarding wherefore passing by as I shall do whatsoever is useless and redundant the rest will not take up much time First he charges me with offering things without any foundation proof or reason I answer then Mr. Arnaud has forgot the proofs Page 892. we brought touching the disorders of the 10th Century and according to his reckoning the testimonies of Guitmond Verner Rollevink Marc Antony Sabellic John Stella Polydor Virgil Elfric Arch bishop of Canterbury Edgar King of England Genebrard Bellarmin Baronius Nicolas Vignier and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the defenders of the Doctrin of Divine Grace shall be esteem'd as nothing The one tells us That the truths of Religion were vanish'd away in this Age from men The other That therein was a total neglect of all ingenious Arts. The third That all persons in general so greatly indulged ' emselves in idleness that all kinds of Virtues seem'd to be laid asleep with ' em The fourth That the Monks and Priests minded only th' enriching ' emselves The fifth That the Bishops and Priests neglected the reading of the Holy Scriptures and instructing the people out of ' em The sixth That the Church-men spent their lives in Debauches Drunkenness and Vncleanness The seventh That 't was an unhappy Age an Age void of excelling men either in Wit or Learning The eighth That there were no famous Writers in it nor Councils nor Popes that took care of any thing The ninth That Barbarism and ignorance of Learning and Sciences either Divine or Human reigned more in it than in the former Ages The tenth That 't was an iron and leaden Age an obscure and dark Age. And the eleventh That 't was an Age of Darkness and Ignorance wherein excepting some few Historians there were no famous Writers on the Mysteries of Faith Mr. Arnaud knows all this and that we might increase the number of these Testimonies with several others were it necessary yet tells me with the greatest transport That I offer things without any ground proof or reason things which I know to be false and mere imaginations HE says adds he speaking of me that the distinct knowledg of almost all Chap. 4. page 829. the other Mysteries but that of the Eucharist was lost in the 10th Age. Now he knows the contrary of this and is persuaded of it seeing that as to the common Mysteries and such as are believed by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbol it cannot be said they of the 10th Age were ignorant of 'em and yet as to the points controverted between the Calvinists and the Roman Church excepting that of the Eucharist all the Ministers his Brethren do frankly acknowledg that long before the 9th and 10th Century the whole Church believed what the Roman Church does believe at present of ' em Let him tell us then what are these truths of Faith the distinct knowledg of which were lost in the 10th Century 'T IS no hard matter to satisfie Mr. Arnaud These truths the distinct knowledg of which was lost in the 10th Century are the same which are contained in the Symbols Does he imagin that if a man be not ignorant of the Symbols that therefore he must know distinctly the Mysteries therein contained and does he put no difference between being ignorant of a thing consusedly knowing it and distinctly knowing it Do all those that know the Creed distinctly understand the Mysteries contained therein Certainly a mans mind must be strangely benighted that reasons after this manner They were not ignorant of the Mysteries contain'd in the ancient Symbols they had then a distinct knowledg of ' em If this Argument holds good we may attribute the distinct knowledg of the principal Points of Christianity almost to all kinds of persons to Artificers Husbandmen Women yea Children for there are few in either Communion but have heard of them and know something in 'em and yet it must be granted there are few of these who can be properly said to know them distinctly I pretend not to treat here on the common place of the confused knowledg and the distinct knowless This is needless 'T is sufficient to observe that the term of distinct knowledg is equivocal for 't is sometimes taken for the formal and express knowledg of a thing in opposition to the ignorance of this same thing or to what the Schools call an implicit knowledg and sometimes 't is taken for a clear and full knowledg in opposition to a confused and perplex'd one When the Author of the Perpetuity said that all the Faithful ought always to have a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence he took the term distinct knowledg in the first sense for he did not mean that all the Faithful must know clearly and fully the Doctrin of the Real Presence in every respect but that they had a formal express and determinate thought of rejecting or admitting it But when I said that the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist and almost all the other Mysteries of Christian Religion was lost in the 10th Century I took this term in the second sense meaning not that there was no more formal knowledg of these Mysteries that is to say that they form'd
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
10th Century and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change 's being made with noise THE first of these Answers is already refuted We have nothing to do either with Greeks or Egyptians Moscovites Ethiopians Nestorians Jacobites Armenians nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation THE second Answer is frivolous We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the knowledg of the manner in which the change hapned whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations and Sophisms in their Books but of these we will not here complain We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side whose Successors and Defenders they are to deprive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question and I believe there 's a great deal of Justice in this complaint A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd there are none to be had of 'em at this day We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre the Letter of Raban to Egilon Eriger's Book against Paschasus Berenger's Works their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th Century We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books their real Works have been alter'd and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin I say Answer to Noüet nothing but what may be easily justified and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes advantage of these frauds put upon us and which he knows to be such in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hapned in the Latin Church whence I concluded 't was not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him has devised some distinctions some of 'em imaginary and others unnecessary by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question and they are these differences which we must now examine IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches so that the change has not been vniversal whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world and all Christian Churches This is his first difference which he amplifies and exaggerates after his manner But the answer is not difficult to wit that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches or if there be 't is brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it for its being less universal THE second difference is that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd which is says he extremely different a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches which being divided in such small matters cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers neither could it had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent I confess there 's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd and a new Doctrin that is establish'd But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good For ignorant people are more earnest to conserve their customs which they know than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abolish'd th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is introduc'd for the novelty of it is conceal'd 't is offer'd as being the ancient Faith and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressions turning 'em into another sense Customs are of themselves popular and when they are changed people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em but as to Doctrinals the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please and obediently receive it without any examination As to the rest 't is certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes that when we leave an ancient custom every man takes a different course and follows his own particular judgment For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and genuine explication of the Ancients which was that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have faln upon different sentiments the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Latins that of Transubstantiation But we must not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers had it not been authorised by an universal consent This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive But as the discussion of this question touching the universal
hoc quidam de ignorantia errent He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age. I say in the second place that whatsoever design Paschasus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time nor ever said the Bishops which then governed the Churches the Abbots Priests Religious and all learned men held the same language as he did and all of 'em unanimously confess'd that the substance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Masters that taught it Paschasus was far from asserting this HE keeps to three things to some passages of the Fathers to the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to a clause of the Liturgy which says Vt fiat Corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi And as to the passages of the Fathers having proposed 'em he concludes That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthusiastical rashness nor a young man's vision but that he offered these things to those who were desirous of 'em from the authority of the Word of God and the Writings of the Holy Fathers Now seeing adds he it appears that all men have not Faith yet if they cannot understand let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there 's nothing impossible with God and acquiesce in the Divine words without the least doubt of ' em For we never as yet read any have erred in this point unless those that have erred touching the person of Jesus Christ himself altho several have doubted or been ignorant of the Sacraments of so great a mystery Is this the language of a man that loudly glories in the consent of the whole Church Were he assur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief what need he justifie himself from the suspicion of Enthusiasm and pretences to Visions Are we wont to suspect people in this sort who say only what the whole world says and believes And designing to justifie himself why must he rather betake himself to some passages of the Fathers whose sense and terms he may justly be said to have corrupted than to the testimony of persons in his own time and to say if he was an Enthusiast or Visionary all the Bishops Abbots Priests Religious Doctors and Christians in general were so too seeing they all believ'd and spake as he did But instead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly received Nunc autem says he exinde quia claruit quod non omnium est fides He exhorts those who reprehended him to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impossible with God and to acquiesce in the words of Jesus Christ Discant quoeso cum talibus credere si adhuc nequeunt intelligere quod Deo nihil est impossibile discant verbis divinis acquiescere in nullo de his dubitare WHEN then he adds that hitherto 't was not heard that any person erred on this subject unless 't were those who had erred touching Jesus Christ himself Quia usque ad proesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt He would say that till then no body had contradicted the Doctrin of the Fathers leaving it to be understood that then 't was contradicted because they contradicted his which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers So far we do not find him boasting of the consent of the Church in his time for we see on the contrary several things which sufficiently denote that he was far from doing it AS to the passages of the Liturgy and words of Christ he says that the Priest prays in the Canon in these terms Vt fiat Corpus Jesus Christi that all the People cry Amen and so the whole Church in every Nation and Language confesses that 't is this she desires in her Prayer Whence he draws this consequence Vnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Christi Ecclesiam Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes nniversaliter verum esse fatentur Let those then that had rather contradict this than believe it consider what they do against the Lord himself and his whole Church It is then a great fault to pray with all people and not to believe what the truth it self attests and what all do universally and every where confess to be true His Argument is a Sophism which amounts to this Our Saviour Christ says 't is his Body and the whole Church confesses the same But they that at this day deny that 't is his Body in propriety of nature deny that 't is his Body Therefore they contradict Jesus Christ and his Church Who sees not but there is a great difference between reasoning in this manner and positively assuring that the whole Church believes 't is his Body in propriety of nature I will have this says Mr. Arnaud Page 852. to be only a consequence Are not Authors persuaded of the truth of the consequences which they draw and do they not offer them for true as positively as their principles Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange The question is not whether Paschasus was persuaded of the solidity of his consequence or not but whether we ought to be persuaded of it our selves and take it for a testimony touching the publick belief of his time Mr. Arnaud should know that when a man testifies of a matter of fact and afterwards draws thence by way of argument and consequence another fact he is no farther credible in respect of this latter but only as his argument or consequence appears just to us If I say for example that Mr. Arnaud confesses in the first edition of his Book That 't is possible the faithful knew not always so expresly Book 6. ch 1. and universally whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament and I from hence draw by way of argument and consequence this proposition That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Transubstantiation was not anciently an Article of Faith in the Church My testimony in respect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my consequence will be good 'T is the same here Paschasus assures us that the whole Church in his time called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui So far he acts as a witness we must believe him Whence he draws this consequence That those that do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
inconsistent with Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers in what manner they explain themselves when they design the nature of the Sacrament 2. 92 Feast of God rejected by the Greeks 1. 165 Formulary of the re-union between the Latins and the Greeks different in Greek from the Latin 1. 249 G. GEorgiens very ignorant 1. 68 Greeks very ignorant 1. 64 Greeks Bishops leave their Flocks to the Emissaries for Money 1. 98 Greeks superstitious 1. 72 Greeks much degenerated in their manners 1. 63 Greeks entreat the assistance of the Latins 1. 74. seq Greeks have always flattered the Popes with the hope of their re-union 1. 81 Greeks of two sorts the one united to the Roman Church the others not united 1. 109. seq Greeks re-united out of this Dispute 1. 110 Greeks Schismaticks of two sorts the one more rigid the others less 1. 87 Greeks do not believe the Real Presence of the Latins 1. 112. 234 Greeks reject the term of Transubstantiation 1. 114 Greek Apostat cenjured for putting into his Catechism the word Transubstantiation 1. 115 Greeks must use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they believe the substantial conversion 1. 115. seq Greeks in their re-union have changed the terms of the Latins 1. 224 seq Greeks of the Council of Florence held not Transubstantiation 1. 127 Greeks Proselytes of the Latins express themselves differently when converted 1. 128 Greeks only receive the seven first Councils 1. 122 Greeks say our Saviour is present in the Book of the Gospel 1. 131 Greeks speak of the Bread and Wine before the Consecration in the same manner as aster 1. 131 Greeks prostrate themselves to the Bread and Wine before they be consecrated 1. 132 Greeks make several Particles 132 Greeks call the Particles of the Body of the Virgin the Body of S. Nicolas c. 1. 131 Greeks joyn the small particles with the great ones 1. 131 Greeks say that these Particles participate of our Lord's Body and Blood 1 136 Greeks only establish a spiritual Communion with Jesus Christ 1. 148 Greeks disputing on the Azyms suppose the Eucharist to be real Bread 1. 169 Greeks neglect the substance of the Sacrament 1. 172 Greeks teach not the necessary consequences of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 1. 185 Greeks do not believe there 's made any impression of the physical form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread 1. 231 Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospel 1. 158 Greeks explain these words This is my Body in a sense of virtue 1. 307 Greeks reject the Apochrypha 1. 280 Greeks have nothing determinate amongst 'em touching the state of Souls after death 1. 209 Greeks in their re-union at Florence and elsewhere with the Latins never pretended to receive their Doctrin 1. 287 Greeks little solicitous about affairs of Religion 1. 287 Greek Bishops love not disputes 1. 287 Greeks contented with maintaining their Doctrins without condemning those of the Latins 1. 287 I. JAcobits believe that Jesus Christ was man only in appearance 2. 17 Jacobits believe not Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Jacobits reject Auricular Confession 1. 282 John le Fevre a fabulous Author 2. 9 John the Parisian maintain'd in the 14th Century that Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith 1. 288 Jesus Christ alone not the Priest gives in the Communion his Body and his Blood 1. 148 Jesus Christ preached his Gospel to the damned according to the Greeks 1. 280 Infallibility of the Roman Church is a thing of which the ordinary sort of people cannot assure themselves 1. 29 Infallibility of the Roman Church overthrown by the Author of the Perpetuity 1. 53 Infallibility popular is a Principle to be proved 1. 54 Infallibility double 1. 55 Invocation of Saints rejected by the Greeks in one sense 1. 203 Judgment of the Faculty of Paris on the affair of John the Parisian 1. 289 K. KNowledg distinct is taken in two senses 2. 168 Knowledg distinct and popular knowledg are not the same 2. 170 Knowledg distinct and knowledg popular are not the same 2. ibid. L. LAnguage double of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of the Eucharist refuted 1. 347. seq Latins establish Latin Bishops in Palestin and drive out the Greek ones 1. 75 Latins constrain the Greeks to embrace their Religion 1. 77 Latins fill Greece with Inquisitors 1. 78 Latins have done all they could to introduce Transubstantiation amongst the Eastern people 1. 106 Latins in the re-union at the Florentin Council leave their usual expressions 127 Latins greatly perplexed touching the nourishment which our bodies receive in the Eucharist 1. 187 Latins cause their Greek Proselytes to profess the Doctrin of Transubstantiation 1. ibid. Latins have never disputed with the Greeks about their general expressions 1. 290 Latins dreaded by the Greeks 1. 285 Legats Excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople 1. 82 Liturgies Greek denote the Bread to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in sanctification 1. 140 Liturgies Greek commonly term the Eucharist Bread 1. 141 Liturgies Greek direct Prayers to our Saviour in Heaven after the Consecration of the Bread 1. 142 Liturgies contain not one clause which denotes the substantial Presence 1. 142 M. MAronits believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence before their union to the Church of Rome 2. 52 Maronits very ignorant 1. 69 Manuel Comnenus Greek Emperor favours the Latins 1. 83 Matter subsists in the Eucharist after Consecration 2. 90 Method lawful whereby to examin the Controversie of the Eucharist Pref. Methods of Father Maimbourg and Nouet compared ibid. Method of Mr. Arnaud yields new advantages ibid. Method of the Perpetuity four considerations thereon 1. 5 Method of Controversie ought to be grounded on Principles either granted by both sides or well proved ones 1. 9 Method of prescription of the Author of the Perpetuity fruitless 1. 26 Method of the Perpetuity reduces us after many disputes to begin again 1. 52 Michael Paripanacius Greek Emperor favours the Roman Church 1. 82 Paleologus earnestly labours for a re-union 1. 84 Moscovits very ignorant 1. 69 Moscovits have no Preachers 2. 2 Moscovits very superstitious 2. ibid. Moscovits differ in many things from the Greeks 2. 3 N. NEstorians very ignorant 1 69 Nestorians believe not Transubstantiation c. 2. 50 Nestorians use not Auricular Confession nor confirmation 1. 282 Nisetas Pectoratus forced to burn his Book which he wrote against the Latins 1. 82 O. ORiental parts o'respread with Monks and Emissaries since the 11th Century 1. 90 Odeâ—born a Lutheran was deceived touching the Adoration which the Greeks give the Sacrament 1. 163 Oriental people say that our Saviour dipt the Bread which he gave to Judas to take off its Consecration 2. 52 Oriental people hold that the substance of the Eucharist disperses it self immediately over all the parts of our body 2. 52 Oriental people say we must read This is the Sacrament of my Body 2. 53 P. PAisius
demanded why then did they Dispute on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes I answer because these two Points first occasioned the Separation of the two Churches Photius adhered especially to the first of these and Cerularius to the latter The reason why the Greeks have so earnestly stuck to these two Particulars seems to be out of a Principle of Constancy They have followed the first and original Causes of their Quarrel with the Latins treading in the Steps of their Predecessors Had they found the Article of the substantial Conversion in their way they had without doubt stumbled at it but not meeting with it 't is no marvel if they took no notice thereof no more than of other Doctrines But why was not this point at first comprehended amongst those that caused the Separation of the two Churches The Answer is easy because Transubstantiation was not then established in the Roman Church Photius began the Separation towards the end of the ninth Century Cerularius renewed it about the middle of the eleventh and the first that determin'd the substantial Conversion was Gregory the VII in the Year 1079 so that 't is no marvel if they disputed not about it VII NEITHER do I understand the Greeks could have just Cause to dispute this Point against the Body of the Latin Church in general before the Council of Constance that is to say before the fifteenth Century For altho Gregory the VII made his Determination in the Year 1079 as I already said and Innocent the III had done the same in the Council of Latran in the Year 1215 yet there were several People that did not esteem these kind of Decisions as legitimate and authentick Declarations of the Church Every body knows that Rupert who lived in the twelveth Century publickly Rupert in Joan lib. 6. in Exod. l. 2. c. 10. taught that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist and becomes the Body of Christ by an hypostatical Union with the Word Anselm wrote against him and Algerus disputed against his Opinion but he was never Condemned for an Heretick We know likewise what Durand of St. Porcien taught who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth Century to wit that the Substance of Bread remains and that losing its first form of Bread it receives the form of the Body of Christ in the same manner the Food we take receives the form of our Body * Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Waldens tom 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. cod Ms. qui asservatur in Biblioth S. Victor Paris cuititul Determinatio fratris Joan. de Pariscis praedieatoris de modo existendi corporis Christi in Sacr. Altare c. Intendo dicere vâ—ram existentiam realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illâ—rum solemnem opinionem quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substanciae panis in ipsum quod ipsi maneant accidentia sine subjecto non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet sub fide mea sed potest aliter salvari vera realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per Sacrum canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per Concilium generale aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto statim paratus sum revocare quod si non fit determinatus contingat tamen determinari statim paratus sum assentire In 4. Sent. Quaest 6. Art 4. Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opinion may be called a Transformation but not a Transubstantiation Yet was not Durand Prosecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick nor his Doctrine Censured We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Order of Fryar Preachers and Divinity Professor at Paris who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century That altho he approved of the common Opinion touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ yet he durst not affirm this to be an Article of Faith necessarily to be believed as determin'd by the Church and that there was another more popular Opinion and perhaps more rational and conformable to the true Doctrine of the Sacrament namely the Assumption of the Substance of Bread by the person of the Word We know in fine what Peter Dailly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray wrote who lived about the beginning of the fifteenth Century namely that it does not follow in his Opinion from the Churches Determination that the Substance of Bread ceases BUT to the end it may not be said these are the Opinions of particular Titulus Judicium facultatis Theologiae in presentia Collegij magisirâ—rum in Theologia dictum est utrumque â—â—cdum ponendi corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro opinione prohabilâ— approbat utrumque per hic est lacuna per dicta Sanctorum dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesian idco nullum cadere sub fide Et si aliter dixisset minus benc dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus benc dicunt qui determinate asseveret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canâ—nis Anathcmatis Persons who might be mistaken I will here produce the Judgment of the Divines at Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth Century that is to say about the Year 1304 touching John of Paris and concerning the Assumption of the Substance of Bread as is contained in a Manuscript of the Library of St. Victor in these Words The Opinion of the Faculty in Theology in the Presence of the Masters of the Colledg touching both the Ways whereby the Body of Christ may be said to exist on the Altar to wit that of the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and that of the Assumption of this Substance by the Word both which Opinions it holds and approves by and by the Testimonies of the Fathers Yet it says that neither of these two ways has been determined by the Church and therefore never a one of them is an Article of Faith and if it said otherwise it would not have said so well and those that express themselves otherwise say not so well and he that positively asserts that either one or the other of these Modes is an Article of Faith incurs the Sentence of an Anathema I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuscript according as they lye under this Title Judicium Facultatis Theologiae JOHN of Paris met with Opposition from William of Orillac Bishop of Paris and several other Bishops Yet did they not condemn his Sentiment nor contradict what the Faculty of Theology said but silenced him and forbad him the Chair Whereat he made his Appeal to Rome where he came himself and had a Committy appointed to hear