their Faith as well as their Communion In effect the Terms of the Greeks are for the most part of 'em general and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conversion yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of Possevin Bibliot select lib. 1. this Conversion seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent This is so true that when they send into the East those that have been educated in their Seminaries they make 'em sign this same Formulary to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine It is no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Change Mutation Conversion there is not enough in this to make a good Catholick it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Change of Substance Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks But that he may avoid this trouble hence forward let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled CHAP. XI The Two and Twentieth Proof taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus to some Questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck The Three and Twentieth is another Answer in Manuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus and Hieroteus Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia The Four and Twentieth is the Testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church The Five and Twentieth is the Testimony of Zacharias Gerganus WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth against the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I hear that several pious and learned men who cannot indure the World should be thus imposed on do interess themselves in this Dispute and having read this Famous Book I examine they have wonder'd its Author should with such confidence affirm that the Greeks believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Some of 'em have sent me some Manuscripts which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Question I will produce them then here naming the Persons from whom I receiv'd them to the end if any doubt arise they may address themselves to them from whom I had them for their satisfaction MONSIEUR Spanheim a Reverend Minister and Divinity Professor in the University of Heydelberg sent me an extract of a Manuscript he has by him containing Seven and Twenty Answers made by the same Metrophanus Critopulus whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter to so many Questions that were put to him by Monsieur Oosterwieck who was then in the East and was so curious as to inform himself not concerning the particular sence of Metrophanus touching these Articles but of the whole Greek Church in which he then held a very considerable rank being Patriarch of Alexandria One of these Questions was thus expressed in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I desire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching these Articles of the Christian Faith The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Sacrifice of the Mass to wit whether Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament The Answer is this We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice that is spiritual and commemorative spiritual as having nothing of carnal in it according to that of our Saviour the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life Commemorative as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Cross according to that other expression of our Saviour do this in remembrance of me Which is what is taught by Saint Chrysostom and the whole Church saying this is done in remembrance of what was done then do this say's our Saviour in remembrance of me We offer not any other Sacrifice as did heretofore the High Priest under the Old Testament but we offer every day the same or to speak better we commemorate this Sacrifice But we never believed Christ was bodily present in the Mystery Had the Greek Church believed Transubstantiation it was here a fit place to declare it and to reply yes we do believe that Jesus Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament inasmuch as that the proper Substance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread or some such like equivalent thing It will be to no purpose to alledge that Metrophanus means Christ is not corporally in it that is to say after the manner of visible and sensible Bodies with all their Dimensions for this would be to make him return a captious Answer and such a one as is unbecoming an honest man seeing he well saw this was not the Question askt him and that the Term of corporally in the Question propounded respected the proper Substance of his Body So that the force of this Testimony cannot be evaded This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642. THE said Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Answer of Meletius Metropolitan of Ephesus made some twenty years since to the Divines at Leyden touching some Questions they proposed to him They askt him amongst other things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether we may pray to Angels or the Virgin Mary and religiously worship them and whether we must believe the Bread to be transubstantiated in the Sacrament Observe here what he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I declare say's he there are none of these things to be believed for I may not believe the Doctrines of men before those of Christ and his Apostles The Superscrâ—â—tion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania am of the same mind in all things here above contained with the most holy and prudent Metropolitain of Ephesus and all Asia according to what he has declared DR Benjamin Woodroff an Eminent Divine in the Church of England and Chaplain to the Duke of York has favour'd me with an Extract whose Original he has by him and which was given him by its Author being then at Oxford It is a Declaration of the sence of the Greek Church drawn up by a Greek Doctour named Jeremias Observe here its Contents The different use of the Mystery of the Eucharist having produced different Sentiments some celebrating it with unleavened Bread others with that which is leavened and kneaded some believing it to be only a Sign others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word Those that believe the change are the Western People which administer this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and all the rest hold the Sign except the Eastern People For the Eastern Church differs from both
meddle not with that They say that the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ that 't is not a Figure but the real Body but that it is so by a real Conversion of Substance they do not mention I dispute not here concerning those Persons sence that drew up these Censures for I do not question but they were Latins in their hearts and I further believe had they dared they would have proceeded farther but any man may perceive they designed to accommodate themselves to the Style of the Greeks the better to colour over their Forgeries You see on one hand Cyrillus who opposes Transubstantiation in plain Terms boldly naming it and giving it a Title sufficient to startle a Church that believed it and on the other we behold Persons interessed to run down Cyrillus and that leave no means unattempted whereby to render him odious to the Greeks that poyson all he says and yet dare not defend this Transubstantiation neither directly nor indirectly neither in express Terms nor equivalent ones What means this Mystery if the Greek Church does in effect believe the conversion of Substances Could they light of a better occasion wherein to show their Zeal for Orthodoxy and to confound at the same time Cyrillus his Accomplices MR. Arnaud tells us That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the expression the Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 387. Greeks commonly use for the explaining of Transubstantiation But what does he mean by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly Syllable after Syllable Transubstantiation the Latins use it when they express themselves in Greek the Latinizing Greeks use it and all the rest know what it signifies supposing then it were not in common use amongst them would they suffer a Person who pretends not to be a Grammarian but a Divine who speaks not of the Term but of the thing meant by it to reject it as stifly as Cyrillus has done without so much as saying that altho we use not the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet we believe the thing meant by it to wit the Conversion of Substances Yet do they take no notice thereof they forsake the Term and the thing represented by it and contain themselves in their general expressions Is not this then an evident token Cyrillus said nothing in this respect which opposed the Doctrine of his Church AND this is what we had to say touching this Patriarch I am very much mistaken if any comparing this Chapter with the Third which Mr. Arnaud has made on this Subject will accuse me of rashness for saying the real Doctrine of the Greeks appears in Cyrillus his Confession For 't is certain that man who barely considers what I now mentioned touching Cyrillus his Confession cannot but conclude the Greek Church believed not Transubstantiation It only remains for the finishing of this Chapter that I speak something touching the State of this Church since the year 1642. the fixt time of the last of these pretented Censures Parthenius having caused Cyrillus of Berrhaea to be banished and afterwards strangled after the same manner as he served his Predecessor he himself remained not long on the Throne His bad Conduct brought him down thence and the Church of Constantinople substituted one who had been Cyrillus Lucaris his Disciple and named likewise Parthenius in his place Which Allatius acknowledges in a Letter he Allat de per. Cons lib. 3. wrote to Nilhusius dated in the year 1645. from whence we may judge that this great aversion the Greeks shewed Cyrillus and those Synodical Censures are meer Forgeries for what likelihood is there a Church that used so many endeavours to deliver it self from such a man as Cyrillus and which had anathematized his Memory and Doctrine should four or five years after put her self into the hands of one of his Disciples and so run her self again into the same disorder and Heresie Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that the Turks promote to this See those that give them most money and that a Lib. 4. cap. 7. pag. 39 392. Socinian may as well arrive thereunto as another for this is not so absolutely true but that the People have the liberty of hindring the Elections of Persons disagreeable to them as appears by what Allatius relates concerning one Meletius Bishop of Sophia who coming to Rome in order to the reconciling Allat de Perpet Cons lib 3. cap. 11. himself with that Church at his return into his own Country was designed for the Patriarchate of Constantinople But say's he he was put by being hindred by the People We see then this People have still the liberty to reject the Latinising Greeks and that they do in effect put them by but we find not they made the least attempt to hinder the Election of Cyrillus his Disciple Allat ubi supra whom the Latins term a Heretick and Calvinist as well as his Master THIS condition wherein we now beheld the Greek Church lasted from the year 1645. till 1653. Observe here what Doctour Basire a Reverend Divine of the Church of England whom I have already mentioned wrote to me about it When I was at Constantinople which was in the year 1653. Paysius was then Patriarch of it who in token of Communion with the Church of England laid his hands on me in an Assembly of Bishops according to custom as being a Priest of the Church of England and with this imposition of hands gave me power to preach in Greek in all the Greek Churches within his Jurisdiction Which I afterwards did very often according as occasion offered as well at Constantinople as elsewhere altho the Jesuits seemed to be very much displeased thereat I preached one Sunday to the English another in French for the Genevoises the next Sunday to the Italians the following Sunday in Latin to the Hungarian and Transylvanian Ambassadors and the fifth Sunday in Greek in the Greek Churches Now what likelihood is there if Cyrillus his Doctrine were so odious and his Memory so execrable to the Greeks as Mr. Arnaud would perswade us and their Opinion touching the Eucharist the same with theirs in the Church of Rome and if they detested our Doctrine as impious and Heretical they would admit a Minister of the Church of England to be a preacher amongst them and not be afraid that in preaching to 'em the Gospel he should instil amongst them the pretended Errors of his Nation especially in that important Subject of the Eucharist CHAP. XIII The Real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist BUT what do the Greeks then believe if they believe not Transubstantiation The Bounds of this Controversie oblige me not to answer this Question For it concerning us here only to inquire whether the Greeks do or do not believe the Conversion of Substances it is sufficient that we show they do not believe it seeing as I have already said we pretend not
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
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
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
be an effect of the displeasure which he had to be accused of Heresie by his adversaries yet do acknowledg that he was drawn over thither by Alfred Cujus munificentia illectus magisterio ejus ut ex Scriptis Regis intellexi Melduni resedit says Simeon of Durham which is to say that he was won by the Kings liberality to be his Tutor Roger de Howden and Matthew of Westminster say the same thing in the same terms so that according to them these two things do not contradict one another that John Scot was call'd into England by Alfred and yet came thither thro some disgust which his enemies had given him in France THIRDLY French Historians say also that John Scot was called over into England by Alfred Observe here what an ancient Chronicle of France says which ends in 1137. At the entreaty of Alfred John Scot return'd Hist Fran. T. 3. p. 359. from France where he was with Charles the Bald. But fourthly If we suppose that this John Scot whom the Historians say was fetcht over from France into England together with S. Grimbald by an Ambassador sent on purpose by Alfred for him is different from our John Scot it cannot be said who he was Asserus speaks of him not as of an obscure person but as a famous man The King says he sent beyond Sea into France Embassadors to search for Masters and drew over Grimbald a Priest and a Monk he brought over likewise John who was also a Priest and a Monk a man of a great wit and well vers'd in all Sciences Let us be inform'd who this famous man was in France this man that was so well known and deserved to be sent for by an Embassage For we do not any where find there was in France after the middle of the 9th Century any other man of this Character and name of John but John Scot. We find indeed mention made of of Grimbald that he was a Monk of S. Bertin who understood Musick but was far from equalling in Wit and Learning this John Scot of whom Asserus speaks How then came it to pass that there remains no trace of this pretended John supposing this was not he THE Author of the Dissertation's third foundation is that John Scot withdrew from France into England about the year 864. whereas John Scot the Abbot of Aetheling companion of S. Grimbald came over there but in 884. But why must John Scot have pass'd over from France into England about the year 864. Because says our Author Nicholas the First prayed Charles the Bald to send him speedily John Scot or at least to suffer him no longer to remain in his Vniversity of Paris lest he should corrupt it with his Errors Hinc est quod dilectioni vestrae vehementer rogantes mandamus quatenus Apostolatui nostro Joannem repraesentari faciatis aut certe Parisius in Studio cujus jam olim Capital fuisse perhibetur morari non sinatis ne cum tritico sacri eloquii grana Lolii Zizaniae miscere dignoscatur panem quaerentibus venenum porrigat 'T was without doubt adds our Author after these Letters that John Scot withdrew into England Seeing then Pope Nicolas has govern'd the Church since the year 858 till 868. We must place th' arrival of John Scot into England about the year 864. that is to say twenty years before Alfred caused Grimbald and John to come to him For Asser assures us this was in the year 884. THIS reasoning supposes facts which are not proved First This fragment of the Letter of Nicolas I. to Charles the Bald wherein is mention of John Scot and the University of Paris is a piece supposed a great while after the 9th Century for the University of Paris as I have already observ'd began not before the 12th Century and these terms of Studium and of Capital to express the University and Rector of it were not in use in Nicolas I. his time Secondly The Author of the Dissertation informs us that the Letter of Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper to Charles the Bald of which we have already spoken was written in the year 875. and proves it by a Manuscript of the Jesuits of Bourges which bears expresly this date Now in this Letter Anastasius gives singular commendations to John Scot calling him virum per omnia sanctum what likelihood is there then Anastasius would give praises of this kind to a man who was esteem'd at Rome an Heretick and was oblig'd for this reason and the Popes accusation to withdraw from the Court of Charles OUR Author impertinently supposes from the testimony of Asserus that John the Abbot of Aetheling pass'd not over into England till 884. Had he read Asserus with a little more reflection he would have found that altho Asserus refers the sending for of Grimbald and John to the year 884 yet does he not thereby intend precisely to fix it to the year 884. Asserus recapitulates on the year 884. the private life of Alfred since the year 868. which was the year of his Marriage omitting several important things that he might not interrupt the narration of the Wars of this Prince even as in the year 868. he had recapitulated whatsoever Alfred had done during his youth So Asserus does not say in that year as he must have done if he would have precisely design'd the year 884. but he says in these times his temporibus THE fourth proof of the Author of the Dissertation is no better than the rest He says that Mr. Claude having written that John Scot died in the year 884. or in the preceding year he could not be this John whom Alfred the King of England sent for by reason of his Reputation and Learning seeing that this John was not made Abbot till the year 888. or 887. as all Historians agree and that he began not his regency at Oxford till the year 886. as we find in the Annals of the Monastery of Winchester of which Grimbald was made Abbot at the same time as John his companion was of that of Aetheling BUT there 's no solidity in this proof First It is plain one cannot gather any thing certain from Historians either touching the year of John Scot's death nor that wherein Alfred called Grimbald and John into England Secondly Neither is there any certainty in the Annals of Winchester which refer to the year 886. the foundation of the University of Oxford by Grimbald and John his companion two years after their arrival in England for this so great an antiquity of the University of Oxford is a mere fable as has been proved by Bishop Vsher so that whatsoever can be reasonably Antiq. Brit. p. 340 341 342. concluded hence is that there being nothing certain in all this Chronology there can be nothing alledged hence to conclude that John Scot died in the year 883. or 884. And consequently the conjecture of Mr. Claude who has only in this respect