a spectrum Sometimes likewise they affirm the Flesh of the Word was converted into the Nature of the Divinity and became consubstantial with it They do for the most part deny the Word assumed a humane Body of the Virgin and say that having been changed without a Change and made Flesh he has only passed through the Virgin and fastned his Divinity to the Cross and altho it be neither finite nor circumscribed yet he has deposited it in the Sepulchre They deny the Birth of Christ according to the Flesh affirming it hapned in appearance only In the Celebration of the Eucharist they use the Azyme and not Bread They put no Water in the Chalice designing to represent thereby that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ whereas we by the mixture of Water with Wine represent the Union of the two Natures It cannot be more clearly affirmed that the Armenians are real Eutychiens seeing he not only attributes to them the believing that the humane Nature was converted into the Nature of the Divinity but made consubstantial with it But he is too a terrible Calumniator if we believe Mr. Arnaud Howsoever let us proceed GUY Carmus who lived about the year 1340. and has exactly reckoned up the Errors of the Armenians in his Book of Heresies expresly tell us Guido Carmel summam de haeres de haer Arm. C. 22. they follow the Opinions of Dioscorus denying with him the two Natures of Jesus Christ to wit the Divine and Humane in the Unity of Person That they admit only one Nature in Jesus Christ that is the Divine one Will and one Operation And in the twelfth Error he remarks They held that after the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine so that as there is but one Person in Jesus Christ so there is but one Nature in him to wit the Divine and that they cruelly persecute those that hold there are two Natures in Jesus Christ the Divine and Humane IN the year 1341 the then Pope caused this Information to be drawn up touching the Errors of the Armenians which we have already mentioned and shall have farther occasion to discourse of hereafter The second Article has these words That there was held heretofore a Council in Armenia wherein assisted the Catholick that is to say the Patriarch of the Armenians with their Bishops Doctors and the Patriarch of the Suriens Raynald ad an 1341. That in this Council was rejected the Council of Chalcedon especially because it had determined we must believe there are two Natures in Jesus Christ to wit the Humane and the Divine and one only Person subsisting in two Natures That the Council of the Armenians had on their side determined that as in our Saviour Christ there is but one only Person so likewise is there in him but one Nature to wit the Divine one only Will and one Operation that they anathematised those that affirmed the contrary and persecuted them not only by imprisonments and loading them with Chains but even to the putting them to death That in this Council they had condemned Pope Leo and his Letters to the Fathers of Chalcedon and Flavian the Patriarch of Constantinople because he asserted therein two Natures and one Person two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ That in fine they Canonized Dioscorus whom the Council of Chalcedon had condemned and the Armenians celebrated his Festival three times in a year as a Saint and cursed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon which had condemned Dioscorus The twentieth Article bears That the Armenians believe and hold that the Eternal Son of God begotten of the Substance of the Father has united to himself the Humane Nature and was made man yet in such a manner that in the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature and as there was after the Union but one Person in Jesus Christ so is there but one Nature in it to wit the Divine and not the Humane That they curse all those who say the contrary so greatly detesting those that hold the two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union to wit the Divine and humane that if any Baptised Armenian amongst them sayd this they would not communicate with him but esteem him as a Heathen and upon his Return to the faith of the Armenians rebaptise him neither more nor less then if he came from Paganism and after this second Baptism lay twenty years Pennance on him And in the twenty first Article The Armenians believe and hold that because after the Union of Natures in Jesus Christ the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine in such a manner that from that very moment there was only the Divine Nature in him the Divinity has been passible and impassible mortal and immortal according as our Saviour himself pleased and that thus he has suffered and is dead in the Divine Nature because he would having no humane Nature when he suffered and dyed Do's Mr. Arnaud imagine we shall rest contented when he shall tell us that all these things are meer impostures EUGENUS IV. instructing the Armenians in Council of Florence Ad Calcem Concil Florent sufficiently shews he takes them for real and perfect Eutychiens for he chiefly apply's himself to shew them the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and teach them that our Saviour Christ is consubstantial with us and having took on him a real humane Nature this Nature has subsisted and do's still subsist in the hypostatical Union without confusion or conversion We need but read this Discourse to find that it's drift is to oppose against the Errors of the Armenians the contrary Doctrines which must be held to be conformable with the Church of Rome and that one of the principal points he designed to insist on was that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ against the Heresie of Eutyches And this is the opinion of Spondan annal Eccles Tom. 2. ad Ann. 1434. Mr. Sponde Bishop of Pamiez He do's not give them say's he in his Decretals all the Articles of the Christian Faith but contents himself as I take it with those wherein they erred or of which they doubted And first he gave them the Symbol of the Councel of Constantinople with the Addition of the Filioque to have it sung in Churches then the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon touching the two Natures of Jesus Christ in Unity of Person Thirdly the Definition of the sixth Council touching the two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ Fourthly because the Armenians had acknowledged hitherto only the three first Councils that of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus rejecting those that were held afterwards he shews them that the Council of Chalcedon which they believed favoured the Nestorian Heresie did as well condemn Nestorius as Eutyches and that they must receive it PRATEOLUS who made a Catalogue of all the Sects say's Prateol Elench Haeret. de Armen that 't is
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding 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 and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâm 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last altho kept several years so it cannot be but that the remains of this Holy Mystery are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation and whether he himself would call that which is reserved of the Sacrament the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed Whether he would say that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries and is indelible For 't is certain this gives us the Idea of Bread which so remaining yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holiness which resides in it as in its Subject and makes it to be the Body of Christ but no wise transubstantiated Bread If we were to understand by the vertue not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action or Conversion remains that is to say that 't is ever the Substance of the Body of Christ But it could not be said as Metrophanus does that the Action it self that is to say the Sanctification always remain'd because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action which ceases to be assoon as the Conversion is made Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance In fine if Metrophanus means no more but that the Mystery remains still what it has been made to wit the Body of Christ in Substance there can be no reason given why being able without doubt to explain himself easily and clearly he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind and need a Commentary and Distinctions than to use clear and natural expressions for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible that this indelible Sanctification which the Bread receives and is like to the dye which Wool takes signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour I will finish this Chapter with another Proof taken from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman One of the Articles they are made to confess is this That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity are really truly Apud Possevin Bibl. select lib. 6. and substantially in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation The Greek runs thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã HERE 's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and Transubstantiation ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for thus do the Greeks speak when they become Latins and 't is thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion if they held the same Language before Is it usual when Proselytes are received to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake and that which they embrace Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome For 't is to be observ'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque which the Greeks do not receive Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council which the Greeks reject and in fine the Articles determin'd in the Council of Trent and in respect of this last part 't is the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome IT will be perhaps replied that amongst these Articles there are two to wit that of the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess seeing they practised them already in their Religion whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation altho found expressed in this Form of Confession for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this as of the other two Articles But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud I will tell him 't is of no weight For as to the Invocation the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome which they do not acknowledge When I enter into a Church of the Latins say's Gregory the Confessor Hist Conc. Flââ sect 4. cap. 31 Relig. Ruthen art 6. in the History of Syropulus I adore not the Image of any Saint because I know not any one of them that I see They blaspheme say's Sacranus speaking of the Russians against the Churches Saints who lived in the Communion and Obedience of the Roman Church In the Invocation of Saints say's the Error Mos ex Scarga art â Jesuit Scarga they are guilty of several absurdities This Article then was not needless but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary And as to that of Images we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins and therefore call their Worship in this respect Idolatry THE Greeks say's William Postel call the Western People that are subject De Repub. Turcor pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bénard lib. cap. 24. to the Church of Rome grand Idolaters because we have Statues erected They have no other Images in their Churches say's the Sieur Benard than the Crucifix the Virgin Mary Saint John the Evangelist and Saint George which are Painted in Tables They teach say's the Jesuit Richard that carved Images are Idols and that 't is unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls their reason being that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms telling us They suffer no carved Images in their Churches only Table-Pieces IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Article of Images But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left and therefore they must change
obtain her Favour And yet notwithstanding all this the Greeks do not assert this Doctrine in clear distinct Terms therefore they hold it not NOW let a man reflect on the Consequence Mr. Arnaud draws and he will find that it has none of these Qualities which I come now from observing in mine It is not evident for what Certainty is there that if a Church does not imbrace a Doctrine she must therefore immediately condemn it and make thereof a matter of Controversy This Proposition taken in its generality is not only unevident but false and contrary to the Principles of Reason and Scripture Being applyed in particular to Transubstantiation it has no Evidence for it must be supposed that a Church which does not believe it considers it in a due manner whereby to judg that 't is a damnable Error and that she wants not Knowledg for the making of this Judgment and supposing she wants not Knowledg whereby to make this Judgment we must farther suppose that she believes her self obliged to pass this Censure against a Church from which she is actually separated We must besides this suppose she has Courage enough to do her Duty and that no humane Respect can withold her from it Now it cannot be show'd that these three Suppositions are evident in respect of the Greeks whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud's Consequence is of no certainty for what Certainty is there in a Consequence that depends on three Suppositions which are not only very uncertain but false as will appear upon Examination Neither is it likewise immediate for 't is certain there is no medium between believing Transubstantiation and clearly explaining it in respect of a Church which is at full liberty to speak on it what she thinks But betwixt not believing it and making thereof a point of Controversy with Strangers that do believe it there 's a vast difference In fine I say this Consequence has no necessity for it might bin hindred by a thousand things through want of learned Men able to mannage this Controversy by the temporal Interests of their Empire and Church and fear of provoking the Latins who have bin almost continually their Masters by the Intrigues of their Emperours and several of their Patriarchs and Bishops but especially by a Spirit of Superstition which has occasioned long since the turning of Religion into childish Ceremonies neglecting the Essentials of Christianity to apply themselves to Fopperies TO Illustrate more clearly this Comparison which I desire the Reader to make between Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments and mine it will be convenient to make here a general Reflection on the state of our Controversy The Question between us is to know whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not Mr. Arnaud has undertaken to prove the Affirmative and I the Negative Now this being so it is evident I am only obliged to prove my Thesis by negative Arguments The Greeks teach not Transubstantiation nor its necessary and natural Consequences therefore they do not believe it This concludes very well according to the nature of the Thesis which I defend and this Proof is sufficient to satisfie a mans Mind and decide the Question But 't is not the same with Mr. Arnaud for he is obliged to prove his Proposition not so much by the Silence of these People as by their Words not so much by negative Arguments as by positive ones The Greeks say's he believe Transubstantiation which is what he ought to shew by affirmative Arguments Were then the Conclusion he draws from the Silence of the Greeks more probable than 't is yet could it not perswade by it self any reasonable Person Our Minds might be perplexed with it but yet 't will be still said we must examine what the Greeks positively teach touching the Eucharist and see how they explain themselves concerning it because this is the just and only means of deciding the Question In effect if it be true the Greeks teach Transubstantiation the negative Arguments drawn from their not making a Controversy of it with the Latins are superfluous the matter is decided and we need go no farther but if it be true on the contrary that they do not teach it the negative Arguments are of no Consequence we must keep to what we find contained in their form of Doctrine It is then certain there is more show than real solidity in this part of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute and that 't is more likely to divert the Fancy than satisfy the Judgment It may dazle our Eyes by a false appearance but cannot instruct us for it decides nothing a man still remains in the desire and necessity of knowing what the Greeks teach If he satisfies this Desire 't is sufficient but if not his negative Arguments signify nothing Mr. Arnaud then might well have spared all those Histories Accounts of Reunions and the enumeration of all the Authors that have treated on the Differences between the Greeks and Latins All which has bin to no purpose seeing that when we have bestowed never so much time on the Discussion of these things we must return again to the principal Point which is to know positively what the Greeks teach concerning the Eucharist For as I now said Mr. Arnaud's Proposition being affirmative to wit that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation he must clearly establish it by affirmative Proofs for 't is on these alone whereon depends the decision of the Question and not on negative Arguments drawn from what they do not do AND thus far touching my general means Come we now to Particulars Mr. Arnaud pretends that if the Greeks have not heretofore believed Transubstantiation nor yet still believe it they ought to make it a point of Controversy with the Latins I answer the Greeks contented themselves with keeping their own Belief concerning the Sacrament and held to their usual Expressions and have not admitted the Determinations of Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. nor the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and yet never proceeded to a formal Condemnation of the Sentiment of the Latins nor made it a matter of Dispute and Controversy In a word they do neither believe nor oppose Transubstantiation They do not believe it for it is not to be seen in the Doctrine of their Church in their Confessions of Faith Books of Divinity Decisions of their Councils Liturgies Catechisms nor Sermons neither do they oppose it for as far as we can find they never disputed this Point with the Latins nor formally debated it in their ancient Differences I say as far as we can find for 't is impossible but some have Disputed on it altho all Records thereof have bin lost or suppressed seeing none of them ever came to our Knowledg But be it as it will at worst it only concerns us to know whether my Answer is reasonable and whether in effect the Greeks not believing the Conversion of Substances 't is possible they have not condemned this Opinion in the Church of
him but John dying before his Affair was ended the Court of Rome proceeded no farther in it Mr. Arnaud who will needs have the Greeks not to be ignorant of what passed amongst the Latins and supposes all Greece to resound with Berengarius's Condemnation and Peoples Italy with Greeks and Greece with Latins with order to give one another account of whatsoever concerned the Doctrine of Transubstantiation who will have the very Soldiers entertain themselves with it in the Army as well as the Pilgrims in their Voyages can he I say find in his Heart to tell us that the Greeks knew not what such famous Authors as Rupert Durand John of Paris and Cardinal Dailly publickly maintained in the twelvth thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth Century that they knew not what passed in one of the chief Cities in the West and in a Faculty so illustrious as that of Paris that they knew not an Affair that was carried to Rome and touching which that Court made no Decission In truth if they knew nothing of this and that neither the Pilgrims nor Ambassadors nor Soldiers nor Inquisitors nor the Greeks in Italy nor the Latins in Constantinople gave them no Notice thereof they may have been ignorant as well of other things and Mr. Arnaud's Assurance signifies nothing that their Curiosity made them search into all things For altho that in some of these Centuries there were no more Croisado's into the Holy Land nor Latins that held the Greek Empire yet the Commerce between the Greeks and Latins was frequent and both one and thother were often together in Italy and several other places and it was a very easy matter to send Notice to the Greeks of what passed in the West concerning these Doctors Should Mr. Arnaud say they knew this he must not take it ill if they made this a Reason for their Silence and Reservedness For why should they accuse a Church wherein it is permitted to affirm that the Substance of Bread remains wherein it is affirmed that there is nothing to be positively asserted concerning the Subject of Transubstantiation and Appeals made to Rome it self thereupon and yet this Court does not so much as declare the contrary VIII SUPPOSING the Greeks believed Transubstantiation how came it to pass they were not scandaliz'd at the boldness of all these Authors Why would they not satisfy themselves in so considerable a Point as that which these Authors handled namely that the Church had not yet determined any thing touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread Why did they not reprove the Latins for this and especially the Roman Church for being silent in a Particular wherein her Belief and Practice were concern'd Let Mr. Arnaud give us a Reason for this Reservedness of the Greeks who makes them such great Disputers And let him also shew us a Reason for the Church of Rome's Silence That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not an Article of Faith and that the Church has not yet determin'd it so to be we find John of Paris ready to justify within the Walls of Rome it self and yet she takes no notice of it She suffers a Person to dye in this Error neither Condemns his Opinion nor Memory and that which is moreover worse is that she leaves the whole World in suspence about a Point wherein the Faith of all her Children are concern'd For if a man doubts whether the Conversion of Substances be a Point of Faith he cannot believe it as a Point of Faith And if a man cannot believe it as a Point of Faith how will he be perswaded of the Truth of it And if it must be held only as a probable Opinion of Learned men what will become of it when we shall find it so improbable and so little agreeable to right Reason Yet does not the Church of Rome mention a Word of this but lets the Question ly Dormant so that should we argue from her Silence as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks we might conclude she approves John of Paris his Opinion seeing she does not condemn it Yet will I not go so far It suffices me that the Church of Rome has not condemned the Proposition in Question This is enough to hinder the Greeks from Reproaching the Latin Church with Transubstantiation THIS Affair of John of Paris together with the Judgment of the Faculty in Theology and Silence of the Roman Church is of such Importance that this alone is sufficient to decide the Question and manifest to Mr. Arnaud that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been perpetual in the Church For that a Faculty so considerable as is that of Paris should assure us this manner of the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not determined by the Church nor is an Article of Faith and whosoever shall assert that it is so ought to be Anathematiz'd That the Affair having been carried to Rome and that Court be silent therein and determine nothing about it I say this is enough to refute this pretended Perpetuity which Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to defend BUT return we to the Greeks We may add to what I already mentioned this considerable Remark which is that the Latins never raised a Dispute with the Greeks about the general Expressions which these last make use of touching the Eucharist BUT before we carry on this Consideration any farther it is necessary that I put the Reader again in mind that the Question is not to know whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us touching the Eucharist much less whether they explain themselves after the same manner This is Mr. Arnaud's perpetual Illusion to suppose we make them Berengarians and 't is on this wrong Ground whereon he builds his whole Discourse We scarcely meet with any other but these kind of Arguings in his Dispute viz. Whether the Greeks were Berengariens Whether they Believed the Bread in the Sacrament to be only a Figure Whether they understood our Saviour's Words in the Sence of Significat c. To the end then the Reader may not be deceived I do here again acknowledg that the Greeks believe a great deal more touching the Eucharist than we do that they express themselves otherwise about it and follow neither the Sentiments nor Expressions of Berengarius Neither have we given Mr. Arnaud any Occasion to assert what he does We only affirm'd they do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Roman Church nor worshipped the Sacrament with a sovereign Adoration and 't is upon this Mr. Arnaud ought to argue to deal sincerely AND therefore I say the Latins never disputed with the Greeks touching their Expressions how general soever they have been They have indeed done what they could whereby to introduce insensibly amongst them the Terms of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Transubstantiation change of Substance They have for this purpose made use of their Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries to whom they
is not Flesh This Reasoning opposes the Expression of the Greeks that the Bread is the Body of Christ as also the Example which they gave of it to wit of the Bread which our Saviour eat but it does not disagree with the Exposition which they gave of it which is that it is the Body of Christ in Virtue on the contrary we have already observed that Theophylact uses this Exposition for the solving of the Objection contained in this Reasoning Which plainly shews that whilst this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Christ stands alone and unexplained it may give occasion to Ignorant People to form this Objection but as soon as 't is explained and shewed in what Sence the Greeks understand it the Doubt vanishes AND this will more plainly appear if we consider the Answer which Nicolaus Methoniensis made to those that doubted for it comes very near to that of Theophylact. God say's he respecting our Weakness lest we should conceive Horror at the Pledges of Eternal Life as being not able to indure the sight of Flesh and Blood does therefore deliver to us things familiar to our Nature and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood This Answer does in a manner explain in what Sence the Greeks believed the Bread was the Body of Christ to wit by its Union with the Divinity which does very well solve the Argument of the Doubters and bereaves it of its Strength For if it be the Body of Christ only by this means to wit by its Union with the Divinity there is no longer occasion to say it should appear Flesh IT is then clear that this whole Dispute of Nicolaus Methoniensis overthrows Transubstantiation as well as that of Theophylact. For as to those that doubted had they known the Greek Church taught that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body they would have grounded their Objection not on the general Proposition that the Bread is the Body but on the particular one to wit that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body whence it more strongly and distinctly follows that it ought to appear Flesh after the Change And as to the Answer return'd them they must have been told that the Substance only is changed and that the Accidents of Bread remain to serve as a Vail to the Flesh of Christ This is what ought to be answered on the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation and not that the Bread is joyned to the Divinity This Answer would be absurd if we suppose Transubstantiation of the Difficulty would still remain Why the Bread becoming the Substance of our Lord 's proper Flesh it does not appear Flesh Yet Nicolaus Methoniensis will have these Objectors rest satified with his Answer and extends not their Doubts any farther CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Sarracens were caused to make in the twelveth Century considered several Passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors Examined VVE have already rehearsed the Profession of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century caused the Sarracens to make that imbraced the Christian Religion to shew the Greeks kept themselves to the general Expressions of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Christ and how they are changed into this Body and Blood leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof It is certain this is all can be concluded thence and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profession of Faith to his Advantage But seeing he designed to make a Proof of it it seems to me he ought at least to rehearse truly the Terms of it and not alter them as he has done in his Version I believe say's the Convert and confess the Bread and Wine which Bibl. Patr. tom 2. Grec Lat. are mystically Sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments This Clause thus expressed has not contented Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form altho it be so in the Greek and Latin Version I believe also say's the Sarracen that these things are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and invisibly above all humane Understanding AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF These are so far the true Expressions of the Profession Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Version I am perswaded Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247. I believe I confess that the Bread and Wine mystically Consecrated by the Christians and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord being changed by his Divine Virtue in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes and discernible only to the Mind but surpassing all the Thoughts of Men and which is only comprehended by God alone and so I promise that I will partake of it with other faithful People as being in truth his Flesh and Blood By this means 1st He confounds two things which the Proselyte distinguishes The one is to Confess the Bread and Wine of which the Christians partake and the other to Confess that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ These two Clauses being thus distinguished it is clear the first supposes that 't is Bread and Wine and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one 2dly Instead of rendring ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Intellectually and Invisibly he has taken such a Circuit as changes the Sence In a manner say's he which our Eyes do not discover and which is discernable only to the Mind To hinder the Readers from observing that the Change in Question is Spiritual and Mystical not Sensible or Material for this is precisely what is meant by this ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 3dly Instead of these Terms As he alone knows ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which gives us to understand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Mystical Change is He has Translated In a manner Comprehended by God alone to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Roman Church which expresly determines the Change of one Substance into another But not being able to disintangle herself from the Difficulties she finds in this Doctrine sends us to God AND yet with all these Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profession of Faith unless it be that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that they are changed by his Divine Virtue But this is not the Point we disputed on They are then changed in respect of their Substance It is this Consequence which we deny In Effect whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ by a change of Virtue and by way of Augmentation as the Greeks explain it or otherwise it is certain that they
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
as a Saint altho he was condemned In fine that they added the sign of the Cross to the Triasagios after the manner of Hereticks How many other Doctrines and Customs have the Armeuians besides these four Articles which the Roman Church do's not approve of They hold the Opinions of Eutyches They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original sin They deny Purgatory They still offer Sacrifices after the manner of the Jews They condemn third Marriages for as bad as Fornication They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation They do not hold the Consecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jesus Christ They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and several other Points which seperate 'um from the Latins and of which neither Gregory VII Eugenius III. nor Othon of Trisinga make any mention Which shews there can be drawn no Conclusion from their silence and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting these kind of Proofs THE V. is taken from some expressions of a Catholick of Armenia Ibid. p. 460. who say's in the conference of Theorien that the Wine becomes by Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Son of God is Sacrificed within the Church for the Salvation of the World But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends For first we have already shewed him that this Catholick spake of his own head and not from his Church And moreover what he say's do's neither conclude the real Presence nor Transubstantiation The Wine becomes by its Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ in representation and mystery according to the exposition which the Armenians themselves give to these ways of speaking as we have seen in the foregoing Chapter and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion inasmuch as the action of the Eucharist is a Mystery which represents his death Let Mr. Arnaud consult if he pleases the Marginal Note which is on the side of this last passage and he will find the solution of his Difficulty The Greek Text has ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Latin Mactatur intus Theorien Dial. adver Armen Dei filius pro totius mundi salute and the Marginal Note hoc est representatur in sacra caena mactatio Christi THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croisado's the Popes Ibid. pag. 462. held a lasting and strict Union with the Church of Armenia That the Catholick of Armenia yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who sent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia and that as well this King as Gregory the Patriarch of Armenia sent an Ambassador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and those of Armenia That Pope Innocent excommunicated the King of Armenia at the request of the Templars and some time after gave him Absolution That this Union lasted during Gregory IX his time and Clement VI. BUT what is this but a telling of Stories and copying out of Raynadus at any rate If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be sufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation 't will be sufficient to conclude likewise that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themselves to correct them or make the least inquiries about them They were satisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Armenia's acknowledging their Authority hoping by this means to introduce hereafter quietly amongst them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins and in the mean time made use of 'em in other occasions The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the obeysance of the Roman See and in the mean time procured the assistance and protection of the Latins whose power was then Formidable throughout the whole East But this did not hinder the Armenians from keeping still their Doctrines and Customs as appears by what we have seen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expresly mentions That the Priests and Bishops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during some years to those that had bin Baptized by the Latins and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament And the 86 Article That the Armenians say and hold that since the Council of Chalcedon the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Nestorians over the Nestorians or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewise theirs And the 99th Article that the Armenians persecute those amongst them who have been Baptised according to the form of the Latins and hold the Faith of the Roman Church and that they say the Roman Church Errs and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith And the 117 th Article That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds nor its Sacraments and Blasphemes against the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals saying they are Hereticks That the Catholick of Armenia minor say'd the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads And altho they preach against Simony yet do they grant no favour without committing it that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themselves undefiled in Armenia minor except the King and some Persons of Quality who held the Roman Faith 'T is then to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held so strict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians seeing they did at the same time stir up all France against the Albingenses and caused 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword These excellent Reasons do not hinder but that the Armenians held still all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII And II. that amongst those Opinions that which denys Transubstantiation and the real Presence is plainly remarked III. That altho the Kings and some Persons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion even to the blaspheming the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd IV. In fine it will not be found that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Armenians any particular Renunciation of their Errors be they what they will It seems either these Popes supposed the Armenians had absolutely the same Faith as the Roman
IV. did in the Council of Florence when he gave his instructions to the Armenians was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity that is to say of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ wheresoever the Divinity is which is not the real belief of the Armenians as we have already sufficiently proved Gerlac adds That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church which is not true as appears as well by the information of Benedict as by the Testimony of several other Authors 'T is moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doctrine of the Ubiquity which grants this Body to be every where and by Consequence in the Sacrament And as to Transubstantiation he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em but say's they seem to admit of it videntur say's he Transubstantiationem probare Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful It appears is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour but which is not absolutely out of doubt of a thing which we may think to be true but of which we have no certainty 'T is likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change which the Armenian Patriarch made use of but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstantiation and 't was only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words I was informed say's he by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media that the Armenians held Transubstantiation Now believing Transubstantiation that is to say the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence His Authority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say as it was in respect of the Moscovites If you deny his explanation his Testimony signifies nothing AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam we know very well there 's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest and never fail to Answer as you would have them The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd and if I may not be believed let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence the Armenians reunited themselves and the greatest part of the Greek Church Anthony de Goureau's Relation Book 3. Ch. 3. likewise yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction nor any thing which this Council decreed nor Obedience thereunto recommended There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad for this many Ages But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um and that they may not fail therein do very often speak contrary to truth which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him but at their return home they soon forget their engagements Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are and whether the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Copticks and Aethiopians That they hold not Transubstantiation WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491. pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist He say's in fine that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits that they do only chiefly observe those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman descending not so far as to particularize all other matters which these Churches do or do not hold THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians without mentioning the new Doctrines which they have taught 'um and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute being a Point against which the Nestorians were prejudic'd but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion and which they ought now to receive to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves who have sent the Emissaries for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd
will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time wherein this change has most advanced it self It was not in Hilaries nor Athanasius's times nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin but in the 10th and 11th Centuries that is to say in the most dark Ages c. 'T is no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not And this distinction methinks does sufficiently limit my Principle To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense Now my whole sense does not consist only in a general Principle which I lay down nor in the general application I make of it but in the exception and limitation I give them But neither has Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus choosing rather to run after their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth MOREOVER Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say when he sets himself on reproaching me that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation 't is not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book which might be easily found in turning over some leafs If I passed over 'em 't was because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite which contain the whole substance of my discourse and which are no less significant than the others But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time altho there 's no such Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577. thing in my Book Mr. Arnaud's answer is that the Author of the Perpetuity represents my sense and not my words and because that this proposition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms Mr. Arnaud says that 't is the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter I will believe it because he says so but yet my sense ought to be faithfully related and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my express declarations contained in several passages of my first and second Answer rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot represent in this condition but half of that which I would say Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense Father Maimbourg the Jesuite who wrote since Mr. Arnaud ingenuously perceived and related it as it is in truth Mr. Claude says he asserts A Peaceable Method by Father Mainbourg ch 3. page 108. there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pastors Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence or absence because they studied not the point This is in effect my meaning and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ THE first of these three Remarks I now made considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question and determines it to the Real Presence alone excluding Transubstantiation The second considers it in respect of the persons and determines it to the Christians only excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries and the third considers it in respect of the time and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Darkness that is to say to those wherein according to us the change was introduced which are the 9th and 10th and part of the 11th For altho according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Berenger yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute we shall neither complain of him nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em for on this depends the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible BUT before we enter upon this enquiry 't is necessary to make two farther Observations The first is that the question is not whether the Christians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort when the Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them that it agreed not with the Principles of nature but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine they had knowledg enough to discover 't was an innovation contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it it is not enough to shew that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason I confess that if men did always what they ought to do this alone were sufficient to put them upon rejecting this Real Presence as we have elsewhere proved it But people are liable to be deceived and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery they hearken no longer to sense nor reason We should then proceed and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty which the Church never held and which consequently was not a true mystery of Faith THE other observation which we must make is that we ought to distinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question from the belief of the corporeal Absence To believe the corporeal absence is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a humane body such as is that of our Saviour's and to reject it as false and extravagant But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence such as the Roman Church conceives and rejects as an error A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place and yet not reject it either generally under every notion be it what it will nor in particular under the notion of an invisible existence after the manner of a Spirit as appears from the example of the Roman Church which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence but yet
condition he can understand no other than that and 't is it which he rejects because 't is on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence when of it self it were not therein determined for 't is not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind at the same moment wherein he communicates this question Is the Body of Jesus Christ substantially present in this Eucharist which I receive but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight to inform himself This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence of which his eyes cannot be witnesses and that 't is this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight and if he does follow it his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence and in rejecting it should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence but must reject them all be they what they will without specifying or considering them I answer that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles and conceive them under this quality In a word when nature offers us but the idea of one single species there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds our fancy leads us to that particular species and if afterwards we conceive any other 't is always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity For as we have already said he is obliged to shew that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence they would have had in their minds dispositions and prejudices which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason this is not sufficient to produce actually an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith but as an innovation in the Churches Belief Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome nor France Holland that the Sun is not the Moon nor an House an Elephant thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself to use Mr. Arnaud's examples without having made this express and formal reflection this manner I say may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature that it agrees not with common sense but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith as 't is said to be or whether 't is a new humane invention This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing that the Eucharist is Bread that the Eucharist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ that this Body is a humane Body and that 't is in Heaven does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty by being persuaded that 't is the true Doctrin of the Church as 't is assured to be and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith 'T is in vain Mr. Arnaud tells us that supposing the Faithful had no other Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564 565. than these simple notions that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years or the Paschal Lamb a real passage and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins to be mad and sensless When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature and 't is certain the light of nature will render that man impertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence should a man judg of it on this ground But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith They endeavour to insinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Religion which has been always believed and for this purpose they spare no colours By which means they stop the course of nature and hinder men from judging according to its Principles reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church by which means 't is no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance which all the Parisians know to be only Brass and that his body is only at S. Dennis He says perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there 's a great deal of difference between this example and that of the Eucharist here in question The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution wherein men suppose there 's nothing supernatural whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery in which there has been always believed to be something above nature The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular concerning which every man believes he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Reason The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies Henry the Fourth was indeed a
and dispers'd it in the minds of several without resistance and thus this Doctrin has made in the space of these hundred years insensible progresses establishing it self by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th as an innovation this Doctrin found it self the strongest and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin What difficulty can be rais'd against this Hypothesis which may not be casily solved If it be said that Paschasus did not propose any thing but what all the faithful already distinctly knew and believed Paschasus himself will answer for me that he has moved several persons to the understanding of this Mystery which supposes that before his time 't was not sufficiently known and that he discovered things of which the people were ignorant Odon will answer for me that the most learned had but little knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist if they had not read Paschasus his Book If it be said his Doctrin met with no contradiction Paschasus himself will tell you that some blamed him for attributing more to the word of Christ than the truth it self has promised us and 't is hereon he disputes against his Adversaries Should a man deny that the two Doctrins that of Paschasus and that of his Adversaries were both taught in the 10th Century he will I think be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given and in effect there 's no great likelihood that the Doctrin of John Scot and Bertram who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France and that of Raban three persons of great note in the Church should be thus extinct in so short a time without any Councils condemning it without the Court of Romes concerning her self with it without the interposition of temporal Princes and that there should I say remain no trace of it in the 10th Century He that shall think it strange that the people of the 10th Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation need only call to mind the ignorance wherein the people lived for when a man does not know what the Church believes 't is no hard matter for him to be deceived and to take that which she does not believe for what she does That man that questions this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have given of it Should any man alledg it to be strange such men as an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny should be deceived 't is easie to shew the weakness of this objection by th' example of several that are men of better parts than those now in question who now take for the Doctrin of the Church what is not so The Disciples of Paschasus found in his Book such specious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em and 't is a thing ordinary enough to be surprized by false colours Should it be said to be impossible but that the Disciples of Paschasus knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in several places have openly condemned it and disputed against those that held it First I answer I do not know whether we may absolutely say there was no dispute about it for there may be disputes and we not know of 'em but supposing there were not I answer that seeing 't is no Miracle that disputation should cease sometimes in an enlightned Age amongst learned and zealous men without any Conversions on either side 't is much less one in a dark and troublesom Age wherein persons thought of nothing less than disputing The Disciples of Paschasus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paschasus his Book to all persons and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles If it be likewise said that those that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to dispute against those that follow'd that of Paschasus I must say so too but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do because they have not always that zeal knowledg or industry which they ought to have How should they dispute one against another who left for the most part their Flocks without Pasture without Instruction without Preaching Howsoever this is as I said a thing certain that there were persons in this Century who held the Doctrin of Paschasus and others that of Bertram Whether they disputed or no it concerns me not to know 't is sufficient for me that this Age held both these Doctrins which I think cannot be denied When two opposite Doctrins are taught and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance to speak after the manner of men and according to the terms of our Dispute 't is equally impossible either of them should get the upper hand because they want that understanding which is requisite to to make aright judgment and moreover if the one be asserted by persons of Authority and great Reputation it is almost impossible but this will carry it away from the other Whence it follows the progress of the Real Presence in the 10th Century has been not only possible but easie and even unavoidable To which if we add another matter of fact which is that we do not find there were Disputes in this Century on this subject whence we will conclude that these progresses we speak of have been made in an insensible manner at least in our respect which is to say that if there were any noise or contests the knowledg of 'em never came to us which suffices to decide the question between us two AND this is what I had to say touching the state of the 10th Century in respect of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence I take no notice of those violent accusations which Mr. Arnaud brings against our Morals under pretence we do not reckon Piety to consist in affected Penances and outward Mortifications which for the most part have more shew than substance We praise and recommend as earnestly as we can the practice of Fasting but believe it better to abstain from Vice than Meats the use of which God has given us with sobriety We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him to make good use of his Estate and endure Poverty without envy murmurings and repinings to live holily in Caelibacy and chastly in Marriage to carry our selves justly to our Inferiors and obediently to Superiors But we do not approve of mens withdrawing themselves out of that rank and order wherein providence has placed them nor making of particular rules and binding men to th' observance of 'em by Vows nor that the Rich should ransom their sins by great offerings to Ecclesiastical persons who have no need of 'em âor of Voluntary Poverty much less that men should imagin to satisfie the Almighty for their sins and merit any thing of him by these kind of observances 'T is not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity
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
Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paschasus to his face how knows he this that he can be so confident of it Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it No. But 't is because Paschasus says Audivi quosdam me reprehendere I am inform'd that some blame me Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence and that an Author may speak thus altho he was told of his fault to his face In fine who inform'd Mr. Arnaud that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew which were publish'd not till thirty years after A frivolous reason as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em and endeavours to defend himself It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud NOT only adds he he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors Page 850 851. Friends and Brethren but he still believed the whole Church was on his side For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his unknown adversaries of whom he had notice by the Authority of the whole Church and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Ecclesiam He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur In short he accuses those as highly criminal who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue contrary to the consent of the whole Earth Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes universaliter verum esse fatentur I answered the Author of the Perpetuity That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all question the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief and from the Churches saying in her Canon Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi to which the people answered Amen That there 's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin but which are not so greatly favorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin HERE says Mr. Arnaud is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude ' s invention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less and to distinguish by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot distinguish Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church either this proposition that 't is the common Doctrin of the Church is so clear and evident that the Adversaries themselves must grant it or it is not so clear nor evident but that 't is questionable As to the first case a man need not trouble himself to prove it for it s taken for a Principle and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting For instance When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect but also for all men in general that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just according to the present condition of their ability that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of the Communion it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church that there needs no proving 'em and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles there 's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles and he would have only hence consequences drawn against him As to the second case that is to say when 't is not clear that this is the Faith of the Church and that this point is in dispute both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses one which regards precisely the present Church which is to say the Church in the time of the contest the other which respects the Church in the preceding times which is to say before the controversie it may also receive two sorts of proofs some which refer to the present time others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us When a man proves for the time present he alledges testimonies of the modern Church when he proves for the past time he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good or bad conclusive or not conclusive TO apply this to the matter in hand I say That Paschasus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ Audivi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromittit and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sangainis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin multi dubitant says he several times And in fine others that erred thro ignorance which is to say that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed Quamvis plurimi says he dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta And a little lower Quamvis ex
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 subintâlligitur 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
the Book of the Perpetuity till Mr. Arnaud has shew'd them to be invalid Page 1 CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is disingenious 8 CHAP. III. The third Observation justifi'd viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has been to blame in pretending to overthrow the proofs contain'd in Mr. Aubertin's Book by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere conjectures 15 CHAP. IV. My fourth Observation justifi'd viz. that we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments to make them invalid 25 CHAP. V. The pretended advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity examin'd 34 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity 44 CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book examin'd 53 BOOK II. Wherein is shewn that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrin was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. COntaining the chief Heads of this whole Controversie touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the 11th Century to this present Mr. Arnaud's first Artifice laid open 61 CHAP. II. That the temporal state of the Eastern People since the 11th Century and the efforts the Latins have made to communicate to them their Religion do invalidate the proof which is pretended to be drawn foom their Belief Mr. Arnaud's second Illusion detected 73 CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors led by politic interests have themselves favoured the designs of the Latins in introducing their Doctrins into Greece Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered 81 CHAP. IV. That the Monks and other Emissaries with which the Eastern Countreys have been for a long time replenish'd do invalidate the proof taken from the Belief of these people Mr. Arnaud's fourth deceit laid open 89 CHAP. V. That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Roman Religion amongst the Schismatics the Seminaries which have been set up for the same design and the particular instructions given them touching the Doctrin of Transubstantiation do sufficiently shew that there can no advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their Belief Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice discovered 97 BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation CHAP. I. THE question stated and Mr. Arnaud's sixth illusion manifested 109 CHAP. II. The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the term of Transubstantiation The second from their not expresly teaching the conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion 114 CHAP. III. The third proof taken from that the expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the idea of a substantial Conversion The fourth that the Greeks only receive for determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The fifth proof taken from that the Greeks in their transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their general expressions Mr Arnaud's eighth Delusion discovered 119 CHAP. IV. The sixth proof taken from the Greeks employing on other subjects the same expressions as on the Eucharist Mr. Arnaud's tenth Illusion manifested 129 CHAP. V. The seventh proof drawn from that the Greeks do not believe the Particles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be Consecrated on the great Altar as is that of our Saviour and yet they distribute them to the people in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud's tenth Fallacy laid open The eighth proof drawn from their believing that the Eucharist Consecrated on Holy Thursday has a greater virtue than that which is Consecrated at other times The ninth proof taken out of several passages of their Liturgies 134 CHAP. VI. The tenth proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The twelfth from their believing the Dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion 143 CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The thirteenth proof Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Illusion 152 CHAP. VIII The fourteenth proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle that the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration The fifteenth from the little care they take to preserve the substance of the Sacrament The sixteenth from a passage of Oecumenius 169 CHAP. IX The seventeenth proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the 12th Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The eigteenth from a passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the 12th Century 175 CHAP. X. The nineteenth proof that we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrins which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation The twentieth is the testimony of sundry modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion The one and twentieth from the form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forced to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins 185 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 197 CHAP. XII The twenty sixth proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon 201 CHAP. XIII The real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist 215 BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted CHAP. I. MR. Arnaud's first proof taken from Cerularius his silence Examin'd The rest of his illusions discovered 241 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's second proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus examin'd His third proof from the testimony of Lanfranc and silence of the Berengarians examin'd The rest of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions considered 251 CHAP. III. Mr. Arnaud's twenty first Illusion is his charging me with maintaining that the Latins never knew Transubstantiation His two and twentieth consists in offering the formulary of the re-union propos'd to the Greeks by the Latins The three and twentieth in that he produces the passages of Latinis'd Greeks The four and twentieth in alledging supposed Authors
till he hath proved them and those which may be justly supposed without being proved IF this man reply to me he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself but by shewing if he can the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just May I not then justly retort upon him that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself but to shew if he be able that these Proofs are invalid Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so reasonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious difference on my side seeing as already mentioned I am Respondent in this Dispute whereas this Person would be the Aggressor But you will ask me who this man is that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims Even Mr. Arnaud himself who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book to shew us that the Learned and Unlearned the Simple and Obstinate and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity he thereupon makes this Conclusion 'T is true saith he that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity suppose the Proofs are clear and solid and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude who would have them rejected without examining them on this general Reason That they are Argumentative Proofs Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing if he can the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound We shall see by what follows whether he had reason to make this Supposition I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example that every man may make Suppositions provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess as he says that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity hath appeared so strange and irregular to me that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact and by gathering them into an Abridgment to give a general view of them Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method provided saith he that I maintained Equity and Truth It may be I think then supposed I have so far done nothing contrary to Rule it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections I shall not insist long upon the first of these because Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The first Observation justified nothing against it appearing undenyable in it self It is grounded on this That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touching the Eucharist the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided not by the word of God but the Churches Consent in all Ages and Depositions of the Fathers and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers but by Arguments Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course it being a Principle of common Sense that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact and that again naturally the Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Deposition Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact which is that holy Scripture wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures so likewise we who have the same Faith with them ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Religion but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest than an Example for us to Imitate and an Example too submitted to the same Rule which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion he must ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties for if his Positions are such as may be questioned he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them before he can suppose them For if he take not this Course he will quickly be at a loss and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith 'T is true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers and that we should do if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship But this reaches not our Question for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith neither in the matter of our present Debate nor in any
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
way to obtain the end of what he designs Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity as will appear in the following Chapter We have reason to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions he I say who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusations against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method upon the Defects I found therein provided I establish Truth and Reason But this doth not well agree with what he saies here That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject but only this That he lay down good Principles and draw thence true Conclusions For the falsity of Principles or Consequences proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter or Form of an Argument in Particular than in a Method in General CHAP. III. THE third Observation justified viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has bin to blame in pretending to overthrow the Proofs contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere Conjectures MR. Arnaud seems unwilling to grant That the Author of the Perpetuity has endeavoured to invalidate our Proofs of Matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by his Arguments and thereupon has only proposed the Question in these Terms viz. Whether a man may not argue against matters of Fact And takes it for granted Lib. 1. Ch. 2. he may in some particular Cases It is then our part to shew he wanders from the Point and that the Author of the Perpetuity has not only designed to oppose but even overthrow by his arguings our Proofs of Fact so that the Question now is whether this Endeavour of his is just or unjust whether according to a regular Course or contrary to it AND for this purpose I shall only desire Mr. Arnaud to consider That the Design of the Method or advantage expected by it as it hath bin expresly declared in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise Is to bring any unprejudiced Person to acknowledge the Church of Rome ' s Belief touching the Eucharist to be the same with that of all Antiquity and this new Method is proposed to remedy an Inconveniency usually attending that ordinary Method called Discussion wherein it frequently happens that men seldom sufficiently comprehend the strength of Proofs because they are not considered in their right order which ever so placeth them as that they mutually assist and fortifie each other I need but entreat him likewise to remember the first Title of the Treatise before it was printed when it was put into my Hands to be answered which was as follows A Treatise containing an easie Means to convince Hereticks by shewing them there has no alteration bin made in the Churches Belief touching the Eucharist as I already observed in the Preface before my Answer Lastly I have no more to request of him but only to remember the new Title under which the first Treatise and them which followed were published which is The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist For what else can be expected from a man that promises to make us confess the Church of Romes Belief is the same with that of all Antiquity and hopes to convince us of the Truth of this but that he should invalidate all our Proofs of matters of Fact by which we think we have established the reality of an Innovation Would Mr. Arnaud grant me the favour to suppose a while that I am not obstinate and I will likewise on the other hand suppose I was mistaken in Mr. Aubertin's Book and that the Perswasion I had of the truth of his Proofs concerning an Innovation hath bin false Now should the Author of the Perpetuity pretend that his Method is able to undeceive me and dissipate all the false Impressions which Mr. Aubertin's Proofs have wrought in my Mind should he I say pretend to this he has imagined as I have already mentioned that he is able by his Arguments to invalidate our Proofs and again on the other hand if he pretends not to do this he hath bin certainly to blame in saying He would convince Hereticks and make them acknowledge if they are not Invincibly Obstinate the Perpetuity of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence We shall see by what follows whether or no Mr. Arnaud has upheld the honour of so great a Design or whether he has not abated something of it I shall content my self at present with only shewing the pretension of the Author of the Method IT cannot be alleadged in his behalf he had not these aforementioned Proofs in his Mind but only offered his own which he judged conclusive for besides that when a man lays down a Method as sufficient to produce an effect he ought consider whatsoever may hinder the producing of this or the contrary Effect We may farther observe he assaults Mr. Aubertin's Book in this Treatise wherein are contained these Proofs concerning which he could not pretend Ignorance seeing they make up the greatest part of that Book It ought moreover to be considered that he refuteth as I already said in the foregoing Chapter an Account whose whole strength is grounded on these Proofs of matters of Fact an Account which taketh them for its Foundation and borroweth from them whatsoever it would perswade and refutes it not in opposing other Proofs after the same manner but by Arguments Whence it follows he imagins his Arguments are sufficient to overthrow these Proofs it being impossible if they stand firm but that the account of the Change or Innovation should do so too Mr. Arnaud's way of shifting the Question that he might draw on the Reader to another matter is so plainly evident that I need not give him the least hint of it For there is certainly a great Difference betwixt barely Opposing Arguments against our Proofs and pretending to invalidate them by Arguments The first of these may be done without thinking on the second these Arguments may be examined and compared with our Proofs without any other Pretence than the keeping the Mind in Suspence and hindering it from determining on either side Had the Author of the Perpetuity kept himself within these Bounds we should have answered him after another sort but he hath extended his design so far as to bring us to a final Acknowledgment The Question then is not so much about his bare Opposition altho that shall be shewed him at length to be useless and that he cannot expect any advantage from it for the Debate at present consists either in the Justice or Injustice of his Design when he imagined this Opposition was sufficient to convince us notwithstanding our Prejudices against it occasioned by Mr. Aubertin's and other Ministers Proofs BUT to state the Question clearly it ought to be farther supposed that we compare not here the Proofs drawn
the help of his Senses but his Reason he will turn it on every side and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense IT will be replied perhaps that unless we are extream Obstinate we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind which is to say that they have the certainty of our Senses for they are taken from the Testimony of the Fathers whose Faithfulness may be called in question by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis mentioned by Mr. Arnaud which is That all our Passages are false and invented by the Disciples of John Scot or else in saying that the Fathers are mistaken or some such like matter which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question and moreover that our Passages are not so plain but they may well be questioned seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides To which I answer in supposing two things which seem to me to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude as is that of our Senses MY first Supposition then shall be That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church He cannot disagree with me in this Point for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome they produce it themselves and we use it only out of Condescension to them not having need as to our own particular of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist And when this Point should be questionable yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it before he proposes to us his Arguments and not having done it we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle The other Supposition we must make is That we know very well what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucharist and that we rightly apprehend it so that there is no danger of our Mistake in this matter and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed against us In effect we neither say nor imagine any thing on this Subject more than what we find in Books and hear discoursed on every Day which is that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood there not remaining any thing more of the Bread and Wine but their meer Accidents which are not sustained by any Subject and further that the Substance of our Saviour's Body is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated that they which communicate eat and drink this Substance with the Mouths of their Bodies and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria This is undenyable I say then on these Grounds we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist our Eyes behold them and our Senses are Judges of them But there are not any of these Articles to be met with which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church neither in express Terms nor in equivalent ones We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles and in what they mean we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found in case the Antient Church had taught them We know likewise that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sense to seek them and judge whether they are there or no for when a Church believes and teaches them she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Principles or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense or wrapt up in Riddles from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study If they are in them they ought to be plain according to the measure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding Yet when we seek them we cannot find 'em if they were set down in express Terms our Eyes would have discovered them had they bin in Equivalent ones or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences common Sense would have discovered them But after an exact and thorow Search our Eyes and common Sense tell us they are not to be found in any manner This altho a Negative Proof yet is it of greatest Evidence and Certainty After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home we are agreed both touching the House and the Person that one might not be taken for the other and after an exact Search if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence Yet we are upon surer Terms for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House and steal away from the sight of those that seek him and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages as is pretended it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings they must near the matter have appeared in all of them whence it follows our Negative Proof is yet more certain by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles and these two Proofs joyned together do form one which appeareth to be so plain and intire that there needs nothing to be added to it And yet this is it which the Author of the Perpetuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will I believe he will find few Persons approve of them and who will not judge that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search the only means to disabuse us would be to desire us to return to the using of them again and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments they will do us no good we may be perhaps entangled with them if we know not how to answer them but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact WE are confirmed in this Belief when we consider the Nature of the Author
what it believes or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe or that the representative Church that is to say the Councils or the Pope cannot err The first of these two Principles is natural the second is of a Supernatural Order I handle not at present this Point whether they are false or true at the Bottom it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so difficult and require so much time that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them is plainly to deride them I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter where I shall make it appear that 't is impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it 's built It suffices me to say that People are not commonly so regular in things which they believe by a distinct Faith but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries The Author of the Perpetuity tells us that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular There has bin made on this Subject I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity there have bin Catechisms compiled intit'led Catechisms of Grace Which evidently shew it has bin believed that it was not impossible to make the People recieve by way of Illustration or Addition Articles which they knew not before whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms if the People cannot of themselves either diminish or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith This Principle is not then so certain but that it may be doubted of nor so clear or evident in it self that the most simple may be ascertained in it having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it AS to the second it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils or Popes is not so easie that the most simple People may master it All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it If this Church hath this she hath it by a particular Priviledg which must be examined before it be received For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle which is that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible because she saies so and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true because she is infallible Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Authority this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable by things independent on the Church of Rome and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Conclusion For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith now she affirmeth she is infallible from whence it follows that she is so A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense will never be convinced by this Argument The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living before it can be supposed that such a one or any other will receive its Doctrine founded on this Principle Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities for if it be proved by way of Scripture it is not so plainly described therein but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense They are controverted Places and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judgment Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition and a Judgment accordingly he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture in relation to what is produced on either side NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments he that endeavours to do this engageth himself yet farther into tedious Prolixities and Difficulties which surpass ordinary Apprehensions In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question This Infallibility saith he Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible we must prove that it is supernaturally so either by the Principles of Faith or by a long Series of Arguments Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence And 't is for this Reason that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Priviledge Mr. Arnaud testifies as much for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular that is to say of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question Reason saith he doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility So that this Author meaning the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority or on abstracted and remote Arguings he must then necessarily contain himself within the reach of things in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error on any Point which it proposeth But it 's evident to Sense that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors relating to matters of Faith seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Sense there needs more abstracted and remote Arguments to prove it whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this Much less are they fit for this should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition for it would be to send them far enough in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils to be informed in this matter besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently their Testimony upon this account would signify nothing IT is then manifest that common Apprehensions not being able to ascertain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge as I come now from proving nor in the Point of popular Infallibility as I have already hinted and which I shall do
one and the other are obliged to render themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Perpetuity because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them but as unevident and uncertain and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Capacities and grounded on the Light of common Sence it may be understood by all in general This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter IN the sixth Chapter he extends his Pretention a great way farther for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side he will not suffer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53. being necessary for this saith he to enter into an Examination of all those Passages without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People observe after what sort he declares his meaning He saith then that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other these two contrary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments and hinder us from determining and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity which leading us hither Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect and pass over to the Catholick Religion first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal Original Successive and Catholick Society from which we must never make aschisme Secondly because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors before we separate from it and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that Society we are of to keep in it Thirdly because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry of the ordinary Vocation and Authority and that the Ministers who have not been above a hundred years standing have none of these things Fourthly because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity and consequently to return to the Church of Rome they ought to serve for Examples to the Judicious it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong Lastly he confesseth that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid and so by consequence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author of the Perpetuity and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not we are so different in our Apprehensions that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project I have found nothing at all therein of Reason nor coherence of Parts neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest FIRST methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World in proposing as it were from us a Difficulty which weakens our Cause altho it do's not concern us For I do not pretend that one of our Communion into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity and who is able to read it is absolutely obliged before he forms his Judgment thereupon to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs with those of that Treatise I maintain that he may reject these last by the general Consideration alone which he may make without entring into the Examination of each Particular because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity which are grounded on common Sence Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted and that if we take the trouble to examine them 't is out of Condescension not Necessity IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the several ranks of Men who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity For the greatest part of them in our Communion judging this Perusal needless will not mind it for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26. heard the Owners Experience of it would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation by Arguments offered only on one side in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions The least which ought to be done by them who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion is to hear both Parties and weigh their Reasons I answer that these Persons I mentioned will act very Justly and Reasonably in doing what I said For there being two Questions the one touching what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other touching what has bin believed by the Primitive Church The first Question being once dispatched we need not trouble our selves about the second Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith This is it which judgeth us all and had the Author of the Perpetuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him but instead of this he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages and perswades himself that henceforward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to when they say in general that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages may be decided three ways First by the Rules of Christian Charity Secondly by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises and cares of his Providence Thirdly by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People is needless It is enough to a well meaning Person that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe touching the Eucharist and thereupon charitably presumes that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Errors It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church that he would never forsake it have had their
or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
of Rome and in fine may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Example Which is the Summary of the first Chapter II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect and contrary to Nature seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book and that after an indirect and artificial Manner which lies as a Prejudication against him Which is the Summary of the second Chapter IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds does nothing less than this whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless Which are the Contents of the third Chapter V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity in pretending to defend him and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise VI. That these Methods of Prescription which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in are vain and ineffectual and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short certain and easy to the meanest Capacities whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers are tedious difficult uncertain and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome VII That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact which I offer'd in my first Answer has bin regular and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter VIII That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity in relation to the Learned and Unlearned and to those he terms the Obstinate are groundless Imaginations which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters IX And lastly that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter BOOK II. Wherein is shown that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek and other Eastern Churches touching Transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist and must endeavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insultings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Triumph seeing all the World knows it For the Author of the Perpetuity has 2d Part of the Perpetuity C. 5. P. 256. already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing is continually charging us with Absurdities Rashness Confidence Convictions Demonstrations and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs He tells the World in his Preface that he hath left us no reason P. 11. to doubt in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christian Churches in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation He tells us moreover in L. 2. C. 2. P. 113. another place that this is a Point most clear and evident and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy we should confess as much our selves and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World it had already gotten the Name of Invincible like to that Legion of old under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pretended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations Now if it be enquired of Mr. Arnaud what Advantage he can expect from this whole Controversy He will tell us it is the Interest of the Catholick Church and that be L. 2. C. 2. P. 115. will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of his Hand seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World That God preserves all these Christian Societies altho divided from his Church and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite extinguisht amongst them to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have hitherto made use of this Argument he will tell you that no In his Prefa P. 10. one yet hath exactly handled this matter Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church and this Proof which is one of the most famous she hath whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion in respect of this Mystery was reserved for Mr. Arnaud and that the Divine Providence has not withheld for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise which was to be the Admiration of the Universe You must not then think it strange if he himself after this hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes and Dedicated even to the Head of the Romish Church and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World And this Honour has not bin wanting to it THE Author of the Enthusiasms says that as the Son of God before his Birth purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner and having wrought this Miracle left the Virgins Bosom to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book when as yet in the Bosom of its Author has replenished a great Man with its Divinity and having begun its Miracles by this Conversion was published in the time of this late Peace made in the Roman Church So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum numine numini libellum aequare ut gravibus licet Poetis Iis omnibus diem subibis O quantum omnibus
ruled the Church after their manner and drove away the Greeks whensoever they could do it with safety and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks who would not relent and embrace the Truth they severely punished them as they had done heretofore in the East and especially at Antioch He afterwards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author which I shall here set down and so much the rather because of the Consequence which may be made of this History Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu ' s Ibid. time to that of John Batatza ' s the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats and substituted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them And this they did at Constantinople Cyprus Antioch and other Cities and not content with this they constrained all the People not excepting the Priests and Monks to be of their Opinion and Communion and commemorate the Pope They were Friends to those that obeyed them but as to them that reprehended them they treated them as Hereticks and those that abhorred their Communion were punished openly even to the making them suffer Martyrdom and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus whom they kept three Years in Prison because they would not Communicate with them Inflicting on them all manner of Torments and in fine not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes and drew them over Precipices causing othres to be burnt alive John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator He farther adds that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice who complaining of these Cruelties received for Answer that the Pope was troubled thereat and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received It was only saies he to deride and impose on us that they would have us send first to them as it were to accuse our selves and acknowledg our Error which plainly appeared afterwards by their Letters BUT to the end we may not think Leo Allatius who relates this Complaint of the Greeks is suspected by the Latins under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes If this Author saies he means the Greeks who remaining fixt to their Ceremonies embraced otherwise the Truth he is mistaaen For the Latins have Ibid. bin so far from driving them away that they have made use of them as often as they have Occasion If he means the Schismaticks and those that maintained the Errors of the Greeks he trifles for how can he imagine the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church should suffer in a Country they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood the Greeks their Enemies and Adversaries to their Faith to live unpunished These erronious People must be reduced being Rebels to their own Faith not only by simple Banishments but by Fire and Sword And this is Allatius his Moderation which does not well accord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him we need but hear himself to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks After the taking of Constantinople L. 3. C. 1. saies he the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches they established a Latine Patriarch they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests they created a Latin Emperor who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever appertained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia having but three or four Cities left him which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes He adds a little after that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope that at length the Emperour Henry Baldwin ' s Successor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus He tells us likewise L. 3. C. 7. in another place that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors as he himself calls them who had often performed this Office in France and Germany and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them and a great part of their Piety to have them severely Punished that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them and examine their Doctrine WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Arnaud's good Intentions towards them these historical Passages he has offered were enough to make him suspected For this deplorable Condition of Greece and all the East and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion for several Years together that is to say for near two hundred Years in the East and fifty eight in Greece might well introduce amongst these People the Belief of a substantial Conversion and there is methinks more reason to admire if this has not hapned than if it hath WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories He tells L. 3. C. 7. us three things worth our Observation The first is that altho Constantinople was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus yet they kept still several places in Greece and even whole Provinces as Achaia Secondly that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands as Cyprus Crete Eubeé Rhodes and divers other Places Thirdly that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople so that there was always a great number there who made Profession of the Romish Religion Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce but in several places their Lords and Masters and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion LEO Allatius tells us likewise that when the King of England had Possessed De Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 15. himself of Cyprus and given it to the King of Jerusalem that he might
return home the whole Country was immediately filled with Priests and Latin Bishops to bring over the People to Piety and Orthodoxy WHEREUNTO Mr. Arnaud Consents and saies That they were L. 3. C. 1. P. 256. more rigorously handled for their Religion in Cyprus than in Greece that several Greek Authors have grievously complained of these Cruelties and that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople residing in Asia most pathetically laid open their Sufferings to Pope Gregory the ninth FRYAR Stephen a Portugais in his History of the Kingdom of Cyprus General Hist of the Isle and Kingdom of Cyprus Fol. 71. Relates that altho Guy de Lusignan was King of Jerusalem yet was he forc'd to be contented with being King of Cyprus He brought along with him several Greeks Armenians Coptites Maronites Jacobites Indians Nestorians Iberians and Georgians who would not acknowledg the Romane Prelacy each of these having their own Patriarch 'T is true saies he that the Kings of Lusignan would not permit their Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them Ibid. but ordered they should only administer to them the Sacraments leaving the Overplus to the Jurisdiction of the Latine Arch-Bishop to whom these Nations in this respect were Subject He likewise Relates that about the same time there was published the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget in which our Saviour himself exhorted the Greeks to submit to the Roman Church Let Ibid. the Greeks know these are the Words that their Empire Kingdoms and Lordships will never be in Peace and Security but always subject to their Enemies from whom they will continually receive exceeding great Dammages and perpetual Miseries till such time as they submit themselves to the Church of Rome with a true Humility and Charity obeying its Holy Constitutions and Ceremonies and wholly conform themselves to her Faith And after this manner did they make Heaven and Earth meet to cause these People to change their Religion WE may then I think plainly enough see that it has not bin the Latins Fault if the Greeks have not received their Doctrines from whence it follows that if it dos appear they have from that time Believed Transubstantiation and it not appearing they held it before we may then reasonably conclude they received it from the Latins This is a Consequence which follows naturally of it self The Testimony of the Greeks cannot be any longer produced as that of the pure Greeks after so many endeavours to make them embrace the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the more Mr. Arnaud strives to prove the Entercourse of these two Nations the greater hold he gives us to contest with him the Advantage he pretends to have obtained from hence But he uses an admirable Expedient to hinder us from minding this Consequence For having seen on one hand that these Histories were too well known to be passed over wholly in Silence and on the other that if he should sincerely produce them as they are in themselves they would certainly make for our Advantage as it hath bin already observed he has thereupon bethought himself and presented them in another kind of Dress whereby he may insensibly turn aside his Readers Minds and amuse them by an agreeable Diversion And to this end has thought good to suppose I denyed the Greeks knew what was the Belief of the Latins and to employ all these historical Passages in opposing this Phantastical Supposition that is to say in manifesting the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist I shall make appear in its proper place that this is but a vain Pretence and a meer quibling on Words which he has designedly taken in a Sence contrary to my meaning Wherefore I here declare it never entred into my Thoughts to deny what he makes me deny For this is an Invention he has used on purpose to conceal his indirect dealing CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors led by politick Interests have themselves favoured the Design of the Latins in Introducing their Doctrines into Greece Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered IT has not bin only the Latins that earnestly endeavoured to make the Greeks receive their Doctrines For even the Grecian Emperors themselves have favoured this Design induced by politick Respects which put them upon seeking the Friendship of the Western Princes and especially that of the Popes who in those times as speaks Mr. Arnaud gave Laws to all the rest and that even in Temporals We all know what a great Influence the Inclinations of Princes have not only on the People but Ecclesiasticks and Prelates It is usual with Subjects to turn themselves on that side which is most pleasing to their Sovereign and there are few Persons who make it not their Business so to do especially when Princes openly declare their Minds and make use of their Authority in punishing those that withstand them and rewarding those that approve them Now this the Grecian Emperours have often particularly done in favour of the Church of Rome to which they have endeavoured to unite their Subjects POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons up fourteen of these interessed Reunions De reb Moscovit P. 7. the Greeks saies he have bin reunited to us fourteen times by publick Confessions and have so many times departed from us And it is certain that as they have ever known the Popes earnest Desires to submit them to the See of Rome so likewise have they not failed to flatter this Desire by fair Promises when they needed that Churches Assistance either for the obtaining of some important Design or for the averting of some dangerous Tempest which threatned them But as soon as ever these have bin over they have returned to their first State and slighted these Reunions I know not how it hath come to pass that the Popes having bin so often deceived should still continue so Facile but perhaps it was not a single Interest but be it as it will the Popes have never bin backwards in these Matters MY Design is not to set down here all these Reunions one after another and relate their particular Circumstances seeing an Account thereof is to be met with in sundry Historians but more especially in the Book Leo Allatius wrote touching the Agreement of these two Churches I shall only here take notice of some of them observed by Mr. Arnaud and which will be sufficient to shew after what manner the Greek Emperors have proceeded in Favour of the Latins when they wanted the Pope's Assistance MICHAEL Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Bishop of Acrida having written some Letters against the Church of Rome to Peter the Patriarch of Antioch thereupon caused the Latine Churches to be shut up at Constantinople Pope Leo the Eleventh was greatly moved at it He therefore wrote to Cerularius and Leo of Acrida a long Letter wherein he answered their Objections and accused likewise the Greek Church of Lightness Rashness and Presumption This hap'ned about
expresly to plant the Roman Religion and even to establish fixt Seminaries who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks This Artifice of his is not of small Importance for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars without which 't is impossible to make a true and right Judgment of this Controversie And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Arnaud's Ingenuity For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us if they are so publickly known that 't will be to no purpose to conceal them he then produces them but in so doing applyes them to other matters on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them and on the other hand if they are Passages less known and that he may well conceal them he then either not mentions them or but lightly touches on them to the end they may not be throughly considered He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them or if at all so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret and overthrowing himself what he has taken upon him to defend But seeing he has no reason to expect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity and that they must know no more but what he tells them so he must not take it ill if I relate what he would have concealed I say then that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire all Greece and other Eastern Nations have bin filled with Monks or Emissaries whose only design and employment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries Mr. Arnaud who commonly takes things in the worst Sence will be sure to tell me I am to blame in blaming this Design Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Religion it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith to do all they can to make Schismaticks and Heretical People to Embrace the same To which I answer I do not at all blame the Endeavours of the Roman Church to win these People Seeing she believes they are in an Error and therefore would undeceive them and so far is Christianly and Charitably done but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use which savour so much of worldy Policy they are in no wise to be commended I do not I say blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to propagate their Faith seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Communion YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud who knows full well what the Monks and Emissaries have done and do still in the East That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason That they are to be found established amongst these People For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind no means having bin left untried to effect this how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation this Doctrine hath bin received by them at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction Instruction Conversion or what else he please Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians for whose sake the Emissaries have taken such Pains do believe Transubstantiation it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches for this is a way of Arguing which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him that if these People believe Transubstantiation 't is because the Emissaries have taught it them unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them And this is the Contents of this Chapter The Consequence I pretend to draw hence is clear enough in it self and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks and Emissaries in the Levant FIRST then it is evident that after the Conquest of the Holy Land both Palestine and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry who tells us that multitudes of People resorted from all parts L. 1. C. 10. P. 194. of the World to the Holy Land being allured thither by the Odour of those Venerable and Holy Places where they repaired the decayed Churches Built new ones and founded Monasteries in several Places by the Liberality of Princes In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors who were present at the Councils held at Napolis a City of Samaria and at Antioch Guill Tyr. L 12. C. 1â L. 15. C. 16. L. 12. C. 25. He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians and Patriarch of Jerusalem Mr. Arnaud himself saies there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks together with others of St. Norbet and St. Bennet in several Commodious Places NEITHER need we any more doubt but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof to which Mr. Arnaud consents and tells us That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors who had often performed this Office in France and Germany He farther saies that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks and examine their Doctrine which is not a difficult matter to believe IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius Pope Alexander the third sent Baron ad ann 1177. a certain Physitian called Phillip into Ethiopia to convert the Christians of that Country and Instruct them in the Romish Religion NOT long after Innocent the third obtained the Popedom and immediately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over Raynald ad ann 1193. num 55. to the Roman Church And sent for this Purpose John and Simon into Dioclia and Dalmatia and some others into Bulgaria Albertus and Albertinus to Constantinople and the Arch Bishop of Mayence into Armenia GREGORY the ninth his Successor continued the same Design Raynaldus Reports in his time all Asia was full of Religious who went up and Raynald ad ann 1233. down Preaching from place to place He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip which he wrote to the Pope in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of
the Patriarch of the Eastern Jacobites of two Arch Bishops one a Jacobit and the other a Nestorian of the Conversion of the Patriarch of the Nestorians and of an other Patriarch of the Jacobits in Egypt He added farther that all these Nations viz. the Christians of Chaldea Media Persia Armenia Syria Phenicia India Ethiopia Libya and Egypt yielded themselves to their Exhortations there remaining none but the Greeks that persevered in their Malice and who every where withstood the Doctrine of the Roman Church either privately or openly in blaspheming all its Sacraments INNOCENT the fourth who succeeded Gregory wrote to the Prince Raynald ad ann 1245. num 11. of Bulgaria Solliciting him to embrace the Religion of the Latins and for this effect sent him several Monks and Fryars entreating him to give them a favourable Hearing In the Year 1246 he sent Fryar Ascelinus Simon of St. Quentin Alexander and Albertus of the Order of Preachers and John du plan Carpin with Fryar Bennet a Polander of St. Francis's Order to the Tartars to perswade them to receive the Christian Faith they passed thro Russia and delivered to Duke Daniel to Basil his Brother and the Bishops of that Country the Popes Letters which conjured them to forsake the Greek John du Plan's Voyage C. 9. C. 24. Religion which they professed and unite themselves to the Roman Church they likewise endeavoured with all their Power to effect this and the Success of their Negociation was that the Russians sent Deputies to Opizon who was then the Popes Legate in Poland offering to submit themselves to the Roman Church provided the Pope would raise their Countries into a Kingdom and bestow the regal Crown on their Duke Opizon gladly received them and granted what they demanded The Pope sent the Arch Bishop of Prusia in quality of a Legate and ordered for their Instruction in the Romish Religion a Mission made up of as many Secular Priests as Religions of the Order of Preachers and Fryar Minorites amongst whom there was chosen a certain Preaching Fryar named Alexius who was particularly to attend the Prince The Arch Bishop of Prussia reconciled King Daniel his Brother Basil who was King of Laudemirie and likewise their People to the Church of Rome BUT whilst Innocent endeavoured the Conversion of the Russians he neglected not the rest of the Christians in the East He earnestly laboured saies Raynald ad ann 1247. num 30. ad ann 1253 num 38. Raynaldus to Reduce those People how far distant soever they were and for this purpose sent them several Religious who were Learned and Zealous for the propogating of the Faith whom he honoured with the Title of Apostolical Legates He farther saies that he gave to Lawrence his Penetentiary a large Commission for the same purpose injoyning him to take care of Armenia Iconia Turky Greece Babylon and endeavour to gain the Greeks who were in the Patriarchate of Antioch Jerusalem and Kingdom of Cyprus as well as the Jacobites Maronites and Nestorians IN the Year 1253 the foresaid Innocent the fourth sent William de Rubruquis Voyage of Rubriq C. 1. c. and Bartholomew de Cremone who were of the Order of Fryar Minorites into Tartaria where they found several Christians of the Greek and Nestorian Religion for the Reduction of whom they laboured with all their Power URBAIN the fourth imitating in this his Predecessors sent in the Year 1264 Nicholas Bishop of Crotonia with Gerard and Rayner Monks of the Raynald ad ann 1264. num 64. 65. Order of Fryar Minorites to Michael Paleologus the Grecian Emperor who had re-taken Constantinople To the end saies Raynaldus he might be instructed together with his People in the Orthodox Religion It appears by the Letters of Clement his Successor that Urbain sent moreover other Monks to Constantinople on the same Design to wit Simon Peter de Moras Peter de Raynald ad ann 1267. numb 73. Ibid. num 81. Crista and Boniface and Clement sent Dominicans IN the Year 1276 two Bishops and two preaching Fryars went into Greece by order of Pope Innocent the twenty first to instruct farther the Idem ad ann 1276. num 45. ad ann 1277. num 20. 21. Greeks and confirm them in Obedience to the Roman See to which the Emperor Michael Paleologus had obliged them to submit themselves A little while after there was another Mission of Fryar Minorites to the Tartars to instruct them more fully in the Articles of the Roman Faith who Idem ad ann 1278. num 17. 18. c. had embraced the Christian Religion This was in the Year 1278 under Pope Nicholas the third TOWARDS the end of this Century Nicholas the fourth sent others Idem ad ann 1288. num 29. 30. 31. after the same manner for the Reduction of those People who professed the Greek Religion Raynaldus tells us that this Pope made use of Dominicans particularly for this purpose and sent them to preach thro out all the East Ibid. num 32. in Greece Bulgaria Valachia to the Syrians Iberians Allains Russians Jacobites Ethiopians Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians to the Tartarian Christians and generally to all strange Nations separated from the Roman Church And for this purpose he likewise made use of the Fryar Minorites of whose Order he had bin himself that he sent to several Eastern Ibid. num 33. Bishops a Summary of the Christian Faith according to which he would have the People instructed and earnestly recommended his Emissaries to Kings and Princes to the end that being respected by them their Labours might be the more Effectual BONIFACE the eighth renewed these general Missions into the East and to encourage them the more to acquit themselves well in their Employ Idem ad ann 1299. num 39. 4041. he augmented their Priviledges after a very considerable manner This was in the Year 1299 These continued under the following Popes as it appears by the Letters that John the twenty second sent them in the Year 1318 wherein he gives God thanks for the Progress the Fryar Predicants had made and exhorted them to continue there The same appears by other Letters of Gregory the eleventh towards the end of the fourteenth Century THERE are likewise two other Relations of the Voyages of two Dominicans The wonderful History of the great Cham of Tartaria Paris 1529. Fol. 40. one named Brother Bieul the other Brother Oderick who went by the Popes Command to preach in the East The first of these does not set down the time but I suppose 't was about the fourteenth Century for therein is mention made of the Death of Argon King of the Tartars which hap'ned towards the end of the thirteenth Century The second bears date 1330. It appears by the first of these that there was at that time Houses of Dominican Fryars set up in Asia for the Conversion of the Schismaticks We came directly saies this Author
'em beautiful Churches He tells us likewise that in the Isle of Nixia there are Jesuits Recollets and Capucins who make great Progress in the propagating of the Catholick Faith Besides the Jesuits and Capucins that are according Stochove's Voyage P. 225. to Thevenot's Relation in the Isle of Chios the Sieur Stochove tels us of Carmelite Fryars who are there likewise AT Smyrna there are both Capucins and Jesuits saies the Sieur Boulaye Boulay Le Goux Part 1. C. 9. P. 20. Le Goux and Villamont observes that in the Isles of Cephalonia and Zant there are Religious of the Order of St. Francis WE know that the Jesuits have settled themselves since the Year 1609 at Constantinople The Jesuits saies the Sieur Stochove have St. Bennet ' s Church where they are very well accommodated having a fine Garden The Villamont's Voyages L. 2. C. 4. Stochovie's Voyages P. 98. Church altho it be but small yet is a very beautiful one being covered with Mosaisk Work These Fathers saies he do make great Proficiency in the Conversion of the Hereticks and Schismaticks Instructing them in the Catholick Apostolick Roman Faith But besides the Jesuits there are Jacobins and Cordeliers The Cordeliers say's the Sieur Du Loir are at St. Marys the Jacobins at St. Peters and the Jesuits at St. Bennets which is a very fair Church and Painted Loir's Voyages P. 67. also with Mosaick Work very Rich but not well Contrived It is well known there are Emissaries likewise in Hispaham in Persia who have spread themselves as far as the Borders of the Armenians We have not seen any City in all our Travels saies the Sieur de Bourges which is better provided with Emissaries the Reverend Fathers the Austin Portugais Monks Carmelites and Jesuits have successively established themselves since some Years and by the Permission of the Prince they exercise with a great deal of Liberty their Functions The Reverend Fathers the Jesuits having setled themselves at Julfa which is a small City about a League distant from Hispaham chiefly consisting of Armenians have a particular Conveniency for the Conversion of Schismaticks He tells us likewise That there is at Surat a Mission of French Capucins and another at Babylon and speaking of the former of these These are says he the only Emissarys in this City We have been Witnesses of the Respect shewed them and of the Fruit of their Labours to bring home to the Church the Armenians Jacobites and Nestorians I shall not trouble my self with mentioning the Missions of the Indias nor them of Ethiopia for the relations of these are publick and known by all the World We may read what John Peter Maffeé and du Jaric both Jesuits have written in their Histories of the Indias touching this matter And likewise the Relations of Ethiopia taken out of the Letters written to the General of the Jesuits Viteleschy and another History of the East Indias Printed at Arras Anno 1628. but what I already mention'd is sufficient to discover the fallacy of Mr. Arnaud's Argument who pretends to prove the Perpetuity of his Faith from the Testimony of the Schismatical Churches For now after what I represented all which has been faithfully transcribed out of Authors never suspected by the Church of Rome what assurance can we have if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be found established amongst these people that it has not been communicated to them by all these Emissaries who have been sent for so many years for no other purpose It ought methinks to be shewed us to colour over this proof that the sources whence they drew their Christianity have not been adulterated that these Springs have run clear without being troubled to this day or at least the time of these Missions must be laid aside and Mr. Arnaud if he intends to deal sincerely must begin from the Ages which precede them for if it does not appear these Schismaticks believed the same as the Church of Rome concerning the Eucharist before all this care for their instruction what likelihood is there we shall suffer our selves to be surpriz'd by so frivolous an Argument I will suppose for once that I was deceiv'd when I maintain'd that any one of these Nations who profess the Christian Religion and submitted not to the Pope did not reckon Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Creed nor the Adoration of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies Will Mr. Arnaud then imagine that my mistake has prejudiced my Cause or justified the Consequence he pretends to draw from his Principle This pretension of his in my mind would be very unjust and unreasonable For whether the Greeks and other Eastern Christians do or do not believe Transubstantiation this is only a question between him and me to which the Subject I defend has no relation and therefore he can expect no more at utmost than a Victory over me and not my Cause seeing the Consequence he would draw hence will be continually disputed him to wit that Transubstantiation has been perpetually believed in these Churches Whence it follows that he has been to blame in passing over so slightly as he has done a point of this importance on which depends the whole force of his Proofs and he may justly be complain'd of in the Church of Rome in that he hath in his whole proceeding betrayed a greater care for his own private Reputation than that of the Church whose cause he takes upon him to defend As to what concerns my self I hope I shall be able to give the World a good Account touching what I denyed and were I mistaken I would not be ashamed to make an open Recantation without the least apprehension that this my Retractation would in any sort prejudice my Cause seeing in effect I do not believe it follows that a Doctrine has been perpetual in Religion altho Schismatical Churches now profess it as well as the Latins This Consequence must be proved as well as its Principle did Mr. Arnaud take a direct course and argue in a requisite manner to satisfie judicious Persons And therefore he ought to have given a sincere account of this whole History of the Missions which I come now from representing in this Chap. for I cannot imagine how Mr. Arnaud could pass over in silence as he has done an History so important and necessary for the making of a right Judgment of this whole Controversie seeing he could not be ignorant of it If he believes he has done right I must needs say he has a kind of sincerity different from that of all other people and if he believes he ought not to have taken this course we must affirm that his silence is so much the more criminal in that he has acted against the light of his own Conscience CHAP. V. That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Roman Religion amongst the Schismaticks The Seminaries which have been set up for the same design and the particular
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
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
to favour the Conversion of the Substances IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy For in that of St. James there is a Prayer which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã say's he ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã O thou Holy One that dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace and coming of thy Holy Spirit We find this same Prayer in St. Mark 's Liturgy In those of St. Basile and Chrysostom there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven Look down we beseech thee say's it O Lord Jesus Christ our God from the Holy Place of thy Habitation and Throne of thy Glory which is in thy Kingdom and come to sanctifie us thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father and art here with us invisibly Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words and who art here invisibly with us not considering they relate to that part of the Petition wherein they beseech him to come and sanctifie them and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity which he promised his Disciples when he left the World and ascended up into Heaven It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits How comes it to pass we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity with the Veil of the Accidents or some such like words But on the contrary when the Priest reads with a loud voice ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Holy Things are for Holy Persons the Quire answers there is only one that is Holy only one Lord who is Jesus Christ at the Glory of God the Father For 't is clear that these words at the Glory of God the Father mean that he is above in Heaven In the Liturgy of the presanctifi'd Bread the Priest thus addresses himself to God beseeching him that his only Son may rest on this Altar by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries thereon Eurho Goar exposed thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ and immediately prays That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies by a perpetual Sanctification to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience a holy assurance and enlightned mind and being quickned by them we may be united to Jesus Christ himself our true God who has said he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him By which words it is evident that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour himself and that those who receive them unworthily are not united with him In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays That receiving with the Testimony Vbi supra of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ and that receiving these things worthily we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts These words do moreover distinguish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained and 't is certain these Terms of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts do more plainly intimate a Spiritual Communion than a corporeal one In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular makes a Prayer unto God in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Celebration but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation We have say's he finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy O Jesus Christ our God as far as we have been able For we have celebrated the memory of thy Death we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection we have been filled with thy never fading Life and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the conversion of the Substances which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery that whereunto all the rest does tend and whereon depends so much that the rest without this would signifie nothing Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases 't is not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn recapitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office did she in effect believe any other Change in the Bread than that of its Virtue and Holyness CHAP. VI. The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The Twelfth from their believing the dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith One Proof of the contrary of this is that sometimes when they mention the consecrated Bread and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ they add a Term of Diminution which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews and celebrate their Feasts and Balsamon takes hence an occasion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread in these words If a Balsam in Canon 55. Apost Can 70. man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews and expelled the Christian Communion what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it as of the Body of our Lord and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do MATTHEW Blastarius speaks almost to the same purpose in Arcudius They say's he that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread Areud lib. 3. cap. 6. do greatly offend against the Christian Customs for if they who only eat the unleaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews ought to be deposed and excommunicated what excuse can they make for themselves who receive it as if it were the Body of our Lord. SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy where the Priest perfumes the Gifts in saying these words Be thou exalted O God above the Heavens and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth the Priest say's he speaks of the Ascension of our Lord and the Glory
God alone THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambassadour Mr. Haye's Voyages part 49. observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar wherein they put the consecrated Particles He says he thus saw it at Selivrée and several other places But because this remark might offend his Readers he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks but this is but a false colour for the Greeks are not so poor but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ The true reason of this Custom is that they do not believe what the Latins do or as speaks Caucus they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages part 2 ch 77. the manner which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sacrament but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration and he is even forced to say that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service Montconis's Voyages p. 228. c. which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai and observes not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament and several other Proofs which might be added and which conclude the same thing has betook himself to his usual Artifices First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation or the real Presence He on the contrary handles it only as a necessary consequence of it I would say that instead of arguing thus the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance he reasons on the contrary after this manner the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence therefore they adore the Sacrament Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method for although Transubstantiation may be used when 't is agreed 't is believed as a means whereby to conclude that those who believe it adore it yet who sees not that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees and consequently is more sensible and apparent and more easily known than an Article of Faith concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned judge of Persons and weigh their expressions It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does or one equivalent thereunto than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion We may be imposed on by this last for there may be forged attestations produced and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses whom a small pension will byass either way or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged as of that of a true one and moreover 't is no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Arguments But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration In a word it plainly appears that Mr. Arnaud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs THE second thing he does seems to correct the first for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs which he calls gross Proofs to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof which he draws from the real Presence He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9. these Terms The faithful desirous to shew their Faith in receiving the Communion do adore bless and praise Jesus Christ as God who is manifested in the Gifts I answer he ought faithfully to translate this passage Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts and say's That the Faithful adore bless and praise Jesus Christ who is understood in them ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now a man must be very Cap. 37. little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know that when the question is concerning the Symbols ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies the Spiritual and Mystical Object represented by the outward Sign Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts is adored according to Cabasilas and not the Gifts themselves Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Presence For say's he Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is really present in the Sacrament and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317. in the Gifts Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist I answer that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as I shall make appear in its place and had the Author of the Perpetuity alledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud we should not have been wanting to examine them but the question then in hand only concerning the Adoration I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dispute about the real Presence before I could alledge one formal passage touching the Subject I handled MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards that Cabasilas blames those that adore before Lib. 10. cap. 9. the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration I answer that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it as to our Saviour himself and yet it cannot hence be concluded they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration as if the Book were in effect our Saviour himself Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecrated Gifts but does not approve they should do it before their Consecration altho he already
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Change Mutation Conversion there is not enough in this to make a good Catholick it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Superscrââtion is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châeygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
scruple to promote them to Bishopricks and likewise that they being Bishops may provide the Churches in their Diocesses with Catholick Curats Let Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases how they could in conscience advance Cyrillus of Béroë to the Patriarchate of Constantinople being a Disciple of the Jesuits whom Allatius calls vir probus Catholicus Allat de Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 11. and who after his death was like to be canoniz'd say's Allatius The same Question may be put to him touching others namely Timotheus Anthimus Gregory Athenasius Patelar who being all of 'em Latins in their hearts yet for all that exercised the Patriarchal Functions in a Schismatical Church wherein as I said the Pope and all the Latins are every year excommunicated Moreover this Excommunication is not to be called in Question forasmuch as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it The Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem say's he excommunicates once a year on Holy Thursday all other Lib. 2. cap. 3. Sects not excepting the Roman Church HAVING satisfi'd the unjust Accusations of Mr. Arnaud against Cyrillus it now remains to see what advantage may accrue to us by this Patriarch's Confession and whether the rejection he makes in express Terms of Transubstantiation may be esteemed as that of the Body of the whole Greek Church Mr. Arnaud tells us three things on the discussion of which depends Lib. 3. cap. 6 7. the Solution of this Question The first is that the Greeks continually endeavoured to deliver themselves from the Tyranny of Cyrillus and that in effect he was four or five times expelled the Church The second that this Confession is wholly contrary in its principal Articles to the Doctrine of the Greeks And the third that it has been condemned by two Councils held by Cyrillus his Successours Which is what we are now to examine AS to the first of these particulars I confess this Patriarch has endured several cruel Traverses during his life which never ended till they had procured his death but I deny 't was his Church occasioned him all these evils It was the Latine Party and false Greeks which followed him with incessant Persecutions How dexterous soever Allatius has been in disguising the Allat de Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 11. Truth yet could he not refrain here from discovering it He tells us then that the Greeks whom he calls pii homines zealous and pious People not being able to defend their Faith themselves nor carry on the necessary expences for this addressed themselves to other Christians and especially to the Roman Prelate by whose means they avoid the like Tempests and secure their Church He adds there were Persons deputed towards Cyrillus with an express charge to oblige Ibid. him either by Promises or Threatnings to send to Rome his Confession of Faith in which he was to admit the Council of Florence and condemn the Errors of the Calvinists and in so doing he might assure himself of the assistance and favour of the Apostolical See That Cyrillus answered he liked well their offers and was ready to accept their conditions provided he might have money and be upheld in his Patriarchate But that at length finding he kept a correspondence both with Calvinists and Catholicks too these last being troubled thereat proceeded to threatnings saying they would never suffer that Chair to be defiled with the Blasphemies of the Calvinists What he say's touching this Deputation is true for the Congregation de fide propoganda sent two Jesuits to Constantinople with one named Canachio Rossi charged with Instructions to gain Cyrillus by Promises or Threatnings being required only to receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council But what he adds concerning Cyrillus his Answer is a meer Calumny for Cyrillus remained immoveable notwithstanding all these Sollicitations Neither have we any reason to believe any thing upon Allatius's bare word Mr. Arnaud may judge as he pleases yet cannot he deny but Cyrillus his Enemies were the Latins and Latinised Greeks and that the Tempests and Storms he suffered and which at length overwhelmed him came from that side seeing that Allatius himself his own Witness and great Author affirms it Cyrillus was ever beloved and honoured by his own true Church as appears from the care and charge she was at to support him and to say as Mr. Arnaud does that the Dutch lent him money upon use and that he extorted it afterwards from the Churches which were made to obey him by the Turks is a Story for which he brings no proof Neither is there any likelihood particular Persons who put their money out to use should choose a man in his Circumstances that is to say one that was bereaved of his Dignities and stript of all he had were he as it is supposed thâ Object of his Peoples hatred The Dutch Mercâânts at Constantinople are not wont to part with their money upon such Security Hottinger Hottinger in Append Dissert 8. tells us from the Testimony of the deceased Mr. Leger Minister of Geneva who was at Constantinople and had a particular Knowledge of this History That one Isaac Metropolitain of Chalcedon a Disciple of the Jesuits having bought of the Turks Cyrillus his Seat and the report of it being spread throughout Constantinople there was such an Universal Lamentation amongst all the Greeks that it came to the Grand Senior's Ears who broke off this Intrigue and would not suffer 'em to obey any longer this Usurper He likewise Which Letter may be seen in its Original produces a Letter from Cyrillus his Proto-Syncellus that is to say from one of the Chief Officers in his Chamber named Nathanael Conopius dated from Constantinople the Fourth of July 1638 Immediately after the death of Cyrillus Wherein he takes particular notice that the Executioners which strangled him having parted his Garments among them and afterwards carried them into one of the Markets of Constantinople to sell them as being the Clothes of the late Patriarch the People were universally seized with Grief and uttered a thousand imprecations against Cyrillus of Berea calling him Villain and Murtherer who had dishonoured God's Church and not only usurped the Throne of the Holy and Lawful Patriarch but likewise put him to death He adds that some of 'em entred the House of the Usurper calling him Pilate and bidding him give them the Body that they might bury it and how they afterwards went to the Caimacans and offered him a great deal of money to obtain of him the Body of their true Patriarch but the wicked Usurper who caused him to be put to death understanding it sent to the Caimaican to tell him that if he gave these People Cyrillus his Body the City would certainly be in an uproar which hindered him from granting them their request In fine he says this Usurper sent Slaves to take his Body and cast it into the Sea but that some Christians having taken it thence carried it into a Monastery called
virtue And therefore they bring the comparison of Food which becomes one with our Bodies and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread and the Body which may make us say literally and without recourse to a Figure that the Bread is the Body As to what concerns us we need not take such a great circuit because the Question concerning a Sacrament we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence IV. IT seems likewise that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression of the Holy Spirit and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ on the Bread with some kind of inherency yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church altho their expressions intimate as much But howsoever this is not our Opinion We do indeed believe that the Grace of the Holy Spirit and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies but we hold not this impression or real inherence of virtue which it seems the Greeks admit whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks with its principal Circumstances and in reference to that of ours and the Church of Rome's I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter will say I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine They 'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ by way of Growth or Augmentation But to this I need say no more than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks Our business here is to know what it is and not whether it be justifiable nor to answer the Objections may be made against it because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties which may trouble the Readers the one is that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks it seems as if it might be said in some sence that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance Th' other is that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word TO the first I answer the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ as we have proved neither do they say the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ because this way of speaking which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food 's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread As to what remains altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Bread is absurd enough yet we may give it a plain sence in saying 't is not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body by a dependance thereon and in asmuch as 't is the Mystery of it this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation a Mystery being as it were an Appendix or Circumstance to the thing of which 't is the Mystery TO the second Question I answer that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks and especially some of their expressions seem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice that they hold this Opinion there is more justice in not charging them with it than in imputing it to 'em and so much the more because there is none of their usual expressions how emphatical soever but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy The Term of Assumption used by Damascen Panis Vinum ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã assumuntur induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin he meant thereby a real hypostatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14. Assumption but having since carefully examined this Passage it seemed to me this ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã may be easily referred not to the foregoing Words in the same Discourse but to that which follows in the simple sence That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist because they are things familiar to us BUT howsoever we may here observe that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel and natural Exposition which the Ancients gave this Mystery how they have fallen I say into vainand idle Speculations both of 'em wandring from the Truth Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations than the Word of God Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament that 't is his Body and added that it was for a remembrance of him and Saint Paul thus commented on it This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming What could be more easie than to keep here and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament by the expressions of our Saviour and his Apostle and other parts of Christian Religion But instead of this we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers taking no notice of divers others by which they explain themselves these have been extended and altho innocent yet are made a Rock of Offence The Latins proceed to a real Presence a real Transubstantiation and Accidents without a Subject and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients which they heap up without number The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity a kind of real impression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread a Growth or Augmentation of this Body I hope I shall have this Justice done me that it will be acknowledged I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks but what has been taken out of their best Authors from them I say that are of greatest account
of the Truth than solid Philosophy And therefore the Devil to keep the Greeks in this ignorance has so ordered it that the Bishops are still elected from amongst the Monks and that moreover the Monks should lay this necessity upon themselves of being ignorant 'T IS likely Persons in these Circumstances do not trouble themselves with Inquiries into the Opinions of the Latins touching the Mystery of the Eucharist and in effect amongst all those that have written since the Eleventh Century to this present excepting the Latinizing Greeks there will be found very few that mention the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Conversion of Substances which shews that they are not well instructed in it YET do not I believe this ignorance has been so Universal but that there have been some from time to time who sufficiently understood the Opinion of the Latins and especially those that have had most Commerce with them as for instance such as negotiated the Re-unions those that conferred with the Emissaries and were Assessors at the Council of Florence and such as were forced to live under the Jurisdiction of Latine Bishops Mr. Arnaud needed not trouble himself with proving this for 't is a thing we grant him SO that here are already several of Mr. Arnaud's Illsions and yet we are not at the end of all those he has imposed on us touching this single Article of the Greeks WE may moreover reckon into this number the perpetual Quotation of this Form of a Re-union which was so often offered to the Greeks and which the Greeks have sometimes received when they were at accord with the Latine Church He tells us that the Emperour Michael Paleologus his Deputies Lib. 3. cap. 3. pag 275. being arrived at the Council of Lyons presented the Emperours Letters to the Pope containing in express Terms the Confession of Faith which was sent them by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth wherein Transubstantiation is expressly inserted in these Terms Sacramentum Eucharistae ex Azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini Jesu Christi He adds that this Profession of Faith was sworn to on the Emperour's part by George Acropolitus and that the Legate of the Council of the Greeks presented likewise a Letter to the Pope as from the Metropolitain of Ephesus and thirty Greek Bishops and that he swore in their name after the same manner the Ambassador had done to imbrace intirely the forementioned Confession of Faith wherein Transubstantiation was expressed He tells us moreover that in the Confession of Eaith which Ibid. pag 277. John Veccus inserted in his Letters aswell in his own Name as in the Name of the Greek Bishops that Transubstantiation was expressly contained in it altho occasionally upon account of the Azymes credentes nos ipsum Azymum panem in ipso Sacro Officio Eucharistae verè transubstantiari in Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi Vinum in Sanguinem ejus per Sanctissimi Spiritus Virtutem Operationem That they likewise do believe the unleavened Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ He afterwards observes this Confession of the Greek Bishops was not expressed in the same Terms as that which was sent thence by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth but that this difference has no after effect in respect of the Article of the Azymes and that of Transubstantiation but that 't is expressed more plainly than in the Confession of Faith compiled by Clement SO that if we will believe Mr. Arnaud we have here Transubstantiation formally received and acknowledged by the Greek Church But all this is but a meer Delusion This Confession of Faith in the Latin of Raynoldus from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed whatsoever he has alledged concerning it has indeed these Words Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem but as I alreay observed in the Greek which Allatius cites Allat de Perp. Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. touching the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus there are these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Changed is not transubstantiated I have already shown there is a great deal of difference between these two Terms The Greeks hold that the Bread is changed into the Body which is not the Point in question but whether they believe 't is transubstantiated Mr. Arnaud was not ignorant of the difference between the Latine and Greek Copy of this Confession of Faith for he has taken notice of it himself elsewhere upon the Subject of the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus and has no better defence for it than saying that the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the Greeks and the Transubstantiatur of the Latins are Synonimous Terms Why did he not mention this difference in this place and wherefore has he grounded his Proof on the Latin Expressions The Doctrine of Transubstantiation say's he is expressly inserted in this Confession of Faith I will shew Mr. Claude Transubstantiation solemnly approved by the Greek Church in the Lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 273. cap. 2. same manner as men approve things they ever believed and of which they have not the least doubt And a little after And thus I obliged my self to shew him the Doctrine of Transubstantiation signed and sworn to by the Greeks And this indeed he does shew us if we only consider the Latin Text but if we consult the Greek we shall find quite another thing than what he pretends We shall find indeed the Latins do believe Transubstantiation and endeavour to insinuate it amongst the Greeks but we shall likewise find that the Greeks depart not from their general expressions For to tell us that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and transubstantiatur are Synonymous Terms is what I deny and have refuted already and shall again refute in the following Discourse This whole Proof which Mr Arnaud has been so earnest upon reduces it self to a thing which we do not deny him which is that the Greeks hold the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood This Confession of Faith informs us of no new thing but that which I already acknowledged is to be found amongst the Greek Authors Why then must this be made a matter of Triumph It remains still to inquire whether they understand it of a change of Substance which is our only Question Moreover Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw advantage from John Veccus the Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter in that the Confession of Faith contained therein is not expressed in the same Terms as that sent by Clement and Gregory which was signed and sworn to by the Emperours Ambassadour and by the Greeks Legat in the Council at Lyons for it appears by reading this Letter and comparing it with the
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
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 vâram existentiam realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illârum 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 magisirârum in Theologia dictum est utrumque ââcdum 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 Canânis 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
He say's for Example that Theophylact reduces all the Differences which separated in his time the two Churches Lib. 2. c. 9â p. 174. to the single addition of the Filioque in the Symbol So that if this Principle be true the Greeks and Latins agreed in all other things but this one of the Filioque He say's that Basil the Archbishop of Thessalonica writing to Pope Adrian the IV Protests to him that the Greeks differ not from the Latin Church If this be true Theophilact has deceived us when he tells us they differ in the Filioque He tells us that the sharpness of Balsamon who was very much against the Church of Rome would not suffer him âo dissemble this Accusation to wit to believe Transubstantiation which would be the most specious of all others and the most proper to alienate the Affections of the Greeks and hinder their Reconciliation with the Latins But if we must refer our selves in all particulars to Balsamon's Silence in how many Points shall we establish Peace wherein there was a real Division He tells us Eutymius wrote a Book against Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 204. the Latins in which he only treats of the Procession of the Holy Spirit that Chrysolanus the Archbishop of Milain reduced to this single Article all whatsoever he upbraided the Greeks with that John Phurnius wrote against Ibid. Chrysolanus and mentions only the Procession and that this same Phurnius Ibid. p. 205. Ibid. p. 204. Ibid. p. 205. disputed against another Archbishop of Milain named Peter on this Article alone But if Mr. Arnaud goes on after this rate what will become of the Controversy touching the Azyme He tells us that Nicolas Methoniensis answers Chrysolanus and that he wrote another Treatise concerning the Azymes that Eustratius Bishop of Nice Theodorus Prodromus Nicetas Seidus and several other Authors of the twelveth Century that wrote against the Latins applyed themselves only to the Controversies touching the Holy Spirit and the Azymes He makes an exact Computation of all the Greeks of the fourteenth Century that wrote against the Roman Church and assures us they Lib. 3. c. 7. all of 'em restrainâd themselves to these two Points He farther shews us Lib. 3. c. 2. that in the Treaty of Agreement which was begun in the Year 1232 between Gregory the IX and Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople there Lib. 3. c. 4. were no more mentioned than these two Questions and that the Patriarch Veccus having been condemned under Andronicus for favouring the Latins his whole charge consisted only of the Procession of the Holy Spirit So that if we stop here we may restrain the differences of the two Churches to these two Articles and establish an intire Conformity in all the rest AS fast as Mr. Arnaud produces each of these things in particular he fails not to conclude that the Greeks and Latins had but one and the same Faith touching Transubstantiation But how happens it he has not seen that if his Consequence be good it may be likewise concluded they have the same Opinion touching other Articles wherein yet is found a manifest Difference His Proofs have this Property that if we take each of 'em in particular they overthrow one another For if the Greeks and Latins taught only one and the same thing why are they made to dispute touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit If all their Differences may be reduced to the Article of the Holy Spirit why do they dispute on the Azymes If they be divided only in these two Points wherefore in the Council of Florence was there mentioned the Doctrine of Purgatory the beatifical Vision of the Saints and primacy of the See of Rome What certainty is there in all these negative Arguments seeing that each of 'em in particular overthrow one another HE will tell us we must take them all together and conclude from thence in general that the Greeks and Latins are not at all at Variance touching Transubstantiation seeing that in all their Disputes agitated since so long a time by so many several Authors and so many several Occasions we do not find any Contest touching this Point I answer we have taken them thus in the preceding Chapter and found they conclude no better in general than in particular I consent they be taken in any sort for if they be examined each of 'em apart their weaknesses will soon be discovered being contradictory to one another and if joyned together they can produce no greater effect by their Union than to perswade us the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a Point of Controversy with the Latins But this is no more than what we already granted to Mr. Arnand But that it follows hence the two Churches held this for an Article of both their Faiths This we deny and have given our Reasons why we do so BUT the more to facilitate the Judgment which ought to be made of these things it will not be amiss to examine some particular Circumstances by which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to give Colour to his Argument He tells us then first that the Greeks have been often together with the Latins in Councils and yet there was never any mention made of Transubstantiation Lib. 2. c. 8. p. 171. Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Ibid. therein That they were together at the Synod of Barris where Anselm disputed against 'em That the Abbot Nectairus was an assessor at the Council of Latran under Alexander the III. That the Emperor Emanuel assembled a Council at Constantinople in order to a Reunion wherein the two Parties failed not to appear That there was one held at Nice upon the same Occasion That Michael Paleologus called several Assemblies in Greece for the same purpose Lib. 3. c. 2. p. 262. Lib. 3. c. 3. Ibid. Lib. 4. c. 2. That he sent his Legats and Deputies from the Greek Church to the Council at Lyons in which the Reunion was concluded and that in fine they met together in the Council of Florence I answer there was never any Council held either in the East or West by the Greeks alone or Latins nor by Greeks and Latins both together wherein all the Differences of the two Churches were proposed to be examined There were never any Points handled in them but those which were ever openly and expresly controverted and even not all of them neither In the Synod of Barry there was only handled the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost Does this argue they agreed in all the rest There was not say's Mr. Arnaud any other Difference in the Doctrines of Faith But what matter is it whether the other Differences were concerning Articles of Faith seeing the Greeks made them the occasion of their Separation and stuck to 'em with all possible earnestness Moreover who told Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks esteem not the Article of the Azymes as a Point of Faith and likewise those of Purgatory and the Pope's
touching the Conversion but only in token of their Union each Church keeping its own particular Belief Who will wonder if People who could against their Consciences sign a Decree wherein they expresly abjured five of the Articles of their Faith whereby to reconcile themselves with the Church of Rome should yield to be once present at its Service Yet this was not without offering Violence to themselves for Syropulus observes that the Pope having sent them word that on the morrow they must celebrate Mass and consummate the Union and that if there were any amongst them would partake of the Mysteries of the Latins they should prepare themselves at these Words the Greeks were seized with Horror ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hist Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9. Moreover I know not whether what Andrew de St. Cruce says be true that they adored the Mass in the same manner as the Latins for the same Syropulus relates that they stood all the time of the Office We stood say's he in our Sect. 10. c. 10. Vestments during the Liturgy But supposing it were true they used the same external Ceremonies as the Latins it would not hence follow they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor gave the Eucharist a sovereign Adoration For to kneel before an Object is not in the Sence of either Greeks or Latins a token that a Man adores it neither with an absolute Adoration nor that of Latria I am so far from excusing this Action that I believe it is on the contrary inexcusable both before God and Men But how great soever their Fault was in assisting at the Service of the Latins which they so greatly abhorred it appears that what they did was not to testify they believed the same things as they but that the Union after a sort was accomplished For they were present at their Service only in hope the Latins would likewise assist at theirs and in effect the Emperor was very urgent with the Pope for this To which the Pope replied he would first examine their Liturgy and particularly consider in what manner they celebrated it and see whether he could satisfy their Demands Whereupon the Emperor finding himself abused thus expressed Sect. 10. c. 11. himself We hoped the Latins would have amended several Errors but I find them not only Innovators and Blame worthy in several things but that which is worse they take upon them to reform us It is worth while to observe what kind of Union this was which being perfected the Pope declares on his side that neither he nor his Latins had considered the Liturgy of the Greeks and the Emperor on the other hand protests the Latins are Innovators and guilty of several Errors BUT say's Mr. Arnaud supposing Policy hindred the Greeks from opposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation what end could Syropulus have in concealing from us this Mystery Why discovering to us as he does his Countrymens weakness he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Subject of his History Why does he not blame the Ceremonies of the Latins Whâ has he not detested in his History the Adoration of the Host and Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness Why did he not deplore the Abominations of those of his Nation that were present at the Popish Mass who shewed it the same Respect as the Latins which is to say adored the Eucharist To all these Wherefores I shall oppose others Why didnot Syropulus take notice of the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article touching the Salvation of the Damned and Christ's descent into Hell and offering them his Gospel Why did he not censure the Neglect of both one and th' other in that they mentioned not a word concerning the Marriage of Priests nor communion under both kinds nor of all those other Articles I denoted in this Chapter These kind of Questions which Mr. Arnaud makes are good for nothing but to impose on inconsiderate Persons Syropulus is an Historian that contents himself with relating what passed of moment in this Affair and sometimes to give his Opinion in general thereupon but it plainly appears he never intended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd A History is not a Dispute Wherefore then should he Discourse of Transubstantiation in it Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins or detest the Adoration of the Sacrament and its Feast Why tell us of the Adoration which the Greeks rendered to the Host of the Latins seeing he assures us on the contrary that they stood bolt upright during the Liturgy Mr. Arnaud who calls upon others so much to think upon what they write has he I say considered what he saies concerning the Feast of the Holy Sacrament Wherefore say's he has not Syropulus detested the Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness For I shall only tell him He has not mentioned a word of it and yet 't is certain the Greeks do not approve it but on the contrary condemn it as I already show'd in the foregoing Book It does not then follow the Greeks hold Transubstantiation altho Syropulus speaks not of it AND thus much concerning the Council of Florence Mr. Arnaud likewise draws some Arguments from what passed after the Greeks had renounced this Union And first he takes for granted that Transubstantiation was established in this Council and that the Greeks solemnly approved of it On this Principle he runs on arguing beyond all bounds that those that violated the Union should inveigh against this Doctrine of the Latins and those that approved it He introduces again Syropulus and alledges Marc of Ephesus and describes his Hatred against the Latins He tells us of a Synod held at Jerusalem against the Patriarch Metrophanus and those of his Party This was the time say's he if ever to reproach those with Transubstantiation that had consented to the Union and approved this Doctrine in it He takes Occasion Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355. hence to bless God the Greeks had renounced this Union acknowledging the Divine Providence therein which permitted it thus to come to pass to the end he might not want matter for his Book Whatsoever we related say's he touching the Greeks approbation of Transubstantiation would have less force had Pag. 347. this Agreement subsisted It would have been alledged that politick Interest having made the Greeks consent to the receiving of this Doctrine they were afterwards withheld by Fear from condemning it and being insensibly accustomed to it dared not immediately reject it by reason of the bad estate of their Affairs But to the end their real Belief might appear in this Subject it was necessary this Agreement should be disturbed and their Passion at liberty to break out that they should indeavour to make void whatsoever they had confirmed at Florence That they should attack the Union in all possible manners and denote whatsoever they could gainsay reproachfully
charge and caluminate the Latins with whom they had treated and the Greeks who had consented to the Union that their Hatred and Rage should discover it self-without Disguise and Constraint ADMIRE I beseech you this flight of Fancy and vast extent of Thought The Good and Evil which befel the Christian World two hundred Years ago appears design'd for the Glory of Mr. Arnaud's Book with this only Difference that the Evils contribute to it more than the Good for 't is the Schism Passion Hatred and Rage of the Greeks which give him a compleat Victory It was necessary say's he they should be thus furious which is as much as to say it was necessary half of the World should be damned according to him that God should be dishonoured by a thousand Crimes and his Church torn to pieces by a dreadful Division And why For to furnish Mr. Arnaud with an Argument and that he might have Matter for one Chapter more BUT he will be much amazed to find this Argument so dear bought to conclude nothing being grounded on a false Supposition For 't is false the Greeks approved Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence That they Disputed not of it I acknowledg but that they approved it I deny Bessarion speaking in their Name say's that the Bread is Consecrated and made the Body of Christ and the Decree bears that the Body of Jesus Christ is truly Consecrated Therefore they approved Transubstantiation What a Consequence here is Mr. Arnaud has a Secret above my Apprehension for he can change the very Nature of things he can diminish and augment them as he pleases But the Misery on it is this appears contrary to Reason Why will he have the new Schism of the Greeks to have hapned meerly for the furnishing him with an Argument It was not known in those days he was to make a Book Why will he have the Greeks approve Transubstantiation at Florence Seeing there was not the least mention of it Why must those that broke the Union reproach the others with approving the Doctrine of the Latins Why will he have Syropulus Marc of Ephesus and the Council of Jerusalem to declaim on this Point seeing they had no reason to do so Certainly such gross Illusions as these deserved not such Exclamations IT only remains for the finishing of this Chapter and this matter of Negative Arguments to show a Reason for the Silence of the Latins and that will be no hard matter to do The Latins have innovated in the Doctrine of the Eucharist They have grounded their Innovations on certain Expressions of the Fathers which bear that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ They have made it their Business for some Ages to make the World believe these Terms signify a true and real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Christ to defend themselves by this means from the Reproach of Innovation Observing then that the Greeks do commonly use these kind of Expressions and even added to 'em some others which seem more emphatical as for Instance that the Bread is not a Figure that it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and that the Body born of the Virgin and the Bread are not two things but one and the same they well knew it was their Interest to rest satisfied with these general Expressions altho in effect they signify nothing less than Transubstantiation Had they condemned them as insufficient and urged the Greeks to admit of theirs they would at the same time condemned themselves as Innovators They chose then rather to pass over softly this Article than to venture near a Rock against which their Cause ran a risk of being dashed to pieces And this obliged them in their Dealings with the Greeks to content themselves with their Expressions and accommodate themselves to 'em that they might not move 'em as appears by the Formulary of the Reunions already mentioned and Decree of the Council of Florence wherein was used only the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in Greek and Confioi in Latin YET we must not imagine but that judicious Persons amongst the Latins and especially those that had the Government in their Hands saw well enough the Difference between these general Expressions of the Greeks and the precise and determinate ones of the Roman Church That learned Man I mentioned in the seventh Chapter of the foregoing Book who was consulted on the Articles which the Russians in Poland proposed in order to their Reunion with the Roman Church amongst which was this that they should not be obliged to Celebrate Corpus Christi Feast nor carry about the Sacrament in Procession answered That as to what concern'd the Procession it was not a Thom. a Jesu Lib. 6. p. 3. c. 3. matter to stick at but there were things of greater Importance to be considered touching the Sacrament De processione infesto corporis non laborarem multa tamen circa hoc Sacramentum examinanda sunt And therefore when particular Persons amongst the Greeks imbrace the Roman Religion the usual terms of their Church are not counted sufficient but they are made to understand distinctly the substantial Conversion and to receive the term of Transubstantiation as we already offered in the Procession of Faith they are obliged to make Hence proceed all those Efforts since so long a time to introduce insensibly amongst the Greeks this Belief by means of false Greeks as appears by the Example of that Monk mentioned by Mr. Basire who had slily insinuated the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in his Catechism and was censured for it by the rest When the Scholars of the Seminaries are sent into Greece to live amongst the Schismaticks and procure the establishment of the Roman Religion they are made to sign the Confession of Faith I now mentioned which expresly denotes Transubstantiation So likewise is their Language far different from that of the real Greeks as appears by the Example of the great Paysius Ligaridius and the terrible Baron of Spartaris And this is evident in the Greeks that imbrace the Romish Religion for they speak not as others nor as they did themselves before their Conversion as I already instanced in Bessarion Emanuel Calecas and John Plusiadene IT is the Latins great Interest not to dispute against the Greeks on all the Points wherein the two Churches differ And therefore they give in charge to the Emissaries to use the greatest Caution in handling Controversies It is sometimes expedient to fall upon Controversies say's Possevin but they must be Possevin Bibl. select l. 5. c. 24. warily and moderately handled Neither must a Man mention any of these five Articles which were heretofore the principal ones and which the Synod of Florence and Gennadius handled For now the Controversies of the Azyme and Eucharist are no longer agitated neither in Candia nor any other of the Eastern Parts And therefore these
Points cannot again be received without giving just Offence As to the Article of the Procession of the Holy Spirit there are few that understand it and should it again be controverted 't is likely 't would happen that those who were ignorant of it before would after Inquiry into that pass over to other things THE Latins greatest Interest then consists in two things the first to subject the Greeks by any means to the Roman See and th' other insensibly to change the ancient from of their Religion and slily introduce amongst them the Doctrines and Rites of the Latin Church To accomplish the first of these the Latins act and yield every thing as far as the Honour of their Church will permit them and according as they find fewer or more Difficulties Mr. Arnaud himself has discovered something of this when he told us that in the Council of Constantinople held under Emanuel Comnenus The Latins only required Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 910. of the Greeks that they should mention the Pope's Name in their publick Prayers acknowledg his Supremacy and the right of Appeals to him the rest at that time being not regarded We have likewise seen that Michael Paleologus perswaded his Bishops to Imbrace the Union seeing there were no more required of them than these three Points Yet the Article touching the Holy Spirit was so ancient and famous a Difference between them that 't was a hard matter to reunite therein and take no notice of it and we find the Greeks themselves mentioned it because it had been one of the chief Causes of their Separation The Latins then not being able to pass over this Point in Silence offered the Greeks sometimes that provided they received this Doctrine in their Belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son they might keep their Symbol as it was without expresly adding the Filioque And this the Popes Legats who were at Nice after the taking of Constantinople told them as from him according to Mr. Arnaud's Relation Lib. 3. c. 2. The Pope say they will not constrain the Greeks to add this Clause expresly in the Symbol when they shall sing it in the Church And it was upon this Condition that the Reunion was made in the Council of Florence But when the Latins saw a more favourable Occasion they extended their Pretensions farther and changed their Custom as will appear by what I am now going to say Nicholas the III sent Legats into Greece to the Emperor Michael Paleologus to solicit him to oblige his Patriarch and Prelates to make their Profession of Faith which they had not yet made and renounce their Schism The Emperor earnestly besought the Pope to leave the Symbol untouched and not oblige the Greeks to sing it with the addition of the Filioque to prevent all Tumults But Michael being known to be a Prince devoted for his interest to the Roman Church and therefore might be easily prevailed on the Pope gave order to his Legats to answer him touching this Article as follows That the Unity of the Catholick Faith permits not Diversity in its Confessions either in the Act of Profession or in the Chaunt or any particular Declaration of Allat de Perp Consâl 2. c. 15. Faith Much less was this to be suffered in the publick singing of the Creed wherein Uniformity ought especially to appear in as much as this Chant comes often in their Service Wherefore adds he the Church of Rome has determin'd and resolved that the Creed shall be sung in Conformity as well by the Greeks as Latins with this addition of the Filioque The Greeks were not so rigorously dealt withal at Nice nor Florence The Unity of Faith suffered under Gregory the IX and Eugenus the IV what it could not bear under Nicholas the III Which is as much as to say that the Faith yields as oft as need requires to this great Interest of submitting the Greeks to the See of Rome The Greeks are complyed withal when it cannot be helpt and the Spirit of Domination becomes Master of that of the Dispute AS to the second Interest which consists in changing insensibly the Religion of the Greeks and slily insinuating the Doctrine and Rites of the Roman Church in its stead it appears from the Course they take that this is the Design of the Latins It is for this purpose that Seminaries have been set up at Rome and other places and the whole East long since orespread with Emissaries It is in order to this that the Emissaries apply themselves to the converting of the Greek Bishops and instructing of Youth in the Roman Religion under pretence of teaching them the Tongues and Philosophy And 't is for this end likewise that the Scholars of the Seminaries are entertained and sent into Greece they have the Liberty to receive Orders from the Hands of schismatical Bishops and the Bishopricks are indeavoured to be filled with them and they are sometimes promoted to Patriarchates It is clear that in taking this Course they have no need to dispute it out with ' em IT will not I suppose be amiss to observe here what Thomas a Jesu who wrote a Book touching the means for the Converting of Infidels Hereticks and Schismaticks tells us is the ready way to convert all Greece to the Catholick Faith His Holiness say's he who is so vigilant for the Salvation of Souls Lib. 6. c. 4. must take care that as soon as ever the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople becomes void to pitch upon one of the Scholars of the Seminaries or Monks who have taken upon them Ecclesiastical Charges in Grece He must choose one whom he thinks most fitting and give him notice thereof but as privately as may be lest the Greeks come to know 't is he that gives him the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople Elects and Confirms him Patriarch For this effect his Holyness must order him to betake himself to Constantinople where he will find Ambassadors already prepared by his Holyness who by the Presents they shall make the Turk on whom the Election and Confirmation of the Patriarch depends altho unjustly will obtain by adding something to the usual Tribute that he command the Greeks to choose for their Patriarch him whom his Holiness shall design They will no sooner demand this than obtain it for Mony will make the Tyrant do any thing as appears by the little Difficulty he makes of taking away the Patriarchal Dignity from those that have it already Moreover there ought to be no scruple made of this as if it were a kind of Simony For this is not a setting the Patriarchate upon Sale seeing his Holyness has already given it Money is only made use of to remove some Difficulties Now Divines are unanimous in their Opinions that we may free our selves from Vexations and Obstructions by means of Money Neither can it be alledged that hereby the Metropolitains will be deprived of their right of
are so truly and not falsly So thâs Profession of Faith then means no more than this that we must believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord but really and truly altho God only knows how they are changed or what kind of Change happens to them Now this supposes on one hand that they are still Bread and Wine and on the other that we must not proceed so far as to a change of Substance MR. Arnaud then advertises the World to no purpose That these kind of Writings are design'd to represent the General Publick and Universal Sentiments of the Church and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors That they contain an P. 246. Exact Precise and Plain way of Speaking without Figure or Metaphor their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith It is easy to turn these Remarks against himself For seeing these kind of Writings speak Precisely and Exactly he ought to shew us Distinctly and Exactly the Conversion of Substances contained in them And seeing it is not to be found in them and yet this Profession of Faith represents the General Publick and Universal Sentiment of the Greek Church It follows that this Publick General and Universal Sentiment is not Transubstantiation TO little Purpose likewise does he add That the Church would not have the P. 247. Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ but only his Figure indued with their Virtue This is not the Point the Question is to know whether they were taught the Conversion of Substances which is what he ought to show but this he will be never able to do For for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is what is precisely contain'd in this Profession of Faith is not as as I have already said the teaching the Conversion of Substances Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks asserted the Eucharist to be a Figure And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it it is true by this Profession of Faith but we prove it by other Testimonies which are so plain and expressive that Mr. Arnaud can give no solid Answer to them THERE only remain now of all those pretended Proofs of Mr. Arnaud some Passages out of Cabasilas Bishop of Thessalonica Simeon Bishop also of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and some other Greek Authors They all say near upon the same thing which is That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ This very Body and Blood That they are changed into this Body and Blood But Mr. Arnaud must disabuse himself once for all touching the Thoughts he has that from these kind of Expressions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances For so far are we from granting this Conclusion to be good that we pretend we have Reason to draw a contrary Consequence In effect 1st There is nothing more usual in Authors than to say That the Poor are Jesus Christ even Christ himself that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ that we are changed into Jesus Christ changed into his Body transformed into him changed into his Flesh and such like ways of speaking Examples of which are infinite It is then a great Abuse to pretend these Terms are to be understood in a Sence of Identity and substantial Conversion as they term it For as I said elsewhere these Expressions being lyable to be Expounded in divers particular Sences and seeing they may be taken in a general and indistinct one there can be no Reason for the taking them in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them II. THE Conversion of the Substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Christ does of it self form so precise and distinct a Sence that when Authors would assert it they explain it in clear and distinct Terms which answer the distinct determinate Conception they have of it Whence it follows that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the same Belief as the Roman Church they would explain themselves so clearly that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris nor Paysius Ligaridius nor yet to the six Syrian Priests to make us understand it FOR whilst he produces no other kind of Passages but such as these we shall have still Reason to conclude from hence that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because if they did believe it they would without doubt speak otherwise of it III. BUT supposing these Reasons Invalid we have shewed when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks in what Sence they understand these Expressions In effect if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins and throly comprehend what they hold in common and wherein they differ we shall easily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophism for whatsoever he alledges from Greek Authors respects this Equivocal part of their Hypothesis which he believed to be like that of the Latins altho at bottom 't is not so but he has studiously avoided the relating any thing concerning this other Part by which the two Hypothesis's distinguish themselves and vary from one another The Greeks and Latins agree in these general Expressions The Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ it becomes the very Body the proper Body the real Body of Christ They are not two Bodies but one Body So far you see they hold the same Language BUT go farther ask them whether the nature of Bread ceases to be The Latins answer there remains nothing of its Substance nor Matter nor inward Form but only the Accidents The Greeks on the contrary say That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity that from this Union results one composed of two Natures that there is made a Composition of Bread and the Holy Spirit Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ They Answer by the Conversion of its whole Substance into the Substance which this Body had before the Conversion The Greeks on the contrary say the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord and is made by this means his Body Ask them what Change the Bread receives the Latins say it is a real Transubstantiation that is to say the change of one Substance into another The Greeks on the contrary answer that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives and that it is changed into the Supernatural Virtue of Christ's Body Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body the very Body the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary They answer 't is because in effect the same numerical Substance without any Difference The Greeks on the contrary say that 't is because an Augmentation makes not another Body
Advertisement lest he should accuse me of Dulness I shall venture again humbly to offer the Doubts wherewith common Sence furnishes me after Consultation with it against his pretended Solution 1st It seems to me to contain all the Characters of a Mind perplext and tormented with Study how to extricate it self out of a Difficulty through which it can find no natural Passage What relation has the Ideas of Concupiscence the Philosophy of the Thomists Cartesians Coperniciens with the Discourse of these good Greek Bishops who lived in the eighth Century and who without doubt had none of this Philosophy in their Heads Who can Imagine that their Expressions which are plain and simple should be grounded on the Model of these twofold Languages that is to say on an Observation which scarcely ever any Person before thought of so remote are these twofold Languages from the Sight and common Use of the World In truth I could never imagine the Ideas of Concupiscence the dead Bodies of the Thomists nor the Impressions or Automates of the Carthesians and Copernicus his Systems should ever be brought into our Dispute to decide the Question whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not II. WHAT likelyhood is there that Bishops assembled in Council whose Words were to regulate the Peoples Faith and whom it behooved moreover to speak discreetly having Adversaries at their Backs should lay aside the Style of Religion if we believe Mr. Arnaud to take up that of Sence which Religion condemns That they should call the Eucharist without any Necessity a Matter and Substance of Bread considering it even after Consecration without adding to it either any Exposition or Mollification and expose themselves so imprudently to the Reproaches of their Enemies from whom they could expect no Favour nor Support and who waited for an Occasion to render them Odious to the People III. BUT how came it to pass their Adversaries who that they might censure them touching the Term of Image dared assert contrary to the Truth that none of the Fathers gave the Term of Image to the Eucharist after Consecration were so mild and favourable as to pardon them of Substance of Bread were their Faith in effect that of the Church of Rome that it is no longer the Substance of Bread Did they do this upon the account of the Thomists dead Bodies the Cartesians Automates or Corpernicus his System IV. IF we examine these Instances of a twofold Language which Mr. Arnaud proposes we shall find they are all Defective either in respect of themselves or in the Application he makes of them It is not true Religion absolutely teaches that what we call Goods are real Evils and that our Evils are real Goods nor that it turns Felicity into Misery Riches into Poverty Poverty into Riches Wisdom into Folly Prudence into Imprudence and Knowledg into Ignorance Religion teaches that these things are in Effect and in themselves what we term them because they are either Blessings and God's temporal Favours or Chastisements and Afflictions which come from his Hand and so far its Language agrees very well with the usual Speech of Men. But it also shews us that these things change their Name and Nature by the good or bad Use which is made of them that Riches become real Poverty Happiness Misery Wisdom Folly Prudence Imprudence and Science Ignorance to the Vicious who corrupt these Gifts of God and change their natural Destination that Afflictions likewise become Benefits Poverty Riches Misery Felicity to a Virtuous Person and one that fears God If Concupiscence would oppose it self against this Language and speak otherwise Religion will not let her So that the double Language that there is in respect of these things is grounded not on the Ideas of Concupiscence but on Truth it self When we call Riches Goods and Afflictions Evils we consider what they are in their own Nature and when we call them otherwise we consider 'em in relation to what they are by Accident These two Languages agree very well and they are both proper and true the Ideas of Concupiscence having no part therein Besides Religion moreover considers temporal Goods and Evils either absolutely in themselves or by Comparison with Spiritual Goods and Evils In the first respect it tells us that these are Goods and Evils as they are in effect In the second she can hardly give them that Name because they are not considerable in comparison of eternal Goods or Evils If Concupiscence opposes it self against this Language and speaks otherwise Religion restrains Her It is then certain that the double Language is grounded on various Respects and is ever true But it is not the same with the Point in hand For supposing Transubstantiation we cannot in any respect call the consecrated Eucharist a Substance of Bread nor say that we Offer the Substance of Bread and that the Substance of Bread is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ But Religion will Condemn these Expressions as False in every Sence and contrary to that Faith which injoyns us to believe the Substance of Bread does no longer remain To say that by the Substance of Bread is meant the bare Figure and Resemblance thereof as the Author of the Perpetuity does This cannot be for the Substance and the simple Appearance are two Terms directly opposite in the Language of Men and to say the Substance of Bread is as much as to say Real and not barely Bread in Appearance Moreover the Fathers of Constantinople compare this Substance of Bread with the Humane Substance which Christ assumed As our Lord say they took on him the Matter only or Humane Substance without the Personal Subsistence so he commanded us to Offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread which shews they took the Term of Substance in a proper Sence and not for a simple Appearance In fine they say that as the Humane Substance which Christ assumed has not the Personal Subsistence so this Substance has not the Form or Humane Figure which clearly shews that as by the Humane Substance they meant a Subject capable of having personal Subsistence so they likewise understood by the Substance used in the Eucharist a real Subject which may have a Form or humane Figure and consequently a real Substance capable of Representing an external Form and Figure TO say likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that this is the Language of Sence which is contrary to the Judgment of Faith is as much as if he had said nothing For if Faith rectified the Language of Sence it would not suffer its Expressions to be Regulated by the Falsity of their Testimony and much less in a Decree of Council whose Expressions according to Mr. Arnaud's Maxims or the Church he is of must serve for a Law to Posterity not only for well Speaking but likewise for well Believing We ought then keep to the Language of Faith not that of Sence against which we must on the contrary
for a Proof The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi into the Body of Jesus Christ or to be the Body of Jesus Christ They believe then Transubstantiation 'T is evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion there is need of Ibid. something more precise than this But say's he this is a Catholick that speaks thus and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself and the question concerns his own Faith we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist by the Body of Christ he means the proper substance of this Body for we know that this is the Sence and Style of the Roman Church But when he Discourses of the Moscovites and the question concerns their Faith we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi he pretends no more than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give ' em What Sense is that This Sacranus does not determine and to go about to decide it by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates Moscovit Religion that the Consecration is performed amongst them by pronouncing our Saviour's words and that they attribute to them so great Vertue that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator we must tell Mr. Arnaud that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation such as is this le Ferre's This Author assures us that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation that they do it by the laying on of Hands in making the sign of the Cross and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People which they do not only every Sunday but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate as being Christ's Vicar and St. Peters Successor That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins This is all false as appears by other Relations of these People Possevin Com. 2. de reb Mosc And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors which are counted fabulous because say's he they have been mis-informed or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom to apply thereunto a Remedy What signifies then such peoples Testimony NOT to take notice that these Terms The Creature gives place to the Creator are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses For when we should say with Theodoret that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature or with St. Austin that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament or with the Greeks that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body the Creature will still give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 't is invalid and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre was to make the World believe that the Moscovites hold this Doctrine so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority as Lasicius has done do take it no otherwise Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's he would have found it full of false Reports and easily find his Authors main Design was to render the Moscovite Religion as Conformable as he could to the Roman and by this means to deceive his Readers and especially the Protestants whom he had at that time in his Eye He would then have absolutely rejected the Authority of such a Man who has palpably disguised the Truth He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question Ferre's Sence from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves supposing they were their own Words But this he has not done altho he ought to have done it and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation Whence it follows we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us concerning the Religion of Strangers but it does not follow 't is true in the main that the Moscovites believe the Conversion of Substances WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper Persons of greater Reputation Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation They put say's Dannaverus into the Wine contained in the Chalice the Bread broken into pieces they Bless it and believe 't is Transubstantiated They hold Transubstantiation say's Mr. Olearius So that here we have two express Testimonies and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged As to Dannaverus he has only followed Olearius's Authority knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors as appears by his Treatise But as to Mr. Olearius he is a Person of great Learning and has lived in those Countries and made it his Business to be informed of this Point and who not only gives us this Account in his Book but has likewise Confirm'd it in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony and clear it from all Perplexity And this will be done by considering his own Perpe of the Faith Part 3. C. 8. Words as well in his Book as Letter Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them from the Original High-Dutch are They believe Transubstantiation that is to say that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ Those of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438. related by Mr. Arnaud I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation that is to say they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony from his private
Judgment and you 'l clear the Difficulty His Testimony is that the Moscovites believe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has denoted by these Terms which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation which he signifies by these following words They hold Transubstantiation SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own persawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say They hold Transubstantiation says he that is to say the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood THIS that is to say explains what he means and punctually determines what the Moscovites hold If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing his Proposition must be received in its full extent if they are not the Change belongs to the Moscovites the Transubstantier to the private sence of M. Olearius We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity but as to his particular Judgement we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry Neither had he any reason to be offended Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8. at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity That 't is very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures and that having heard of the change of Bread he imagined this was the change of Substance which is the same thing I say now The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Justice will allow me I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions which agree not well with the Character he bears and which I suppose he has learned of the barbarous People he has so long conversed with Why would he have us believe the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins seeing we find on the contrary that this is the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the Greeks of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant the Greeks say the Bread is changed the Moscovites affirm the same the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation he adds that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ but even in this he is mistaken for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecrated and called the Body of Jesus Christ and not the Remains of the consecrated Bread BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject 'T is the Testimony of an Honorable Person who lived a considerable time in those parts and since M. Olearius who wanted neither Judgment Sincerity nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people in reference to Transubstantiation without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self as having no other design then that of Relat. of the Ambas of M. Carlile discovering the Truth Moreover says he I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions namely that they hold Transubstantiation and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion For first when we discourse with them touching the Consequences of this Doctrine they testifie their dislike of it and to maintain it fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do 2. 'T is more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation they would respect this Mystery more than they do and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome In fine had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whether he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius but having already considered it in the foregoing Book we shall trouble our selves no farther with him 'T is not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose 'T is certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome and sworn to observe it's Confession of Faith but sent on purpose to communicate it to others prevailing by means of their Ignorance whether soever they be whether in Muscovia or Greece their Testimony shall not be wanting But every body knows the Value of them Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest that accompanied not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France who after Dinner as 't is say'd at the Arch-Bishop of Sens was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucharist There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation but not to enter into particulars I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith or knows the Religion professed in other Countries These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use
Eutyches and Dioscorus and Severus and Timotheus Aylurus and in general all those that have opposed this Council This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council much less in his Church But 't is likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour and which occasioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church but his own particular for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation a mis-understanding or at most but a question concerning words which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions IT appears then from what I have said that Eutymius and Isaac were neither Impostors nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so certain now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins that is to say the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose CHAP. III. The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question and needs not to be confirmed by others yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Transubstantiation nor the real presence THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms The Guido Carmel suma de Heres de Her Arm. Cap. 12. Twenty second Error says he of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pronounced on the Bread and Wine the Body of Jesus Christ is truly and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood but established them only as a resemblance and figure And in another place Arguing against their Opinion The Armenians says he have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass to wit and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ They thus expound them the true Body that is to say the true resemblance of the Body but this exposition will not pass because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ as the Image of a Man is not a real Man Man is the true Image and resemblance of God but he is not true God by Nature if then this be only the resemblance and not the truth or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say it cannot be called the true Body The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony ask e'm why they can give you no other reason but this That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken 'T is indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions as a most trusty Servant and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days being Prior General also of his order Inquisitor General of the faith and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence were he not well assured of it What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22 that is to say in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys and especially Armenia Raynald ad ann 13. 18. whose King Ossinius embraced the Roman Religion receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony bethought Perp. of the faith part 3. Ch. 8. himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstantiation Despensus Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him and 't is likely he grounded himself on their testimony But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up and the Authority of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity I will not dissemble says he that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable and therefore has chose rather of his
Church or dissembled these Errors in hopes as I already say'd that in establishing their Authority in Armenia they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict The Catholick of Armenia minor say's this Article Consecrating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act in which they solemnly promise to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess or Province Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks and obey the Roman Church He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church and calls himself Pope acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46â 466. silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstantiation we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in competition with the Testimony of so many Authors who expresly affirm they deny it Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject altho the Armenians say's he promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco histor Orient cap. 79. and Roman Church when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Customs And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis But be it as it will this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia but in vain Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side and that the Armenians were in an Error and therefore ever since the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat and against the Roman Church in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy He says that Pharaoh ' s Embassadour meaning the Legat returned home with shame c. 'T is to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church yet was receiv'd in Armenia as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles WHICH considered I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissions which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII by a Bishop who in the name of the King and his Kingdom made such a profession of faith as they desired To make this a proof as Mr. Arnaud do's is either to be ignorant or dissemble the Genius of this Nation The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons that promised him whatsoever he desired but as soon as ever the danger was over and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired they made a mock at their promises as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King and Catholick of Armenia as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa The Religion say's he The Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicqfort p. 193. of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha who are Armenians by birth is the Christian together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence or acknowledge the Pope almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe moved thereunto by their extream poverty their expences in travelling and intollerable persecutions of the Turks during the continual Wars between them and the Persians have often offered to obey the Roman Church yet when this was to be concluded they have still fallen off and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Person named Gerlac who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople about an hundred years since This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople and amongst other things he tells us They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession In caena Domini verum Substantiale Corpus Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare But upon the reading of this Letter it will soon appear that this Patriarch with whom he discoursed gave him his own private sentiments and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion For he tells him that he believed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son contrary to what the Greeks hold Yet do's it appear from the constant testimony of Authors who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins So say's Guy Carmes the information of Benedict XII Prateolus Breerewood and several others and therefore the first thing Eugenius
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeââs tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
the Sacrament of the Eucharist several Passages of the Old Testament which might be easily made to point at it and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species for Accidents without a Subject of Spiritually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ of Corporeal Presence for a Presence after the manner of a Body by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism the Church the Poor the Gospel at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions Observations or Questions which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made without being obliged thereunto by Disputes Nor in a word the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another and against which I say 't is not Rational to prejudicate 'T IS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things but on the contrary predetermine in their favour seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages and this Pejudice joyning it self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more TO all which we may add that there is to speak morally a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein nor so much as questioned But 't is very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Contest touching this Article supposing she held it There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God How comes it to pass there has bin none on this There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation which could not be without some Contest on this Subject Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians Marcionites Manichees Millenaries Encratites Arians Originists Eutychiens Ascodrupites and of I know not how many others which must unavoidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity It being then certain as it is that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries 't is a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice and confirms ours MR. Arnaud will say without doubt we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger But besides that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as may be justified by several Inductions there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger Transubstantiation was established seeing 't was established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament as we have already observed 't is an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject and that even this makes the principal Point of ouâ Difference to wit whether there has hapned any change therein Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth the Question concerning the Change must be first decided for whilst we be in this Contest there can be no Consequence drawn hence It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation and at the same time to prejudicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries because 't was believed in the eleventh which is to say to draw the Principle from the Conclusion and then the Conclusion from the Principle in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Century because 't was believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth and on the other that 't was believed in the seventh and in the eighth because 't was believed in the Eleventh LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith 't is a thing we have already confuted Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine or mere Bread and Wine our Faith would not bear this Language This is not the Language of the Church But when our Senses only tell us 't is Bread and Wine this Language is in truth different from that of Faith which tells us 't is the Body of Jesus Christ but 't is not contrary to it for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it which is to say 't is real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence and without a figure That which you have seen on the Altar say's St. Augustin and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Augus serm ad Infunt Wine and this your Eyes tell you but the instruction which your Faith requires is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood So that here we have
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
great Prince whose memory will never die but how great soever he deservedly was yet is he consider'd only as a man whose body lies interred at S. Dennis in the same manner as others do Jesus Christ is the Son of God whose Body is living and glorious and hypostatically united to the Divinity Should any man then imagin that the Statue of Henry IV. is really Henry IV. I doubt not but people would look upon him as a mad man because 't would be considered according to the light of nature as a thing touching which there can be nothing that 's extraordinary and miraculous conceived which is exposed to the knowledg of all the world and wherein there 's nothing at all that 's Divine Neither do I doubt but such a dotage would be rejected as a novelty unknown to our Fore-fathers because 't would be supposed that our Fore-fathers had their sences made as ours and that in respect of natural and sensible things their judgments have been the same as ours nature ever remaining in a uniform state But neither this example nor th 'others which are like it do signifie any thing in respect of the Eucharist which is a mystery of Faith wherein all Christians agree that there 's something supernatural altho they agree not in the manner A mystery concerning which every man does not think he can safely judg much less from the principles of Sense and Reason in fine a mystery of the Son of God the knowledg of which depends on a light which is not always equal It is then manifest that neither this example nor the rest of the same rank proposed by Mr. Arnaud are pertinent NEITHER is it less clear from what I now represented that of these three manners of believing the Real Absence which Mr. Arnaud proposes there 's only the second which can be admitted into this Dispute to regulate the state of the question because the first as I have shew'd is impossible and the last can yield no advantage to the Author of the Perpeuitty's design Mr. ARNAVD may here again call to mind the solidity of the distinction which I made touching the two expressions which are very like one another as to terms but very different in sense not to believe or not to know that a thing is and to believe or know that a thing is not The first denotes a bare negation of Knowledg and the second a positive act of Knowledg and Faith which formally denies the existence of a thing Not to believe the Real Presence barely signifies that this presence is not held for an Article of Faith but to believe that the Real Presence is not signifies something more which is that a man reckons it among the Articles which he rejects The Author of the Perpetuity having said that there 's no medium The first Treatise of the Perpetuity between having a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence and having a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence I had reason to tell him that to make in this matter an immediate opposition he must make it contradictory and not contrary that is to say he ought to bring in an affirmation or the negation of the same thing and not the affirmation or positive rejection that he must say the Christians have had a distinct belief of the Real Absence or that they have not had it and not say they have had a distinct belief of the Presence or Real Absence Mr. ARNAVD calls this School-boys Philosophy But this School-boys Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag. 5. Philosophy seeing he pleases to give it this name is grounded on common sense For common sense shews us that to make an immediate opposition we must set the negative on one side and the affirmative on the other We grant says he to Mr. Claude that to speak logically we ought to oppose believing the Real Presence and not believing the Real Presence and not believing the Real Absence But I affirm that to speak rationally we may well oppose believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence which is to say that not to believe the Real Absence and to believe the Real Absence may and ought to pass for the same thing in the point in question because these two dispositions of mind have all the same effects I HAVE been ignorant till now of the distinction between speaking logically and speaking rationally for I always thought that true Logick which tends only to cultivate our reason and which explains it self clearly and intelligibly had not any other language than what was rational But not to stray from our subject if in the matter in question these two expressions not to believe the Real Presence and to believe the Real Absence must pass for one and the same thing it follows they are both of 'em equally rational at bottom Seeing then they are both of 'em equally intelligible and equally popular why did not the Author of the Perpetuity make use of the first rather than the second For the first being as it is rational intelligible and popular as well as the other it has moreover this advantage that Logick approves of it whereas she rejects the other The first expression does of it self explain justly and naturally what a man would say neither more nor less whereas the other according to Mr. Arnaud's own acknowledgment is equivocal and does not explain what 's meant but only because of the matter in question The first is liable to no contest The second is disputable Wherefore then has not Mr. Arnaud knowing them to be equivalent left the second to make use of the first He had lost nothing if it be true they both signifie one and the same thing and he had spared the pains of a new dispute For I maintain against him that neither rationally speaking nor logically these two expressions ought to pass for the same thing The first cannot produce the effect which the second produces seeing the second will make men oppose the Real Presence as an innovation which Faith rejecteth whereof the first cannot of it self work such en effect A man that is persuaded the Real Presence is a Doctrin which he ought to reject will oppose himself against it as soon as ever it shall be offer'd him A person that never heard it mention'd will easily suffer himself to be surprized when told this has been ever the Faith of the Church WHEREIN consists then you 'l say the point of our difference and what is the state of this question It may be easily gather'd from what I have now said which is to know whether the people of the 9th 10th and 11th Ages in supposing the Real Presence which was taught them that is to say the invisible substantial Presence such as the Church of Rome holds at this day for 't is on that we dispute was a novelty which yet was taught them as the ancient Faith of the Church I say the question is whether these people had notions and
prejudices in their minds which must of necessity make them reject this Doctrin as a novelty contrary to the ancient Faith even so far as to oblige 'em plainly and openly to oppose it And because these prejudices can be no other than this distinct belief That the Body of Jesus Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist neither in a visible nor invisible manner it concerns us to know whether one may rationally say in the terms of our supposition that they had this distinct belief It lies upon Mr. Arnaud to prove the affirmative and I the negative This is the true state of this question as appears from what we have seen in this Chapter But because Mr. Arnaud has so openly and plainly renounced this manner of believing the Real Absence by a formal reflection on the several kinds of presence whether visible or invisible it may be reasonably said this is no longer a matter of contest between us I grant him if he will that people have positively rejected the corporeal and visible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and that in this sense they have believed a Real Absence I grant likewise if he will that these same people were in a capacity to know that the light of nature opposes the Doctrin of the substantial and invisible Presence He grants me for his part that it does not appear they were for positively rejecting and by a formal reflection this incorporeal and invisible Presence Wherein then do we disagree 'T is clear that that which I grant him is not a sufficient disposition whence to conclude that the people would have opposed the Doctrin of the invisible Presence as a novelty unknown to the Church For for to believe that Jesus Christ is not visibly and corporally present in the Eucharist this does not hinder but that a man may embrace the opinion of the incorporeal Presence and so likewise to know that the light of nature does not well agree with this invisible Presence this does not hinder men from being deceived by imagining 'tis a mystery of Faith which the Church has always believed and touching which a man must not consult his sense or reason It is no less clear that what Mr. Arnaud grants me is sufficient to conclude that the people here mention'd had no distinct knowledg of the Real Presence in the sense in which the Roman Church believes it neither to admit it nor reject it and consequently they had no necessary disposition to oppose it when 't was first taught them For as to this general rejection we have shew'd it to be chimerical and impossible The question is then decided but in my favour seeing the result of all these illustrations is that the change which we suppose has been possible Yet if Mr. Arnaud will obstinately maintain this general manner of believing the Real Absence which denies every kind of substantial Presence without particularising any one of them altho we have shew'd him 't is fantastical and contrary to nature yet I say we will consent that the question be this Whether the people before-mentioned ought according to our supposition formally and generally to deny all the several sorts of substantial presences of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whatsoever they be without specifying any one of them But this is what he has still to prove CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's Proceedings Consider'd His unjust Reproaches also Examin'd SAINT Austin describing the humor and carriage of some persons in his time with whom he was concern'd observes they were very copious and eloquentin censuring the sentiments of others but flat and dull in establishing their own opinions Ipsos says he animadvertebam plus Aug. de Utilit Cred. c. 1. in refellendis aliis disertos copiosos esse quam in suis probandis certos firmos manere Methinks the same may be said of Mr Arnaud For he troubles not himself with proving either the propositions he advances nor those of the Author of the Perpetuity and is never more busied than in censuring the opinions of others So greatly is he in love with this kind of proceeding that he scruples not many times to quit his principal subject and fall upon any accidental one provided 't will but furnish him with a pretence to make objections nay sometimes he shall start fancies of his own on purpose to give himself this divertisement Yet we must needs confess he has some reason to do thus having a peculiar tallent of ridiculing the most solid mattters for sometimes he tells me of having private Dictionaries to my self other times of Keys and Machines rhetorical Enthusiasms and a thousand other pretty fancies which take with his Readers and give him together with the benefit of some slight objections and declamations thereupon the liberty of breaking loose through the strongest Arguments AN example whereof may be seen in this Dispute of the distinct knowledg of the Real Presence or Real Absence For after the illustrations which we have given in the preceding Chapter 't is easie to find that Mr. Arnaud ought to establish this Proposition that if the people of the 9th and 10th Centuries had not found themselves imbued with the distinct belief of the Real invisible Presence they would have distinctly believed the Real invisible Absence at least in a general manner that is to say they would have formally rejected every kind of substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist yet without specifying ever a one of them in particular He himself acknowledges that the Author of the Perpetuity would be understood to speak of this general manner of believing distinctly the Real Absence so that it cannot be but the Readers must be in expectation of what he alledges for the confirming this Hypothesis But they will find themselves much mistaken for instead of applying himself to strengthen it by new Arguments or to maintain the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity in restraining them to the time in question he has rather chosen to employ the rest of his sixth Book in examining the state of the people of the first six Centuries not that 't was necessary to enter upon this examination seeing these Ages are out of the bounds of our Dispute touching the change But seeing he would only refute the five ranks of persons whom I supposed to be in the Church before the opinion of the Real Presence appeared refute them I say in reference to the eight first Centuries to have thence occasion to multiply his objections I may with good reason be dispensed withal from following him for to speak properly 't is mere running into fruitless debates Yet to omit nothing I will still patiently hearken to what he has to say on this subject Before I enter upon the discussion of his particular objections against my five ranks of persons 't will not be amiss to examin some of his general ones for we must endeavour to satisfie him in all
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
otherwise 't is very possible that people will suffer themselves to be deceived when told the Church has ever believed such a Presence especially when they shall hear several passages out of the Fathers on this subject alledged in a counter sense Moreover if Mr. Arnaud imagins I meant to acknowledg of my own head that one may call the disposition of these persons who believe Jesus Christ corporally present in Heaven without considering what has been said since of his Presence in Heaven and on Earth at the same time there visibly here invisibly believing the Real Absence he is grosly mistaken For what I said was out of condescention and supposition and not absolutely which is to say that in case the Author of the Perpetuity pretended only this I would not dispute with him about an expression In effect if we are agreed touching the thing I 'll never make war with him upon the account of terms Mr. ARNAVD is no less mistaken when he accused me for making an illusory answer to the Author of the Perpetuity The business is that this Author said that if the change which we pretend were true There First Treatise of the Perpetuity page 37. must have been of necessity a time wherein the belief of the Real Presence has been so mixt with that of the Real Absence that there were half of the Bishops Priests and People who held the one and the other half that held the other To this I answer'd That in the times of the greatest ignorance even Answer to the first Treatise page 12. in the 11th Century I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of persons in the Body of the visible Church the one profane and worldly persons who kept themselves at a distance from these Disputes others ignorant ones who contented themselves with knowing in general the Eucharist to be the memorial of Christs Passion and that they receive therein his Body and Blood these holding the true Faith in a degree of confused knowledg The third of those that held the true Faith in a degree of distinct knowledg and rejected the substantial Presence And the fourth of those that had embraced the Opinion of this Presence And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illusion Whereas I affirm this answer is pertinent for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church 't is ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two But says Mr. Arnaud the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time before Berenger and you speak of the time that followed him I answer that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time of the chimerical Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. growth through which the belief of the Real Presence hath necessarily passed according to the imagination of the Calvinists And thus doth he formally explain himself And I speak of the time wherein Error made its greatest progress in the greatest progress of error These are my words So far there 's nothing mis-understood we speak both of us concerning the same time But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppose the Real Presence But says moreover Mr. Arnaud the whole Church Page 562. had already passed over into the belief of the Real Presence before Berenger ' s time and Aubertin himself acknowledges as much Which is what I deny and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof The greatest progress of the Real Presence was then when Berenger declaring himself against it Paschasius his Disciples maintain'd it by Disputes so that this is precisely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated THESE are the first objections of Mr. Arnaud after which he divides what he calls my System into three parts or times The first says he comprehends Page 563. the first eight Ages and the five ranks whereof it consists The second contains two Centuries and an half which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Ministers And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger 'T is certain that of these three times there was only the second as I already said to speak properly necessary to be examin'd touching the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight first Centuries have had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Church of Rome takes these terms yet did I acknowledg there was then light enough in the Church whereby to reject the Opinion of this sort of Presence had it appear'd so that it does not seem 't was greatly necessary to dispute concerning these Ages wherein we do not say the change was made and which we suppose to have been different from those which followed Yet seeing Mr. Arnaud will needs have 'em brought into the Dispute I am willing to treat of them I THEN reckon'd in the Church five sorts of persons who had no distinct Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap. 3. knowledg of the Real Presence neither to reject nor admit it without comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded persons and grounded my division on this reason That 't is not possible in this great diversity of conditions and humors of men to reduce them all either to one and the same measure of knowledg or to the same form of action THE first rank is of those who conceiv'd these two terms the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament under the notion which their senses gave them for whether 't was call'd Bread or by any other name the idea they form'd thereof was such as their eyes represented them with They conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ after the manner which the Gospel speaks of it as a body and flesh like unto that which we have born of a Virgin united to the Eternal Word hanging on the Cross risen and taken up into Glory and in a word under the idea which Religion gives us of it The idea of the Sacrament served to make them pass on to that of the Body but they stopt there and made not a particular reflection thereon how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ Their devotion being content with the use which they made of the Sacrament unto which they were assisted by this formulary of Communion Corpus Christi they proceeded not so far as that question THE second rank is of those who proceeded to the question How this visible Bread this subject call'd Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ but finding a great deal of inconsistency in the terms their minds stopt at the single difficulty without undertaking to solve it THE third is of those who going as far as the question proceeded as far as the solution but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we
Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us we receive the Body of Jesus Christ and such like If a man considers each term of these in particular they naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they ordinarily and commonly signifie the Bread that of Bread the Body of Jesus Christ that of the Body of Jesus Christ is that of an affirmation changed that of a change enter and receive that of an entrance and reception But the sense which results from these terms collected being determin'd by the matter in hand can be naturally no other than a mystical sense to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the sign the pledg the memorial of the Body of Jesus Christ that it serves us instead of it that 't is mystically chang'd into this Body that this Body enters into us by its symbol that we receive and partake of it by a spiritual reception and participation This is the true and natural sense of these expressions and that which first presents it self to the mind by reason of the matter in hand NEITHER the truth of my Principle nor the truth of the application which I make of it can be disputed me The Principle is that when the matter in question determins the propositions to a certain sense which they may reasonably receive then we must not seek for the natural sense of these propositions in the natural signification of each term taken apart but from the matter it self and that the sense to which the matter determins them is the simple and natural sense This Principle may be justifi'd by a thousand examples drawn from the ordinary use of human speech in which is made every moment propositions which would be sensless did not a man take the natural sense of the matter in question Each Art and Profession has also its particular expressions which would be as so many extravagancies were they not understood according as the matter determins them and this is in my opinion what no one can contradict Th' application which I make of this Principle is no less undeniable for 't is true that the expressions of the Fathers on the Eucharist are determin'd to a certain sense by the very nature of the Eucharistical action which is a Sacrament or a mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Seeing then their expressions are capable of receiving a Sacramental and mystical sense it must be granted that that is the natural sense THE natural sense of a proposition is that which may be most naturally in the mind of him that made it but to judg well of it we must consider the matter and see whether it has not led them to explain themselves in this manner Now it will be granted me that the question here being about signs or mystical symbols and a Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ men have more naturally in their thoughts the mystical and Sacramental sense than that of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation BUT besides this distinction which respects the expressions both in themselves and in relation to those that have used them there must be made another which regards the persons to whom these expressions are addressed For there are some that have small knowledg of the matter in hand which know only confusedly what a Sacrament or mystery is who have made little reflection on the manner after which our Lord communicates himself to us in the Eucharist and there are others that have this knowledg more distinct and better form'd Now it being the matter or subject in hand that determins the sense of these expressions 't is certain they are more or less clear more or less intelligible according as this matter is more or less understood by every one But 't is likewise certain that to mark well the natural sense of 'em we must suppose persons who have a distinct knowledg of the subject in question and manner after which the Church has expressed her self about it and not ignorant persons that have only a very obscure notion of it The natural sense of th' expressions of each Art and each Profession is without doubt not that in which those may take it who have scarcely any knowledg of this Art or this Profession but that wherein intelligent and able persons take it and 't is for this reason the later are consulted rather than the others upon any difficulty I confess Religion ought to be the Art and Profession of the whole world but men are neither wise nor honest enough to apply themselves exactly to it It cannot be deny'd but there have been always many persons in the Church little advanced in the knowledg of the mystery of the Gospel 'T is not from them then that we must learn the natural sense of the expressions of the Fathers They might have been the object of their Faith tho not of their Understanding I mean they might believe 'em to be true without diving into the sense of 'em and knowing what they signifie And this is the meaning of S. Austin in his Sermon to Children What ye see says he is Bread and Wine which your eyes likewise tell you but the instruction which your Faith demands is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup or that which is in the Cup his Blood This is said in a few words and perhaps this little is sufficient to Faith but Faith desires to be instructed for the Prophet says If ye do not believe how will you understand Ye may reply seeing you have commanded us to believe explain to us what that is to the end we may understand it Whilst these persons remain in this degree of Faith without understanding 't is not to them we must address our selves for the finding out the natural sense of the propositions of the Fathers seeing they do not understand ' em We must desire this of them that are more advanced in knowledg who know what the Church means by these ways of speaking and can give a good account of the natural impression they make on their minds BUT who are these people They are those that learn'd from the Fathers themselves what a Sacrament or Mystery is who knew that a Mystery or Sacrament is when we see a thing and understand and believe another who knew that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are signs images figures memorials representations resemblances pictures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the Bread and Wine are to us instead of the Body and Blood that Jesus Christ is signified and communicated to us by means of these symbols and that in partaking of this visible Bread we spiritually eat our Lords Flesh who knew that the signs take commonly the names of the things which they represent that the Sacraments are called after the name of the things themselves that our
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
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
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
exceeding strange that so many Bishops Priests and Religious should so suddenly renounce their former Opinions and embrace contrary ones without any Divisions amongst ' em But 't is yet strange they should change 'em without perceiving it without acknowledging they had made great and considerable Innovations in their Church and comparing their first and ancient Faith with this new one For 't is certain that in respect of all these Articles which are in contest the Greeks positively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing If this change was wrought by succession of time let us be shew'd the Disputes and Divisions they have had amongst 'em since on these Articles they have separated from the Church of Rome till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins which is to say during above two hundred and fifty years If it be alledg'd the change was made insensibly we must return to the four times of the Author of the Perpetuity and apply to 'em the same difficulties and objections he has raised IN fine if we suppose a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions yet mutually bearing with one another without proceeding to an express condemnation of the contrary Opinions besides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful could suffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith Besides this I say 't will be demanded how they could change so suddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles holding 'em before for unnecessary points and afterwards for necessary ones respecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors and afterwards respecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones whereupon one may make the same questions how it could come to pass that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Eucharist of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheless the true Body of Jesus Christ an object of supreme Adoration and in another that 't was only a dead Azym a Jewish abomination that she should respect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God and at another immediately succeeding the first which is to say from night to morning regard it with horror washing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted WE may apply the same questions and difficulties to the Armenians Jacobites Coptics Nestorians in reference to several of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot shew the original nor tell us after what manner they were dispersed amongst these people nor how they have left the contrary opinions which the Church of Rome still holds as being of Apostolical Tradition How has it hapned for instance that the Nestorians have left the use of Confirmation and that of Extreme Unction that the Jacobites have left that of Confession and the belief of Purgatory that the Coptics have laid aside the Doctrin of Purgatory and use of Extreme Unction and so of the rest For Mr. Arnaud I think would have me suppose that according to him these points have been heretofore held and practis'd by all Christians THESE examples do clearly discover the vanity of these pretended moral impossibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged with such great exaggeration For they may be all as strongly applied to the changes which have hapned in these Eastern Churches and yet it must be granted that these changes hapned there Mr. Arnaud may argue as long as he pleases start questions and raise difficulties these insensible changes are more than possible for they are come to pass either in these Churches or in the Latin which has Opinions and contrary Customs which shews that these Gentlemens whole Philosophy is but a mere Speculation proper only for persons that abound with leisure which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world BUT in short the use which is made of the Seminaries and Missions and the course which the Emissaries take in the East as we have observ'd in the second Book with the project of Thomas à Jesu to make in a short time all the Greeks good Roman Catholicks according as I have related in the fourth Book all this I say shews clearly that at Rome and elsewhere amongst the most zealous it is not at all accounted impossible to introduce insensibly and without disturbance the Doctrins of the Romish Church amongst people that have 'em not and in effect it must be granted that their present labors are not unsuccessful and that time will probably finish the work CHAP. VIII That Paschasus Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and Conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections Answered WE must come now to particular matters of fact which relate to the History of the Change Not but to speak truly this difcussion appears to me very needless considering what we have already done For if the principal question which respects the novelty of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence be ended and moreover there results from our Dispute that the change was possible and that there 's nothing more vain than the objections which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have made on this subject I see not any necessity there is of informing a man's self in what manner this change hapned What matter is it to us who was the first Author of this Innovation who the promoters of it what facilities or difficulties were met with in the establishing of these Doctrins whether Paschasus carried on his business with craft or simplicity whether John Scot Bertram and Raban wrote against him before or after his death What signifies the knowing of these things provided we are certain not only that the change in question was possible but actually hapned And this does now appear so plainly as will satisfie every rational man In examining Mr. Arnaud's 6th and 9th Book we have made it appear that his pretended impossibilities are mere chimera's And as to the actual change besides that we shall always have right to take it for granted by our proofs of fact which is to say by the passages of the Fathers which we have cited till Mr. Arnaud and his friends have taken pains to answer 'em solidly besides this I say what I shewed concerning the Eastern Churches not holding the Doctrins in question neither in the 11th nor following Centuries and the Greeks and Latins not knowing 'em in the 7th and 8th Century is more than sufficient for the concluding that these Doctrins are not of the first establishment of Christian Religion and consequently that their introduction is an innovation Yet will I not desist from examining the points of History which respect this change because this change is indeed the first and principal subject of the Dispute
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
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
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
united to the Son of God and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul and dis-united hypostatically from the Word Believe me a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind to be guilty of these kind of fooleries But if these persons of the 9th Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote believed in effect all these matters how happens it there 's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages nor the following ones and that to establish this fact to wit that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which is in Heaven is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius BUT you will say how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Paschasus and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions Bertram declares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure nor under any vail but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest He makes to himself the questions Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful be made as a mystery or as a truth which is to say Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense And in the second place Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and died Paschasus on the other hand declares That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly and teaches that one is the figure of the other Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense Bertram takes it in another Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself For having proposed two questions in the terms which we have seen he adds Let us examin the first of these questions and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure and what by truth to the end that having something that is certain before our eyes we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow The figure is a kind of shadow which by means of some vails shews us what it proposes to shew us As for example when we would signifie the Word we call it Bread as in the Lords Prayer where we ask our daily bread or as our Saviour says in the Gospel I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven Thus does he call himself a Vine and his Disciples the Branches I am says he the true Vine and you are the Branches In all which there is one thing said and another signified The truth on the contrary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow image or vail it being discovered by simple and natural expressions there being nothing to be understood but what is contained in the terms 'T is not the same in these other examples for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread or Vine nor the Apostles Branches Here then we have a figure but in the last examples the truth is uttered in plain and open terms Now to apply this to the things in question to wit the Body and Blood of Christ Were this mystery celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery for one cannot call that a mystery wherein there is nothing secret nothing remote from the corporal senses nor hid under any vail Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest shews another thing outwardly to the senses and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful Outwardly one discovers the form of Bread its colour and savour such as it was before But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly a divine and heavenly thing to wit the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented and 't is not by the corporal senses but by the spiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered taken and eaten He says the same of the Vine and concludes seeing no body can deny but this is so 't is manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is a figurative locution like in some sort to these others in the Gospel where our Lord is called Bread a Vine and his Apostles Branches Now 't is precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a figure When our Saviour says he brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples Câmment in Mat. 26. he does not say that this or there is in this mystery a certain virtue or a figure of my Body but he says plainly This is my Body And a little lower I marvail at some peoples saying 't is a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the Body And in his Letter to Frudegard Sacramentum Corporis Christi Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas quod ipsa veritas repromisit which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions to wit of the Birth Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour These things says he which our Saviour did as God and Man be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith and yet are they nothing but the truth altho they be called Sacraments And he afterstards makes this objection These things being mysteries cannot to wit in this quality be either seen or toucht and consequently this is not a Body and if it be not a Body they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety
that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise people raise or depress 'em according as their interests and designs require according as they oppose or favour their Opinions First Mr. Arnaud assures us that I falsified the words of the Author of the Chap. 6. Perpetuity Secondly He says I expounded his intentions according to my own fancy Thirdly He will not allow I had any reason to draw from his words compared with these of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the conclusion which I drew thence We must satisfie him in these three points AS to the pretended falsification observe here in what manner I related in short the discourse of the Author of the Perpetuity He says that 't was Answer to the second Tome part 3. ch 1. one call'd Ratram or Bertram an obscure and intricate Divine who adjoyn'd his reasonings to the ordinary expressions of the Church and expounded them according to his fancy that as he was a Divine he might argue as he pleased on this Faith and that we can easily conceive a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings There needs only the reading of the Author of the Perpetuity's discourse to acknowledg this to be a just abridgment of it Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but he says I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram a frivolous and passionate Reasoner and for having Book 11. ch 6. p. 116. said absolutely of him that one may well conceive that a Divine might easily fall upon frivolous reasonings whereas he said this only conditionally to wit supposing 't were granted he was effectually in an error and this is what he calls a manifest falsity But Mr. Arnaud complains impertinently For I did not say that the Author of the Perpetuity has thus spoken of Bertram absolutely and this Mr. Arnaud acknowledges to wit that supposing 't were granted that Bertram had effectually erred this would not at all hurt the Church that 't is no wonder that one man has erred that a Divine should fall into frivolous reasonings This I say is sufficient for my design For what signifies this but that in case Bertram cannot be brought over to them and made to speak for the Real Presence he must then be a frivolous Divine one who has faln into frivolous reasonings Now this is precisely what I said that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise Authors according to their interests If Bertram be for 'em all is well they find no fault in him but if it must be granted he is against 'em then one may easily conceive that a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings And thus Mr. Arnaud's illustration only confirms my remark 'T is the same in respect of what he adds that I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram an obscure and intritate Divine which is not thus set down in his Book and that there is only that the greatest advantage which the Calvinists can pretend to touching this Author is that he be set aside as a perplext and intricate Author which can be profitable neither to one side nor the other I desire no more for this is almost in so many words to say that if they cannot have Bertram on their side he must be put by as an obscure and intricate Divine whom both Parties endeavour to explain in their favour but who at bottom favours neither by reason of his perplexity If he be for them all is well if he be not he shall be laid aside for a mystical Divine This falsification then which Mr. Arnaud imputes to me is groundless seeing he himself justifies me from it and he confirms himself the truth of my reflection NEITHER has he more reason in what he says afterwards that I Page 1117. explain the intentions of others according to my own fancy and raise up trophies to my self on imaginary conjectures These are angry expressions I pretend not to dive into the intentions of the Author of the Perpetuity neither do I think of raising trophies to my self at his cost My way of proceeding is frank natural and simple and if I commit faults I can sincerely protest 't is against my will I have said nothing concerning the Author of the Perpetuity which I have not proved not by making conjectures on his hidden thoughts but arguing on his Writing which is a kind of conjecturing very lawful in disputes BUT in fine Mr. Arnaud will not allow I had reason in comparing the words of the Author of the Perpetuity touching Bertram which those of the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers to draw thence the conclusion which I drew He says my arguing supposes that these two Authors Page 1118. are but one and the same person For if they be two different Authors what wonder can it be they have had different sentiments on another Author I answer my reasoning supposes only that the Author of the Perpetuity is one of the friends of the Author of the Apology and that what 's said abroad in the world of these Gentlemen is true that they publish nothing but what has been seen and approved of commonly amongst 'em which being so I had right to draw my conclusion from the comparison of the words of these two Authors as nearly as if they were but one and the same person 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say that an Author may be praise-worthy in one piece and blameable in another I grant it but I say that when one praises or blames an Author to raise up or depress any of his works 't is absurd to say that one praises him or blames him in this work for we praise or blame absolutely his person to give hence afterwards more or less Authority to the work in question When we depress or extol the person for the work sake then we praise or blame a man in his work but when on the contrary we depress or extol the work by the person then his praise or blame respects absolutely the person and then we draw this consequence that the work in question is or is not considerable Now we are in this last circumstance the Author of the Apology commends Ratram to give the greater weight to his Books of Predestination and the Author of the Perpetuity depresses him to take away all authority from his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini so that their praise and dispraise respect directly his person 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud remarks that the Author of the Perpetuity did not suppose the Book which goes under the name of Bertram Page 1119. was Ratram's a Religious of Corby Author of the Books of Predestination and of the refutation of the errors of the Greeks That seeing he testifies on the contrary to incline to the opinion of Mr. Marca who will have this Book of Bertram and that of John Scot to be the same That it appears at least from his Book that he had no fixt sentiment that Ratram was the
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit unde sicut dicit Lanfrandus ipse in fide desipuit Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat à graphiis suis ut fertur perforatus martyr oestimatus est Secondly That of Petrus Crinitus De honesta Discipl 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30. who speaks of him in almost the same terms Thirdly That of Naucler Alfred says he had enriched the College of Oxford especially with John Scot as with a Divine Star which he drew over into England from France where he was in favour with Charles the Bald. If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Roman Church in the 11th Century but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th Century wherein he lived and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons and the terms of the Council of Valence and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament yet did not accuse him on this Article Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Doctrin of the Eucharist turns the business into admiration and offers a pitiful reason of this silence I cannot sufficiently wonder says he that leaving Append. ad Hist Gothesc p. 583. the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist these droans for thus does he call those of Lyons should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination This shews adds he that they did not matter so much the defending of the Faith as the ruining the Party of those of Reims which is to say of Hincmar and his friends who had condemned Gotthescalc But both his astonishment and reason too would equally vanish if he would have taken notice of what every one sees that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th Century but in the 11th was that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th Age and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the Artic. 1. of his Dissert oâ John Scot. same of John Scot's name and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eucharist was not condemned in the 9th Century He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue entituled Of Natures the Author of which is this same John Scot and that this Book is full of Errors He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care and draws from 'em these two consequences 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies having been only tanght by a particular person who had no followers that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew because that on one hand it is full of Errors and on the other we do not find it was condemned AS to the first I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's and that there are Errors in it but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head but herein only follow'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and Latins as S. Basil S. Gregory of Nysse and S. Ambrose the pretended Denis the Areopagite and S. Maximus which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church John Scot cites them on each of these opinions he sets down their passages which made William of Malmsbury to say That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult questions provided he be excused in some things in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins by reason of his following too much the Greeks AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures and that of the Eucharist of the same Author First The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons because 't was wrote at the entreaty of a particular person to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had excited much clamour in the Church Secondly Altho the Book of Natures had been known the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers whose names are venerable in the Church we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention altho they have not approved all their sentiments But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation and Real Presence the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles would have been his only and not the Fathers and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book and openly condemning it Thirdly The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the common road and reach of sense whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament which is continually before the eyes of Christians for supposing as I said the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as the Roman Church believes them at this day and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church The King himself by whose order he wrote would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the borrow'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the reputation and authority of John Scot's name and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram should be in effect of John Scot this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot. THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
Ligaridius what kind of man 1. 266 Patriarch Greek of Jerusalem Excommunicates every year the Latin Church 1. 206 Poor are Jesus Christ himself 2. 74. seq Point fixt of the Author of the Perpetuity impossible c. 1. 45 Policy hindered the Greeks and the Latins in the Council of Florence to treat of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and the Substantial Presence 1. 197 Paschasius proposes his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not well understood 2. 172 Paschasius acts by way of opposition and contradiction in respect of his Adversaries 2. 172 Paschasius taught the substantial Conversion and Real Presence 2. 198 Paschasius never vaunted that his Doctrin was that of the Church of his time 2. 225 Paschasius endeavours to justifie himself from the charge of Enthusiasm and rashness 2. 210 Paschasius was an Innovator 2. 214 Paschasius acknowledges that before him men were ignorant of his Doctrin 2. 214 Paschasius accused of being a Visionary Enthusiast c. 2. 219 Paschasius his Adversaries affirm that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue 1. 314 Paschasius offers his Opinion as a Paradox 2. 224 Paschasius and Bertram contrary 2. 255 Paschasius submits his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard 2. 225 Paschasius Author of the Doctrin of the Real Presence according to Bellarmin and Sirmond 2. 226 Paschasius defamed by his Adversaries by reason of his Doctrin 2. 228 Preface to the Answer of Father Nouet justifi'd 2. 269 Proofs negative opposed against those of Mr. Arnaud 1. 272 Proofs of fact cannot be overthrown c. 1. 17 Proofs immediate stronger than mediate ones 1. 17 Proofs which consider a thing in all respects stronger than those which consider it only in one 1. 18 Proofs of ones eyes and senses more certain than those of ratiocination 1. 18 Proofs of fact stronger than those of argumentation applied on the same fact 1. 22 Prayers of good people according to the Greeks help the damned 1. 279 Proper Body the meaning of it apply'd to the Sacrament 2. 73 Proper and Properly are apply'd to Subjects wherein there is no propriety of substance 2. 75 Proper has several significations 2. 75 Q. QUestion 's of right how they ought to be decided 1. 9 Questions of fact how they ought to be decided 1. ibid. Questions of Faith ought to be decided by the Scripture 1. ibid. Questions on the Eucharist two the first touching what we ought to believe of it and the other touching what has been anciently held about it 1. 36 Question touching the Greeks is not whether they believe what we believe but whether they believe what the Roman Church believes 1. 110 Question of the possibility or impossibility of the change frivolous 2. 163 R. RAban and Bertram have not opposed the Stercoranists 2. 253 Reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity are at most but probabilities 1. 20 Recapitulation at the end of the Greek Liturgy wherein there is nothing said of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 1. 142 Receive Jesus Christ and to be sanctifi'd according to the Greeks is one and the same thing 1. 149 Receiving Jesus Christ is caused say the Greeks only by the good dispositions of the Soul 1. 15 Revelation of Jesus Christ to S. Bridget 1. 79 Rupert's opinion in the 12th Century 1. 288 Russians ignorant 1. 70 Roman Church condemns not several Opinions which yet she does not approve 1. 278 S. SAcraments ought to be establish'd immediately on the Word of God Pref. Sacraments their number not regulated by the Greeks 1. 208 Sacrament and Mystery what those terms signifie in the Writings of the Fathers 2. 72 Sacrament may be considered either in opposition to the thing whereof it is a Sacrament or conjoyntly with it 2. 96 Sacrament in how many senses it may be said to be truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 79 Samonas a suspëcted and doubtful Author 1. 264 Scaliger's Colloquies 1. 38 Sanctification of the Bread compared to the Dye which Wool takes 1. 194 Seminaries for the Eastern People at Rome and elsewhere 1. 103 Seminaries the advantages which the Roman Church receive thence 1. 104 Sense its language not contrary to that of Faith on the subject of the Eucharist 2. 67 Sense its language literal and without a figure 2. 67 Sentiment real of the Greeks touching the change which happens in the Eucharist 1. 218 Sense metaphorical of a proposition to be oft received 2. 111 Sense first and natural of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ c. is the Sacramental one 2. 157 Sense natural of Propositions is determined by the matter in question 2. 158 Sense of our Saviours words perplexed by the Schoolmen and Casuists of the Roman Church 2. 101 Sense of our Saviour's words cannot be found out by the common people in the consent of all Churches 2. 99 Sense particular cannot be attributed to persons who explain themselves only in geoeral terms 2. 123 Signs take their names from the things which they signifie 2. 73 Synods of Cyril de Beroa and Parthenius against Cyril supposed pieces c. 1. 210 Silence of the Greeks from whence Mr. Arnaud takes his argument has neither evidence certainty nor necessity 1. 277 Silence of the Greeks concludes nothing 1. 278 Sociniens interessed against the Fathers 1. 39 Stercoranists who they were 2. 246 Stercoranists could not believe the Substantial Presence 2. 248 Supplement which Mr. Arnaud pretends one should make to the expressions of the Fathers is absurd 2. 68 Suppositions of what use in a dispute 1. 4 Supposition which Mr. Arnaud makes that the Real Presence was believ'd in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries is unreasonable and captious 2. 63 Suppose we ought that in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence was held 2. 64 T. TErms metaphorical which use has made proper 2. 11 Terms true and Truly are apply'd to several things 2. 76 Theophylact's passages explain'd 1. 309 Translator and a Paraphrasist their difference 1. 359 Treatise of the Perpetuity is a real mass of difficulties 1. 36 Transubstantiation and the Real Presence considered in a Church wherein they are held 1. 41 Transubstantiation is the precise determination of the manner of the change of the Bread 1. 120 Transubstantiation is not a speculative Doctrin 1. ibid. Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are not synonimous terms 1. 124 Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence were the points which first separated the Greeks 1. 245 Transubstantiation was not believ'd by several before the Council of Constance 1. 288 Treatise of the Perpetuity very proper for persons that are curious and lazy 1. 45 Treatise of the Perpetuity illusory in what it promises 1. ibid. Turks favour those who gave them most Money 1. 105 V. VIrtue Bread chang'd into the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 233 Version of the New Testament of Mons c 1. 145 Vicq Fort Translator of Herbert's Voyages 2 41 Voyagers do not say that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation W. WIttembogard one of the chief of the Arminian party 1. 39 Wicked in the sense of the Greeks receive not the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 146 Word of the Gospel is truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 78 Word of the Gospel more truly the Body of Jesus Christ than the Eucharist 2 78. Words of Jesus Christ carry not our minds to the Real Presence by a primary idea 2. 113 FINIS ERRATA PART I. PAge 7. read as already mention'd for as I already mention'd p. 9 l. 4. r. the for that p. 12. l. ult r. their for these p. 34. l. 1. r. of for which p. 38. l. 1. r person for persons p. 38. l. 45. r manners for manner p. 39. l. 13. r. Critick for a Critic p. 46. l. 23. r. an for any p. 57. l. 1. r. self for selfs p. 90. l. 5. r. than for but p. 95. l. 4. r. are no for yet no p. 97. l. 1. r. altho schismatical for altho the Schismatical p. 11â l. 25. r. we shall see by for we shall by l. 30. r. and which for and that which p. 124. l. 40. r. Latins say for Latins says p. 158. l. ult r. his not inserting the Greek for forasmuch as he has not p. 165. l. 1. r. which is for which most 181. l. 26. r. rational for national p. 203. l. r. wood for word p. 210 l. 1. r. signs for sign p. 223. l. 29. r. pursue for puruse p. 225. l. 24. r. expression for expressions p. 243. l. 1. dele Preface p. 153 l. 10. r. those that held p. 365. l. 7. r. was not printed p. 274. l. 14. r. and yet taste p. 279. l. 17. r. silence on the rest for silence the rest p. 291. l. 23. r. became not angry for became angry p. 336. l. 35. r. only the Divinity p. 330. l. 22. r. colours really for colours are really PART II. Page 6. at bottom of the page r. and for where p. 27. l. 11. r. Romanists persecuted for that persecuted p. 47. l 31. r. the union for of the union The Printer to the Reader THE absence of the Translator and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser Escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of Pardon if his Escapes be not laid on the Translator and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary Understanding may amend and a little Charity may forgive R. Royston ADVERTISEMENT RItes of Funeral Ancient and Modern in use thro the known World Written Originally in French by the Ingenious Monsieur Muret. To which is added A Vindication of Christianity against Paganism All Translated into English by P. Lorrain London Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1683. The Contents of the said Book THE Funeral Rites of the Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Turks Chineses Americans Of some Islanders Of the Tartars Living Sepulchres Fiery Sepulchres Water-Burials Airy Obsequies Burials above Ground The Funeral Rites of the Ancient Jews Modern Jews Schismaticks Christians A Discourse concerning the Right of Burial and Laws on that behalf THE END
to the stately City of Baudas where the Fryar Predicants of our Order who dwelt there came out to meet us Receiving us with great Joy And by the second it appears likewise that the Emissaries of the Order of Fryar Minorites had already gotten as far as the Indias for Fol. 55. there is Mention made of three Fryars who after a long Dispute against the Nestorians were put to Death for speaking against Mahomet IN the Year 1369 Urban the fisth sent Fryar Minorites amongst all these Raynald ad ann 1369. num 14. Ray. ad ann 1370. num 8. Nations with the same order to Preach and propagate the Catholick Faith He sent likewise four Bishops into Albania and the neighbouring Provinces to reduce these Schismatical People to his Obedience He took the same Care for the Instruction of the Russians Moldavians and Valaquains to whom he sent twenty five Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites Anthony Bishop of Miléve was ordered to instruct the Georgians and other Eastern Christians together with twenty five other Monks who were joyned to him Under Gregory the eleventh there were several Convents Founded in Bosnia Bascia for the same Design of Converting the Schismaticks This Pope enlarged the Priviledges of the Eastern Missionaries on Condition Idem ad ann 1372. num 32. they would remain in those Countries and not return into the West under Penalty of being deprived of all their Priviledges IN the fifteenth Century Martin the fifth took Care again of the Missions which had bin in some sort Interrupted during the Troubles of that great Schisme which began under Urbain the sixth in the Year 1378 and Idem ad ann 1418. num 19. 20. which ended not till after the Council of Constance in the Year 1414 wherein Martin was chosen He made the King of Poland his Vicar thro out the whole Extent of his Dominions to the end he should endeavour the Reduction of the Greeks giving him for this purpose full Authority over the Ecclesiasticks and Monks He conferred the same Power on the Duke of Lituania giving him an express Charge to endeavour to propagate the Catholick Religion EUGENUS the fourth Martin's Successor set forth a new Mission which consisted of twenty Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites together Idem ad ann 143. num 29. with a Bishop whom he sent into Asia for the propogating of the Roman Faith and the particular Instruction of the Christians that dwelt in the Caspian Mountains He employed Gregory Arch Bishop of Moldoblachie who was a Latinized Greek for the Reduction of the Bulgarians Valaquians Moldavians enjoyning him to apply himself thereunto with all possible Care and Diligence He sent Andrew Arch Bishop of Colossia into Cyprus to bring back to his Obedience the Christians of different Sects who Inhabited this Island namely the Nestorians Armenians Coptics Chaldeans Jacobites together with the Greeks who were the Natives of that place IN the sixteenth Century the Portugaises having setled themselves in the East Indias it is well known they established Missions and Seminaries in divers places and earnestly endeavoured to Instruct the Ethiopians Nestorians and other Christian Sects which are in that Country LEO the tenth sent several to Instruct the Russians and Muscovites he Idem ad ann 1514. num 87. 101. 102. ad ann 1519. num 60. num 60. Spondan ann Eccl. ad ann 1531. num 13. Raynald ad ann 1515. num 69. 73. took the same Care for the Abyssins and Maronites for these last altho they had submitted to the Roman Church yet retained their antient Errors CLEMENT the seventh received an Embassador from Basil Duke of Muscovia and sent to this Duke a Legate to treat concerning his Reunion to the Church of Rome This was in the Year 1531 according to Spondanus Raynaldus refers it to the Year 1525. IN fine if we would know the present State of all the East in this Respect 't is but considering that the Emissaries have so far overspread these Countries that scarcely is there any place where they have not setled themselves and wherein they do not exert all their Learning and Industry not for the Conversion of the Infidels for this they cannot expect but for the gaining of these Schismaticks Insinuating the Roman Religion amongst these Ignorant and Dull People who still profess Christianity EUGENIUS Roger a Recollet who was sent into Barbary in his Description of the Holy Land tells us That those of his Order have maintained Holy Land L. 2. C. 3. themselves in Palestine from the Year 1333 to this present and have two Convents at Jerusalem one at Bethlem one at Nazareth one at Rama one at St. John of Acra one at Sydon six in Aegypt two in the Isle of Cyprus one at Aleppo one at Damascus two at Mount Libanus one at Alexandria and one at Constantinople JOSEPH Besson the Jesuit in his Holy Syria tells us that the Society Holy Syria C. 1. 3. have five Seminaries in Syria to wit at Tripoly Sidon Damascus Aleppo and at Questroan which have bin setled there since the Year 1652 and sent over by the Order of Urbain the eighth FRANCIS Richard in his Relation touching the Isle of St. Erinys gives us this Account Since saies he Princes have ceased to Succour this Letter to the Clergy of France poor Eastern Church by Arms our Kings continue to assist it by means which altho not so Expensive and Famous yet no less Effectual for the Salvation of Mens Souls which ought to be the chief end of such like Undertakings And in another place Our Society being preserved in this Country by the Providence of God and Charity of the Faithful have not ceased to continue their Services to this desolate Church And to the end the Fruit of our Labours may not be inclosed within the Walls of Constantinople our Society has extended it self as far as Thessalonica Patras Athens Naples de Romanis Milos Paros where they have for some time Sojourned and afterwards setled themselves at Smyrna Scio Naxie Negrepont St. Erinys not to mention Syria where they have four other places of Residency viz. Aleppo Damascus Seide and Tripolys And now they design for Mount Athos and all other parts where Schisme and Heresy reign And certainly they have undertaken no easy Task having so many and distant Countries to Travel over so many Errors to Oppose and to Correct such a number of Abuses which Ignorance and Heresy have Introduced amongst these People Mr. Thevenot informs us that there is a Convent of Capucin Fryars in the Isle of St. Andra which do very much help the Bishop by their Preaching and Thevenot ' s Voyages Part 1. C 13. C. 61. C. 66. Discoursing of the Isle of Chios he say's that besides the Jesuits who have a Church and Colledge there are also Capucins who teach humane Learning and Divinity and also Jacobins and Gray Fryars who have all of
Silence signifies no more on either part but that both were quietly permitted to enjoy their own Opinions We must not imagine they pretended to approve by Virtue of this Union all the Doctrines of the Latins and there could be no more concluded thence at farthest than a simple Toleration as of other Points which were not discussed Now if humane Interest was so powerful over the Greeks as to make 'em abjure their own Opinions and embrace in appearance others can it be thought strange they should pass over in Silence an Article of that kind It seems on the contrary that Zeal for their Religion if they had any spark of it yet left should oblige 'em to restrain the Dispute to a few Points for they would lose as many of 'em as they proposed The necessity of their Affairs forced them to make a Sacrifice of 'em to the Latins so that all those they could smother by their Silence were as so many Points won because they were not lost MR Arnaud tells us that their politick Interests were not so prevalent over Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337. 'em as to take away from 'em all kind of Liberty and carry them forth to the betraying of their own Judgments without resistance that on the contrary they managed their Pretensions and that the Question touching the Holy Spirit was discussed in this Council with as much exactness as ever any was in any Council That if they betrayed their Conscience it was thro humane Weakness having first rendred to their Opinions all the Testimonies which could be expected from weak Persons But what could be alledged to less purpose All this is true in respect of the Doctrines which they were forced to abandon to subscribe to contrary ones but this signifies nothing to others they mention not and which consequently they were not obliged to receive amongst which that of Transubstantiation was one and moreover this Resistance and Management he speaks of only appeared in the Doctrine of the Procession and not in other Points contained in the Decree for they passed them over without Examination and Discussion except that of Purgatory which was slightly regarded MR. Arnaud sets himself to show afterwards that the Latins did not suspect the Greeks held not Transubstantiation that they betrayed not their own Sentiments nor were wilfully ignorant of those of the Greeks We shall hereafter consider the Conduct of the Latins But make we first an end of examining that of the Greeks Does Mr. Claude say's he know what he say's when he makes such unreasonable Suppositions Does he consider into what absurdities he plunges himself Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongst themselves before they parted from Constantinople to conceal their Opinions on this Point from the Latins and carried on this Design so dexterously that amongst so many Greeks there were not one of them that discovered this Secret to the Latins There are certainly judicious Persons enough still in the World to determine which of us two seems to consider most what he say's I do not pretend that either the Greeks plotted together at Constantinople or that they carried it so closely at Florence but that the Latins might know if they would what was their Belief touching the Eucharist Their Books speak their Minds These Complots and Conspirations are Phantasms which appear to Mr. Arnaud in the heat of his Study I pretend no more than what is true to wit that the Greeks passed over in Silence several Articles on which they had not the same Sentiments as the Latins and I believe Transubstantiation was one of them If Mr. Arnaud pretends the contrary it lies upon him to produce his Reasons Let him tell us what Complot there could be between the Greeks and Latins in reference to their Silence in so many other Points which were not discussed Let him tell us at least why in the Acts of the Council and other Writings wherein is mentioned the Eucharist when the Latins say Transubstantiate the Greeks on the contrary say only Consecrate and Sanctify Wherefore in the Decretal of the Union whether we read it in Latin or Greek we find no mention there of the substantial Conversion Why the Article of the Sacrament was expressed in these general Terms Corpus Christi veraciter confici ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Was it Policy or Ignorance or Complot or Conspiration which made them reject the Terms of Gregory the VII The Bread and Wine are changed substantially into the true proper and living Flesh c. or those of Innocent the III. The Bread is transubstantiated into the Body and the Blood into the Wine For for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a true and real Transubstantiation because 't was thus the Latins understood their Confici is a frivolous Pretence which I have already refuted MR. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Latins could not be Ignorant of the Sentiment of the Greeks nor the Greeks of the Latins But to no purpose It signifies nothing to me whether they did or did not know one anothers Opinions We will suppose if he will they made this their particular Study but then what signifies this to our Question I am satisfi'd they were reunited without any formal Declaration of their Agreement in this Point for as it cannot be concluded from their Silence on other Points that there were no difference betwixt them so is it the same concerning Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud reasons ill because he argues from this Principle that the Greeks disputed on all Particulars wherein they knew they differed from the Latins This is a false Principle as appears by the Instances I already produced It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wearied with the Debate hastned to Expedients whereby to conclude the Union We have left say's he to his Greeks our Families in danger exposed to the Concil Flor. Sess 23. Fury of the Infidels Time slips away and we advance nothing let us lay aside these Disputes and betake our selves to some Medium And therefore we find Sess 25. the Greeks telling the Latins That they were not for Disputing because Disputes generally ingendred Trouble But they should indeavour to find out some other means of Union We have already told you say's the Emperor to Cardinal Julian that we are not for any more Disputes for Words are never wanting Sess 25. to you Your Dialect will never suffer you to acquiesce in any thing being ever ready at a Reply and to speak the last Let us I pray then lay aside these tedious Controversies and betake our selves to some other means for reuniting us BUT the Greeks assisted at the Service of the Latins and adored the Mass in the same manner as the Roman Church say's Andrew de St. Cruce I answer Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343. they were present at the Service of the Latins not to show they approved their Doctrine
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
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 scatteâ 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