Sanctification It is certain the Latin Interpreter could not better Translate than he has done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Image is Holy why is it Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being made Divine by a certain Sanctification by Grace It is Grace which Sanctifies it in making it Divine which cannot be better Expressed in Latin than by these Words Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae deificata And in English As being made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace It appears that this is the Sence of this Council by the Words which immediately follow after For this is what our Lord design'd to do that as by Virtue of the Union he has made Divine the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so he would have the Eucharistical Bread as being the true Image of his Flesh be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest Transferred from a common Estate to a State of Holyness And therefore as the natural Flesh of Christ indued with a rational Soul was anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity so his Image to wit the Divine Bread is replenished with the Holy Spirit It is clear that they oppose the Sanctification which the natural Flesh of Christ has received by Virtue of the Hypostatical Union to the Sanctification which his Image receives by the coming of the Holy Spirit There say they the natural Flesh was Anointed with the Holy Spirit Here his Image to wit the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit The Question then is concerning a Sanctification which the Bread receives in quality of the Image of our Lord 's natural Flesh and this Sanctification is the Grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the Bread is filled The Sanctification which the natural Flesh has received is not a Consecration which has changed the Substance of it into another but an inherent Sanctification which letting the Humane Nature subsist has made it become a Source of Grace the Sanctification likewise which the Bread receives is not a Consecration which changes its Substance into that of another but an inherent Sanctification in the Bread which letting the Bread subsist makes it full of the Holy Spirit We could not then better Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than by these Words being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace It will be to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to wrangle about these Words The Oblation being Transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were to be Rendred from a common State to a State of Consecration for here the Matter is touching a Sanctification which is the Image of that which the natural Flesh has received We must then Translate to a Holy State or to a State of Holiness And the Latin Interpreter of the Council who had not those particular Interests to maintain as Mr. Arnaud has has faithfully turn'd it Oblationem de communi separans ad Sanctificationem pertingere facit I am sorry I have been forced to entertain the Reader with these grammatical Niceties which I suppose cannot be very pleasing but besides that Mr. Arnaud having charged me with a Falsification I was obliged to justify myself There will redound hence this Advantage to wit that the Sence of this Council will more plainly appear and the solid Advantages we draw thence They make two Bodies of Christ the one his natural Body th' other his Body by Institution the one is his natural Flesh th' other is the Image of his natural Flesh the one a humane Substance th' other a chosen Matter namely the Substance of Bread the one is Holy by a Sanctification which is naturally peculiar unto it the other is raised from a common State to a State of Holyness the one is the natural Flesh of Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit the other is Bread indued with the Holy Spirit There is not any thing in all this that can agree with Mr. Arnaud's Conceptions NO more then is there in the Fathers calling the Eucharist not a deceitful Image of Christ's Flesh in opposition to the Images which they called Deceitful C. 7. p. 698. To understand rightly their Sence we must suppose with Mr. Arnaud that they said the Images of their Adversaries were deceitful either because they represented the Humanity separated from the Divinity and subsisting by it self if it were said they were only Images of the Humanity they leaned to the Error of the Nestorians or because they represented the Divinity Confused and indistinct from the Humanity if it were said they expressed our Saviour intire thus they led to the Error of the Eutychiens who confounded the two Natures So far Mr. Arnaud is not mistaken but he has not been so happy in Discovering how they understood the Eucharist was not a deceitful Image For it is certain that in respect of the Error of Nestorius their Sence is that as the humane Substance in our Saviour had no personal Subsistance so likewise his Image to wit the Substance of Bread has not the Form and humane Figure of it altho it seems that an Image should have them So that by this it represented the humane Nature not as a Person but as a Nature bereav'd of its Personality and thus it differed from the Error of the Nestorians Which is what they Express in these Terms As our Lord took on him the Matter only or humane Substance without the personal Subsistance so he has commanded us to offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread not having the Form or humane Figure And in respect of the Error of the Eutychiens they would have that as the Body of Christ was not Abolished nor Confounded with the Divinity but Sanctified and made Divine by means of the hypostatical Union so the Bread is Sanctified and Deified by the Holy Spirit Which is what they expressed by these Terms As by Virtue of the Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so likewise he would have the Bread in the Eucharist as being not the deceitful Image of his natural Flesh to be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness Now this does necessarily suppose that the Substance of Bread Subsists to represent against Eutychus the Substance of the humane Nature in the hypostatical Union Moreover this is not one of my metaphysical Speculations as Mr. Arnaud P. 669. is pleased to express himself it is the Doctrine of the Fathers and especially of those who disputed against Eutychus and I expresly observed it having for this effect cited Justin Martyr Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraim of Antioch But Mr. Arnaud has thought good in relating my Words to cut off this Clause for fear the Readers
preserve the Substance of the Sacrament The Sixteenth from a Passage of Oecumenius WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread and that there is touching this Point between them and the Latins so stiff a Controversie that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon and therefore when ever this happens they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them I shall not trouble my self or Reader with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progress of this Dispute all that I aim at here being only to give farther light to the question I handle It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation for we find them continually arguing from this Principle that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius and Leo Bishop of Acrida to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament they add observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body This expression Bibliot Paâ—â— Tom. 4. â—dâ—t 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will does not well agree with the belief of Transubstantiation for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body but it cannot be said with good sence that he calls the Bread his Body seeing this latter expression signifies he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body which supposes the Bread remains and receives the name of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Michael Cerularius but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesiastical Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they having likewise related the words of the Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat de lib. Eccles Graec. diss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius that this Passage Gennad pâ—o Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body the Wine his Blood He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expression with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation to wit that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme and that they eat it as a Figure of the Flesh of Christ You offer to God in Sacrifice say's Nicetas Pectoratus the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ and a little further he that makes the Azyme and eats it altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews yet does he in this imitate them and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew They apply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them that after the Conversion 't is no longer Bread neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd but the Body of Jesus Christ and that in supposing this Conversion the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius the Patriarch of Constantinople that at the Council of Florence wherein 't was ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread and with the Azyme every one according to the Custom of his own Church the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves saying Gennad pro Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ the one of unleavened and th' other of leavened Bread Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation for besides that this would not be two Bodies but one alone under the different Species it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies one made of leaven'd th' other of unleaven'd Bread WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread as the Soul is to the Body because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven so that they call leavened Bread living Bread as being that which has Spirits and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread a dead Lump unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and thereupon they ground this Accusation that the Latins eat a dead Lump inanimate Bread and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours and is not void of Soul as taught the Heretick Apollinarius We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter in that of Nicetas Pectoratus and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd The Christians Easter say's he Bibl Patr. Tom 4 Edit 4. was celebrated not with unleaven'd Bread but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person and as the Divine Nature is most simple so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body or Flesh There being then in Jesus Christ the Divinity the Soul and the Body so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread that is to say with leavened Bread there are three things namely Flower
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
Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature They deny say's he that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Joann Lazicius de Rel. Armeni the Elements lose their Nature They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction and affinity between the Divine and Humane Nature that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction And when I demanded of them how this could be seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration they answered me This was effected by the Divine virtue to which we ought to give credit And these are Lasicius his words according to the Original but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence But as to my pretention I think 't is well grounded and beyond all Question seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Nature HE has had his informations say's Mr. Arnaud only from some Ignorant Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449. Persons in Leopolis If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testimony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point and knowing ones for the other perhaps say's he he did not comprehend that by the word Nature they meant only the Mass of external Accidents But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable Where will Ibid. he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which he himself tells us in another place the Greeks the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no mention Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the Lib. 10. C. 8. word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em or of which at least they make no mention Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles according as his occasions require Diruit aedificat mutat quadrata rotundis Which shews his Answers mere Evasions and in effect there 's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms of which he has not comprehended the sence For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Virgin Mary Now we have already seen that according to them Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature which had only a Body in appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not really Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be that the Divinity being every where it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist And with this agrees what they add that after the Incarnation there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Natures distinct for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divinity as we have already seen they commonly held So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament is no other than the presence of the Divinity which is every where but more especially in the Eucharist 'T is very probable 't was under this Equivocation the Patriarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter The Body of Jesus Christ say's he Born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread The Body Born of the Virgin and Dead on the Cross which was to say according to them the Divinity which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross But when he was urged to acknowledge 't was the same Numerical Body he would not grant it because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies and consequently made it a real Body Mr. Arnaud will reply this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so 's But he has no other Grounds for his may be 's than his own Imagination whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothesis of the Armenians having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I describe it WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood in his Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24. Treatise of Religions For he say's expresly That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes but this shews he takes it for an unquestionable truth MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us that the Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form View of Religions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666. of Bread and Wine MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages in which are found these words The Armenians administer the Sacrament Herberts Voyages Lib. 2. q. 244 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine and deny the
Lord are they not Matter You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things or grant the Adoration of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ he means the Eucharist and distinguishes it from the Natural Body for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter he adds As to the other Matter c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross Mount Calvary the Holy Sepulchre the Letters of the Gospel and the Communion Table and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration an Adoration proportionable to that of Images WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body he expresses himself after a different manner I adore say's he one God Father Son and Holy Ghost I give to him alone the Ibid. worship of Latria I worship one God one Divinity but I adore likewise the Trinity of Persons God the Father God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh and God the Holy Ghost which yet are no more than one God I worship not the Creature besides the Creator but I adore the Creator who hath made me and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature I do also together with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body if a man may so express himself tho not as a Vestment or fourth Person God forbid but as having been declared God and made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed Here the Humanity is adored in Person with an Adoration of Latria whereas the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration after the same manner as the Cross the Holy Sepulchre and Images If you say say's he in another place a little farther that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding abolish then all corporeal things Tapers Incense Prayers uttered with an articulate voice nay even thâ— Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter to wit the Bread and Wine the Oyl of Unction the Sign of the Cross the Reed and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished which cannot be done or not reject the Worship of Images What he called a little above the Body and Blood he here calls Bread and Wine but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood or whether he calls them Bread and Wine he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration unto that which he pretends ought to be given Images and other material things he mentions that is to say a relative Adoration WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen and Damascene in which he justifies after the same manner the relative Adoration given to Images by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries He compares these two Worships together and makes them of the same order and quality When we adore say's he the Image of Jesus Christ the Cross and the Pho. de Synod Sign of the Cross we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things but direct it to him who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us And thus do we adore the Temples Sepulchers and Relicks of Saints from whence do proceed those miraculous cures praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means AND this is what I had to say on this Point I leave now the Reader to judge whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament according to the manner of the Latins be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness as speaks Mr. Arnaud or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his I ground my negative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus John de Lasko Peter Scarga Anthony Caucus Francis Richard all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament after Consecration and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office without observing this essential particular but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Ceremonies the Latins use to express their Adoration without substituting others equivalent to them I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of other Greek Fathers who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration like unto that given to Images Temples Crosses and Relicks of Saints And yet Mr. Arnaud tells me that he is both ashamed and sorry for me and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations which no body ever saw but himself that is to say on Chimera's with which the necessity of maintaining his Thâ—sis right or wrong has furnish'd him Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons Archbishops and Jesuits and not me who only denied it after them I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be esteemed inconsiderable my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle Not only say's he the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily Book 10. chap. 9. annexed to the internal Adoration but also to some act of external respect For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence 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
as I relate it as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings his drift being only to shew that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life which is in Jesus Christ it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body He himself explains his own meaning in these Terms Saint Peter say's he tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme or the unleavened Bread of the Jews a Divine Nature and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ How have you Communion with Jesus Christ who is the living God eating dead and unleavened Bread which appertains to the shadow of the Law and not the New Testament If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread we shall find his aim is only to shew that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and to become the Figure and Representation of it th' other on the contrary to be most proper 1. Because 't is Bread which th' other is not 2. Because 't is in some sort living whereas th' other is dead 3. Because it respects Grace and the New Testament whereas the other respects the Jews and Shadow of the Law there is not one word in all this that savours Transubstantiation It appears on the contrary that he takes for one and the same thing to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT we have had enough of this Illusion let us then pass on to the nineteenth which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation What can say's he Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. 163. Claude say to this Witness who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist I may truly say that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate he was interressed to suppose that all the World was on his side and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony I may also affirm Mr. Arnaud's word signifies nothing without Proof altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabulous History touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time and Pope Celestin's and to make thereof a good Proof Whether through Ignorance or want of Sincerity I know not but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony who has so grossly deceived us He was say's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162. Arnaud an Italian by Nation where there was a great many Greeks Italy certainly would be a very happy Country if it produced none but faithful Witnesses Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversion he would have told us so himself and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses It appears adds he by his way of writing that he was a Person worthy of Credit It appears by his Writings that he was a passionate man and extreamly carried away with vain glory which are not the best marks of Sincerity But after all this I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimony For Lanfranc only say's that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ which he took of the Virgin That this is the Faith of the Greeks Armenians and all the rest of the Christian World Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body and that it must not be said he has two Bodies but one alone Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression namely that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition as the Food we eat becomes our Body which is very different from Transubstantiation BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable I answer this is another of his wilful mistakes For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opinion never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances We have scarcely any of their Writings we have no more of their Arguments and Answers than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us It is true that Lanfranc say's when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church they answered the Church had erred and all its Members perished except themselves But it does not hence follow that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation They might say the Church had erred and was perished from the Face of the Earth meaning the Western Church They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation And then again who can assure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange that People who were every where persecuted and afflicted and had enough to do to preserve themselves should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks Berengarius say's he was thrice at Rome and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164. inform himself and we need not doubt but 't was one of his principal cares Why not doubt of it Because Mr Arnaud say's so Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word will still doubt of it For he is not infallible and I my self am one of those that doubt of it till he proves it The Interest Ibid. of his Cause adds he speaking of me is so prevalent in him that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments what were those of his followers I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life and Mr. Arnaud does me right here But yet 't is certain that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer I should not much trouble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks for the discovery of Truth which ought to be the aim of us all does not depend on what the Greeks do or do not believe and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle BERENGARIUS had the Word of God which was enough they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have
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
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
of the Bible in Syriack Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls Commonitorium Apologeticum wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites imposing on Prince Fachraddin for cheating the Duke of Florence and with his being banished his own Country his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban Rome and Florence which give an Account of his Life But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks such as we have shewed it to be in the two foregoing Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book and apply to them the Answers I made to several other such like passages which are needless here to be repeated WEE must come then to the Armenians I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them as for that they are a great people and an entire Church by themselves They are long since separated from the Greek Church and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion Yet are they both extream ignorant of the design of Christianity and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave say's he a Visit to the Patriarch of the Relat. of Missionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu Bish of Heliopolis Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus but he cunningly avoided it I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious who show little Piety although they profess much and live austerely So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians with which Epist Viror Eruditor Epist 2. Cyrill ad Wytenbog the Greeks held no communion to wit the Armenians Coptics Maronites and Jacobites say's amongst other things that they live like Beasts and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe themselves THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um and submit them to the See of Rome They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed or augmented as Occasion required They have taken the course of Seminaries and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia and that not seldom with Success So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks the one called the reunited ones and the other Schismaticks so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs or Catholicks as they term them and are called only Armenians OUR Question only then concerns these last and to know whether they do or do not believe Transubstantiation The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm is that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist according to them this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity that is to say a manifest contradiction to imagine they believe the change in Question seeing to believe it it must be necessarily supposed not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body but likewise that his Body is distinct from the Divinity MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454. by two Answers which we must distinctly examine one after another The first amounts to this That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstantiation or that they do not admit it after their Fashion For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man that the Jews took him for a man that they crucified him as a man Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens and by the Eutychiens themselves For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God and who was incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist he say's that they believe with all other Christians that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin seen in the World crucified and risen is really present in the Eucharist that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity that is to say a deified Body a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance Mr. Arnaud do's likewise promise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Nature according to the Eutychiens I know not what elucidations he may one day give us but if they be no better then what he now tells us they will
be of no great use for 't is certain there was never a more crude discourse than that which he now gives us First What signifies the telling us that the Eutychiens acknowledged the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men that the Apostles conversed with him as with a man and that the Jews took him for a man what signifies this to the proving that they did not deny the inward substance of the Humanity remained in Jesus Christ but said only that all the natural Proprieties which they call Nature was changed There would be more likelyhood in concluding from hence the contrary viz. that according to the Eutychiens the inward Substance was changed and the natural Proprieties remained for if we really distinguish these Proprieties from the Substance it is immediately on them and not on the inward Substance whereon depends ones being a man and being taken for such So that Mr. Arnaud in saying the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man and that the Jews took him for a man establishes a principle which not only concludes nothing of what he pretends but rather the contrary which does shew in my opinion that he was in great perplexity when he wrote this Chapter 2. Do's he not know that the Eutychiens and especially the Armenians when they are urged by passages of Scripture which attribute to our Saviour Christ all the out-ward Characters of a real Man that he was born conversed with his Apostles eat and drank was dead and risen again that his Soul was oppressed with sadness c. whence we conclude he had a real humane Nature answered that all these things happened only in appearance and that it was the Divinity it self that assumed all these External Forms which yet had in themselves no reality Pope John the second speaking of the Doctrine of the Eutychiens We Epist John 2. Episcop Rom. ad Arien c. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. edit 4. confess say's he that the Holy Vigin is properly and truly the Mother of God incarnate and born of her I say properly and truly to the end it may not be imagined that he took of the Virgin a Phantasme or not real Flesh according to the Doctrine of the impious Eutychiens The followers of Eutyches and Harmenop de Sect. Arâ— 5. Nicephor Callist hist Eccles Lâ—b 18 C. 48. Raynald ad an 1341. Dioscorus say's Harmenopulus affirmed the Son of God was made man in appearance having only one Nature Nicephorus Callistus confirms the same thing The wretched Eutyches say's he did indeed acknowledge God to be born of the Virgin Mary and that the Virgin was the Mother of God and so far his Doctrine is sound and true But he likewise held that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was feigned that the Word was changed and made Flesh after an immutable manner that he feigned in appearance the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation and that whatsoever of corporeal appeared in him was only a Phantasme and Fiction The same thing appears in respect of the Armenians from the Information which Pope Benedict the twelfth gives us of their Errors For the twenty eighth Article has these words The Armenians knowing not what answer to give the passages of the Gospel which assert our Saviour had a real humane Body after his Resurrection forasmuch as they affirm that at the moment of the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divinity answer that the will of God as it pleased wrought all these things by which it seemed he had a Humane Body altho in effect he had none And in the following Article Altho the Armenians hold that after the Union there was only in our Saviour Christ the Divine Nature into which the Humane Nature was converted yet they say and hold that the Divine Nature so depended on the will of Christ that he did with it what he pleased Cyrillus in his Letter to Witembogard relates he held a conference with one of the chief of the Armenian Doctors named Barsabas in the Temple of Jerusalem before all the people and that the Subject of their Dispute was Whether our Saviour Cyril Epist 2. ad Witem in Epist viror eruditor Christ conversed with men and died in appearance only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because adds he The Armenians believe he suffered death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in appearance and not really The Jacobites who are Eutychiens as well as the Armenians say likewise the same thing on this Subject according to the Relation of John Cotovic They affirm say's he that the Flesh which Itinerar Hier. Syria Auct Joanne Cottovico Lib. 2. C. 6. P. 202. 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 seeming and phantastick Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a man and born and dye than really to do so So that they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of Jesus Christ his Ascention into Heaven and his second coming are bare Semblances and Appearances and by this means make all these Mysteries meer Illusions This is the true Opinion of the Eutychiens So far are they from giving Mr. Arnaud Reason to conclude that they conserve in Jesus Christ the inward Substance of the Humanity that on the contrary it appears they have only recourse to these vain appearances to defend themselves against the passages of Scripture by which is proved against them the Reality of the Humane Substance in this Divine Saviour III. WERE their Sentiment such as Mr. Arnaud supposes it to be how comes it to pass they have never declared as much Whence is it they have ever say'd the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine that it was changed into the Divinity mixt and confused with the Divinity without ever minding to clear up this difficulty in saying that by Nature they understood not the inward Substance but only all the inward Proprieties and that they confessed this Substance remained intire How comes it that those who disputed against them or that have related their Errors never made this pretended Distinction of Mr. Arnaud nor declared this new Sence in which the word Nature is to be taken to wit for all the natural Proprieties distinct and really separate from the inward Substance Whence is it that Mr. Arnaud having so sharply inveighed heretofore against the Equivocations of the Greeks and Latins now thinks fit to admit a perpetual one between the Orthodox and Eutychiens the one taking the Term of Nature in one Sence and the other in another and disputing so many Ages against one another without explaining themselves and understanding one another For it does not appear from Authors that wrote against the Eutychiens that they took in this occasion the term of Nature for the Natural propriety in opposition to the inward Substance as it pleases Mr. Arnaud to
suppose without proof It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties Gelas Episc Rom. advers Eutych Nest ibid. If the humane Substance say's Gelasius has ceased to be the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine it follows that the humane form having no longer it 's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise And in another place of the same Treatise If they do not deny say's he that Jesus Christ was real man it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance for otherwise he would not be real man Vigil Lib. 5. contra Eutych When you say say's Vigilius that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ And a little farther If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion there would be two Persons one of the Word and the other of the Flesh who would have one and the same common Nature Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2. from the Eucharist in these words The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form Figure Circumscription and in a word it has the Substance of a Body Euthym. Parop Tit. 20. Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. Mâ—ximus which expresly asserts that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12. in Essence introducing a confusion of Natures Even Cardinal Perron himself altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation acknowledged this truth that the Eutychiens held the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained because the Form Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties And it must be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little But to speak better It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations for when he has need of them he can well dispence with them how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455. of Anastasius Sinaite that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which represented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity than to say they meant his very Substance For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens rather than to give the lye to these Authors and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second It consists in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456. that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens that is to say they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures that they condemned Eutyches and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures asserting our Saviour had but one THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons seeing he is pleased to except against them and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference Here are others then which are not to be contemned whether we regard their number or quality The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epist ad Euchistium Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit 4. Treatise of his under the Title De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation and amongst others mentions this that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ in the Union Itidem say's he in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered and altho they durst not openly explain themselves yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do for they take three Crosses and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity Now here is according to Mr. Arnaud a third Impostor that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures He must be excluded as well as Eutychus and Isaac but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian amongst the Greeks who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites and adds sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body uncreated heavenly impassible subtile which is not of the same Substance with ours yet has all the Accidents of Flesh in appearance and after Nicephor Cal. hist Eccles Lib. 18. C. 53. the manner of
easie to conjecture by reading of History why the Armenians have separated themselves from the Church That 't is because of the Council of Chalcedon for this Council condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus whose Opinions they followed JOHN Cottovic a Famous Traveller that relates what he learnt from Cottovic-Itiner Hieros et Syri Lib. 2. de Armen the Armenians themselves tells us That the Armenians as well as the Jacobites acknowledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ one Will and one Operation and say the Humanity was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity in such a manner that the Divinity and Flesh became but one and the same thing IT is in the same Sense that Pietro Della Valle comparing the Armenians The Voyages of Pietro Della Vallé Tom. 3. P. 107. with the Georgians say's That 't is not to be doubted but the Georgians are better Christians then the Armenians who hold the Errors of Dioscorus whose Opinions are far more Pernicious gross and numerous than those of all the other Christian Nations in the East IT seems to me likewise that Person must be extreme obstinate that will Epist 2. ad Wy temb. not acquiesce in the Testimony of Cyrillus the Patriarch of Alexandria already mentioned who lived in the midst of those people who assures one of their Doctrines is that all these humane Accidents which the Gospel denotes in our Saviour Christ as for Instance to be born to have conversed with men to be dead c. did not happen to him really but only in appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How great aversion soever Mr. Arnaud may have to Cyrillus his Person I do not believe he imagins that this Patriarch had our Dispute in his mind nor wrote upon my Account his Conference with the Armenian Doctor Barsabas we may therefore gather from his Testimony that the Armenians are perfect Eutychiens for if they believed there was in our Saviour a real humane Nature which is to say that he was real man and the whole Difficulty consisted only in the Term of Nature which they would not receive why should they affirm that his Conversation here on Earth his Death and Resurrection were only in appearance 'T is evident they admit these false and deceitful Appearances only because they deny the reality of the Substance or Humane Nature HOW willing soever Thomas a Jesu has been to mollify the extravagant Thom. a Jesu de procuranda salute omn. Gent. Lib. 7. part 1. C. 17. Letters from forrein Countries to the Procur of the Missions Opinions of the Eastern Sects yet he tells us of the Armenians That they believe but one Nature one Will and one Operation of our Lord Jesus Christ And Barbereau the Jesuit an Emissary of Constantinople writing to one of the Society testifies the same thing What shall I say say's he of the Armenians that are here at Constantinople to the Number of above sixty thousand in a more deplorable condition than the Greeks For besides that they are as ignorant as them they have a particular Heresie which distinguishes them from others for they hold there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ and keep so firm to this Opinion that 't is a crime amongst them so much as to mention the contrary He do's not say 't is a bare Equivocation in the Word Nature as Mr. Arand would perswade us but a Heresie a false Opinion and an Opinion of which they are so greatly conceited that they hold the contradicting of it a Crime But how can this be if they condemn Eutyches and Dioscorus and affirm not the Humane Nature was confounded and swallowed up in the Divine if they grant the Humane Nature as well as the Catholicks and their Error consists only in refusing to use the expression of the two Natures as Mr. Arnaud assures us BUT after all these Testimonys I think I may re-stablish the Authority of Euthymius Zigabenus the Greek Monk and that of Isaac an Armenian Catholick who have both of 'em Written against the Schismatical Armenians and say the same thing as the rest Mr Arnaud says they prevaricate and impose on their Readers but what I now come from relating sufficiently justifies them from this Accusation After the Councel of Chalcedon says Euthymius the Armenians at the Instigation of one Hilarius Mandacanus and other Prophane Priests that were with him separated themselves Euthym. pan tit 20. from the Catholick Church and having embraced the impious Opinion of Eutyches Dioscorus and other Monophysical Hereticks that hold only one Nature in our Saviour Christ they added thereunto several other impious Doctrines to make their Heresie as it were more Compleat and Famous For they say our Saviour Christ took on him a Body which was not of the same substance as ours that his is Incorruptible Impassible Subtil Uncreated and Heavenly which seemed to exercise the Humane functions as to See Eat and Drink and yet did none of all these things They say moreover that the Flesh of Christ was changed into the Divinity and made of the same Essence with the Divinity it self That as a Drop of Honey or Vinegar cast into the Sea is not seen do's no longer subsist so the Body of Christ being ingulphed and swallowed up in the Ocean of the Divinity keeps no longer it s own Nature and propriety and thus there are not two Natures in Christ but one alone which is wholly Divine And there fore they deny the Sacrifice of Bread which is the flesh of Christ to be the Body of Christ but call it the Body of the Divinity That when they are convinced and constrained by strength of Argument to acknowledge our Saviour Christ to be both God and Man they do it by dissimulation for how can they seriously acknowledge him to be Man seeing as I already mentioned they affirm his substance to be different from ours They change says Isaac the traditions of the Catholick Church and the mysteries of Christ according to their blasphemous fancy they do not call the Communion or the Sacrifice of Bread which is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ the Body of Christ as he himself has called it but the Divinity MR. Arnaud may say as long as he pleases that these two Authors misrepresent the Armenians in charging them with believing the Humane Nature to Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 3. 455. have been ingulphed by the Divine and to be pure Eutychiens What reason has he to think the World will be satisfied with this answer as if it were sufficient for the rejecting of Authors to bring against them bold accusations without any ground or proof and humorously maintain that what they affirm is false BREEREWOOD says he and other modern Authors say as much Ibid. P. 456. Breerewoods inquirys C. 24. As to Breerewood t is true he says that it seems by their confession touching the Trinity sent by the Mandate of the Catholick of Armenia to the Patriarck of Armenia
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
Souls and Bodys that 't is neither Consumed or Corrupted nor passes into excrements but into our Substance and for our Conservation We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread seeing it passes into that of our Bodies Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence Do's Mr. Claude say's he pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical Lib. 7. C. 4 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them Surely he will not proceed so far How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance And why do's he not conclude on the contrary that as these words in Consistentiam animae vadit do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul to conserve fortify and operate in it his Graces so this expression in Consistentiam Corporis vadit do's signify nothing else but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks there are two things in the Eucharist the Substance and the Spiritual and divine vertue which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things attributes one of 'um to the Soul to wit the Divine Vertue and th' other to the Body to wit the Substance and 't is in respect of this latter that he say's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not consuming nor Corrupting it self nor passing into Excrements God forbid but passing into our Substance and preservation He say's expresly it passes into our Substance Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists one of which respects immediately the Body and th' other immediately the Soul Under the new Law say's Cyrill of Jerusalem the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salvation Sanctify the Soul and Body for as the Bread respects the Body so the word that Cyril Hie Cal. myst 4. Epiphan in Anapcâ—hal is to say the Consecration performed by the word relates to the Soul The Bread say's Epiphanius is an aliment but there is in it a quickning Vertue And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist in respect of what it has material and in reference of the Prayer say'd over Origen Comm. in Matt. 1â— it THE III. Proposition censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract which has for its title Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta some places of Scripture misunderstood and is thus described Asserunt Legendum esse hoc est Sacramentum Corporis c. They affirm we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body c. Would Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition For whether these People pretended we must read the Text not this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ as the title of the Article insinuates Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church should either make this correction or seek this explication Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind that we must not read this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence Let Mr. Arnaud consult himself hereupon and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites or received by the Publick Consent and by Tradition and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical or Erroneous or Superstitious were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations so that what we now Rehearsed concerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schismatical Churches AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite who was of the Seminary at Rome Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person whom he perfectly knew being both of the same Country and having passed over a great part of their Life 's together he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testimonies and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down COME we now to the Jacobites Copticks and Ethiopians Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries which he used in reference to the Moscovites and Nestorians so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made and tell him that if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touching the Substance of the Sacrament several Authors and Emissaries would without doubt have informed the World thereof and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the Latins and them I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops and that when Eugenius IV. Raynald ad ann 1442. reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist holding as they do that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body there being only the Divine Nature in him Now that they hold this last Error may be proved by infinite Testimonies NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonderfull Hâ—â—t of the
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 1â—26 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 baeâ—â—s 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
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
at least must byass a mans Judgment towards those things which are afterwards offered If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any mention of the Substantial Presence nor Conversion of Substances that never believed these Doctrines and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect Now we know 't is contrary to Nature to believe it I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious far from being sincere and tending to surprize mens minds by making 'um take a part beforehand without any ground or reason that being thus prejudic'd they may see what is not and not see what is For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions the one that a Church believed Transubstantiation but never disputed about it Th' other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation nor ever heard it a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say here 's one of these defective Expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer and on the other a man will say here 's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery In effect hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers the one believe they see Transubstantiation in 'um because they read the Passages with this Prejudice that the ancient Church held it and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd the others do not find it in 'um because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice that the ancient Church did not believe it and these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable For this effect we must consider the Church either as a Society of men or as a Society of Christians In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation If she held it it would be in the second respect I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion which is the Word of God or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures and Tradition of the first Six Centuries and shew therein the Doctrines in question which done he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages and make his Discussion on this Principle that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transubstantiation But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute This is a plain Deviation and Illusion For till such time as the contrary appears to us we must always predetermine on Natures side Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere we cannot but suppose the Church in what time and place soever we consider it in a State purely Natural in this respect WEE can never reasonably predetermine without some considerable motive contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men nor contrary to Universal Notions and general Customs Now 't is certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question For our Senses give in their Testimony against them and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to ' um Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters WEE ought never to prejudicate without exceeding great reason against an example I mean against the usual manner of proceeding acting thinking or speaking in such like matters as is this in question Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses but also contrary to their Deposition WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy that is to say the Relation Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines Maxims and Customs of the same Religion For 't is with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building or Aedifices of the same City or Members of the same Body or if you will as with Children of the same Family They are known by one another because they all do in some sort resemble each other now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Expressions for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ to wit that of his Abasement and that of his Exaltation without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental WE shall not find 'um applying to
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
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
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