the Greeks of taking up their Dead a Year after they are buried If they find their Bodies are not yet consumed they examine what remains of them and if it doth not stink but hath a good Colour they esteem that Person a Holy Man But if on the contrary the Corps be Black or Swelled they repute him to have bin an ill Liver and an Excommunicated Person Wherefore it is that in their form of Excommunication one of their Imprecations is that such a Person may not be consumed after Death neither in this World nor in that which is to come but that he may be swelled like a Drum They verily believe this is perfectly accomplished And Leo Allatius tells us several Stories of those Phantasms which they call Burcolaques which are saith he Excommunicated Persons who being deceased torment the living and of whom the Greeks are as much afraid as our Children when we tell them of Fryar Bourru's Ghost Nay so greatly are they Prepossessed with false Opinions as to imagine an Excommunication pronounced by a Christian that afterwards turns Turk produces the same Effect that is to say keeps the Body from Consuming and causes it to grow hard and swell till such time as this Excommunication be taken off by him who pronounced it altho never so great an Infidel Which is confirmed by Leo Allatius concerning the Patriarch Raphael who to dissolve Christoph Angel C. 42. the Body of an excommunicated Person was forced to apply himself to a Renegado for his Absolution WE may reckon in the Number of the Grecian Superstitions the belief they have long held touching a Miracle that happens every Year in the Sepulcher at Jerusalem on the Saturday before Easter which is That all the Lamps being extinguished the Patriarch enters alone into the Sepulcher and God sends a Beam of Light from Heaven wherewith he kindles the Torch he holds in his hand and therewith lights all the rest Which is performed Annot. Allat de quorund Graecor opinat alii passim with great Ceremony and publick Acclamations of Rejoycing not only by the Greeks but all the Eastern Christians which are at Jerusalem for they all hold this Miracle to be true NEITHER do they at all suspect the Truth of another Miracle which Christoph Angel C. 42. they say happens once a Year in Caire near the River of Nile and which lasts from Holy Thursday to Ascension Day Which is that in several Countries the dead Bodies arise out of their Graves But this Miracle only happens when they celebrate Easter according to antient Custom Whereas should they Celebrate it according to the new Kalender the Miracle would infallibly cease as it fell out about fourscore or a hundred Years since when the Greeks altered the time of the Celebration upon which the dead Bodies arose no more and the Sacred Fire was also withheld from the Sepulcher which obliged them to the Observance again of the former Day whereupon the Miracles returned And this Relation we have from Christophorus Angelus and some others We might give a farther Description of the Ignorance and Superstition of these poor People were not what has bin already mentioned sufficient to inform the World of M. Arnaud's vain Triumphs For when it should appear that all these Sects held Transubstantiation and the real Presence what Advantage would accrue to him thereby Would it hence appear impossible that these Doctrines have crept in amongst them by the same means the true Mysteries of Christianity have slipt out for Ignorance and Superstition are but sorry keepers of Evangelical Truths It is easy to impose on these People whose Minds have bin so darkned with Errours all marks of Christianity having bin long since lost amongst them They may be made believe any thing being in this respect as white Paper whereon men may write what they please There needs but one mans falling into an Errour to draw all the rest after him And this Mr. Poulet hath well Relation of the Levant or the Sieur of Poulet's Voyage Part. 2. C. 28. observed in the Account he gives us of the Nestorians who still obstinately retain their old Errours for which Reason they are hated by all the Levantine Christians They know not what they Believe saies he being ready to receive any new Opinion be it what it will provided it includes not a Submission to the Holy See Which is as much as to say they are not firm or Precautioned against any Article but that of Obedience to the Pope having bin oftentimes tempted and sometimes surprized into an acknowledgment of his Supremacy but as to other Points they are very Ductil being ignorant of their Meaning And these are such People Mr. Arnaud desires and who seem to him fit Objects to ground his Dispute on He thought to make his Advantage of this Confusion but certainly he ought to give the World a true account of these Matters and not so highly to extol his own Victories seeing the Honour of them is much diminished by what I have allready offered CHAP. II. That the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Century and the Efforts the Latins have â—ade to communicate to them their Religion do invalidate the Proof which is pretended to be drawn from their Belief Mr. Arnaud's Artifice discovered HERE is then Mr. Arnaud's first Deceit detected which consists in the concealing from us the real Condition wherein this People have so long layn as to Religion to the end the weakness of his Arguments may lye undiscovered The second consists in setting before us several impertinent historical Passages on purpose to avert his Readers Mind from a due Consideration of those things which he knows would prove disavantagious to him It is without doubt a very disingenuous Artifice thus to change the natural Use and Order of things and snatch out of mens Sights the true and important Consequences may be drawn thence by substituting others which are but mere Amusements And yet this Mr. Arnaud has done for not being able to deny that the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Century hath very much facilitated the Attempts of the Latins establishing their Doctrines in those Parts He thereupon supposes I affirm the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation and under pretence of opposing this Fancy sprung from his own Brain he retails out the History of the East to shew that the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist I will not insist at present on the little reason he had to charge me with this Opinion I shall make it appear in the following parts of this Discourse that this is his Chimera and not mine I shall only represent here the same historical Passages Mr. Arnaud has produced in that manner wherein they ought to be proposed to make a right Judgment of this Dispute and not in that false View wherein he has represented them In a Word
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
and speaks not of the Troubles raised by Berengarius his Heresie but only as hapning in the Year 1051. Secondly because Durand Abbot of Trorand in Normandy who lived about that time refers the Council of Verseil to the Year 1053. only And there is no reason to pretend as a Learned Lawyer of Anger 's does that there is a mistake in this Passage of Durand and that we must read 1050. seeing that according to the judicious Observation of Mr. de St. Beuve the King's Professor at Sorbornne in a Manuscript on this Matter the same Durand testifies that in the Year he speaks of Alfred was Abbot of the Abby of Preaux in Normandy which was not founded till the Year 1053. according to Du Bec ' s Chronicle HERE then we have upon good Grounds and undeniable Authority the two Condemnations of Berengarius referred to the same Year in which Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote their Letter It remains only to know whether Mr. Arnaud may suppose without Proof that the Letter was written after Berengarius his Condemnation and whether 't is not a plain Delusion thus slightly to pass over a Point of this importance on which depends the greatest part of his reasoning For if this Letter was written before the time wherein Berenger was first condemned what can be then concluded from Cerularius and Leo de Acrida's Silence Wherefore must they ground an Accusation against the Church of Rome on a Condemnation which was not then in being Now this is a matter of Fact which I affirm to be very uncertain and which Mr. Arnaud must demonstrate and not suppose without Proof They wrote say's he against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo had condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil There being but one Letter from both Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida we must conceive 't was written to the Council at Rome after Berengarius his first Condemnation and near the time they were about calling th' other Council at Verseil Now this has no likelihood for as Baronius has well Baron ann Eccles ad ann 1053. observed Leo answered this Letter in the same Year namely 1053. whence it follows if we reckon right we shall find that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida could not have written their Letter but in the beginning of the Year at farthest and consequently before there was any mention at Rome of Berengarius his Condemnation and especially before the news thereof came to Constantinople In effect it must not be imagined that this Patriarch and Archbishop indited their Letter without mature and deliberate advice and consideration nor that they sent it without communicating the Contents of it to some of their Clergy to bring them to take part with them and engage 'em in their Interests seeing the matter concerned the censuring of a Church such as that of the Latins and which they were sure would highly resent it Affairs of this importance are not wont to be precipitated It required also some time before this Letter could come from Constantinople to Tranys in the Kingdom of Naples John Bishop of Tranys to whom 't was directed must likewise have some time to send it to Cardinal Humbert and he must get it translated out of Greek into Latin Humbert must go to Rome for he carried it himself to Pope Leo after he received it from the Bishop of Tranys In fine Leo must examine it and answer it For all which Mr. Arnaud allows but three Months Cerularius say's he and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins Baron ad ann 1053. and at the same time and not long after again Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil This not long after can only relate to the Council at Rome which was the first and consequently this at the same time must relate to the Council of Verseil which being not called till September as appears by Lanfranc who positively affirmeth it and the Pope having wrote his Answer at farthest in December infr de corp sang Dom. it must needs be if we believe what Mr. Arnaud supposes that is to say if the Letter was written in the Month of September that all that which I come now from observing was transacted in three Months time And thus does Mr. Arnaud hasten the time that it may answer his necessities TO this Delusion we may add another which will be the Thirteenth It consists in supposing without Proof that Leo the Ninth in condemning Berengarius precisely established Transubstantiation and the real Presence For if we take not this Fact for a certain Principle there can be no Pretence for demanding wherefore Cerularius reproached not the Church of Rome about her erring in the Doctrine of the Eucharist YET is there nothing more uncertain for there are none of the Decrees of this Council extant and I think not one Author that relates the proper Terms of these Condemnations They tell us that Berengarius was condemned that John Scot's Book was burnt but this is not sufficient to conclude that Transubstantiation and the real Presence were established in Terms which might offend Cerularius and the Greeks and give them occasion to form an Accusation against the Roman Church Sober men are not wont to accuse People upon confused Reports and equivocal Terms And it will be to no purpose to say we must not doubt but that Leo's intention was to assert the substantial Conversion against Berengarius seeing Lanfranc assures us that he himself having declared in full Council his Belief touching the Eucharist in opposition to that of Berengarius it was approved and the other rejected as erroneous For he that states an Opinion contradictory to that of Berengarius does not necessarily assert Transubstantiation there being several other ways and means of opposition It concerns us not here to inform our selves from Lanfranc what was the sence of the Synod but whether what came to Cerularius his knowledge concerning that matter was sufficient to make him say those People established a real Conversion of Substances Now to imagine as Mr. Arnaud does that a Patriarch which is at Constantinople can make such a Judgment with Discretion it will not be sufficient to inform him of the intention and secret design of the Latins altho even this is not to be supposed without Proof but he must have before him the distinct and express Terms relating to this Affair and this Mr. Arnaud cannot prove seeing there is no such matter extant HE will say without doubt that this is a very strange thing for whatsoever falls not under his sence is strange to affirm that a Pope and Council that intended to establish Transubstantiation in condemning Berengarius yet have not done it in intelligible Terms Neither will he forget to censure me here a little as he is wont at every pinch saying I consider the matters I
establish Transubstantiation and that so clearly too that Cerularius ought to reproach the Latins with it Had Mr. Arnaud minded he might have comprehended that this Body of Truth is nothing else but the Truth it self which is called the Body in opposition to the Shadow of the Jews that it is of the Azyme and in the Azyme because the Azyme is the Mystery of it that in partaking of it with our mouths and hearts we taste the sweetness of the Lord because his Grace thereby is communicated to us and that in fine this Truth of which he speaks is our Spiritual Communion with Christ as he explains it himself in saying that he dwells in us and we in him in opposition to the Terrestial Felicity which the Jews expected in the participation of their Azyme MR. Arnaud adds that Humbert believed Transubstantiation but it concerns us not to know whether he did believe it or not but whether he did sufficiently explain it to the Greeks whereby to move Cerularius to make it the head of an Accusation against the Roman Church THE Pope's Legats say's he excommunicated the Patriarch and departed from Constantinople I agree with him in this The Patriarch would have them return to the end they might be torn in pieces by the People This may be He stirred up a Sedition against the Emperor that upheld them I grant it They sent the Emperor a true Copy of the Excommunication they had read in which they say that as to the Pillars of the Empire and its Honourable and Sage Citizens they were most Christian and Orthodox All this concludes nothing They blame not Cerularius in any sort touching the Eucharist which shews they had not the least thought that Cerularius differed from them in his Opinion about this Mystery Why must they blame him touching this Point when both the Greeks and Latins at that time used the same Expressions Cerularius say's he afterwards giving way to his Passion wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch to animate him against the Latins and makes no mention of their Belief touching the Eucharist I believe it But this still concludes nothing unless it be shewed that Transubstantiation was then established in the Romane Church This is the Point that ought to be proved without any more words For all these Narrations serve only to inform us in what perplexity Mr. Arnaud finds himself to make out his first Proof He carries his Readers backwards and forwards from East to West and from West to East again when the Question concerns the Opinion of the Greeks he goes to seek it at Rome amongst the Latins and when touching the Opinion of the Latins he goes to seek it at Antioch and Constantinople amongst the Greeks and all this amounts to nothing at last but mere Delusion for it proves nothing Was ever such Confusion beheld in the entrance of a Controversie and especially considering the noise there has been about it BUT it will be perhaps said How can we deny that Transubstantiation was established and commonly held by the Church of Rome in Leo's time that is to say about the middle of the Eleventh Century I answer we can be no otherwise informed than by the Expressions of the Council held under Nicholas II. which I already related and which contain not Transubstantiation I believe there were then several particular Persons that believed it and took this way whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Christ but howsoever the Roman Church had not yet declared her self otherwise than in general Terms which could not offend either Cerularius or his Greeks THIS is then another of Mr. Arnaud's Artifices to perswade us as he would do that he is not moreover obliged to prove the Greeks believed Transubstantiation and that 't is sufficient to shew that all the Patriarchal Churches were linkt in Communion with the Roman when she condemned Berengarius and were not parted asunder upon this occasion This I say is a gross Delusion for not to mention here that the Rupture was already made before the time of Berengarius his first Condemnation or at least before his Condemnation could be known in the Patriarchal Churches as appears by what I alledged in the beginning of this Chapter we must further observe that of all those Condemnations which the Authors of the Office make to amount to Eight there is never a one but the last which was made by Gregory VII in the Year 1079. which can be said to establish expressly Transubstantiation so that the Separation of the Greeks being made since the Year 1053. that is to say Twenty six Years before this Presumption which Mr. Arnaud say's is clearly on the side of the Roman Church is void and fantastical and cannot acquit him from giving us that Proof which we require of him CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's Second Proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus examined His Third Proof from the Testimony of Lanfranc and Silence of the Berengarians examined The rest of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions considered MR. Arnaud's Second Proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus consists of Delusions as well as the former He immediately tells us this Dispute does invincibly Lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 150. prove these Four Points 1. That the Roman Church held at that time the Doctrine of the real Presence and Transubstantiation 2. That this Doctrine was declared to the Greeks in such a manner that they could not be ignorant of it 3. That Cardinal Humbert positively believed the Greeks held the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation 4. That the Greeks did in effect believe this Doctrine and elearly expressed the same But having thus distinguished these Four Propositions and assured us they are the plain result of Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas his first Delusion consists in leaving them and expressly proving neither of ' em He contents himself with alledging to us a Passage of Humbert's wherein there is not the least mention of the Conversions of Substances nor so much as one Clause but what is expressed in such Terms as may be well understood without Transubstantiation Which will plainly appear if we take the pains to read over again this Passage as Mr. Arnaud has produced it in the Sixth Chapter of his Second Book I confess he endeavours to infer it thence by way of Consequence Because say's he that Humbert denying as he does that the Eucharist is digested Ibid. pag. 151. and breaks the Ecclesiastical Fast he can therefore acknowledge no other Substance but that of Christ's Body BUT besides that this is not clearly to prove the Church of Rome then believed Transubstantiation and that her Belief on this Point was declared to the Greeks in such a manner that they could not be ignorant of it but must perceive it to be the Consequence of Humbert's Terms seeing on one hand we may still doubt whether Humbert spake his own Sence or that of the Church which sent
of the Truth than solid Philosophy And therefore the Devil to keep the Greeks in this ignorance has so ordered it that the Bishops are still elected from amongst the Monks and that moreover the Monks should lay this necessity upon themselves of being ignorant 'T IS likely Persons in these Circumstances do not trouble themselves with Inquiries into the Opinions of the Latins touching the Mystery of the Eucharist and in effect amongst all those that have written since the Eleventh Century to this present excepting the Latinizing Greeks there will be found very few that mention the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Conversion of Substances which shews that they are not well instructed in it YET do not I believe this ignorance has been so Universal but that there have been some from time to time who sufficiently understood the Opinion of the Latins and especially those that have had most Commerce with them as for instance such as negotiated the Re-unions those that conferred with the Emissaries and were Assessors at the Council of Florence and such as were forced to live under the Jurisdiction of Latine Bishops Mr. Arnaud needed not trouble himself with proving this for 't is a thing we grant him SO that here are already several of Mr. Arnaud's Illsions and yet we are not at the end of all those he has imposed on us touching this single Article of the Greeks WE may moreover reckon into this number the perpetual Quotation of this Form of a Re-union which was so often offered to the Greeks and which the Greeks have sometimes received when they were at accord with the Latine Church He tells us that the Emperour Michael Paleologus his Deputies Lib. 3. cap. 3. pag 275. being arrived at the Council of Lyons presented the Emperours Letters to the Pope containing in express Terms the Confession of Faith which was sent them by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth wherein Transubstantiation is expressly inserted in these Terms Sacramentum Eucharistae ex Azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini Jesu Christi He adds that this Profession of Faith was sworn to on the Emperour's part by George Acropolitus and that the Legate of the Council of the Greeks presented likewise a Letter to the Pope as from the Metropolitain of Ephesus and thirty Greek Bishops and that he swore in their name after the same manner the Ambassador had done to imbrace intirely the forementioned Confession of Faith wherein Transubstantiation was expressed He tells us moreover that in the Confession of Eaith which Ibid. pag 277. John Veccus inserted in his Letters aswell in his own Name as in the Name of the Greek Bishops that Transubstantiation was expressly contained in it altho occasionally upon account of the Azymes credentes nos ipsum Azymum panem in ipso Sacro Officio Eucharistae verè transubstantiari in Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi Vinum in Sanguinem ejus per Sanctissimi Spiritus Virtutem Operationem That they likewise do believe the unleavened Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ He afterwards observes this Confession of the Greek Bishops was not expressed in the same Terms as that which was sent thence by Clement the Fourth and Gregory the Tenth but that this difference has no after effect in respect of the Article of the Azymes and that of Transubstantiation but that 't is expressed more plainly than in the Confession of Faith compiled by Clement SO that if we will believe Mr. Arnaud we have here Transubstantiation formally received and acknowledged by the Greek Church But all this is but a meer Delusion This Confession of Faith in the Latin of Raynoldus from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed whatsoever he has alledged concerning it has indeed these Words Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem but as I alreay observed in the Greek which Allatius cites Allat de Perp. Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. touching the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus there are these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Changed is not transubstantiated I have already shown there is a great deal of difference between these two Terms The Greeks hold that the Bread is changed into the Body which is not the Point in question but whether they believe 't is transubstantiated Mr. Arnaud was not ignorant of the difference between the Latine and Greek Copy of this Confession of Faith for he has taken notice of it himself elsewhere upon the Subject of the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus and has no better defence for it than saying that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks and the Transubstantiatur of the Latins are Synonimous Terms Why did he not mention this difference in this place and wherefore has he grounded his Proof on the Latin Expressions The Doctrine of Transubstantiation say's he is expressly inserted in this Confession of Faith I will shew Mr. Claude Transubstantiation solemnly approved by the Greek Church in the Lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 273. cap. 2. same manner as men approve things they ever believed and of which they have not the least doubt And a little after And thus I obliged my self to shew him the Doctrine of Transubstantiation signed and sworn to by the Greeks And this indeed he does shew us if we only consider the Latin Text but if we consult the Greek we shall find quite another thing than what he pretends We shall find indeed the Latins do believe Transubstantiation and endeavour to insinuate it amongst the Greeks but we shall likewise find that the Greeks depart not from their general expressions For to tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and transubstantiatur are Synonymous Terms is what I deny and have refuted already and shall again refute in the following Discourse This whole Proof which Mr Arnaud has been so earnest upon reduces it self to a thing which we do not deny him which is that the Greeks hold the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood This Confession of Faith informs us of no new thing but that which I already acknowledged is to be found amongst the Greek Authors Why then must this be made a matter of Triumph It remains still to inquire whether they understand it of a change of Substance which is our only Question Moreover Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw advantage from John Veccus the Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter in that the Confession of Faith contained therein is not expressed in the same Terms as that sent by Clement and Gregory which was signed and sworn to by the Emperours Ambassadour and by the Greeks Legat in the Council at Lyons for it appears by reading this Letter and comparing it with the
before his time who thus deliver themselves So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessarily prepare the Reader for the third In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church for the six first Ages to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation and supposes it to be not only possible but that it hath actually hap'ned so that it only remains to know when by whom and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced and this is sufficiently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone without the greatest Injustice and Disingenuity for this is to strip it of all its Strength and to deal with it as the Philistims did with Samson cut off his Hair before they set upon him Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind or rather to speak better with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions Now this is not fair Dealing For to proceed orderly he ought to have begun with these first Preparations and made it appear if he could that they were fallacious and so discover the unjustice falsity or weakness of them and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us Had he taken this Course we should have had nothing to charge him with touching his Method but to stifle these Preparations and cut 'em off from the Dispute and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former As for Instance Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients in saying The Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ Now to refute directly this Historical Passage being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself But instead of this the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course for he demands how this can be That Perpetuity of the Faith P. 50. 51. c. Anastasius who could not be ignorant of the Churches Belief in his time should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed and this without acknowledging he proposed a contrary Opinion He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West and that Anastasius's real meaning and that of them who spake like him in this particular could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them And the same doth he in respect of Paschasius whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion and that he did not teach a new Doctrine he sets himself upon shewing that if Paschasius had bin an Innovator he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time that he would have bin opposed and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church as he has done I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments neither will I say they ought to be rejected for this Reason alone that they are indirect The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable and it must be granted it is not for the chief design of this his Account being only to demonstrate that Anastasius and Paschasius introduced Innovations Now to make it appear they were not Innovators there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who preceded them which should come near the same Expressions or at least amounted to the same Sence as that of theirs which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then if he pleases the Question and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths the one that Mr. Aubertin ' s Book was the first occasion of this Contest the other that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former it will not be amiss to answer his Objections and shew him first That I pretendnot to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination for provided he handles them in a regular manner he will thereby oblige the publick Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book and leaving the other provided this Part may be well refuted alone and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separation Thirdly Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himself and require of him two Volums in Folio For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book AND as to what he tells us that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject than that he suppose nothing which is False or Obscure and draw not from thence ill Consequences seeing the truth and clearness of Principles and the justness of their Consequences are in themselves sufficient to assure us of the Truth and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof To which I answer This is true when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject and do take this course to decide the principal Question of it for in this case only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined But if this be not consented to but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not nor Whether their Consequences are true or false for this follows afterwards The Method of handling the Subject is only considered without regard to the Principles or Conclusions That is to say Whether 't is direct or disorderly natural or against Nature sufficient to perswade and end the Controversie or not and on this account it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong one which is a Natural rather than that which is not so For such a one may well be told He spends his time to no purpose that takes not a right
of them how it has come to pass that the Church of Rome has altered the antient Doctrine they will answer their Salvation depends not on this Knowledg but that it must needs be it has made an Alteration seeing it believes at this day what it ought not to believe and which without doubt hath not bin believed heretofore as they judge out of Charity to the Antients Should they be urged to tell how this has hapned they will answer again this is not an account wherein their Salvation is concerned and that this Question ought to be proposed to those Persons who know it and in all this they will have Reason If this Treatise be offered to those of the second Rank that is to say to them who are learned and have had the Curiosity of informing themselves and to whom properly the second Question belongs they will likewise answer they have no need of this Method having already informed themselves by a natural and direct way which is of more value than all these Conjectures or if they have not done it they will do it being not so silly as to shut their Eyes and reject the Evidence of their Senses to betake themselves to a Method wherein there can be nothing but Confusion to be expected and these last will have Reason too BUT saith Mr. Arnaud we must suppose that the Proofs of the Treatise are evident for they cannot be supposed false till such time as they are examined You ought then to have begun here wherefore your Exceptions signify nothing I answer that these Suppositions are not juster than his Arguments For if these curious Persons whom I mentioned have already taken the Pains they ought whereby to ascertain themselves in the Proofs of Fact they will be prepared to judge that the Arguments of the Treatise are false and captious because that moral Impossibilities such as these are and in such a Subject as this cannot subsist against Proofs of Fact which are immediate certain and evident as ours are If they have not yet taken this Pains I say that without examining whether the Proofs of the Treatise be good or bad they will only mind the Method and by comparing it with that of Discussion if they are men of Reason they will prefer this last before the other because that 't is in effect most natural in it self and more certain in its Proofs WHAT shall we do then with the Treatise of the Perpetuity which has made such a Noise in the World Will it be of no use There are a crue of People in the World who are curious and idle both together who are willing to know the Opinions of former Ages on these famous Articles about which Europe is at this day divided but yet will be at no Pains for this because Labour is distasteful to them and they have other things to do It is then for such Persons as these this Treatise has bin written For it courteth them and presents it self to 'em whether at Ease or in Business it only desires them to spend two Hours on its Reading whereby to decide a Point of this Importance The Style of it is curious and enticing and its Expressions emphatical it winneth on the Mind and leads it insensibly where it pleases All this flatters mens Curiosity and Lazyness both together But if this sort of People loved their Salvation as we may suppose they ought we should then have but two or three things to say to them First that they beware of these short Methods which favour at the same time two Inclinations which seldom agree I mean Idleness and Curiosity For we cannot arrive at any certainty in these kind of Questions if we do not earnestly apply our selves to them for Labour and Knowledg do always go together and it commonly happens that they who thus promise us such great Knowledg without any trouble do cheat us two ways for they lead us into tedious Prolixities and dreadful Difficulties and at last having tired us they leave us as wise as we were at first AND this is exactly the case of the Treatise of the Perpetuity if we rightly consider it for it promises us immediately nothing but Perspicuity Facilities and Convictions it being made up of undenyable Truths Yet let a man take but the Pains to examine only his fixt Point which is his first Supposition on which the whole stress of his Book lies and he will find that 't is impossible to be certain in it I mean the Year one thousand fifty three wherein Berengarius was at first condemned and in which time the Author of the Treatise pretend's the universal Church was agreed in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Now to be satisfied in this particular we should have an exact Knowledg of the eleventh Century to the end we may discern whether this Condemnation of Berengarius was the real Effect of the Churches Union or only that of a Party which was then the strongest at the Court of Rome We should know each particular matter of this great Affair that we may be able to judge whether humane Interest had no share in it whether those that were concerned in it did not act against their Consciences and whether the Procedings were just and regular We must examine the State of Princes Ecclesiasticks and People to be satisfied in this supposed Union We should have before us the Writings of Berengarius and others who held the same Opinions to understand their Arguments and Defences But all these things are impossible We have no other account of this History than what some interessed Writers have bin pleased to give us and in which there are Relations justly suspected to be false The secret Designs and Motives which then prevailed are out of our reach We know scarcely any thing more of the Persons who then made up the Church but that they were the greatest part of them buried in profound Ignorance The Writings of Berengarins and his Followers are lost for there has bin Care taken to extinguish the Remembrance of them In short this is an Abyss wherein we behold nothing whereby we may be able to affirm with any certainty that the whole Church was united in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence For a man to give Credit to any Relation of Berengarius's Adversaries who bragged that their Opinion was that of the whole World it would be to be over Credulous in any Affair of this Importance and so much the more because the contrary appeareth by substantial Proofs which should be examined before we rest satisfied in them SO that here we are already sufficiently perplexed in the first Particular and shall be no less in the others If we would be ascertained in the Proofs of the Treatise we should know perfectly the Tempers of the People their Condition and principal Circumstances in the Ages which preceded the eleventh Century We should know how the Body of the Ecclesiasticks was composed
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
ruled the Church after their manner and drove away the Greeks whensoever they could do it with safety and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks who would not relent and embrace the Truth they severely punished them as they had done heretofore in the East and especially at Antioch He afterwards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author which I shall here set down and so much the rather because of the Consequence which may be made of this History Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu ' s Ibid. time to that of John Batatza ' s the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats and substituted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them And this they did at Constantinople Cyprus Antioch and other Cities and not content with this they constrained all the People not excepting the Priests and Monks to be of their Opinion and Communion and commemorate the Pope They were Friends to those that obeyed them but as to them that reprehended them they treated them as Hereticks and those that abhorred their Communion were punished openly even to the making them suffer Martyrdom and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus whom they kept three Years in Prison because they would not Communicate with them Inflicting on them all manner of Torments and in fine not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes and drew them over Precipices causing othres to be burnt alive John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator He farther adds that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice who complaining of these Cruelties received for Answer that the Pope was troubled thereat and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received It was only saies he to deride and impose on us that they would have us send first to them as it were to accuse our selves and acknowledg our Error which plainly appeared afterwards by their Letters BUT to the end we may not think Leo Allatius who relates this Complaint of the Greeks is suspected by the Latins under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes If this Author saies he means the Greeks who remaining fixt to their Ceremonies embraced otherwise the Truth he is mistaaen For the Latins have Ibid. bin so far from driving them away that they have made use of them as often as they have Occasion If he means the Schismaticks and those that maintained the Errors of the Greeks he trifles for how can he imagine the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church should suffer in a Country they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood the Greeks their Enemies and Adversaries to their Faith to live unpunished These erronious People must be reduced being Rebels to their own Faith not only by simple Banishments but by Fire and Sword And this is Allatius his Moderation which does not well accord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him we need but hear himself to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks After the taking of Constantinople L. 3. C. 1. saies he the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches they established a Latine Patriarch they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests they created a Latin Emperor who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever appertained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia having but three or four Cities left him which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes He adds a little after that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope that at length the Emperour Henry Baldwin ' s Successor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus He tells us likewise L. 3. C. 7. in another place that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors as he himself calls them who had often performed this Office in France and Germany and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them and a great part of their Piety to have them severely Punished that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them and examine their Doctrine WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Arnaud's good Intentions towards them these historical Passages he has offered were enough to make him suspected For this deplorable Condition of Greece and all the East and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion for several Years together that is to say for near two hundred Years in the East and fifty eight in Greece might well introduce amongst these People the Belief of a substantial Conversion and there is methinks more reason to admire if this has not hapned than if it hath WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories He tells L. 3. C. 7. us three things worth our Observation The first is that altho Constantinople was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus yet they kept still several places in Greece and even whole Provinces as Achaia Secondly that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands as Cyprus Crete Eubeé Rhodes and divers other Places Thirdly that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople so that there was always a great number there who made Profession of the Romish Religion Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce but in several places their Lords and Masters and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion LEO Allatius tells us likewise that when the King of England had Possessed De Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 15. himself of Cyprus and given it to the King of Jerusalem that he might
the year 1514 relates the same thing of the Moscovites whose Religion as every one knows is in a manner the same with that of the Greeks As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist say's he which they consecrate Raynald ad ann 1514. on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper they say that this only is proper for the sick and not that which is consecrated at other times so that they consecrate Bread on that day for the whole year in a Chalice prepared for that purpose and put it dry and full of maggots as it is into the mouth of the sick with a spoon Possevin the Jesuit in the writing he presented to the great Duke of Muscovia in the year 158â— In which he reckons up the Errours of the Greeks especially remarks this as one of the chief They err say's he Possevin in Mosc pag. 43. in saying the most excellent Sacrament of the Eucharist which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper is more efficacious and of greater virtue than that which is consecrated on other days Anthony Caucus Archbishop of Corcyra in his Relation of the Errors of the Greeks to Pope Gregory the XIII observes likewise in the 14th Article That they hold the Sacrament of the Eucharist which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper has a greater virtue than that consecrated on other times Allatius mentions this Article of Caucus amongst others which he censures as calumnies but altho he is very earnest to refute this Archbishop and treats him as unworthily as may be without any respect to his Dignity even to the calling of him os durum Stygium non nisi mentiri gnarum yet has not he Allat de perpet cons lib. 3. cap. 17. dared to touch on this Article in particular and his outrages only confirm in this regard the Authority of Caucus and the truth of his Relation ALPHONSUS de Castro attributes this same opinion to the Greeks Alphonsus de Castro adv baeres lib. 6. tit de Euchar. haeres 9. He alledges for this effect the Testimony of Guy Carmus and altho he has been accustomed not to spare him in his censures whensoever he can find the least occasion yet does he agree with him in this particular saying we must not wonder if the Greeks be in this Errour seeing the Genius of that People lies in expressing themselves after a vain manner and in inventing of Fables ARCUDIUS confirms the same thing There are say's he People so Areud lib. 3. cap. 55. impertinent as to believe the Holy Eucharist which is prepared on that day Holy Thursday hath a greater virtue to sanctifie them who receive it than that which is consecrated on another day As if it were not still the same Jesus Christ or as if our Lord was at sometimes more powerful than at others IF it be demanded what consequence we can hence draw against Transubstantiation I answer it appears plain enough in it self For if we suppose the Greeks hold the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy by means of this abundant sanctification which the Bread receives we shall not find any absurdity in this other Opinion which they hold concerning the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday namely that it is more efficacious than that consecrated on other days for this sanctification of the Bread and quickning Grace which accompanies it may have its degrees it receives more and less as the Schoolmen speak but if you suppose the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ by conversion of Substance this more and this less which they imagine cannot be admitted it is true indeed that the Sacrament will produce various effects according to the various dispositions of the Persons who receive it and according as there shall be more or less devotion in a man's Soul it will feel more or less the strength of Grace but the cause will be in them who shall receive the Sacrament and not in the Sacrament it self nor in the day of its Consecration If the Bread becomes the proper Substance of the Son of God it is always of equal virtue in it self and the time of Consecration can neither encrease nor diminish it It is then scarcely to be imagined that Persons who believe Transubstantiation can fall into this other Opinion for is it not the same Substance the same Jesus Christ personally is it not one and the same Conversion which terminates it self in the same Subject Whence then can proceed this more and less Would they say that the Transubstantiation is made more on one day than another This thought cannot happen in the mind of those that know what Transubstantiation means Do they mean that the Body of Jesus Christ has greater virtue in it one day than another This thought likewise cannot happen in the mind of those that know what our Saviour is Do they hereby only mean that he displays a greater efficacy one day than another altho he has ever the same measure of it in himself It is certain that this more and this less of Grace which the Faithful receive in the Communion supposing we take the proper Substance of Jesus Christ with the mouths of our Bodies cannot proceed from any other cause but that of more or less devotion which we bring with us to the Lord's Table So that this Opinion of the Greeks being found inconsistant with that of Transubstantiation and moreover it not appearing clearly to us that they have this latter whereas it is plainly manifest they have the other we are obliged to conclude they hold not the substantial Conversion I know we must not imagine that men do always so exactly adjust their Sentiments that they never contradict themselves and I acknowledge the Greeks are ignorant enough to have on the same Subject contradictory Opinions but besides that there are certain palpable contradictions of which few men how bruitish soever they be are capable as this would be to believe that the Eucharist is the proper Substance of the Son of God and yet to be of a more excellent virtue being consecrated on Holy Thursday than on other days besides this I say seeing it does not expresly and clearly appear to us from any thing else that they believe Transubstantiation it is far more just to give to their Terms on the subject of the Change which happens to the Bread a sence which agrees with this aforementioned belief than to give them another which wholly contradicts it and makes them ridiculous If they must be led to the Substantial Conversion or carried off from it by way of explication of their general expressions there is more reason to expound them in a sence conformable to their other Opinions than to make them guilty of manifest absurdities WOULD Mr. Arnaud lay aside for a while this Personal Interest wherewith he seems to be transported in this
virtue And therefore they bring the comparison of Food which becomes one with our Bodies and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread and the Body which may make us say literally and without recourse to a Figure that the Bread is the Body As to what concerns us we need not take such a great circuit because the Question concerning a Sacrament we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence IV. IT seems likewise that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression of the Holy Spirit and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ on the Bread with some kind of inherency yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church altho their expressions intimate as much But howsoever this is not our Opinion We do indeed believe that the Grace of the Holy Spirit and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies but we hold not this impression or real inherence of virtue which it seems the Greeks admit whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks with its principal Circumstances and in reference to that of ours and the Church of Rome's I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter will say I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine They 'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ by way of Growth or Augmentation But to this I need say no more than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks Our business here is to know what it is and not whether it be justifiable nor to answer the Objections may be made against it because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties which may trouble the Readers the one is that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks it seems as if it might be said in some sence that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance Th' other is that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word TO the first I answer the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ as we have proved neither do they say the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ because this way of speaking which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is grounded upon the Food 's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communicated to the Bread As to what remains altho this pretended Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Bread is absurd enough yet we may give it a plain sence in saying 't is not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body by a dependance thereon and in asmuch as 't is the Mystery of it this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation a Mystery being as it were an Appendix or Circumstance to the thing of which 't is the Mystery TO the second Question I answer that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks and especially some of their expressions seem to induce us to attribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice that they hold this Opinion there is more justice in not charging them with it than in imputing it to 'em and so much the more because there is none of their usual expressions how emphatical soever but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy The Term of Assumption used by Damascen Panis Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assumuntur induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin he meant thereby a real hypostatical Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14. Assumption but having since carefully examined this Passage it seemed to me this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be easily referred not to the foregoing Words in the same Discourse but to that which follows in the simple sence That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist because they are things familiar to us BUT howsoever we may here observe that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel and natural Exposition which the Ancients gave this Mystery how they have fallen I say into vainand idle Speculations both of 'em wandring from the Truth Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations than the Word of God Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament that 't is his Body and added that it was for a remembrance of him and Saint Paul thus commented on it This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming What could be more easie than to keep here and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament by the expressions of our Saviour and his Apostle and other parts of Christian Religion But instead of this we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers taking no notice of divers others by which they explain themselves these have been extended and altho innocent yet are made a Rock of Offence The Latins proceed to a real Presence a real Transubstantiation and Accidents without a Subject and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients which they heap up without number The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity a kind of real impression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread a Growth or Augmentation of this Body I hope I shall have this Justice done me that it will be acknowledged I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks but what has been taken out of their best Authors from them I say that are of greatest account
this But supposing his curiosity had moved him to inquire after the Sentiments of the Greeks I know not whether he was in a capacity to satisfie himself For as far as I understand he was a Person that gave all he had to the Poor I no where find he was one of those that had great mens purses at command And living as he did in the Eleventh Century wherein there were no other Books than what were Manuscripts the Art of Printing not being then found out neither I suppose so free a Commerce betwixt Constantinople and Anger 's as at present and having moreover neither Consuls nor Emissaries his Friends to help him in that Country he may be well excused if he did not exactly know their Doctrine BUT in fine supposing Berengarius and his Followers were not ignorant of the true Opinion of the Greek Church where lies the necessity that they ought to make this an Argument whereby to defend themselves seeing 't was never yet pretended that the Opinion of the Greeks was the same with that of Berengarius CHAP. III. Mr. Arnaud's Twenty first Illusion is his charging me with maintaining the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation His Twenty second consists in offering the Formulary of the Re-union proposed to the Greeks by the Latins Twenty third in that he produces the Passages of Latiniz'd Greeks Twenty fourth in alledging supposed Authors or at least doubtful and justly suspected ones The Twenty fifth is his producing the Testimonies of several false Greeks link't to the Interests of the Latine Church HAD Mr. Arnaud left out of his Dispute touching the Greeks the Illusions I already observed as it was very reasonable he should he would have suppressed several whole Chapters and abridged others and by this means we should not have had such just cause to complain of his prolixity And we should have had yet less had he been pleased to retrench all that he has written to prove the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Latins in reference to Transubstantiation This is the most reasonable thing in the World for his charging me with attributing to them this ignorance and the whole Sequel of his Histories Arguments and Reflections whereby to shew the absurdity of this Supposition all this I say is but a meer Illusion I never pretended the Greeks knew not what the Latins held on this Article and he that shall read with a little more Equity than Mr. Arnaud has done what I wrote in my Answer to the Perpetuity will find that I have been so far from asserting this Proposition that I have on the contrary in several places supposed they knew it The Author of the Perpetuity having told me the Greeks and Latins lived together in several places and yet 't was never known there was any Dispute raised amongst them on this Point I answered that the Greeks content themselves with their own Belief without making it a matter of contest with Strangers Now this Answer supposes that they are not ignorant of what the Latins hold I likewise mentioned upon this account a Passage of Phaebadius who tells us that an humble Conscience contents it self with keeping its own Opinion and supposes 't is better to preserve its own Faith than to trouble it self with examining the Belief of Strangers which also supposes they knew the Opinion of the Roman Church but did not trouble themselves about it This Author alledging afterwards the Re-union of the two Churches made in the Council of Florence I expressly acknowledged that the Greeks seem to have tacitly suffered the Transubstantiation of the Latins which does still moreover suppose they were not ignorant of it for men are not ignorant of what they tolerate The same Author producing the Answer of the Greeks of Venice to the Cardinal de Guise's Questions I said that 't was an Answer contrived on purpose not to provoke Strangers ever supposing as 't is evident that they well knew the Doctrine of the Latins WHAT could then induce Mr. Arnaud to charge me with a thing I never so much as imagined and the contrary of which appears throughout all the Sequel of my Discourse The Author of the Perpetuity told us that Perpetuity of the Faith 3. part cap. 8. Breerwood who wrote a Book touching the diversity of Religions and exactly denotes all things in which he pretends they differ from the Church of Rome yet dared not affirm the Greek Church differed from the Latine in the Point of Transubstantiation That he neither does pretend it of the Assyrians or Melchites Nestorians Jacobites Eutychites Copticks Egyptians nor Abyssins but only Answer to 2. Treat 3. part cap. 8. Armenians These are his Words and this my Answer As to other Churches the Author of the Perpetuity alledges only the Silence of Breerwood in a Treatise he wrote of Religions wherein he does not observe that either the Greeks Assyrians Melchites Nestorians Jacobites Eutychites Copticks Egyptians nor Abyssins do differ from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Point of Transubstantiation But certainly our Author is very bare of Proofs that he must have recourse to the Silence of a man that transiently observes the most noted Differences of Religions contenting himself with saying what Points such a People hold or positively reject without proceeding to things which they do not believe by way of Negation as not having heard of them THESE last Words as not having heard of them have it seems given occasion to all this coyl But first Mr. Arnaud may consider if he pleases that my Answer refers to other Communions which are called Schismaticks and that the Greeks are mentioned only accidentally and occasionally Which appears from my own Expressions for having seperately handled what concerns the Greeks passing to another Subject I immediately add As to what concerns People of other Communions the Author alledges to us only c. Whence it is evident that my intention respects only those other Communions that I name the Greeks only because they are comprehended amongst the rest in the Author of the Perpetuitie's Objection but yet my Answer primarily respects only the other People If it be said that the Objection including the Greeks amongst the rest my Answer must include them also that in effect it is general and that otherwise I should have left the Objection relating to the Greeks without an Answer I reply to this that my Answer cannot be extended beyond the other Schismatical Communions to the prejudice of my own expressions which restrain and determinate it A man would think People might be so just as not to charge Persons with those things which are contrary to their express Declarations Mr. Arnaud might accuse me for leaving the Objection drawn from the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the Greeks without an Answer He might have brought it again into the Dispute if he would but he could not apply my Words to the Greeks seeing I mentioned them
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people this very thing should shew that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation wherein there 's no deceit to be feared the best which one can do is to keep to the Word of God THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin Now says he Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change and the benefit of it depends on circumstances which are mutable but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature that which is true at one time being so always Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change So adds he to introduce a new Discipline 't is not necessary to deceive the world nor shew 't is ancient but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de disguised which is oftentimes impossible In fine the belief of a Doctrin necessarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion whereas one may embrace a Discipline different from another yet without condemning that which one leaves THERE are several things to be said to this discourse For first It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual immutable and necessary at least as to necessity of precept and such is the Communion of both kinds Secondly There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice and Doctrins The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin because of two parts whereof a Religion consists to wit the Doctrins and Practices these last are most popular Thirdly There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins and are in such a manner the dependances and consequences of 'em that 't is impossible to change them without also changing the Doctrins and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds for it was anciently grounded on this belief that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People as appears by Paschasus his own testimony Drink ye all of it says he to wit as well the Ministers as other Lib. de Corp. Sang. Domin c. 15. c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon Comperimus de cons dist 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989. Believers and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practise It is not well done says the same Paschasus to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood This Mystery says Pope Gelasius cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege It is a mere abusing the world says Mr. Arnaud to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings recited by Gratien and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius himself who was at the head of the Church of Rome who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the producing of a Testimony of a Pope It is Gratien says he that relates it Is it the less authentick for that Gratien did not invent it to serve us we did not inspire him with it and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it This passage adds he may receive several rational explications I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications but we should know whether these explications be just Mr. Arnaud should propose 'em and then we might examin ' em This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer to what 's alledg'd touching that subject THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appendant to a Doctrin for the ancient Church had this custom because she believ'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants S. Austin says so in express terms Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum Aug. de Peccat rear remiss lib. 1. c 24. participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church To the end says he its authority may be with plausible pretences trampled Page 990. under foot and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud did before me Missam facio says he Augustini Innocentii Maldon in Joan. 6. Binn not in Epist Innoc. primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistam etiam infantibus necessariam What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé It appears says he that Innocent ' s opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years and which was followed by S Austin was that the Eucharist is necessary to little Children But seeing the command to receive the Eucharist does not oblige those that cannot receive it and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it the Church instructed by the use of several Ages and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd not only that the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to Children but that it ought not to be given ' em I know adds Mr. Arnaud that there are on this subject some passages of Page 990. S. Austin and Innocent the First which are difficult But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them To the passages of S. Austin and Innocent Mr. Arnaud might add others which will admit of no explication as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles of the Author of the Hypognosticks of Gregory the Second of the second Council of Toul and some others And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now
presented as also the Answers of Cardinal Perron which are for the most part but mere illusions WE may reckon amongst the practices depending on a Doctrin that of the relative adoration of Images which has insinuated it self into France and Germany since the 8th and 9th Century For it is certain that in all the foregoing Ages and long after France and Germany rejected this Adoration as unlawful and contrary to true Piety Which appears by the Council of Francfort held under Charlemain and consisting of above three hundred Bishops of France Italy Germany and England wherein the second Council of Nice was condemned This moreover appears by the Book of Images of Charlemain by the Testimonies of Agobard Bishop of Lyons Jonas Bishop of Orleans and Walafridus Strabo by the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonnair and by the Continuer of Climoinus We find likewise in Nicetas Choniatus that the Germans in the 12th Century persisted in this opinion The Germans says he and the Armenians agree in this Nicet Choni l. 2. Page 986. that they reject the worshiping of Images Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny so plain a matter of fact says that the Bishops of Francfort admitted the adoration of the Cross which is only an image of the true Cross that they admitted likewise the historical use of images and that without doing violence to nature the historical use of Images cannot be separated from the relative adorations of the same images But this is an impertinent disputing against the Fathers of Francfort and the Churches that have follow'd them The question is not whether they were contrary to themselves or whether they did violence to nature But whether it be true that the contrary belief and practice have insensibly crept into these very Churches without noise opposition and disputations Now this is what cannot be denied IT is not at all strange says Mr. Arnaud that the particular opinion of these Bishops which is contrary to nature reason and the general consent of the whole Church should be laid aside and that the Popes who used this condescention towards 'em did not openly oppose 'em but tarried till time wore out this Error whereby they have had the success which they expected from so charitable a conduct So far is it from being strange that this should happen that 't would be a greater wonder if this has not hapned This methinks is a disposing too freely of the judgments and consent of rational people It will not then be strange according to Mr. Arnaud that the Popes and all this party that were in the opinion and practice of the relative adoration of Images should use any condescention towards three hundred Bishops assembled in Council the Kingdom of France and all Germany which were in a contrary Belief and practice that they should be cautious of opposing them in this particular and patiently expect till time remedied this mistake But according to the same Mr. Arnaud this will be the greatest of all follies and the highest extravagancy imaginable to suppose that some Paschasists and Bertramists which is to say those that believed the Real Presence and those that believed it not in the 10th Century did not dispute one against another and altho that moreover they were not in a condition to dispute and had other things to trouble themselves about other interests to mind yet must it be a folly to imagin they were of that patient and charitable disposition the Popes were of who referred these things to be remedied by time Mr. Arnaud forbids us to be astonish'd at France and Germanies insensibly changing a Doctrin and a Rite he forbids us to concern our selves about the questions of the birth and progress of this change the stupidity of the Bishops on both sides who look'd upon one another as Excommunicated persons yet without daring to speak to one another about it being withheld by a holy condescention and the hope of the good effects of time and by the marvellous meekness of the Laicks some of whom were worshipers of Images and others not and some of 'em consequently Anathematiz'd by the Council of Nice and others condemned by that of Francfort and yet lived in peace without noise without mutual oppositions without disputes But if we will hear him on the other change touching the Eucharist he commands us not only to be astonish'd but to esteem it a fearful prodigy that the Doctrin of the Real Presence which sprang up in the 9th Century was taught and maintain'd as being the ancient and perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers should make insensible progresses during the darkness of the 10th Century and that there should have been persons in the same Church that have believed it and others that have not without falling foul upon and opposing one another When the question of the adoration of Images was agitated in the East it vehemently heated mens minds so that each party proceeded to Anathema's Banishments and Blood-shed and in the West the contrary party to the Adoration wrote and held Assemblies whereas when the question of the Real Presence was handled in the 9th Century there were neither Councils called nor Anathema's pronounced nor Banishments nor any extraordinary matter Yet in respect of the former Mr. Arnaud will that by virtue of condescention and th' effects of time the Party for the Adoration has insensibly fortifi'd themselves and at length got the upper hand but as to the other he will not grant that the Real Presence could advance and communicate it self to several persons but the whole Universe must be shaken with it Let the Reader then Judg of Mr. Arnaud's equity NOTHING says he is more astonishing than this universal forgetfulness Page 287. in the 11th Century whether there was therein any other Doctrin amongst Christians than that of the Real Presence But who told him that they of the 11th Century forgot the contest which had been in the 9th Was not John Scot's Book burnt by a Council Let him forget it if he will there will redound no advantage to him by it seeing 't is certain that in the 9th Century the Doctrin contrary to the Real Presence was taught I mean that which asserts the Eucharist not to be the Body of Jesus Christ Christ born of the Virgin and that 't is only the Body of Jesus Christ Sacramentally and virtually Moreover Mr. Arnaud does not observe that this very thing is against him for if it be true that those of the 11th Century forgot such a matter of fact as that which is justifi'd by the testimony of Paschasus himself this is a sufficient mark that the 10th Century which holds the middle between the 9th and 11th was o'respread with thick darkness seeing the ideas and memory of a thing so considerable were therein lost BUT we must examin his fourth difference A fourth circumstance Page 960. says he which does further strangely distinguish this pretended change in the Doctrin of the Eucharist
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we