is the Image of our Body nor our Body by Institution but that it becomes our Proper Body not another but the same we had before THIS Point being thus cleared up it is easy to perceive why these Persons deny'd the Eucharist to be an Image For it was not because they believed the Substance of Bread did not remain or imagined it 't was absolutely and by a numerical Identity as the Church of Rome speaks the same substance of the Natural Body but because they believed that the Bread keeping its proper Substance became the proper Body of our Lord by this way of Growth or Augmentation in receiving the Impression of his Supernatural Virtue so that in this Respect it was the same thing with them whether the Bread was Virtually the Body of Christ or properly They found then that the simple Notion of Image was inconsistent with that of Propriety and thereupon denyed the Eucharist to be an Image or Representation THEY Argued from the same Principle when they said 't is not possible these Gifts could be both The Body and the Image of the Body and being the Body they could not be the Image of them For they believed the Term of Image excluded this propriety of Virtue which they established and that to call them Image was to regard them in no other manner than that wherein they were before their Consecration IT is easy to perceive that their Arguing on the Discourse of the Fathers of Constantinople is but a mere Sophism For besides that these Fathers termed not the Eucharist the proper Body of Christ and consequently could not be charged with Contradiction nor told Si imago est non potest esse hoc Divinum besides this I say all their Subtilty lyes in a mere Quible about Words They will not receive the Term of Imago and yet admit those of Representation a Remembrance and Symbol as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges We do not call say's Theodorus Graptus an Author of the ninth Century Origin rerumque Constantinopl variis autor manipulus a Francis Combefix ubi supra the sacred Mysteries of Christ the Images of his Body altho they become Symbols thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicephorus say's the same thing We do not call these Gifts either Images or Figures of this Body altho they be Representations thereof Which shews they regarded more the manner of expressing the Thing than the Thing it self BUT let us see what Advantage Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw hence P. 664. 665. First he endeavours to prove that these Authors who wrote against the Iconoclastes did not believe 't was contrary to the notion of an Image to contain the Virtue of the Original nor established this Principle The Image is not the thing it represents in this Sence here The Image is not virtually the thing it represents For say's he In the same place wherein they establish this Principle the Image is not the thing it self which it represents they bring Instances of Images which contain really the Virtue of their Original and even its Essence Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who Refutes the Iconoclastes by the same Argument by which the second Council of Nice say's That that which is the Image of a thing cannot be its Body for every Image is another thing than what it represents It is True adds he That the Scripture calls the Son the Image of the Father but he is likewise distinguished from him by an Hypostasis and Person I Answer Nicephorus his Sence is that to exclude the Notion of Image we must say it is the thing it self And on the contrary to establish it there must be no means left to say it is the thing it self Now altho the Son hath the same Nature and Essence as the Father yet we cannot say he is the Father for they are different Persons So the Son may be well called the Image of the Father But altho the Eucharist be not in Substance the Body of Christ and contains only its Virtue yet we may very well say it is this very Body because an Augmentation does not make another Body than that which was before but is the same and thus the Eucharist cannot be called an Image BUT say's Mr. Arnaud The Son contains the Virtue of the Father Nicephorus understands not then his own Principle That the Image is not the thing Ibid. which it represents in Mr. Claude's fantastical Sence that it is not virtually the thing whose Image it is For it would necessarily follow hence that the Son of God is not an Image seeing he contains not only the Virtue but the very Essence of his Father This must necessarily follow according to Mr. Arnaud but not according to right Reason For it is true the Son contains the Essential Virtue of the Father as being not the Image of his Essence but he does not contain the personal Virtue of it for he has not the Virtue of begetting another Son nor according to the Greeks that of the Emanation of the Holy Spirit and consequently he may well be called the Image of the Father's Person Had Nicephorus understood his Principle in this Sence no Image is in Substance the thing it represents as Mr. Arnaud supposes he did and as in Effect he must understand it to add But the Eucharist is in Substance the Body of Christ it is not then the Image of it It would sooner and more naturally follow that the Son of God would be in no wise an Image for he most really contains the Nature Essence and Substance of his Father Nicephorus adds Mr. Arnaud Supposes the Eucharist is not really distinguished from the Body of Christ and thereby proves that it is not the Figure Ibid. of it Si igitur Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur imago Christi est aliud dicitur esse praeter corpus Christi That is to say if the Eucharist were an Image it would be really a distinct thing from the Body of Christ But it is not distinct from it Therefore it is not an Image Nicephorus will suppose the Eucharist is not a real distinct thing from the Body of Christ when we admit Mr. Arnaud's that is to say but he will not suppose it when we shall consider that the Proposition he rejects is this Sanctum corpus in communione quod sumitur est aliud praeter corpus Christ The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is something else besides the Body of Christ and that the contrary Proposition which he establishes is Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur non est aliud praeter corpus Christi The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is nothing elce but the Body of Christ That is to say in a Word that they are not two Bodies but one because the Growth of a Body does not make another Body But this is not to say but that there is a true and real Difference between the Substance which encreases a
God which shews his perplexity to be so great in this particular that he knew not on which side to turn himself Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies but they see none of those inconveniencies which disturb the Latins which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances For did they believe it they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others and seeing it how is it possible they should express no astonishment nor any difficulty therein or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist as the Latins do altho the former of these have more reason for it than the latter For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine the space of a whole year for the use of the sick it often happens that 't is corrupted and full of Maggots as it is observ'd by Sacranus and the Archbishop of Gnesne and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins Yet do they not seem to be concerned nor inform themselves whence come these Worms which being as they are Substances it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents Neither can it be said without blasphemy that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ THIS Proof may be extended farther for 't is certain we do not find amongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transubstantiation I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon They are in this respect in a most profound silence But it 's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud It is indeed say's he a real truth that the Greeks take little Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59. notice of these Philosophical Consequences Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places and of Accidents without a Subject the Archbishop of Gaza does the same but both one and the other of these do this by constraint What signifies this tergiversating for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof seeing they speak not at all of it This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted seeing we shall make it appear in its place that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deservedly suspected to be counterfeit and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wedded to the Interests of the Court of Rome It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs But that we may do him right we will not conceal what he adds afterwards I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstantiation and its Consequences an Argument to conclude they believed it not He answers that instead of Fathers I should substitute the Greeks Armenians Ibid. pag. 63. and Copticks of those times for say's he 't is certain that all these Christians believed Transubstantiation as we do and yet take no notice of all these difficulties which Mr. Claude ' s head is full of This acknowledgment is sincere and we need desire no more The Greeks take no more notice of the difficulties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth that he makes it the ground of an Answer OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good Which he contests me and first he say's that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine He adds that they observe Ibid. pag 58 59. the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and the satisfaction of Christ altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence BUT 't is his prejudice and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer For first there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission and the Doctrine of Transubstantiatiation The nature of the Sacraments is well known and the matter and signs thereof are better known which are Bread and Wine Even the thing signifi'd to wit the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason but likewise of Sence and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it nay they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion even when we would not our selves Secondly besides this infinite difference which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation or the real Presence but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars The difficulties which are raised against a Truth are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence and I confess it would not be to reason aright absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it To allow these kinds of Arguments there are distinctions to be made and particular circumstances to be observed without which there can be nothing concluded But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine of Consequences I say which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capacity without any great Meditation and Study Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians against Original Sin against the Mystery of the Trinity the Person of the Holy Spirit and Satisfaction of Christ being perhaps not acquainted with them yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines They baptise little Children and baptise them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they believe the Father Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ and such like things Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation Is it possible to hold this Doctrine without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions the concomitancy of the Body and Blood and on the Accidents of
his Innocency and Admirers of his Virtues It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted and those that are acquainted with the Eastern Affairs must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests than the Patriarchate of Constantinople Besides the Traverses which Envy and particular Interests stirred up against Cyrillus he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him who looked upon him as an Obstacle that withstood their old Design to bring over that Church to Roman See He Ibid. was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings as Allatius himself acknowledges but they found him unmovable and this is the real cause of their after hatred IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks and laboured with all his power to reform them according to the directions of his Conscience and Authority of his Charge But to make him pass under pretence of this for a half Calvinist that was false to his own Principles this is very disingenuously done It is true he relates himself that in a conference he held with Fuxius a Transylvanian Doctour touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic◠dissert 8. Saints He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule and following the Fancies and Opinions of men the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ and on Hay or Stubble BUT besides that Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius and that we must not suppose without good Proof this hap'ned before his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria besides this I say it cannot be hence concluded he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocation of Saints nor that he respected it as an Impiety Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition but from himself and not from Cyrillus so that it is not fairly done to confound one man's Opinion with another Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference that this Invocation aster the manner some teach and practise it is a meer Fancy and humane Invention that 't is this Word Hay and Stubble Saint Paul speaks of and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main Metrophanus Critopulus Confess Ec◠Orient cap. 17. whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocation directed to Saints as Mediatours and that which respects them as Embassadours whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in behalf of their Brethren He rejects the first upon this Reason that there is but one only Mediatour who is Christ Jesus but he receives the second and Cyrillus himself in the eighth Article of his Confession insinuates this distinction saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour It concerns me not now to examine whether the distinction be good or not it is sufficient to say that a man which holds it may condemn the Invocation of Saints in one respect and retain it in another and remain in the Greek Church which practises it without acting against his Conscience and being a damnable Hypocrite as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession in which and some Answers which accompany it he clearly declared his Belief It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine as for Cyril Conf. fi◠dei art 1. art 16. instance That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son and that Baptism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell nor the Hierarchical Order nor regulated Fasts Lents Arbitrary use of Confession Religious Orders Monastick Vows Celebration of Feasts nor the use of the Greek Liturgy nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints it 's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria or any Religious Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Resp ad In◠terr 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestination and Justification according to the Word of God more clearly than the Eastern People knew it But it must not therefore be concluded he was a Person that betrayed his Trust in performing the Functions of the Patriarchate nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud That Piety could not subsist with so damnable Hypocrisie OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men Judge not say's our Lord that ye be not judged for Matt. 7. with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged and with what measure you meet it shall be measured to you again And the Apostle cries out to us Who Rom. 14. art thou that judgest another man's servant Certainly a man cannot be guilty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience when having never seen nor heard them it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus For besides that a man may be easily mistaken in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in conscience to the doing of this or th' other thing if a man proceeds not to a particular consideration of Circumstances besides this I say it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable has not so appeared to the Person concerned which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of acting against his Conscience Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable unless he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent or unprofitable but absolutely evil and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions but the word of God that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins and Superstitions amongst the Greeks and detested both He may shew that Cyrillus has approved conformably to his Confession divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin but he cannot prove
Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Sentiments nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks and forsake the Patriarchal Functions His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 't was his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge and of which he was to render an Account All which he did to the last breath He held not the truth in unrighteousness nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience He published his Confession and put it in the hands of all the Greeks and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs so that 't was only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud That he was a damnable Hypocrite and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest 'T IS the same Passion caus'd him to say That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion That the Spirit which animates us is rather a Spirit of Faction and a Cabal against the Catholick Church than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it Our Interests are in his hands and as we pray him to defend them so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us We appear extream odious in his sight but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments he will judge wholly otherwise In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles and of our Saviour himself who were accused say's Saint Chrysostom to be seditious Persons and Innovators that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment without forgetting our Duty is to bless them that curse us and pray for them that despitefully use us ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie were there occasion the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus without my interposing And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do so that 't is very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity when they found him at Constantinople But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion They helpt him to Books and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it who need be troubled thereat Strangers at Constantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Protestants believe to be of great Importance and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power and what is there unlawful in all this Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures or govern himself according to their Directions Had they said Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective Had they said they had in fine obliged him But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm seeing 't is the real truth As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm he knows we have no such power 'T is certain as I already mentioned his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ as I shall make appear hereafter but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs on the same Maxims on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged and the Ambassadors of England and Holland For not to go farther how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome which were wholly their Creatures sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thursday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem where their Sacrifice is abhorred and this Sentence read every Year in their Churches confounded be all they that In Triod offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice wherein Purgatory is rejected and 't is held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held carved Images condemned and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins How in Conscience can these said Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates elected and consecrated by Schismatical Metropolitains and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome and live in Communion with that of Jerusalem in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated What I say is grounded on matter of Fact which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny for should he do it he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu who expresly tells us That it has been ever thought fitting to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders when in Greece from the hands of Schismatical Bishops it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation to the end the Patriarchs may not
any Purgatory but Sigism Com. ver Moscov hold that every one after death goes to the place he deserves good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels and the wicked into dismal and dark shades amongst terrible Devils where they expect the last Judgment that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in and by the presence of Angels which accompany them and so the others on the contrary Goar testifies that Ligaridius a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios expounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic Exeq. the meaning of those frequent Allelujas sung at the Funeral of the deceased say's They are sung as sign of joy that those who remain alive may rejoyce in that the defunct has happily left this miserable life and is now in possession of Everlasting Bliss IT appears then by this diversity that there is nothing so regulated on this Subject amongst the Greeks but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us without contradicting the general Belief of his Church Besides his Terms are not so strict but that they may be well accommodated with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls Enjoy not the Beatifical Vision or a perfect Felicity till the last Judgment and that hold there are three States of deceased Persons for he say's only That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies are either in Heaven or Hell which will bear this sence that Judgment is already passed upon them and that God has already shown them their condition which hinders not but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect and the felicity of the others not yet compleated And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards That every one is judged according to the condition he is in at the hour of death which seems to intimate that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment There are two things most certain in reference to the Greeks the one that they pray for the dead and th' other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church Now Cyrillus touches not on the first of these and as to the second he agrees very well therein with his own People for he calls Purgatory an imagination not to be admitted So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently accuses him of contradicting the Greeks in the chief Articles of his Confession WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection which consists of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confession the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea and th' other under Parthenius I have already discoursed of those two Pieces in my Answer to Father Nüet wherein I have shewn they are suspected to be fictious But if the Reader will not trouble himself with consulting what I have elsewhere written touching the matter he may here behold a Compendium of my Reasons I. ALTHO these Narratives have been often printed there has been no body yet that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick There is one of them printed from a Manuscript sent from Rome and th' other from an Edition printed at Jasi in Moldavia published by a certain Monk named Arsenius It seems to me there ought to be greater assurance given than what we have already seeing it is not sufficient to authorize so important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils the one in the year 1639. and th' other in 1642. II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another the first of them which is published under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea is subscribed by several of those whose hands are to the second and by the same Parthenius to whom this last is attributed and yet in the second there is no mention of the first The first expresly anathematizes Cyrillus and calls him an impious and wicked Person The second say's only There are certain Articles produced under the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus The first condemns with an Anathema these Articles The second say's It was proposed in the Synod whether they should be received and held for pious and orthodox Points or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eastern Church which plainly shews that they that made the second knew nothing of the first and yet they are both found subscribed by the same Persons III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who is said to have been an Assessor at the first Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea nor that Parthenius who is said to have held the second would have so lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris seeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber and th' other his Protector and intimate Friend IV. ARSENIUS the Monk from whom 't is said we have the pretended account of the Synod under Parthenius and who sent it from Constantinople to a nameless Friend at Venice having stuffed his Letter with Railings against Cyrillus and his Confession yet mentions not a word touching its first condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea Which shews us that these are counterfeit Pieces composed at several times and by different Persons who not consulting one another nor furnished with sufficient Instructions have been guilty of several Contradictions I will now add to what has been already said some other Remarks which are no less considerable the first is that when Cyrillus his Confession of Faith appeared in our Western Parts the first Game that was played was to deny it and affirm 't was a feigned Story but when this Shift would no longer serve turn and that the thing was made evident then an account of these pretended Councils appeared which shows that they were substituted as a new remedy instead of the other which could be of no longer use Secondly what Parthenius is made to say That there have been some Articles produced under Cyrillus his name is as every man may discover the Style of the Western People and not that of Parthenius himself who could not speak after this manner nor his Synod neither because 't was notorious in Constantinople that this Confession was in effect Cyrillus his own seeing he offered it in a Council and openly justified it before the Ministers of the Grand Senior in the presence of several Ambassadors and because Parthenius and his Bishops in the preceding Synod had already considered it as unquestionably his Moreover what likelihood is there that Parthenius and his Council would thus grosly and slanderously imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was false as they do For Cyrillus having said in the first Article of his Confession That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son which is an expression from which the Greeks never vary The first Article of the Censure bears That he asserted contrary to
Points cannot again be received without giving just Offence As to the Article of the Procession of the Holy Spirit there are few that understand it and should it again be controverted 't is likely 't would happen that those who were ignorant of it before would after Inquiry into that pass over to other things THE Latins greatest Interest then consists in two things the first to subject the Greeks by any means to the Roman See and th' other insensibly to change the ancient from of their Religion and slily introduce amongst them the Doctrines and Rites of the Latin Church To accomplish the first of these the Latins act and yield every thing as far as the Honour of their Church will permit them and according as they find fewer or more Difficulties Mr. Arnaud himself has discovered something of this when he told us that in the Council of Constantinople held under Emanuel Comnenus The Latins only required Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 910. of the Greeks that they should mention the Pope's Name in their publick Prayers acknowledg his Supremacy and the right of Appeals to him the rest at that time being not regarded We have likewise seen that Michael Paleologus perswaded his Bishops to Imbrace the Union seeing there were no more required of them than these three Points Yet the Article touching the Holy Spirit was so ancient and famous a Difference between them that 't was a hard matter to reunite therein and take no notice of it and we find the Greeks themselves mentioned it because it had been one of the chief Causes of their Separation The Latins then not being able to pass over this Point in Silence offered the Greeks sometimes that provided they received this Doctrine in their Belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son they might keep their Symbol as it was without expresly adding the Filioque And this the Popes Legats who were at Nice after the taking of Constantinople told them as from him according to Mr. Arnaud's Relation Lib. 3. c. 2. The Pope say they will not constrain the Greeks to add this Clause expresly in the Symbol when they shall sing it in the Church And it was upon this Condition that the Reunion was made in the Council of Florence But when the Latins saw a more favourable Occasion they extended their Pretensions farther and changed their Custom as will appear by what I am now going to say Nicholas the III sent Legats into Greece to the Emperor Michael Paleologus to solicit him to oblige his Patriarch and Prelates to make their Profession of Faith which they had not yet made and renounce their Schism The Emperor earnestly besought the Pope to leave the Symbol untouched and not oblige the Greeks to sing it with the addition of the Filioque to prevent all Tumults But Michael being known to be a Prince devoted for his interest to the Roman Church and therefore might be easily prevailed on the Pope gave order to his Legats to answer him touching this Article as follows That the Unity of the Catholick Faith permits not Diversity in its Confessions either in the Act of Profession or in the Chaunt or any particular Declaration of Allat de Perp Consâ—l 2. c. 15. Faith Much less was this to be suffered in the publick singing of the Creed wherein Uniformity ought especially to appear in as much as this Chant comes often in their Service Wherefore adds he the Church of Rome has determin'd and resolved that the Creed shall be sung in Conformity as well by the Greeks as Latins with this addition of the Filioque The Greeks were not so rigorously dealt withal at Nice nor Florence The Unity of Faith suffered under Gregory the IX and Eugenus the IV what it could not bear under Nicholas the III Which is as much as to say that the Faith yields as oft as need requires to this great Interest of submitting the Greeks to the See of Rome The Greeks are complyed withal when it cannot be helpt and the Spirit of Domination becomes Master of that of the Dispute AS to the second Interest which consists in changing insensibly the Religion of the Greeks and slily insinuating the Doctrine and Rites of the Roman Church in its stead it appears from the Course they take that this is the Design of the Latins It is for this purpose that Seminaries have been set up at Rome and other places and the whole East long since orespread with Emissaries It is in order to this that the Emissaries apply themselves to the converting of the Greek Bishops and instructing of Youth in the Roman Religion under pretence of teaching them the Tongues and Philosophy And 't is for this end likewise that the Scholars of the Seminaries are entertained and sent into Greece they have the Liberty to receive Orders from the Hands of schismatical Bishops and the Bishopricks are indeavoured to be filled with them and they are sometimes promoted to Patriarchates It is clear that in taking this Course they have no need to dispute it out with ' em IT will not I suppose be amiss to observe here what Thomas a Jesu who wrote a Book touching the means for the Converting of Infidels Hereticks and Schismaticks tells us is the ready way to convert all Greece to the Catholick Faith His Holiness say's he who is so vigilant for the Salvation of Souls Lib. 6. c. 4. must take care that as soon as ever the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople becomes void to pitch upon one of the Scholars of the Seminaries or Monks who have taken upon them Ecclesiastical Charges in Grece He must choose one whom he thinks most fitting and give him notice thereof but as privately as may be lest the Greeks come to know 't is he that gives him the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople Elects and Confirms him Patriarch For this effect his Holyness must order him to betake himself to Constantinople where he will find Ambassadors already prepared by his Holyness who by the Presents they shall make the Turk on whom the Election and Confirmation of the Patriarch depends altho unjustly will obtain by adding something to the usual Tribute that he command the Greeks to choose for their Patriarch him whom his Holiness shall design They will no sooner demand this than obtain it for Mony will make the Tyrant do any thing as appears by the little Difficulty he makes of taking away the Patriarchal Dignity from those that have it already Moreover there ought to be no scruple made of this as if it were a kind of Simony For this is not a setting the Patriarchate upon Sale seeing his Holyness has already given it Money is only made use of to remove some Difficulties Now Divines are unanimous in their Opinions that we may free our selves from Vexations and Obstructions by means of Money Neither can it be alledged that hereby the Metropolitains will be deprived of their right of
Church or dissembled these Errors in hopes as I already say'd that in establishing their Authority in Armenia they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict The Catholick of Armenia minor say's this Article Consecrating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act in which they solemnly promise to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess or Province Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks and obey the Roman Church He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church and calls himself Pope acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46â— 466. silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstantiation we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in competition with the Testimony of so many Authors who expresly affirm they deny it Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject altho the Armenians say's he promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco histor Orient cap. 79. and Roman Church when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Customs And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis But be it as it will this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia but in vain Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side and that the Armenians were in an Error and therefore ever since the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat and against the Roman Church in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy He says that Pharaoh ' s Embassadour meaning the Legat returned home with shame c. 'T is to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church yet was receiv'd in Armenia as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles WHICH considered I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissions which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII by a Bishop who in the name of the King and his Kingdom made such a profession of faith as they desired To make this a proof as Mr. Arnaud do's is either to be ignorant or dissemble the Genius of this Nation The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons that promised him whatsoever he desired but as soon as ever the danger was over and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired they made a mock at their promises as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King and Catholick of Armenia as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa The Religion say's he The Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicqfort p. 193. of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha who are Armenians by birth is the Christian together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence or acknowledge the Pope almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe moved thereunto by their extream poverty their expences in travelling and intollerable persecutions of the Turks during the continual Wars between them and the Persians have often offered to obey the Roman Church yet when this was to be concluded they have still fallen off and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Person named Gerlac who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople about an hundred years since This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople and amongst other things he tells us They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession In caena Domini verum Substantiale Corpus Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare But upon the reading of this Letter it will soon appear that this Patriarch with whom he discoursed gave him his own private sentiments and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion For he tells him that he believed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son contrary to what the Greeks hold Yet do's it appear from the constant testimony of Authors who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins So say's Guy Carmes the information of Benedict XII Prateolus Breerewood and several others and therefore the first thing Eugenius
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
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
he is really in it such as he is represented because he must be effectually dead being represented therein as dead which is punctually what the Adversaries of these Greeks would conclude They had been then very imprudent to pass by the first Proposition of their Adversaries Argument on which they might defend themselves and apply themselves to the second against which there could be nothing said For as I already observed it cannot be denied but that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death But would they not likewise have been very impertinent to apply themselves to the second Proposition in asserting as they have done that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death and Resurrection both together What is this but to conclude that he is then in it at the same time actually dead and actually risen by this Principle acknowledged by both Parties that he is really in it such as he is therein represented The Catholicks say's Mr. Arnaud overthrew the Foundation of the Hereticks by a Passage of Saint Cyril ' s in which this holy man affirms that the Eucharist is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead and risen for us Whence they rightly concluded that he was then in it in a State of Resurrection and consequently in an incorruptible State If this Conclusion be good as Mr. Arnaud say's it is this is so too he is then in it in a State of Death and consequently in a State of Corruption for Cyrillus does as well assert that 't is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead as risen whence it follows that according to these People our Saviour dies and rises again effectually in the Eucharist And thus do they argue according to Mr. Arnaud Our Savioâ—â— is in the Eucharist such as he is therein represented now he is represented therein not only in a State of Death but Resurrection He is then really in it not only dead but likewise risen again and consequently corruptible and incorruptible both together This would be the most sottish reasoning imaginable for after this manner they would as well argue for their Adversaries as themselves And yet this is the arguing which Mr. Arnaud so commends And into these absurdities and extravagancies does he lead those Persons he would have favourable to him YET he adds That 't is an easie matter to conclude that according to these Catholicks Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist but 't is a hard matter to divine by what means Mr. Claude has concluded he was not in it It is no such difficult matter to know this For if these People said not what common sence immediately dictated to them supposing they believed Transubstantiation but on the contrary that which even common sence would hinder them from saying it follows they had not this Hypothesis in their Minds Now this is what my Proof contains for it shews that what they said would be an extravagancy and likewise what they ought to say and have not said For they ought to say that our Saviour since his Resurrection can be no longer in a State of Death or passibility and consequently that being really in the Eucharist he cannot be therein corruptible and this they have not said BUT how say's Mr. Arnaud can Mr. Claude know what they have said or not said Will he pretend that all the reasonings of these Persons are contain'd in the short account this Historian gives us of this Debate But I do not pretend to this for I only say that if the Greeks whose Dispute is set down by Nicetas believed Transubstantiation he would have made them reason after another manner than they do he would have made them say what sence and reason do readily suggest to People that hold this Doctrine and not Impertinencies which could never enter into the mind of a man prepossessed with Transubstantiation BUT adds he these Greeks have expresly said what Mr. Claude blames them for not saying For have they not expressed this clearly in these Words Ibid. that whatsoever part we receive of the Eucharist we receive intirely Jesus Christ himself whom Thomas handled because we eat him after his Resurrection which they confirmed by divers Passages of the Fathers and amongst the rest by that of St. Chrysostom O wonderful He that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners I answer that Mr. Arnaud comprehends not the force of an Objection but only when he pleases I do not deny but that these Greeks said That Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist as risen and that we receive him wholly and intire This is the State of their Question and they prove it by Passages taken out of the Fathers But I say that had they reasoned on the Hypothesis of the substantial Conversion they would have said that Jesus Christ since his Resurrection can be no longer either mortal or passible in himself that he exists on the Altar after the manner of a Spirit and is consequently incorruptible that the substantial Conversion cannot be made in the dead and inanimate Body of Jesus Christ forasmuch as this is a State which has ceased since so many Ages and that it would be blasphemy and horrid cruelty against the Majesty of the Son of God to make him die every day really and personally And this is what I said in plain Terms but Mr. Arnaud would not understand me I tell him therefore again that common sence led the Greeks to this had their belief been the same as the Latins Yet you cannot find this in what Nicetas makes them speak You read indeed that whatsoever part we receive we partake of him whom Thomas handled that is to say of Jesus Christ the word Same which Mr. Arnaud has added is of his own invention You find there that he is eaten after his Resurrection and instead of Mr. Arnaud's Because there is in the Greek a Diminutive Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is as it were eaten but you find not that Jesus Christ can be any more passible nor that he is in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit nor what a great outrage it would be to the Son of God to make him die and suffer personally again And yet this is what ought to be said according to sence and reason supposing they believed the real Presence and design'd to refute their Adversaries NICETAS continuing to relate as from the part of these Greeks the Passage of Euthychius adds these words It is as a Seal which imprints its form on the matters which receive it and which yet remain one after this Communication without being diminished or changed into those things which receive the Impression altho several in number Even as one voice alone uttered by a Person and cast forth into the Air remains wholly intire in him that utters it and yet is carried wholly intire in the Air to the ears of them which hear it without any of the
preserve Orthodoxy and stifle Heresies supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business betakes himself to another Artifice It concerns us not to know say's he whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143. Cerularius and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument But whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear distinct and determinate for the real Presence But let the Matter concern what it will his Proof will be never the better But instead of saying for the real Presence he should say for Transubstantiation for our Question touching the Greeks being only on this Point if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's silence he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence the Greeks do and do not believe it they believe as we already observed a real Presence of Virtue but not areal Presence of Substance And even we our selves who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means profess to believe another which we hold not only for real but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose he must say that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transubstantiation BUT 't is not enough to say so it must be proved for endless and impertinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason He tells us that Cerularius having sent his Letter caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut Lib. 2. cap. 5. up and took away from the Latin Abbots and other Religious Persons their Monasteries That in the following year Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert and the Bishop of Blanche Selve and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us HE adds That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue and amongst the rest that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity the real and individual Body of Christ There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it Were his Translation as it should be it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation as to give Cerularius an occasion to reproach the Latins with it For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ in as much as he has not two Bodies but one only in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's that Chrysost Ep. ad Ces although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body Yet do we not say that the Son of God has two Bodies but one And in the same sence Damascen say's also That when the Bread Damascen I. pist ad Zac. Doar Humbert cont Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood it becomes not two Bodies but one Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body his words are Corpus Singulare the Singular Body that is to say the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ and not to the Father and Holy Spirit and there is so great blindness or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends and not from Humbert's Text For how great soever his prejudice may be I do not believe he would venture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation Observe here what Humbert say's The Azyme being thus prepared is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity the real and single Body of Christ Not as the Theopaschites would have it the Body of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Which it seems you believe likewise seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father Son and Holy Spirit as the Leavened Bread does Leave this wicked Opinion unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion the Holy and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration wherein all the Persons co-operate For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament the Apostle saying every time ye cat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death till he comes Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration delivering the Bread to his Disciples said to em this is my Body which was given for you Mine say's he which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit I who am the Wisdom of the Father have built as a Temple in 46 days in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi which is to say the Body which the second Person only assumed and not the Father nor Holy Spirit To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ to conclude from thence Transubstantiation is so gross and ridiculous a mistake that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings in the humour he seems to be of he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter I shall only advise him to take more care another time and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind He say's say's he that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth that is to say the Body of Christ made of an Azyme and in the Azymes taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is This adds he is clear enough and a man must be very dull not to understand this Language I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another yet I understand very well Humbert ' s Discourse without Transubstantiation We say say's he that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth invited hereunto by the promise and desire of a Terrestial Felicity such as a long Life Riches a numerous Off-spring and such like things But as to us honouring and retaining the Body of Truth which is of the Azyme and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart how sweet the Lord is desiring of him no more but that he may dwell in us and we in him eternally Is not this to deride People to alledge such a Passage as this whereby to
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
far as the salutiferous waters There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really and not by a simple imagination the mystery of our Lord's Body might they not say that 't is truly the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ in truth not to insinuate it to be so in proper substance but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination but that which is grounded on the things themselves either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it An adopted Son considering his adoption was real and not illusory or conceited may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance he is truly the Son of God 'T is in this same sense that S. Basil tells us That if our flesh be worthy of God it becomes Basil in Ps 14. Theophyl in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal myst 3. Hierom in Epist ad Gal. c. 4. truly his Tabernacle And Theophylact That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul And Cyril of Jerusalem That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae and we the mass or lump And S. Hierom That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ For they would say not that these titles of Tabernacle and Blind this Unction these Primitioe this Mass and this Bread ought to be understood in a literal sense but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves and may be found entirely true THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body and by way of growth and augmentation may not they likewise say that 't is truly this body and yet not establish 't is the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven but to signifie that this substance here and that there are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body as we have already more than once explained in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House or this ground or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom become truly his Kingdom by virtue of their union ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly the one when they affirm the figure of the Original as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec the true Son the true Vine and the other when we would prevent any kind Ch. 5. p. 780. of doubt or contest as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 't is true Gold or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival that he is the true Pope This enumeration is defective and the conclusion which he pretends to draw hence is void and refuted by what I now offer'd The Fathers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist but what relates to Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self and in reference to the Incarnation All those ancient Hereticks Marcionites Manichees have not only doubted of it but boldly affirmed that 't was only a Phantasm The Eutychiens have affirm'd and do still affirm that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Jesus Christ his words The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Christianity that mock at 'um in their hearts Cannot a man doubt of the efficacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Religious And how many weak persons are there who seeing only Bread and Wine cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy There is nothing says Tertullian that more perplexes mens minds Tertul. de Baptismo Ch. 5. p. 783. than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them THIS doubt says Mr. Arnaud must have two qualities For first As this expression has been generally received by all people this must therefore be a general doubt and must naurally arise in the minds of all men Secondly As no body ever made use of this expression but only on the subject of the Eucharist this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects He has gathered here and there from several Authors that lived in sundry Churches and at divers times some thirty passages taken in a counter sense that speak differently one in one manner others in another in different significations and this he makes to be the language P. 774. of all people In another place he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people and in all ages unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages and not one in some of 'em and another in others Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense But we find no such thing here We have only about some thirty passages in one of which there 's the term of same in another that of proper or properly in another that of true or truly and they are used in different senses too as will appear from the particular examination we shall make of them How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people the language of all Nations and that of all ages For my part I call it an illusion BUT supposing the expression of true or truly to have been generally received by all people as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that
were elected by these Monsters seeing there 's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like Who doubts but they consented to all which they did who had chosen 'em but that they imitated 'em and trod in their footsteps but that they all desired our Saviour should sleep on and never rise to judg them nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth to the Council which the Emperor Otton assembled at Rome to depose him which shews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in those days Joannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei omnibus Episcopis Nos audivimus dicere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere si hoc feceritis Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare missam celebrare The Councils answer is as elegant Est vestris in literis scriptum quod non Episcopum sed puerilem ineptiam scribere deceret excommunicastis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi missam ordinandi Ecclesiasticas dispositiones si alâ—um Romanoe Sedi constitueremus Episcopum It a enim scriptum erat non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare Nunc usque putavimus immo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum nisi vestra autoritas priscorum sententias infirmaret autorum THE Zeal Fervour frequent Conversions and Reformations of those days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent as I proved in my Answer to the Perpetuity by the testimonies of Luitprand and Glaber and by the very confession of the Author of the Perpetuity himself which might be further made to appear were it necessary Now judg I pray you what science and zeal there could be in a Church where the ministerial Office was upon sale to him that offered most And moreover the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks commonly bestowed on Children uncapable of discharging those great trusts which Baronius expresly asserts for having told Baron ad ann 925. us from the testimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süelphus Arch-bishop of Rhemes were agreed that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-bishoprick should come to Heribert's Son he says that Heribert to make quick work caused Süelphus to be poisoned and his Son to be chosen in his place who was not above five years old that the news of the Election being brought to the King he confirm'd it which was also done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds That this example was quickly followed by several Princes who promoted their own or relations Children to the Episcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant which says he was likewise done in Rome it self in those days Constantinople and other great Cities And would to God adds he this custom had went no farther than those days and that so detestable a wickedness against the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether ignorance and carelesness are not the natural effects of such disorders WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the West was afflicted during this whole Century for 't is certain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe resounded with the noise of them France was therein troubled by the League of Robert and the dreadful consequences hapning thereupon by the Wars against the Normans Danes and Germans and by those which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain and th' Election of Hugo Capet England was therein disturb'd by divers Civil Wars and the frequent Incursions of the Danes Scotch Irish and other people still professing Paganism Spain was also molested by the Moors Arabians and Saracens by the Invasions of the Normans and by the dreadful Divisions of the Christians GERMANY spent this Century in perpetual Confusions the Danes Sclavonians and Huns ravag'd all things by their irruptions which often hapned For Children to contrive the death of their Parents was ordinary and Great Persons to rise up against their lawful Princes which commonly ended in bloody Battels not to mention the cruel Wars which the Emperors had to maintain in Italy against the Factious and in Calabria against the Greeks and Saracens As to Italy she was throughout this whole Century in the most deplorable state imaginable on one hand by the Princes of Tuscany on the other by the Wars of the Italian Princes one against another and the Arms of the Emperors and neighboring Kings In short the confusions were then so general that there was scarcely a corner in Europe wherein a man that loves quiet could obtain it Now who is it but knows that times of War and Divisions are apt to introduce carelesness looseness and ignorance of the mysteries of Religion into the Church I CONFESS there were in this Age some endeavours after a Reformation bu besides that they were but mere essays that proved ineffectual I deny they were strong enough supposing they could have had a wished for success to stir men up to search into the Controversie of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament The most considerable were those made in the Council of Trosly already mention'd by us and it will not be amiss to make some remarks on what was resolved therein Let us endeavour Concil Trost n Epilogâ— say these Fathers which were not above twelve by our own means and by the Priests under us to avoid as much as in us lies this terrible damnation which we have drawn down upon our selves and the people committed to our charge Let us instruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example Let us behave our selves as the Ministers of Christ that our Office be not dishonored and it be said of us the Priests are without knowledg those to whom the Law is committed have not known me and lest we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons First then let every Christian ground himself well in the Christian Religion which is the Catholick Faith without which a man cannot be called a Christian Let him believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit one only true God three persons in unity of substance But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Flesh to save us and thus suffered Death rose again ascended up into Heaven and will come in the same Flesh to judg both quick and dead Let him believe in the Holy Ghost and that by him we have the remission of sins in our Baptism and that thro his Grace our sins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and ministery of the Priests Let him believe also a real and general Resurrection of the Flesh at the coming of Jesus Christ This is the true foundation of Faith which must be adorned by Good Works for as 't is impossible without Faith to please God so Faith cannot be persect if it shews not it self by Charity for if it be void of works it 's become
the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor WE may add to this that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Ligaridius Archbishop of Gaza in which Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession and raises an Objection about it which he himself answers saying That several boubted of the truth of this Piece and that should it be true yet one Swallow does not make a Summer but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures which without doubt he would never have forgotten being as he is a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Religion were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek Church I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris did it not elsewhere appear that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks HEYDANUS a Dutch Professour of Divinity relates that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople that this pretended Heydanus praefat ad lib cui titulus est causa Dei Council was confidently reported to be true in the West Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church he openly professed 't was false and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus IN fine Mr. Rivet Doctor of Divinity in Holland writing to Mr. Sarrau a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris the 21 of March 1644. tells him touching this Business That he saw at Mr. Hagha ' s a Letter written in Vulgar Greek from Pachomius the Metropolitain of Chalcedon which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius Farther affirming that the Subscriptions were counterfeit and particularly his That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impression from his Territories BUT supposing what I now alledged to be wholly untrue and that these two pretended Councils were as really true as I believe 'em to be false yet is it certain they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confession against Transubstantiation and change it into Demonstration Which will clearly appear if we consider that whosoever composed them did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks even to the imputing to him several Falsities that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presided in the first Council was a false Greek and one of the Jesuits Scholars engaged long since in the Party of the Latins and that Parthenius seemed likewise fastned to the Roman Interest if we take that for one of his Letters which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published in which he makes him thus write to the late King That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Churches Athan. Rhetor Presbyt Bisant anti patellar Paris 1655. as much as any of his Predecessors but if the Turk under whose Empire they lived knew of this Affair he would kill 'em all Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been supposing 'em true and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transubstantiation the first of these to wit Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar nor the Wine are changed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Priests Consecration and coming down of the Holy Spirit into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing 't is written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ The second namely Parthenius say's His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist that he attributes only the bare Figure to it as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ in any other than a spiritual manner or rather by imagination which is the highest pitch of Impiety For Jesus Christ did not say This is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body this is my Blood this to wit that which was seen received eaten and broken after it was blessed and sanctified Not to take here notice how captiously these People turn the Words of Cyrillus to make them contradictory to the Belief and common Expressions of the Greeks it will be sufficient to observe that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he expresly condemned nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in express Terms But to the end we may better judge of this it will not be amiss to recite Cyrillus his own Words We believe say's he that the second Sacrament which the Lord has instituted is that which we call the Eucharist for in the Night in which he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said to his Apostles take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup he gave thanks and said drink ye all of this this is my Blood which is shed for you do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul adds as often as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and understanding of which we confess and believe a real and certain Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth in the Communion but in communicating by the sence of the Soul For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery what our eyes behold and what we take but that which Faith which receives after a spiritual manner presents and gives us Wherefore it is certain if we believe we eat and participate but if we believe not we are deprived of this benefit If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures you will find they apply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat but that which our Faith does spiritually receive and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks and different from their usual expressions But as to what he says touching Transubstantiation which he calls a rash invention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we see they