the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be inferred thence and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to believe it but the Churches determination AS to the words of the 6th Chapter of S. John so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bellarmin reckons up six besides others namely Biel Cusanus Cajetan Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30. Tapper Hesselius and Jansemius but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Arnaud comprehend that this Chapter is not so formal nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood If he takes these words for an evident declaration it is yet more evident that he is mistaken To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies according to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour to be of consent with the Jews that crucifi'd him This is not very formal for Transubstantiation WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose Zuinglius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words but he was ignorant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit of which we have already discoursed not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus but also out of Apuleus and S. Jerom himself so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome Mr. Arnaud's passion herein appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him visus est monitor adesse he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue ater fuerit an albus nihil memini which signifies that we know not a man we never saw his face rhis proposition That he knew not whether 't was a white Spirit or a black one Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles BUT says he The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks It is favourable by an effect of prejudice I grant But let a man take off this vail from his mind and represent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side and the Eucharistical Bread on the other two visible objects really distinct and locally separate from one another and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other or to a Sacramental sense The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them but from the matter in question and circumstances of a discourse And this is that which forms the first idea as may be justified by infinite instances should Mr. Arnaud question it Now 't is certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figurative sense ALL Nations says he have taken them in this sense All Nations that is to say the Latins since Gregory VII and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words be engaged in it through surprizal and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed IN fine supposing 't were true the first idea of these words was very favourable to the Church of Rome and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence And this he well knew himself But that he might take his full carier he imagin'd 't was his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it by some formal declaration of his word because 't would appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and substantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences which is most true Who Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpituity part 1. ch 3. will believe said I if they be of God that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declaration of his word Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them Who will believe that if they be of God he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense which he himself has armed against them without strengthening them with his protection Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him to alledg that which precedes and that which follows and suppress betwixt both whole clauses because they take from him all pretence of declaiming 'T is by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added towards the end of this passage Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY ASSERTED This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud he has ended his citation in these words Say what you will of it I cannot believe but this silence sufficiently perplexes you This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud especially considering
I say is so well known that Allatius himself censures a Protestant named Jerom Viscer for saying the Greeks carry the Body of our Saviour in Procession twice about the Church So far are Allatide Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 15. they say's he from carrying the Eucharist twice about the Church that on the contrary they carry it not at all for that which they carry from the Prothesis to the great Altar which they call the great Entry is no more than Bread and Wine unconsecrated AND these are Mr. Arnaud's gross Proofs as he calls 'em for I meddle not here with what he tells us concerning a Letter from Mr. Pompone We shall examine that in the following Book His fine Proofs as he tetms them are those he draws from the real Presence in supposing the Greeks hold it For say's he whosoever believes Jesus Christ to be present in the Eucharist Book 10 chap. 9 pag. 76. speaks to him as God implores his assistance beggs his pardon excites himself by expressions of confidence in him acknowledges his own unworthiness and all these actions being external are outward expressions of Adoration So that to bring Proofs of the Adoration of the Eucharist there needs no more to be done but only to produce all the Prayers contain'd in the Liturgies which are offer'd to our Saviour after the Consecration But it has been already observed that this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions who is not willing to handle the Question of the Adoration as a means whereby to decide that of the substantial Conversion but rather as a Consequence thereof so that all the force of his pretended Proofs consisting in supposing the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence there needs no more to be done for the overthrowing them than to send him to the refutation of these Arguments by which he pretends he has establish'd his Principle and even this very consideration that he could not form his Proof without making this supposition will only confirm what we maintain viz. that the Greeks adore not the Sacrament whence it follows they do not believe 't is the proper Substance of the Son of God for 't is not likely a Church that holds this Opinion would be wanting to give to the Sacrament those outward expressions of reverence which would distinguish themselves easily from all other kinds of honour The Church of Rome furnishes us with an example of this on which we need only cast our eyes for it clearly appears by her words and actions that the honour she gives the Eucharist is a sovereign and divine honour such as is due to God alone Had the Greek Church design'd to shew it the same respect what should hinder it from doing as the Roman Church does Would she not at least indeavour to imitate its example in several particulars Why do they not carry it to the sick with the same solemnity as those of the Church of Rome Wherefore I say does not the Greek Church enjoyn her Children to kneel as oft as they shall meet the Sacrament Why does she not openly expose it in publick rejoycings or afflictions Wherefore does she not carry it about in Procession Why not dedicate a particular Festival to it Mr. Arnaud may tell us as long as he pleases That there is no natural Book 10. chap. 9. pag. 78. coherence between these things and the Adoration that the Institution of these Ceremonies is pious and commendable but no wise necessary and that the Adoration may subsist without them as it does in effect in all the East When there were not a natural coherence between Adoration and each of these particular Customs yet would it be me thinks contrary to nature that the Adoration should subsist seperated from all these things in general seeing these are in a manner almost the same external marks of Divine Worship which People have ever rendred to some visible Object What likelihood is there if the Greeks had the same Sentiments as the Latins touching this Sacrament but they would adopt some one of these Devotions which are so familiar to the Latins especially those that approach the nearest their usual Customs and which are moreover very proper to express this sovereign honour now in question as is that solemn Feast called God's Festival with all its Pomp. But so far have they been from imitating the Church of Rome in this particular that they have on the contrary shewed the greatest aversion to it as appears by the Confession of Metrophanus Citropulus made at Helmstad in the year 1625. We carry not about the Streets say's he this Holy Mystery unless Consess Eccles Orient cap. 9. de coena Dom. it be to the sick it being not given us to make a show of it but to be religiously received for the remission of sins according to the words of our Saviour All Historians are agreed that the Russians do not observe this Festival Sigismond in his Commentaries touching Moscovia and Gagnin in his Description of this same Country do expressly take notice of it But that which most considerable is That when those amongst them who were subject to the King of Poland were forc'd to reunite themselves to the Roman Church which hap'ned in the year 1595. under Pope Clement the Eighth they made this Contract That they should not be compelled to make any Procession on the Hâ—mber sum conir t. 11. Tho. Ã Jesu lib 6. p. 3. c. 1. Thom. â— Jesu ibid. Festival of the Body of Jesus Christ because they had other Customs amongst them in reference to the Sacrament WHEREUPON a Learned man of the Roman Church being consulted gave this Answer That as to the carrying or not carrying of the Sacrament about in Procession that was not to be much regarded but there were several other things of greater importance touching the Sacrament to be considered THIS Person although he spake not fully his mind yet said enough to make us understand him For he means if I mistake not that did the matter concern only the Festival of the Sacrament it signified little but that the unwillingness these People shewed to observe this Feast did sufficiently evidence they had not the same Sentiment in the main with the Latins touching the Eucharist And in effect wherefore should they refuse to observe this Feast did they believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God and adored it with an Adoration of Latria Were they afraid of giving it too much honour Why not conform in this particular with the Roman Church seeing they were reunited to her and had left the Greeks Is not this an evident token that the Greeks cannot accommodate themselves to the Adoration practis'd by the Latins nor consequently to the Doctrine they teach and on which this Adoration is established BUT when what I said should have no ground and the Adoration might subsist without these Ceremonies Mr. Arnaud ought at least to shew us they
be the same with that of the Church of Rome they would be so neglectful of it and disrespectful to it as they are I have already related in my Answer to the Perpetuity what Cardinal Humbert wrote from Constantinople touching their Custom of burying under Ground the remains of the Communion and letting fall the Crums thereof without troubling themselves about them When you break say's Humbert contr Nic. Bib. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. he the Holy Bread or receive it you are not concerned at the Crums falling down on the Ground Neither are you more careful when you wipe the Dishes after an undecent manner with the Leaves of Palm-trees or Brushes made with Hogs-bristles Some among you gather up the Body of Christ with so great irreverence that you fill boxes with it and to prevent the scattering of the Crums press them down with your hands They eat likewise what is left of the Oblation after the same manner as common Bread and sometimes so much of it till they glut themselves with it and what they cannot eat they bury under Ground or throw it into Wells He in another place severely censures the Custom of the Greeks To bury say's he the Eucharist as some are said to do or put it in Bottles or scatter it about is certainly a great neglect and sign that such have Humbert contr Gâ—â—â— Calumn not the fear of God before their eyes For the Holy and Divine Mysteries are the Faith of Christians And in another place in answer to Cerularius who boasted that he would teach great and excellent things are these say's he those great and excellent things you speak of to place the Oblation on the Altar Ibid. in so great a quantity that neither the Ministers nor People can devour it but you must bury it or throw it into Wells made for that purpose THE Anonymous Author of the Treatise against the Greeks observes the same thing with Humbert At Easter say's he when the People receive the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4 Edit 4. Communion they provide abundance of Bread and consecrate it all and because the heaps which are left cannot be kept they bury them THIS Custom of burying the Eucharist remains still amongst the Greeks for the Jesuit Richard relates that a poor Woman of the Isle of Saint Erinis had no sooner received the Holy Communion but she brought it up again by reason Relation of the Isle of St. Erin chap. 17. p. 2â—0 of the weakness of her stomach and that the Greek Priest who gave it her before he confessed her did not scruple to take up what she had vomited and bury it together with the Sacred Particles at the foot of his Altar for which fact he was blam'd by the other Papa's who would have him bury it on the Sea-shore judge then adds he how great is the ignorance of these Greek Priests and how great our Saviour's patience to bear this He undoubtedly saw all these disorders and indignities he was to suffer when he instituted this Divine Sacrament THE same Author say's likewise That their Priests following the Custom of the Jews let their Beards grow which are all over wet with the Lord's Blood Tract contr Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Arcud lib. 3. cap. 60. when they drink Arcudius reproaches them in the same manner The Greek Priests say's he receive the Eucharist very undecently for taking the consecrated Bead they grasp it close in their hands and so lift it up on their heads I suppose they do this as a sign of Honour and Veneration and having eaten the Eucharist and recited some Praises they lift up their hands to their heads and stroke them for it commonly happens that some Crums stick thereon As soon as they have drank the Blood they do not scruple to wipe their Beards with their hands or handkerchiefs as if they had drank common Wine and forasmuch as they let their Beards grow and never cut their Moustaches it frequently happens that drops of Blood fall from them on the Holy Vestments or Altar and not seldom on the Ground He farther adds That the Rubrick of their Liturgy deceives them and that these words should be corrected after the Priest has wiped his lips and the brims of the Sacred Chalices with the Veyl he has in his hands he calls the Deacon Sacranus speaking of the Russians say's likewise That they give the Communion to the People in nasty wooden Spoons and wipe off the Crums which stick thereon with a cloth letting them fall on the Ground THEY are far from being scrupulous and taking that care the Roman Church does to prevent the Eucharists being eaten by Vermin for the Rats may run away with great pieces of it and yet they not concerned thereat Manuel the Patriarch of Constantinople whom Binius ranks in the Seventh Century being askt by one of his Bishops what punishment he thought a Priest deserv'd who let a Mouse run away with the consecrated Bread coldly answered That those to whom these mischances happen are not to be blamed because these things are usual Multa enim ejusmodi saepe accidunt If the like Questions were offer'd to a Latin Bishop 't is not to be doubted but he would insist on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of these inconveniencies and instead of slighting the matter and excusing the Priest as this Patriarch does by saying this often happens he would on the contrary invent all ways imaginable to prevent this from ever hap'ning LET Mr. Arnaud if he pleases reflect a little on all these things How is it possible these People would shew so little reverence and so great neglect to the Substance of the Sacrament did they believe it to be the proper Substance of their Saviour They eat thereof as common Bread till they have glutted themselves they bury it and cast it into Wells and when any Crums thereof fall to the Ground or stick on their hair they are not all concerned thereat They spill the consecrated Wine on their Beards on the Altar yea on the Ground and matter it not and their Liturgy enjoyns them to wipe their lips with their handkerchers when they have received the Communion to which we may add what I related in the foregoing Chapter that they let the Sacrament hang a whole year in a linnen bag on a nayl exposed to the mercy of worms according to the express testimony of Sacranus and the Archbishop of Gnesne Now what congruity has all this with the belief of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud may distinguish if he pleases between the necessary Consequences and those of congruity yet all his Philosophy falls short of perswading us that these practices are consistent with the belief that 't is no longer the Substance of Bread but the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ I shall finish this Chapter with a passage taken out of Oecumenius which shall be my Seventeenth Proof This Author who
others as I shewed in the preceding Book Now Mr Arnaud cannot in reason bring these sort of People into the reckoning and I think it will not be taken ill If I separate them from the rest for in effect the Abuse would be too gross to pretend to determine this Question touching the Greek Church by the Testimony of Converts or Persons brought up from their Infancy amongst the Jesuits and other Religious Orders and Latin Doctors who instructed them in their Doctrines and I have already shewn that the number of these is not small and Allatius himself assures us of it The Greeks say's he that reverence the Pope and receive his Decrees as Oracles are more in number than we Allat de perp cons lib. 3. cap. 11. imagine and were they not with held by the fear of a most cruel Tyrant and that of the Calumnies and Accusations of some wicked People we should see every day them who possess the greatest Dignities amongst the Greeks come and prostrate themselves at the Popes Foot-stool This is the Fruit of the Missions and Seminaries IN the third place the Question is not here whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us concerning the Sacrament This is Mr. Arnauds continual device to dispute on this Principle to wit that I affirm the Greeks to be of the same Opinion with us As for example he takes a great deal Lib. 2. C. 12. of pains to shew that 't is not likely we would make use of Euthymius his words to instruct a man in our Doctrine and that Euthymius has not taken the term Est in our Saviour's words This is my Body in the sence of Significat Lib. 2. C. 13. He likewise takes a great deal of pains to prove that Nicholas Méthoniensis Lib. 2. C. 15. was not a Berengarian and one that believed the Bread was the Figure of our Saviour's Body that the Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make when they embraced the Christian Religion was not in such terms as to make them understand that the Bread and Wine were not really our Saviour's Body but only the Figure or Representation thereof indued with its Virtue and that Pope Innocent the Third did not reproach Lib. 3. C. 1. the Greeks with their believing that they eat only the Figure of Christ's Body All this is but a mere Artifice to impose on the World and blind those that have not continually the point in question in their minds and suffer themselves to be easily carried off from one Subject to another I say then it concerns us not to know whether the belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is the same in every particular with that of ours and whether they explain themselves on that Subject in the same manner as we do This we never yet affirmed to Mr. Arnaud but the contrary viz That several Answer to the first Treatise of the Greeks have since the seventh Century rejected the terms of Figure Image and Type which the Ancients made use of and we use after their example The present Question is whether the Greeks do believe concerning the Sacrament what the Church of Rome doth this is the only point of the Dispute to which Mr. Arnaud ought to have stuck and not to wander into wide Discourses and fruitless Consequences In effect the design of the Treatise of the Perpetuity being to make us confess that the belief of the Church of First Treatise of the Perpetuity Rome touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in all Ages and that Author having for this purpose made use of the Conformity of the Greeks with her in this Point and this Conformity having been denyed it is clear that the Question does not concern our Sentiment but that of the Roman Church to know whether the Greeks hold and teach the same thing IN the fourth place our Dispute hitherto has not been concerning the real Presence as Mr. Arnaud supposes but only on the Subject of Transubstantiation and the Adoration thereon appendant so that he has dealt very dis-ingeniously in making the World believe that our debate reached to the Real Presence Our Question say's he is concerning the belief of all these Lib. 2. C. 3. P. 128. Sects and People touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 'T is yet more absurdly he complains that contrary to the intention of the Author of the Perpetuity I have turned the Question upon Transubstantiation Notwithstanding say's he that the Author of the Perpetuity has only in his first Ibid. Treatise discoursed of the Real presence and contented himself with maintaining that this Doctrine was received by all these Schismatical Churches yet Mr. Claude has continually turn'd the Question upon Transubstantiation which was not the point precisely in question But in fine 't is the effect of a most unwarrantable Lib. 2. C. 10. P. 191. Liberty to write that he knows not whether the boldness of a man can proceed to that point where mine must needs be in maintaining to the end that the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are Doctrines unknown to the Greek Church And I dare to affirm that his cannot be greater than it is for 't is certain that here the Question only concerns Transubstantiation and the Adoration and not the Real Presence concerning which I have not yet said any thing 1. Let Mr. Arnaud read the last Section of my first Answer and he will find precisely these words I affirm that Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Sacrament are two things unknown to all the World the Roman Church excepted for neither the Greeks nor the Armenians Russians Jacobites Ethiopians nor in general any Christians but them who have submitted themselves to the Pope do believe any thing touching these two Articles 2. Let the passages of my second Answer be perused where I handle again the same Question and it will be found that they only concern Transubstantiation there being no mention therein of the Real Presence 3. I desire the Reader to peruse the last Chapter of the second Treatise of the Perpetuity and he will find it contains these words for its Title That all the Sects separate from the Church of Rome are at accord with her in the point of Transubstantiation and especially the Greeks He will find likewise that in the body of the Chapter there is not a word of the Real Presence THERE is no body then but Mr. Arnaud who has thought of bringing it into our debate and this without any other reason but that he will have it so maugre us imagining he shall be able to save himself by the Ambiguity of the term of Real Presence For as to what he tells us that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting That this Doctrine was received by all the Schismatical Churches I am sorry I must tell him that I know not any
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
since the time of Berengarius's condemnation we cannot be of this Belief that the Eucharist is only the Body of Jesus Christ to the faithful and not to the wicked And in effect if the Substance of Bread be really changed into that of Christ's Body it hence evidently follows that all those that communicate thereof be they either righteous or wicked do receive this Body as it is that is to say in its proper Substance covered with the vail of Accidents So that the Greeks asserting the Eucharist not to be the Body of Christ to Sinners as I have already shew'd makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Transubstantiation to be solid and convincing YET may there be two Objections made against my Argument the First That what the Greeks say concerning Christ's Body is to be understood only in respect of its salutiferous effect as has been declared by the Jesuit Chifflet and not in respect of its Substance which is to say their meaning is that the wicked do indeed receive the real Substance of this Body and Blood but receive thereby no advantage The Second that the Bread reassumes its former Substance when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion and that that of the Body of Jesus Christ withdraws it self But first I say to make people of good sence contented with this explication they must be shewed these kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themselves which without question would be met withall did they hold Transubstantiation It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifestly oppose that of the Substantial conversion and furnisheth us with this conception that if the Eucharist be not the Body of Jesus Christ to the wicked how can it then be said that the Substance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body This scruple does naturally arise in the mind of those that believe Transubstantiation as appears by the example of the Jesuit Chifflet by that of the Authors of the Office of the blessed Sacrament and by the pre-caution of the Schoolmen and Lattin Writers who carefully shun these kind of expressions We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the conversion of the Substances they would do one of these two things either they would renounce this other Opinion and deliver themselves after another manner or at least they would so expound and mollifie it as to shelter thereby Transubstantiation But besides this I say if we examine these pretended illustrations in particular one after another we shall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks In effect the first cannot be of any use because the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in question as an Error Now this would not be an Error in respect of the Latins if the Greeks understood it only in this sence that the wicked do not receive the salutiferous effect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Communion altho they received the Substance of it for even this is believed in the Church of Rome Yet Possevin does not only affirm they err but he opposes moreover against their Error a contrary Proposition to be held and on which he grounds his censure They err say's he Possevin ubi Supra for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jesus Christ although they receive it unworthily and to their condemnation AS to the other Objection 't is certainly groundless for not to take notice of the extravagancy of this Opinion that the Substance of the Bread is changed into that of Christ's Body and again that of the Body into that of the Bread the Terms of Cabasilas are so clear that they admit not any evasion for he distinguishes two Persons that give the Communion one the Priest and th' other our Saviour Christ and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood 't is likewise he himself say's he that administers to Gabasilas ubi Supra them amongst the living who truly receive For all them to whom the Priest gives it do not truly receive it He himself that is to say immediately and without the Priests sharing in the honour thereof The Priest has the honour to distribute the Bread but not of giving the Body and Blood Now this does wholly overthrow Transubstantiation and refutes the second Objection which I examine for if the Bread were transubstantiated there would be no need of having recourse to our Saviour himself in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood the Priest would give it them for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Substance and Cabasilas would have no reason to oppose our Saviour to the Priest BUT before we leave this passage of Cabasilas it is necessary to observe two things one of which respects the Proposition he would establish and th' other the means he makes use of for this The Proposition he would establish is That the dead receive the same as the living when they partake of the Eucharist The purity of the Soul say's he the Love of God Faith an earnest desire to partake of this Holy Mystery a secret joy which accompanies this desire a fervant appetite and thirst which makes us run to it these are the things which procure our Sanctification with which qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the Communion do partake of Jesus Christ and without which it is impossible Cap. 42. they should Now all these things depend only on the Soul and are not corporeal There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having these things as well as the living If then these Souls are in the state and disposition requisite for the receiving of the Mystery if he to whom it belongs to bestow Sanctification and Consecration is always willing to sanctifie and ever desires to communicate himself in all places what can then hinder this participation And a little further It is evident say's he by the things I now mention'd that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common as well to the dead as living and a little lower the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which necessarily attends Cap. 43. the Souls after death If their joy and repose sprang from any other Principle it might be said that even this would be the reward of that purity wherein they are and this Table would be no longer needful to them But it is certain that whatsoever makes up their delights and felicity whether you call it Paradice or Abraham ' s bosom or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it self all this I say is no more than this Bread and Wine For these things are our Mediatour who is entred as our Forerunner into the Holy Places who alone conducts us to the Father who is the only
the Greeks being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age In effect what he say's concerning the Peoples prostrating themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis is not true for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis at the same time as the Priest and Deacon adore immediately after this Prayer Look upon us O Lord Jesus Christ our God c. But granting it were so that the People prostrated themselves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was said it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it self in the Sacrament They would worship God as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd O God be propitious c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer which I likewise now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling They prostrate themselves before the Images of the Saints before the Book of the Gospels before the Bread when as yet unconsecrated and yet no Body concludes hence they adore these things with an absolute Adoration Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration terminating it self in it BUT if Arcudius's Testimony be of no validity in reference to this last Article wherefore must it be otherwise in respect of this other Article on which I ground my Conclusion I answer for two Reasons the one for that being interressed as he is against us it is not to be imagin'd he would speak any thing in our favour unless the thing were so well known and undeniably true that he could not disguise it or pass it over in silence and th' other because that in effect his Testimony in this respect agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks which expresses no kind of Adoration directed to the Eucharist immediately after its Consecration And there being no mention likewise of any such thing afterwards to the end of the Office the Conclusion I draw hence is undeniable Had the Greeks the same Sentiments as the Latins and made profession of rendring the same Divine honours to the Substance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Person of the Son of God what time could they choose better for the acquitting themselves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be present on the Altar When a Prince comes into a place People are not wont to delay the shewing him the respect due to him every one stands immediately uncovered in his Presence and those Persons that did otherwise would be esteemed foolish and stupid What likelyhood is there then did the Greek Church believe that immediately after the Consecration the Bread becomes the very Substance of the Body of our Lord she would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be so by a Solemn Adoration Mr. Arnaud must not tell us that the Priest's mind is so taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice that it is all this while fixed in Heaven These are Reasonings invented expresly to excuse a thing which cannot be alter'd but in truth it is so natural to Persons that believe Transubstantiation to shew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes that notwithstanding all these fine Reasons those who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine So that this very consideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any solemn kind of Reverence or Worship to the Sacrament after its Consecration is alone sufficient to make us conclude what we contend for MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reason to rest satisfi'd with his first Proofs has recourse to his Baron of Spartaris and Paysius Ligaridius that is to say to two false Greeks brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church and won to its interest as will appear hereafter I only wonder he is not asham'd to bring for witnesses such kind of People as these are AS to Oderborne the Lutheran who discoursing of the Russians tells us That the Priest leaving the Altar to shew the People the Eucharist the People kneel down and the Priest say's in the Moscovit ' s Language Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews put to death altho innocent it is easie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Eucharist a Devotion which they practise before its Consecration when the Bread is carri'd from the Prothesis to the great Altar There can be rais'd no scruple concerning the truth of this seeing we have the Testimony of all Authors who by unanimous consent observe that this Ceremony is performed before the Consecration of the Symbols ALEXANDER Gagnin say's That one of them carries the Bread Moscovit descript cap. 2. which is prepared for the Sacrifice and another the Cup full of Wine that they issue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Priests that carry the Images of St. Peter St. Nicholas and Michael the Archangel whilst in the mean time the â—â—ople express their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worship that some of 'em cry out Lord have pity on us others knock their foreheads against the Ground and that others make often the Sign of the Cross and bow their heads in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about sundry marks of veneration and honour That having went round the Church they enter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary and there make the Sacrifice Sigismond Baron of Herberstain say's likewise Comment Vir Mosco That before they consecrate the Bread according to our manner they walk with it about the Church worship it and adore it with a certain form of words they utter ARCUDIUS who inveighs so earnestly against this Custom as an Idolatrous Arcud lib. 3. cap. 19. practice attributes it not only to the Greeks but likewise to the Russians and say's That they prostrate themselves and knock their heads against the Ground M. Habert Bishop of Vabres say's That in the Greek Churches Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obscrvat XI ad partein 7. litt the People make a low bow but in other Churches as in those at Russia they prostrate themselves on the ground after the same manner as if our Saviour's real Body passed along We have already observ'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expresly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated as well as others and moreover add that the Russians shew no reverence to the Sacrament after its Consecration And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church whence it follows that Oderborne was mistaken and supposed this respect was given the Bread after its Consecration for there being but one turn made round the Church it cannot be denied but 't is done before the Consecration What
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
as I relate it as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings his drift being only to shew that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life which is in Jesus Christ it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body He himself explains his own meaning in these Terms Saint Peter say's he tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme or the unleavened Bread of the Jews a Divine Nature and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ How have you Communion with Jesus Christ who is the living God eating dead and unleavened Bread which appertains to the shadow of the Law and not the New Testament If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread we shall find his aim is only to shew that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and to become the Figure and Representation of it th' other on the contrary to be most proper 1. Because 't is Bread which th' other is not 2. Because 't is in some sort living whereas th' other is dead 3. Because it respects Grace and the New Testament whereas the other respects the Jews and Shadow of the Law there is not one word in all this that savours Transubstantiation It appears on the contrary that he takes for one and the same thing to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT we have had enough of this Illusion let us then pass on to the nineteenth which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation What can say's he Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. 163. Claude say to this Witness who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist I may truly say that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate he was interressed to suppose that all the World was on his side and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony I may also affirm Mr. Arnaud's word signifies nothing without Proof altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabulous History touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time and Pope Celestin's and to make thereof a good Proof Whether through Ignorance or want of Sincerity I know not but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony who has so grossly deceived us He was say's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162. Arnaud an Italian by Nation where there was a great many Greeks Italy certainly would be a very happy Country if it produced none but faithful Witnesses Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversion he would have told us so himself and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses It appears adds he by his way of writing that he was a Person worthy of Credit It appears by his Writings that he was a passionate man and extreamly carried away with vain glory which are not the best marks of Sincerity But after all this I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimony For Lanfranc only say's that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ which he took of the Virgin That this is the Faith of the Greeks Armenians and all the rest of the Christian World Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body and that it must not be said he has two Bodies but one alone Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression namely that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition as the Food we eat becomes our Body which is very different from Transubstantiation BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable I answer this is another of his wilful mistakes For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opinion never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances We have scarcely any of their Writings we have no more of their Arguments and Answers than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us It is true that Lanfranc say's when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church they answered the Church had erred and all its Members perished except themselves But it does not hence follow that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation They might say the Church had erred and was perished from the Face of the Earth meaning the Western Church They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation And then again who can assure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange that People who were every where persecuted and afflicted and had enough to do to preserve themselves should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks Berengarius say's he was thrice at Rome and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164. inform himself and we need not doubt but 't was one of his principal cares Why not doubt of it Because Mr Arnaud say's so Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word will still doubt of it For he is not infallible and I my self am one of those that doubt of it till he proves it The Interest Ibid. of his Cause adds he speaking of me is so prevalent in him that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments what were those of his followers I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life and Mr. Arnaud does me right here But yet 't is certain that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer I should not much trouble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks for the discovery of Truth which ought to be the aim of us all does not depend on what the Greeks do or do not believe and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle BERENGARIUS had the Word of God which was enough they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
him but John dying before his Affair was ended the Court of Rome proceeded no farther in it Mr. Arnaud who will needs have the Greeks not to be ignorant of what passed amongst the Latins and supposes all Greece to resound with Berengarius's Condemnation and Peoples Italy with Greeks and Greece with Latins with order to give one another account of whatsoever concerned the Doctrine of Transubstantiation who will have the very Soldiers entertain themselves with it in the Army as well as the Pilgrims in their Voyages can he I say find in his Heart to tell us that the Greeks knew not what such famous Authors as Rupert Durand John of Paris and Cardinal Dailly publickly maintained in the twelvth thirteenth fourteenth and fifteenth Century that they knew not what passed in one of the chief Cities in the West and in a Faculty so illustrious as that of Paris that they knew not an Affair that was carried to Rome and touching which that Court made no Decission In truth if they knew nothing of this and that neither the Pilgrims nor Ambassadors nor Soldiers nor Inquisitors nor the Greeks in Italy nor the Latins in Constantinople gave them no Notice thereof they may have been ignorant as well of other things and Mr. Arnaud's Assurance signifies nothing that their Curiosity made them search into all things For altho that in some of these Centuries there were no more Croisado's into the Holy Land nor Latins that held the Greek Empire yet the Commerce between the Greeks and Latins was frequent and both one and thother were often together in Italy and several other places and it was a very easy matter to send Notice to the Greeks of what passed in the West concerning these Doctors Should Mr. Arnaud say they knew this he must not take it ill if they made this a Reason for their Silence and Reservedness For why should they accuse a Church wherein it is permitted to affirm that the Substance of Bread remains wherein it is affirmed that there is nothing to be positively asserted concerning the Subject of Transubstantiation and Appeals made to Rome it self thereupon and yet this Court does not so much as declare the contrary VIII SUPPOSING the Greeks believed Transubstantiation how came it to pass they were not scandaliz'd at the boldness of all these Authors Why would they not satisfy themselves in so considerable a Point as that which these Authors handled namely that the Church had not yet determined any thing touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread Why did they not reprove the Latins for this and especially the Roman Church for being silent in a Particular wherein her Belief and Practice were concern'd Let Mr. Arnaud give us a Reason for this Reservedness of the Greeks who makes them such great Disputers And let him also shew us a Reason for the Church of Rome's Silence That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not an Article of Faith and that the Church has not yet determin'd it so to be we find John of Paris ready to justify within the Walls of Rome it self and yet she takes no notice of it She suffers a Person to dye in this Error neither Condemns his Opinion nor Memory and that which is moreover worse is that she leaves the whole World in suspence about a Point wherein the Faith of all her Children are concern'd For if a man doubts whether the Conversion of Substances be a Point of Faith he cannot believe it as a Point of Faith And if a man cannot believe it as a Point of Faith how will he be perswaded of the Truth of it And if it must be held only as a probable Opinion of Learned men what will become of it when we shall find it so improbable and so little agreeable to right Reason Yet does not the Church of Rome mention a Word of this but lets the Question ly Dormant so that should we argue from her Silence as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks we might conclude she approves John of Paris his Opinion seeing she does not condemn it Yet will I not go so far It suffices me that the Church of Rome has not condemned the Proposition in Question This is enough to hinder the Greeks from Reproaching the Latin Church with Transubstantiation THIS Affair of John of Paris together with the Judgment of the Faculty in Theology and Silence of the Roman Church is of such Importance that this alone is sufficient to decide the Question and manifest to Mr. Arnaud that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been perpetual in the Church For that a Faculty so considerable as is that of Paris should assure us this manner of the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not determined by the Church nor is an Article of Faith and whosoever shall assert that it is so ought to be Anathematiz'd That the Affair having been carried to Rome and that Court be silent therein and determine nothing about it I say this is enough to refute this pretended Perpetuity which Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to defend BUT return we to the Greeks We may add to what I already mentioned this considerable Remark which is that the Latins never raised a Dispute with the Greeks about the general Expressions which these last make use of touching the Eucharist BUT before we carry on this Consideration any farther it is necessary that I put the Reader again in mind that the Question is not to know whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us touching the Eucharist much less whether they explain themselves after the same manner This is Mr. Arnaud's perpetual Illusion to suppose we make them Berengarians and 't is on this wrong Ground whereon he builds his whole Discourse We scarcely meet with any other but these kind of Arguings in his Dispute viz. Whether the Greeks were Berengariens Whether they Believed the Bread in the Sacrament to be only a Figure Whether they understood our Saviour's Words in the Sence of Significat c. To the end then the Reader may not be deceived I do here again acknowledg that the Greeks believe a great deal more touching the Eucharist than we do that they express themselves otherwise about it and follow neither the Sentiments nor Expressions of Berengarius Neither have we given Mr. Arnaud any Occasion to assert what he does We only affirm'd they do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Roman Church nor worshipped the Sacrament with a sovereign Adoration and 't is upon this Mr. Arnaud ought to argue to deal sincerely AND therefore I say the Latins never disputed with the Greeks touching their Expressions how general soever they have been They have indeed done what they could whereby to introduce insensibly amongst them the Terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation change of Substance They have for this purpose made use of their Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries to whom they
will affirm that the Sence of the Roman Church is not a literal Sence For the literal Sence of our Saviour's Words must retain two things First that 't is Bread and secondly that 't is the Body of Christ which Transubstantiation does not BUT say's Mr. Arnaud Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood and yet we do not say Baptism is not the Figure of it but the Blood it self of Christ Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 179. I answer that this is still to dispute against the Greeks and not against me For supposing it were more true than it is that the Water of Baptism is not mentioned like as the Greeks speak of the Bread in the Eucharist yet still these two things are certain First that they affirm the Bread to be the Body of Christ by this Impression of Virtue and secondly that 't is thus they Understand the Words This is my Body Ely de Crete having told us that God Comment in Orat. 1. Greg. Naz. changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Flesh Immediately adds and doubt not of the Truth of this seeing he himself plainly say's this is my Body this is my Blood It is apparent he grounds this change of the Bread into the Efficacy of Flesh on the express Words of our Saviour Whence it follows that 't is thus he understands them Cyrillus of Alexandria having likewise said in the same manner that God changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his Cyrill apud Victor Ante MS. in Bibl. Reg. Flesh adds that we must not doubt of the Truth of this seeing he has said it which evidently shews that according to him these Words this is my Body signifies no more than that this has the Efficacy of my Body or is my Body in Efficacy Yet should we take upon us to reply in behalf of the Greeks to the Instance or Example Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Baptism We might tell him that the Reason why they express not themselves in the same manner in reference to the Water as they do to the Bread is because our Saviour never said of it this is my Blood as he said of the Bread this is my Body and that the Holy Scripture having differently explained it self touching Baptism and the Eucharist we must not think it strange if Divines have expressed themselves about them in a different manner He may be moreover answered that the same Oeconomy observed touching the Body and Blood of Christ is not observed in the Water of Baptism as it is observed in the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and therefore it cannot be so well said that the Water becomes the Blood by this way of Growth and Augmentation as may be said of the Bread altho it receives the Impression of the Virtue of Blood AS to what Mr. Arnaud adds that the Ministers acknowledg these Words this is my Body must be either understood in a real or figurative Sence whence it follows according to him that Theophylact understood them in one or the other of these I say this Reasoning is false as well in its Principle as Consequence For the Ministers do not acknowledg either that we ought or can understand these Words in this Sence of Reality the Church of Rome gives them We all hold that this is an absurd and impossible Sence and that none but a figurative one can subsist But supposing the Ministers should say what he makes them why would he have us regulate thereby the Sence of Theophylact and other Greeks They have argued on their own Hypothesis and not on that of the Ministers Whether their Hypothesis be justifiable or not is not to be disputed with the Ministers for Mr. Arnaud was never yet told that the Greeks were agreed in all things with us It is sufficient that on one hand he be shewed in what manner the Greeks pretend the proper Sence of our Saviour's Words is observed and on the other that this manner whatsoever it be Good or Bad Justifiable or Unjustifiable Conformable or not Conformable to what the Ministers say is directly opposite to Transubstantiation for our only Question is Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not THIS is then a mere Illusion to explain Theophylact by what the Ministers say or not say and it is yet a greater to tell us as if it were a thing earnestly Disputed between him and us that Euthymius excludes the Key of Figure and does not take the Word EST in the Sence of Significat that 't is not likely we would borrow Euthymius his Words to instruct a Man in our Opinion and Lib. 2. c. 12. that we are not wont to say that Christ gave us not the Figure of his Body but his Body because he said this is my Body And thus do Men argue that impose on the World which Mr. Arnaud never fails of doing HAVING produced these Arguments which in my Mind have not proved very successful to him he offers us others drawn from the Doubts or Difficulties which the Greeks propose to themselves as arising from their Sentiment and which they endeavour to resolve in the best manner they can Theophylact say's he testifies there arises naturally a Doubt from what Faith teaches concerning this Mystery that the Bread is really the Flesh of Christ which difficulty Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 183. he expresses in these Words Quomodo inquit neque enim caro videtur How can this be For this Bread does not seem to me to be Flesh Whence he observes the natural Consequence of this Change must be that the Bread being Flesh must appear to be so and seeing it does not 't is astonishing Et quomodo inquit aliquis non apparet caro sed Panis Now say's he let a man take Aubertin's or Mr. Claude's Gloss to expound Theophylact and we shall find nothing can be more Extravagant For this is as much as to say according to them if it be true the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body how comes it to pass that it does not appear to us to be Flesh Whence is it we see only Bread and not Flesh Is it not ridiculous to make People reason after so absurd a manner And why must this Bread containing only the Virtue of Christ's Body appear Flesh when it is not so Does it follow from the Breads partaking of a spiritual Quality of the Flesh of Christ either morally or physically that it must appear Flesh Would it not be on the contrary a dreadful Prodigy if the Flesh of Christ being only in Virtue in the Bread of the Eucharist should appear Flesh AND this is Mr. Arnaud's Reasoning set forth with its usual Sweetness that is to say of Extravagancies and Absurdities with which he charges both me and Mr. Aubertin I answer he is under a Mistake and such a kind of Mistake too wherein his Reputation is deeply concern'd for he takes for the Ground of Theophylact's Doubt that which is on the contrary the
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
Eucharist which contained That after Consecration it was the same Numerical Body of Jesus Christ which was born of a Virgin and suffered on the Cross He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected sixteen of them amongst which was that of the Eucharist and in the Answers he made to the Popes instructions he would never admit of Transubstantiation but barely says he believed and held that the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven after the words of the Consecration of the Bread which are this is my Body is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and resemblance of Bread sub specie similitudine panis Now 't is on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himself concealing all the rest of this History and producing only these last words and drawing from them his Conclusion after his usual Manner in these terms I see no Lib. 5 C. 9. pag. 488. reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch considering this his declaration that is to say it plainly appeared hence that he believed Transubstantiation and the Substantial presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Consequences For I. he ought not to have dissembled that in all this affair the question is not whether the Armenians held or did not hold the things contain'd in the information of Benedict but whether they sincerely renounced them and whether the act of their renunciation sent to the Pope was feigned or real II. He ought not to have dissembled likewise that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this respect but a mere cheat invented only to remedy the disorders of their State and procure assistance from the Western Princes That the Pope laid hold on this Occasion to make them receive the Roman Religion and they on their side endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they desired in eluding his pursuits Which is justified by the Letter sent by Clement himself to the Catholick of Armenia Moreover says he we have bin several times informed by divers Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17. Persons worthy of credit and even by Armenians that you and your Predecessors the Catholicks of Armenia and the Armenians under your jurisdiction do not in any manner observe what you promised us and our Predecessors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith And that which is yet worse and more deplorable is that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholesome Instructions of our Apostolical Legats sent you in regard to your Souls but have after a Damnable manner despised the Faith of the Roman Church out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation The same thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia in which having exhorted him earnestly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine sincerely and purely Raynald ibid. Numb 18. without duplicity of heart to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the Latin Church he adds that by this means the mouths of several Catholicks and Armenians too will be stopt who stick not to affirm That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulness and simplicity but with dissimulation and that which is yet worse and more deplorable they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into derision and contempt the saving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia who would save himself by ambiguous Answers rejected the Article of the Eucharist which contain'd that it was the same Numerical Body which Raynald ibid. Numb 15. was Born of the Virgin and crucified and that he neither would admit of the Article of Transubstantiation because both one and the other so manifestly contradicted his faith and left no room for his Equivocations In fine he ought not to have concluded so briskly as he has done from the terms of his Answer that after this declaration there could be no Reason to doubt whether this Patriarch had the same faith as the Church of Rome For notwithstanding this declaration Clement VI. still doubted of it as also the Cardinals Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors with whom the Pope consulted about it Observe here the Contents of Raynaldus ibid. Numb 2. Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia We have kindly receiv'd your answers and those of the Church of Armenia minor reduced to certain heads and having deliberately considered them together with my Reverend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church some Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates we could not nor cannot now gather from these answers till such time as you give us a more clear Discovery what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and sincerely hold and believe He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article and desired plain and direct answers In effect he proposes 'em to him and coming to the Article of the Eucharist having set down the first answer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited he adds upon this we demand ibid. Numcr 11. first of all whether you believe the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ Then coming to speak of a certain Letter which the Patriarch wrote wherein he rejected sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were offered him and amongst the sixteen this Quod Corpus Christi post ibid. Num. 15. verba Consecrationis sit idem numero quod Corpus natum de virgine immolatum in cruce he says to him the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Bishop and Bishops are confused and obscure as also the particular answers you returned by Writing Therefore we desire to know of you plainly and truely whether you have rejected these sixteen Articles because you do not believe 'em to be true and sound or for what other reason you have retrenched them from the rest But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Cardinals Prelates and Doctors and better instructed in the intentions of the Armenian Patriarch than all the People then in the World comes and confidently tells us that he sees no reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch and thinks Mr. Claude himself will acknowledge as much And suppressing all these matters of fact related by the very Historian he makes use of he proclaims his Victories and confidently affirms the Armenians have ever believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion for having related the whole story of what passed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information he adds That we may thence plainly see into how many filthy Errors thy
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
by the Almighty Power of God furnish us not with any Secondly All the changes wrought by Grace leave the matter still subsisting There 's made according to the Scriptures and Fathers a new Heaven and a new Earth a new Creature and a new Man A Temple is made of a House an ordinary Man is made a Bishop a Stone an Altar Wood or Metal a Cross Water and common Oyl Sacraments without the matters ceasing to be IT subsists on the contrary in all these instances If then we may not draw advantage from the expressions of the Fathers which call the Eucharist Bread and Wine under pretence they design thereby the matter of it we must be shewed that according to these Fathers themselves this matter subsists not after the Consecration for otherwise we shall still naturally suppose that the Fathers delivering themselves with an honest plainness and far from the prospect of our Controversie have regarded this matter as subsisting BUT supposing what I now said signifies nothing 't is certain the passages which I produced which design the matter of the Sacrament do of themselves establish the subsistence of it for they all consider it after the Consecration and speak of it as being still the same as it was before to wit Bread and Wine They say that 't is an Oblation of Bread and Wine an Oblation of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck Bread and Wine which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Bread which the Church eats Bread with which is celebrated our Lords Passion as the Ancients Celebrated it by the flesh of Victims Bread that came in the room of the Paschal Lamb to be the mystery of Christ's Passion Bread which has succeeded Aarons Sacrifices Bread which our Lord held in his hands after he had blessed it and by means of which he did in some sort carry himself to wit inasmuch as he held in his hands his own Sacrament Mr. Arnaud's Remark might take place did they only say that the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread or that the Bread becomes and is made this Body for then one might dispute whether the Bread be made this Body either in ceasing to be Bread or in remaining so But speaking in the manner I now mention'd calling it Bread after the Consecration according to the language of sense which naturally admits not a figure and without correcting or explaining themselves is a sufficient evidence they meant 't was real Bread in substance YET let us see what they say of the Eucharist when according to Mr. Arnaud they design not the matter but expound the nature and essence of it Besides what I already said that they commonly call it the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of this Body the Figure of this Body the Image of his Sacrifice the Sacrament of his Incarnation the Sacrament of his Humanity the Mystery of his Humanity the Mystery of his Humiliation Besides this I say 't is certain they often explain themselves in such a manner that they establish a formal distinction between the Sacrament and Jesus Christ himself represented by it and leave it to be plainly concluded they held not this substantial Presence which the Church of Rome teaches IT is in this sense that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome who lived towards the end of the 6th Century and about the beginning of the 7th wrote That this Mystery reiterates the Death of Christ and altho since his Gregor Mag. Dialog lib. 4. cap. 58. Resurrection he dies no more Death having no more dominion over him yet being IN HIMSELF alive immortal and incorruptible he is still Sacrificed for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation ISIDOR recites a prayer inserted in the Liturgy of his time which desires of God That the OBLATION being sanctified may be made CONFORMABLE Isidor de Offici Eccles l. 1. c. 15. to the Body and Blood of Christ Brevil's Edition has these words Vt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi sanguini confirmetur but this has no sense and 't is evident we must read conformetur as Cassander rightly observes who thus recites it Vt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi sanguini conformetur NOW howsoever we understand this conformity 't is certain it supposes a formal distinction between the Body and Blood of Christ and the Oblation of the Eucharist whence it appears that the sense of the then Church was not to desire of God that the substance of Bread might become the proper substance of the Body for this would be not a conformity but an intire and perfect identity IT is in the same sense that Bede expounding these words of the 21th Psalm The poor shall eat and be satisfied makes a difference between the Beda Comm. in Psal 21. Bread and Wine of the Sacrament and the true Body or Blood of Christ for he introduces our Saviour Christ speaking thus The poor that is to say those who despise the world shall eat of my Vows They shall really eat of them in reference to the SACRAMENT and shall be eternally satisfied for by this BREAD AND WINE which are visibly offer'd to 'em they will understand ANOTHER INVISIBLE THING to wit the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of our Lord which are really meat and drink not such as fill the belly but which nourishes the mind And in his allegorical expressions on Esdras speaking of the Passover which the Israelites celebrated In Esdr lib. 2. cap. 8. after their return from the Babylonish Captivity The immolation says he of this Passover represents the glory of our Resurrection when we shall eat altogether the Flesh of the immaculate Lamb I mean of him who is our God and our Lord no more IN A SACRAMENT as Believers but IN THE THING IT SELF AND IN THE TRUTH as Spectators SHOULD we proceed further we shall find that these same Authors acknowledg but one true manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ to wit that which is particular to the Faithful and which necessarily and only communicates Life and Salvation whence it follows they knew not of this oral manducation of the substance of this Body which is common as well to the wicked as the good and will not be necessarily attended with Salvation It is on this ground Isidor says That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the food of the Saints of which if any one eats he shall never die And in another place It is the Living and Celestial Bread the food of Angels with which the Word nourishes corruptible men after an incorruptible manner He was made flesh and dwelt amongst us to the end men might eat him Isidor in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Genes Exod. Exposit in Exod. c. 12. and that such as do it may live spiritually WE read the same words in Bede
was a formulary of Practice I acknowledg 't was a formulary of profession of Faith But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove I prove it says he by the word Amen which the Communicants answered The Amen which the Communicants pronounced signifies nothing less than this Presence of substance The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est It is Ambros de iis qui myst init cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr Serm. de quarta feria truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ The Author of the Book of Sacraments wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud under the name of S. Ambrose refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself which we have in the Sacrament S. Austin refers it to our selves being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ and effusision of his Blood Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ against the Error of the Eutichiens And it signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur for 't is clear enough that these terms signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe to wit that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature because 't is the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth so that when the Hereticks dispute against it they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce And this is the sense of Leo in all which there 's no substantial Presence AS to what remains Mr. Arnaud takes a strange liberty I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use and action designed for the stirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ and prov'd it very clearly by these words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we should always remember THAT HE DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST WE ARE TOLD THAT 'T IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST and by those of Primasus Every time we do this we ought to remember THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WE ARE TOLD 'T IS THE BODY OF CHRIST to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon He conceals these passages and concludes from his own authority That these notions of use and this extasie of the Soul immediately transported by these words Corpus Christi to the meditation of the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto are Mr. Claudes Dreams exactly opposite to the sentiments of the Fathers and the Churches intention and that there 's small likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immediately into these kind of Meditations 'T IS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleases he suppresses my Arguments recites my words in a contrary sense turns things into ridicule and flourishes all this over with passionate expressions But proceed we to his third remark IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground Page 573. my Arguments were supposed a true one Altho says he 't were true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite in them certain inward motions and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words and 't would be still ridiculous to suppose that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them I ANSWER Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly the first That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite internal motions in them which I never imagin'd I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary as may be seen by whosoever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin There 's Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit little sincerity in this imputation and as little in charging me with a conclusion which I do not draw and in suppressing that which I do I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense But I say there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated applied themselves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion which these terms excited without going any farther and making reflection on what the terms being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd Let any man now judg whether my supposition be ridiculous extravagant and sensless as Mr. Arnaud would make people believe or whether 't is not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it IT may also be here confider'd by the way whether he has had reason to call absurd the notion I instanc'd touching light when I said our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident or motion of air but under the idea of a thing which serves us and leads us forth to labour And this I think is the sense of the greatest part of the world and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would speak his mind there being few persons who think when the day begins to appear or withdraw of conceiving the light under the notions which Philosophy offers be they what they will At least I have the anonimous Author of the Discourse containing several reflections on the modern Philosophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my side for he freely acknowledges That this idea is such in
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
man that writes things on such slight grounds as he does nor so easily exposes his Reputation in asserting matters of Fact of whose untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read For not to go farther we need but read to find in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise that the Author proposes to himself to make any man confess who is not extreamly obstinate by the evidence of truth it self that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Mystery is the same with that of all Antiquity Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Transubstantiation We need but read moreover for this purpose the eighteenth and nineteenth Pages of the first Treatise wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to shew us the universality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome tells us that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in these terms We believe the Terrestial Substances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sanctified on our Lord's Table by the Ministry of the Priests are CHANGED by the ineffable Operation wonderful and incomprehensible Power of God into the Essence of the Body of our Lord adds farther Behold here the Faith which the Church dispersed throughout the whole World which is called Catholick has held in all Ages and does at this time hold and that he confidently repeats this in the twenty second Chapter and presses Berengarius to inform himself of the Sentiments of all the Christians in the World in the East and West Ask the Greeks Armenians and generally all Christians of what Nation soever and they will all of them tell you they hold the same Faith which we profess We need but only read to be satisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity produces afterwards the Testimony of Guitmond in the same Sence and for the same end he cited that of Lanfranc to wit to prove that the Greeks and other Schismaticks do believe Transubstantiation and that in the twenty second Page he makes this remark That Guitmond does not only apply what he say's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Presence but likewise to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans which clearly shews us that this Testimony of Guitmond respects not only the Real Presence but likewise Transubstantiation In fine to be ascertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page after he had alledged that passage of Guitmond All the Books of the Schismatical Greeks say's he which have come to our hands since that time do clearly testifie they held the same Opinions as the Church of Rome touching the Eucharist After this Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us that although the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting that this Doctrine was held by all these Schismatical Churches Yet Mr. Claude turns aside the Question upon Transubstantion which Point this Author does not precisely Treat of What means then I pray these Quotations out of Lanfranc and Guitmond which he has expresly produc'd to shew that Transubstantiation was believed by the whole World both by the Greeks and Armenians and generally by all Christians Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himself an irreparable Injury thus to maintain things without consulting and examining them flattering himself with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this That he has observed in the Treatise of the Perpetuity that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schismatical Churches in the manner already mention'd that is to say positively in reference to Transubstantiation passing afterwards to the proposing of some Arguments by which he pretends to shew that the Mystery of the Eucharist is distinctly known by all the Faithful and that an insensible change is a thing impossible he restrains himself to the Real Presence but there is a difference betwixt these two points and Mr. Arnaud ought to have considered this a little better I say then that in this Dispute of the Greeks and other Christians separated from the Roman Church the question concerns Transubstantiation and not the Real Presence as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expresly mentioned Transubstantiation in his first Treatise as I come now from observing and for as much as I plainly kept my self in my first Answer to this Doctrine alone and that of the Adoration whereupon it follows that the Debate has been precisely continued on these two Articles Yet do I here declare to avoid all Mistakes that altho our debate at present is not concerning the Real Presence yet do I not yield to the drawing of this consequence from hence that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church in the same Sence as the Latins understand it This is not my Opinion and I shall say no more of it but that this point is not the Subject of our present debate It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Discourse what ought to be believed touching this matter it not being needful for this to alter the State of our question BUT besides the Observations I now made we must likewise observe that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expresly reject Transubstantiation or whether they have made it a point of Controversie betwixt them and the Latins but the question here is whether they do positively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples absolute rejecting of a Doctrine that is to say the making thereof a point of debate and the not receiving and reckoning it amongst the Articles of their Faith Our debate concerns only this last I mean whether the Greek Church as it stands separate from the Latin professes the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion or not This is the true state of the question Mr. Arnaud maintains the affirmative and I the negative so that we must see now who has the reason and truth on his side Yet let me tell him that designing throly to handle this Subject he ought to have laid down all these distinctions and leave the Reader at his own liberty to judge of them But instead of this there is never a one of these Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifestly perverted 1. He makes advantage of all those Parties which have been made from time to time either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches 2. He makes use of the Testimony of Persons won to the Roman Interest such as Emanuel Calecas Bessarion John Plusiadenus Gennudius Scholarius Baronius Spatarius Paysius Ligardius all of 'em Persons manifestly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome as shall be shewed him in the Sequel of this debate 3.