THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude.

Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Ethe [...] & B [...]



London, Printed for R. Royston.

[engraved title page]

THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES: In ANSWER to what M. ARNAƲD, Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES.

Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Published under the Name of BERTRAM.


LONDON: Printed for R. ROYSTON, Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty, at the Angel in Amen-Corner, MDCLXXXIV.

[modern bookplate]


To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS, and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY, Assembled at Charenton.

Gentlemen, and my most Honored Brethren,

THE design of the Book which I here offer you, being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpe­tuity, wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucha­rist, I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you; for altho the Religion we profess, needs not the hands of men to support it, no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites; yet have we cause to praise God, when we see that Reproach, of departing from the Ancient Faith, may be justly retorted upon them, who charge us with it. Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain represen­tation of things, such as they are in truth, in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man, and the fruitfulness of Human In­vention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments: As soon as ever I had read the Wri­tings of these Gentlemen whom I answer, the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon, That God made man Eccles. 7. 29. upright, but he had sought out many inventions. And indeed, what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord, as he himself has instituted it, and his Apostles have delivered it to us; and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament, amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men; and espe­cially amongst them, who are at farthest distance from us: These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions, and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us, and make us draw consequences, little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize. Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles, as far as the truth will permit me; and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind, I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others.

I here offer you then Gentlemen, and my most Honored Bre­thren, this last fruit of my Labor: first, for your own Edificati­on, and secondly, for a publick testimony of my Respect and [Page] acknowledgments. All that I do, or have done, is justly due to you, not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors, but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken, and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth. It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men, accord­ing to the purity of that Worship, which he hath prescribed us, and at the same time, how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others. And indeed what is it, that a man cannot learn in an Assembly, wherein all hearts and minds do unani­mously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity, which con­sists of persons who have no other aim, but so to order their Con­versations, as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven up­on themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge, and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch. This Work would have been published sooner, had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt, Mr. Daillé, and Morus; three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance. These persons have left us so suddenly one after another, that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we de­sired: The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us; the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow; and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness. God having taken to him­self these three famous Divines, it was impossible but this work should be retarded. But being now at length able to Publish it, I therefore entreat you Gentlemen, to suffer me to Dedicate it to you, that it may appear in the World honored with your Names. May the Father of Lights, from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift, enrich you more with his Graces, and preserve your Holy Assembly, and the Flock committed to your care: These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obe­dient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus,



THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist, has made such a noise in the world, since Mr. Arnaud's last Book, that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply. Besides, it is evident to every one, that the Cause which I defend, and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience, obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact, and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me.

AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work, I am afraid some persons will be displeased, seeing so much written on the same Subject; for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd, besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine. And these Tracts which at first were but small, have since insensibly grown into great Volumes. Yet for all this, we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud, or his Friends are oblig'd to pro­duce as to the first six Centuries, of which without doubt much may be said on both sides.

IF any complain of this prolixity, I confess it will not be altogether without cause. For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important, that is between the Church of Rome and the Prote­stants, and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd, yet since it may be treated, with greater brevity, even this consideration of its im­portance, is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions, which tire the Readers mind, and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth. But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates, since none can be justly blamed, but those who have first made this Labyrinth, and then plunged themselves into it, to the end they might forcibly draw others after them. For as to my own part, I have ever protested, that I entred not into it, but in condescenti­on only to follow them; and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it, and bring 'em into the right way.

IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie, we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures, by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament, which our Saviour instituted, and the end which he hath appointed it for, the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of, the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it, the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration, the Impression which his Words and his Acti­ons may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles, who were eye­witnesses of what they have delivered to us, and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion; and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd, when men make an exact search after truth. This way without doubt would be the short­est and certainest, or to speak better, the only certain method for satisfa­ction, and that which can only quiet the Conscience: For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion, being as they are, of an immediate Divine Institution, our Faith, our Hope, and our observance of them, ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God, there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revela­tion.

IT were indeed to be desired, that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course; but seeing they have been pleased to take another, and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church, be­fore the rise of these Controversies, they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions: for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto; especially in Mr. Ar­naud's last Volume. He hath engaged himself to give us another, where­in he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages, which plainly shews, that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition. Where­fore then hath he not at first taken this course, seeing that at length he must come to it? What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence, or rather Real Absence; and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church, in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation?

WE have seen within a short time three different methods of hand­ling this Subject, that of Father Maimbourg's, that of Father Nouet's, and that of Mr. Arnaud. The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry, by this reason, that what hath been once established, ought not to be called in question; and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, which having been decided by Councils, ought not again to be brought under examination. The second consents to a Review, and to this end allows us to search for the true [Page] Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures, and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question, but withal, proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church, that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth.

OF these three methods, that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie; and had he contented himself with the holy Scri­pture, without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers; which be himself hath compared to a Wood, where such as are pursued do save themselves: on this account his method had been commendable. That of Father Maimbourg is unjust, because he sets up the decisions of Coun­cils against us, not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth; especially when Salvation is concerned; and that the determina­tions of Councils are not considerable any farther with us, than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture, and the Principles of Christian Religi­on; there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us, than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for, be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted, that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct, and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's. For besides, that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Ro­man Church, taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiasti­cal decisions, which the other doth not, it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers: yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie. Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies; whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false, and of which we pretend, there cannot any good use be made, even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them; and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies, whereby they gain nothing, but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend, so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins.

AND this will evidently appear, if we take but the pains to read this work. For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud, and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches, which are called Schismaticks. This is the Subject of the first and second Book. In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us, and that [Page] we are not in reason oblig'd to hear, or answer them, whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture, which is the only Rule of our Faith; and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact, taken from the testimony of the Fathers; by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Ro­man Church. In the second I make it appear that tho it were gran­ted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transub­stantiation, yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force, for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always received by the Christian Church, which is the chief de­sign of Mr. Arnaud's Book.

IN the second place I discover the falsity of this supposition, that the true Greek Church, and other Eastern Christians do believe Tran­substantiation, and Adore the Sacrament after the same manner as the Church of Rome does. The contrary of this will appear so plainly, and Mr. Arnaud's Proofs so solidly answered, that a man would won­der to see with what confidence he treats of this matter, in which he be­trays so great ignorance and oversight. Here also his pretended proofs touching the Greeks, from the 7th. to the 11th. and touching the La­tins in the 7th. and 8th. Centuries are fully confuted, together with the consequences which he hath blindly drawn from thence of the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Tran­substantiation. This is the Subject of the 3d. 4th. and 5th. Book. The third proves by many and clear arguments, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, nor adore the Sacrament with the adora­tion of Latria, as the Church of Rome doth, and moreover shews par­ticularly what their Doctrins are, wherein they agree with the Latins and with us, and wherein they differ. In the fourth I answer all Mr. Ar­naud's Proofs, discovering their weakness, and make it appear, that the greatest part of what he offers does necessarily conclude against him. And because of the affinity of the matter, I examin at the same time his 7th. Book, wherein he treats of Greek Authors, of the 7th. 8th. 9th. and 10th. Centuries. In my fifth Book I pass over to the other Chri­stians, which are called Schismaticks, Moscovites, Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Coptics, Ethiopians, and show they do not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, with the Latins. From thence I come to the Latins in the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, and examine Mr. Arnaud's 8th. Book, after which I consider his 10th. Book, which concerns the consequences drawn from the consent of the Churches, which he pretends to have proved; and I make it appear that they are but Paralogisms and Sophisms.

IN the third place I lay open the falsity of Mr. Arnaud's second supposition, touching the distinct belief of the Real Presence, and re­fute his sixth Book. Afterwards in refuting the ninth Book, I show the absurdity of his conjectures about the impossibility of a change, and demonstrate that 'tis not only possible, but might easily happen. Lastly, the innovation of Paschasius is as evidently prov'd as a thing of that nature can be. This is the subject of my sixth Book.

NOW from all these discourses it will evidently appear what I have already observ'd, That this new way hath not been laid open, but for to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome.

I speak not of the intention of these Gentlemen, for they have decla­red themselves plainly enough against us, to leave no place for us to su­spect them of any collusion. And the last Book of Mr. Arnaud hath provided against all such suspicions something more perhaps than is rea­sonable. But I speak of the success their method hath had, which hath been quite contrary to their intention. As for example, it hath given me occasion to prove, that the Greeks did not believe Transubstantia­tion, nor the Real Presence, which the Church of Rome taught, when they condemned Berengarius, neither in the preceding nor follow­ing Ages: That whatsoever efforts the Latins have made since the 11th. Age to this present, to procure the reception of these Doctrins in Greece, yet the true Greek Church hath not embraced them: Neither do the Armenians and other Schismaticks believe them any more than the Greeks.

NOW who seeth not that the first and most natural consequences which can be drawn from thence is, That these Doctrins are new; for if they were establish'd at first together with the Christian Religion, they would have appeared in those Churches, and been retain'd among them af­ter their separation from the Latins, and that they do not appear, is a manifest sign of their novelty. This consequence is not like that of Mr. Arnaud, his and mine are not only contrary in the matter, but they are likewise very different in form; for mine is just and direct, whereas his is neither just nor true. For suppose the Greeks and other Eastern Christians should at this day believe Transubstantiation, nay suppose they should have believed it, some Ages since, what advan­tage can Mr. Arnaud make of this, seeing he hath been shewed several ways by which it might be introduced into their Churches? But if it be true that they held it not neither in the 11th, nor in the following Age, as I have invincibly prov'd, then it cannot be imagin'd how it should dis­appear, [Page] nor how the Latins who have for several Ages since, overspread these Countreys with their Emissaries, would have suffered such a Do­ctrin to be lost amongst them, which it was so much their interest to pre­serve. Moreover, this same method hath furnish'd me with an occasion to overthrow the pretended impossibilities of a change; and to make appear on the contrary the facility thereof. Now suppose we could not answer the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Ar­naud, this would be but little advantage to their cause: for still our proofs of the matter of fact, would remain unanswer'd, without the examination of which, the question of the Perpetuity of the Doctrins in Controversie cannot be decided. Whereas these having made it appear that their pretended impossibilities are mere Chimera's, and that this change might easily happen, this is a great inducement to believe our ac­count of it is really true.

IT is then certain that these Gentlemen could not make a worse choice for the interest of the Church of Rome than of such a way, in which nothing of advantage to their Church can be expected, but she is thereby exposed to great fears and dangers; and that the cause which they have opposed is more beholding to them, than that which they have taken upon them to defend. Had it not been for them, perhaps we should not have much troubled our selves either with discovering the real belief of the Greek Church, or that of the Armenians, or with the displaying the mystery of their Seminaries and Missions, neither should we have concern'd our selves in shewing how the change could be wrought, and how it was made.

AND having now given an account of the several parts of this work, and of the present state of this Controversie as to the matter of it, it is likewise fit to say something of the manner in which I have handled it. One of my greatest cares hath been religiously to keep to truth and sincerity. For I am very sensible, that prejudice, partiality, love of vain glory, and even sometimes a secret desire of revenging a man's self on his Adversary, are passions which do commonly obtrude themselves on us in Disputes, and which never fail to corrupt the mind; I have there­fore endeavoured to the utmost, not only to keep these from me, but like­wise to watch against their susprizes. And for this purpose I can affirm I have laboured as in the sight of God, not proposing to my self any other aim than his glory and truth; always remembring that I write not a line of which I must not one day give him an account. I have not warp'd from that sincerity and uprightness which an honest man ought to observe on these occasions. I have not taken Mr. Arnaud's words in a wrong sense, nor charged him with saying what indeed he saith not, nor [Page] strained his expressions beyond their natural signification. No man can reproach me for making false citations, or maiming any passages, by suppressing that which is important; neither have I alledged them abu­sively and contrary to the intention of their Authors. I hope there is no unfair dealings, either in my Arguments, or Answers, in my Suppositi­ons, or my other Discourses. I have followed Reason and Nature as much as I could, and have not made use of Philosophy, but to strengthen the ordinary notions of common sense, and not to stifle or hinder their effects.

I hope likewise that I shall not be complain'd of as having not obser­ved, either in general towards the Church of Rome, or in particular, towards Mr. Arnaud, all that moderation which might be reasonably ex­pected from me. I have noted the Errors and Sophisms of Mr. Ar­naud, which I have found very numerous, in every Subject on which he hath treated, especially concerning the Greek Church. I was not a little troubled to see with what sincerity he alledged several passages, whereof some are not faithfully translated; and others so imperfectly, that he hath suppressed whole Clauses, which would clear up the difficulty, and others which are palpably perverted, contrary to the sense of their Authors. I could not but resent his unhandsome dealing, when he dis­joynted from the series of a discourse, several of my words, to make them look of a quite contrary sense than what was intended; or fastned on them strange chimerical senses, that he might have some matter of triumph, or groundlesly slandered some famous men, or endeavoured to decry by violent and odious terms our morals, which cannot but be holy and pure, seeing we have no others, but what are taken from the Law and the Gospel. In fine, when he employs his declamatory stile, to dazle the eyes of the world, and to mis-represent the truth. I have discovered several of his contradictions, and how much his opinions are influenc'd by his interest; several fallacious suppositions which he would have intro­duc'd into this Dispute, and some vain and ill-grounded accusations with which he hath charged me; are clearly laid open; and some faults of his in History and Grammar I have but lightly touched upon. In short, I have set before him what I believe he ought to have said on these occasions, and others of the like kind; and do moreover here protest that I should have wholly spared him in the most part of these matters, had the interest of the cause which I take upon me to defend permitted me so to do. But what I have said to him has been without sharpness and passion, and even with as little complaining as may be against his starch'd Prefaces, and im­perious tartness, which appears throughout his whole Book, wherein I every where meet with the rough terms of Enthusiasm, Extravagancy, sensless Propositions, and other such like expressions. I confess that [Page] these injurious terms were not at all pleasing to me, and presently I won­dred that Mr. Arnaud should use a stile so little becoming his professi­on: but at length being accustom'd to it, I pass'd over it, and have com­forted my self by the motives of Christian patience. There are very deserving persons, even of his own Communion, whom he has handled no better than my self; and after all, it suffices me to know that I have not given just cause for so great animosity and bitterness, as I do believe some have already acknowledg'd, and which I believe Mr. Arnaud him­self will acknowledg, when he has read my last Chapter, in which I an­swer his 11th. Book, which concerns our pretended personal differences.

AS to exactness, I believe I have kept as much to it as can be desi­red, in such an Answer as this. Indeed I have not followed blindfold Mr. Arnaud, when he strayed from his own subject, as he has done in the last Chapters of his first Book; where he treats of Episcopacy, of Praying for the Dead, th' Invocation of Saints, the Worship of Relicks, and the Prohibition of certain Meats.

FOR seeing the matter in hand only concerns the Eucharist, it would have been contrary to sense, and a gross abuse to the Readers patience, to engage in these Controversies, on each of which there might be written whole Volumes: not to say farther that I have endeavoured to avoid that prolixity which Mr. Arnaud seems on the contrary to have affected. But according to prudence and discretion, I have omitted nothing consider­able in Mr. Arnaud's Book, which relates to our present Controversie unanswer'd, except the two Dissertations of the Criticism on John Scot, and on Bertram, to which there is a distinct Answer preparing. It can­not be said that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have done the like by me, for to speak ingeniously and freely, is there any thing less exact or more careless than their large work, considering it as a Refutation of my an­swer to the Perpetuity, of which they have scarcely handled the tenth part? They have taken here and there some one of my passages separated from the sequel of my discourse, and the greatest part of them turn'd into another sense, hereupon they have travelled from East to West. And this they call the Perpetuity of the Faith defended, against the Book of the Sieur Claude, Minister of Charenton. But seeing I have followed the second Treatise of the Perpetuity, and even accom­modated my self to its method, ought not then the Author in defending it against my Book [...]o follow me a little more closely? And when he was oblig'd to write a second Volume, as to what respects the first six Ages, certainly he ought to have considered the rest with some care. Mr. Ar­naud's In his Pre­face. excuse is vain and frivolous which he alledgeth for the length of this work. For to make it short he needed only to have insisted on mat­ters [Page] essential, avoiding fruitless digressions and retrenching injurious in­vectives. It is likewise a vain pretence of his, that in following my fan­cies, as he is pleased to speak, the connexion of his Principles with their consequences, remain hid and obscured. For what else does he intend by this, but to preserve these colours and appearances which cannot other­wise subsist? Wherefore should he call that method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath himself begun, and which I have but follow'd; wherefore I say should he term this my fancies? Wherefore should he at least suppress several things which I proposed in order to the discovery of the falsity of these pretended Principles and their consequences, and wherefore must this neglect have the Title of the Perpetuity defended? For my part, who de not believe my self bound to follow this example, I have examin'd whatsoever I found of importance in Mr. Arnaud, be it never so difficult. If I have changed his method in some places, it hath been to lay down a better, more short and natural, as when I joyned his 7th. Book, which treateth of Greek Authors from the 7th. Age to the 11th. to the general Dispute touching the Greek Church, to avoid doing twice the same thing: or when I referred his sixth Book touching the distinct belief of the Presence, or Real Absence, to the question of the impossibility of a change, because that in effect this distinct be­lief was not invented but for this purpose, or when I remitted what he said of Paschasius and the Authors of the 9th. Age, in the second part of his 8th. Book, to the account of the Innovation, because this was its proper place. But even in this I have not at all weakened Mr. Arnaud's proofs, nor the less exactly examin'd his Book.

AS to what further remains, the Authors which I have made use of cannot be suspected by Mr. Arnaud, seeing they are for the most part, either Greeks, or persons of the Roman Communion, or Authors of former Ages, which neither one nor other of 'em have written with any foresight of our debate. I have alledged but very few Protestants, and they such of whose sincerity there is no reason to doubt. Mr. Arnaud and his friends have not done the same, who have cited in this Contro­versie, Acts and Attestations, sent by the Emissaries, such as the Acts of a Synod of Cyprus, the Profession of Faith of six Priests belong­ing to the Patriarchate of Antioch, and such like particulars in the 12th. Book, of the Writings of the Greeks, Armenians, or Nesto­rians latinis'd, as of Manuel Calecas, of John Plusiadene, of Adam Nestorian, and of Hacciadour, an Armenian Patriarch now resident at Rome, the testimonies of the Scholars of the Seminary of Rome, as of Paysius, Ligardius, of Abraham Ecchellensis, and of Leo Allatius, &c. They have likewise frequently made use of him that has lately continued Baronius, named Odoricus Raynaldus a [Page] Priest of the Oratory at Rome; but if any would know of what autho­rity this Author is, he may be inform'd by this description: He is a man of little wit, of no judgment, no sincerity, no credit, who takes matters upon trust with an unsufferable boldness, and delivers the most unjustifiable pretensions of the Court of Rome with the same confidence as if they were Articles of Faith, who citeth Authors known to be the most partial and passionate of all others, as Poggius, Blondius, Turrecremata, and such like, as un­reprovable witnesses, and by following whose Testimonies, we shall be obliged to condemn the best of men, even those whom God hath own'd by Miracles, who for want of proofs, makes use of unjust clamours and outragious declamations, unbecoming an Historian, who ought never to be led by passion. And in short, such a man than whom there was never any less fit, for so important a work, as is an Ecclesiastical History. And this is the true Character of this Author. Who would imagin that persons who believe what I now rehearsed, and who desire the whole world to be of the same judgment with them, should make use of him, in a dispute so important as this, and take from him the greatest part of their Relati­ons. And yet these are the Gentlemen who quote him at present with so great confidence, after they themselves have represented him in the man­ner I mention'd. It was either Mr. Arnaud, or some of his Remarks on the 18th. Tome of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Rodoricus Raynaeldus. Aug. contr. Faust. lib. 32. ch. 16. Friends, who under the name of several Divines have taken the pains to publish their Animadversions on this History after a diligent perusal of it. Whereupon may we not justly apply to them that of S. Austin to Fau­stus, Who is there that having decried a witness as false and cor­rupted, will ever again produce his testimony? If we believe him, and believe him not according to your fancy, it is not him whom we believe, but you. And if we must needs believe you, what need is there of your producing other witnesses. We shall see what these Gentlemen will do henceforward, for should they take the same course again as they have taken already in this occasion, should they pretend to quote no other Authors but what are decried, false Greeks, Scholars of the Seminaries, persons won to the interests of Rome, or Proselytes of its Doctrin, and remitted to its Sea, this would be as much as to say that their Authority would have a greater share in this Controversie than Reason, and perhaps they might be let alone to talk to themselves, it being very unreasonable that a man should be continu­ally employed in combating Phantasms, and fighting with Shadows. For to maintain faithfully and solidly the Hypothesis of the Author of the Perpetuity, This was most necessary to be prov'd, That the Real Pre­sence and Transubstantiation were establish'd and commonly held in all Christian Churches, when Berengarius his Disputations were on [Page] foot, for which end a thousand attestations of persons now living would be of no use. These attestations may serve to shew that the care which hath been so long taken, and which is still continued to introduce insensibly the Doctrins of the Roman Church into other Churches, by the ways which I have observed in my second Book, and especially by their Missions and Seminaries hath not been altogether fruitless. But this is the greatest absurdity of all, to conclude from thence that the Doctrins in dispute were every where established in Berengarius's time, or that they were perpetual. There is reason to hope that the world will not suffer it self so easily to be cheated, and what hath here been done will sufficiently manifest the Truth.

WE live not now in the times of ignorance and darkness wherein mens credulity is easily abused. Our Age is an enlightned one, and its no­tices are clear and penetrant, and we should soon see the downfal of se­veral ancient Errors, were they not supported by the affinity which they have with mens temporal interests. God will break off this alliance when it shall seem good in his sight, but it is our duty to keep firm in his truth and prefer the honor we receive from it, above all the advantages of the earth, and beseech him that he would reconcile those to it by his Grace, who are far from it, that all of us may have but one heart to fear him, and one and the same mouth to glorifie him.


BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity has follow'd.
  • CHAP. I. THAT I have reason to take for granted, as I have done, the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin, against the Book of the Perpetuity, till Mr. Ar­naud has shew'd them to be invalid Page 1
  • CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly suspected to be deceitful, and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is disingeni­ous 8
  • CHAP. III. The third Observation justifi'd, viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has been to blame in pretending to overthrow the proofs contain'd in Mr. Au­bertin's Book, by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere conje­ctures 15
  • CHAP. IV. My fourth Observation justifi'd, viz. that we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, to make them inva­lid 25
  • CHAP. V. The pretended advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity, examin'd 34
  • CHAP. VI. A farther examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud at­tributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity. 44
  • CHAP. VII. The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book, examin'd 53
BOOK II. Wherein is shewn, that when it should be true, that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstan­tiation; yet would it not thence follow, that this Doctrin was always held by these Christians.
  • [Page]CHAP. I. COntaining the chief Heads of this whole Controversie touching the Eastern Churches, and their Opinion from the 11th. Century to this present. Mr. Arnaud's first Artifice laid open 61
  • CHAP. II. That the temporal state of the Eastern People since the 11th. Century, and the efforts the Latins have made to communicate to them their Religion, do invalidate the proof which is pretended to be drawn foom their Belief. Mr. Arnaud's second Illusion detected 73
  • CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors, led by politic interests, have themselves favoured the designs of the Latins, in introducing their Doctrins into Greece. Mr. Ar­naud's third Artifice discovered 81
  • CHAP. IV. That the Monks and other Emissaries, with which the Eastern Countreys have been for a long time replenish'd, do invalidate the proof, taken from the Belief of these people. Mr. Arnaud's fourth deceit laid open 89
  • CHAP. V. That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Roman Religion amongst the Schismatics, the Seminaries which have been set up for the same design, and the particular instructions given them touching the Do­ctrin of Transubstantiation, do sufficiently shew that there can no advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their Belief. Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice disco­vered 97
BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church, so cal­led, holds not Transubstantiation.
  • CHAP. I. THE question stated, and Mr. Arnaud's sixth illusion manifested 109
  • CHAP. II. The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the term of Transub­stantiation: The second from their not expresly teaching the conversion of Sub­stances. Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion 114
  • [Page]CHAP. III. The third proof taken from that the expressions used by the Greeks are ge­neral, and insufficient to form the idea of a substantial Conversion. The fourth, that the Greeks only receive for determinations of Faith, the Decrees of the seven first General Councils. The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open. The fifth proof taken from that the Greeks in their transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their general expressions. Mr, Arnaud's eighth Delusion discovered 119
  • CHAP. IV. The sixth proof taken from the Greeks employing on other subjects, the same expressions as on the Eucharist. Mr. Arnaud's tenth Illusion manifested 129
  • CHAP. V. The seventh proof drawn from that the Greeks do not believe the Particles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be Consecrated on the great Altar, as is that of our Saviour, and yet they distribute them to the people, in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ, Mr. Arnaud's tenth Fallacy laid open. The eighth proof drawn from their believing that the Eucharist Conse­crated on Holy Thursday, has a greater virtue than that which is Consecrated at other times. The ninth proof taken out of several passages of their Litur­gies 134
  • CHAP. VI. The tenth proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating term, when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ. The eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist, do receive the Body of Jesus Christ. The twelfth from their believing the Dead, and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce, do receive the same as we do in the Com­munion 143
  • CHAP. VII. That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an adoration of Latria, as the Latins do, and consequently believe not Transubstantiation. The thirteenth proof. Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Illusion 152
  • CHAP. VIII. The fourteenth proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme, do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle, that the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration. The fifteenth from the little care they take to preserve the substance of the Sacrament. The sixteenth, from a passage of Oecumenius 169
  • CHAP. IX. The seventeenth proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the 12th. Century touching the Eucharist, some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible, and others corruptible. The eigteenth from a passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the 12th. Century 175
  • CHAP. X. The nineteenth proof, that, we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrins which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation. The twentieth is, the te­stimony [Page] of sundry modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion. The one and twentieth, from the form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forced to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins 185
  • CHAP. XI. The two and twentieth proof, taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Me­trophanus Critopulus, to some questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck. The three and twentieth is, another Answer in Manuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus, and Hieroteus Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia. The four and twentieth, is, the testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church. The five and twentieth, is, the testimony of Zacharias Gerganus 197
  • CHAP. XII. The twenty sixth proof, taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lu­car, Patriarch of Constantinople, and what followed thereupon 201
  • CHAP. XIII. The real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist 215
BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church, refuted.
  • CHAP. I. MR. Arnaud's first proof, taken from Cerularius his silence, Examin'd. The rest of his illusions discovered 241
  • CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's second proof, taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus, examin'd. His third proof from the testimony of Lan­franc, and silence of the Berengarians, examin'd. The rest of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions considered 251
  • CHAP. III. Mr. Arnaud's twenty first Illusion, is his charging me with maintaining that the Latins never knew Transubstantiation. His two and twentieth consists in offering the formulary of the re-union propos'd to the Greeks by the Latins. The three and twentieth in that he produces the passages of Latinis'd Greeks. The four and twentieth in alledging supposed Authors, or at least doubtful and suspected ones. The five and twentieth is his producing the testimony of seve­ral false Greeks, link'd to the interest of the Latin Church 258
  • CHAP. IV. The testimony of some Protestants, alledged by Mr. Arnaud, touching the Belief of the Greeks, answered 269
  • [Page]CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments, drawn from the silence of the Greeks and Latins, on the Article of Transubstantiation, examin'd 272
  • CHAP. VI. A farther examination of Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments. A particular reflection on what past in the Treaties of R [...]union, and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards 293
  • CHAP. VII. Several passages of Greek Authors (cited by Mr. Arnaud) examin'd 306
  • CHAP. VIII. The Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make in the 12th. Century, considered. Several passages out of Cabasilas, Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and several others, collected by Mr. Arnaud, out of Greek Authors, examin'd 319
  • CHAP. IX. Several passages of Anastasius Sinaite, Germane the Patriarch of Constan­tinople, and Damascen, examin'd 429
  • CHAP. X. An examination of the advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the 8th. Century, upon the subject of Images; the one at Constantinople, the other at Nice 339
  • CHAP. XI. Several circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice, examin'd 355

The Second Part.

BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the Belief of the Moscovites, Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, and other Churches, called Schismatics; of the Belief of the Latins in the 7th. and 8th. Centuries; and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pre­tended consent of these Churches on the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.
  • CHAP. I. Of the MOSCOVITES. THat the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation Page 1
  • [Page]CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS. That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation: First proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Human Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallow'd up by the Divinity 14
  • CHAP. III. The testimony of some Authors who expresly say, or suppose, that the Arme­nians hold not Transubstantiation 26
  • CHAP. IV. Testimonies of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Tran­substantiation, and the Real Presence 38
  • CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's proofs touching the Armenians, examin'd 44
  • CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians, Maronites, Jacobites, Coptics, and Ethiopians, that they hold not Transubstantiation 50
  • CHAP. VII. Mr. Arnaud's eighth Book touching the sentiment of the Latins on the my­stery of the Eucharist since the year 700, till Paschasius his time, examin'd 61
  • CHAP. VIII. An examination of these expressions of the Fathers, That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ, the proper Body of Jesus Christ, properly the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ 71
  • CHAP. IX. That the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries held not Transubstantiati­on, nor the Substantial Presence 89
  • CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrin of Transubstan­tiation, and the Real Presence 98
  • CHAP. XI. Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's consequences 106
BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church touching the Eucharist. That this Change was not impossible, and that it has effectually hapned.
  • [Page]CHAP. I. THE state of the question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence 119
  • CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's proceedings considered. His unjust reproaches also examin'd 131
  • CHAP. III. A Defence of the second, third, and fourth rank of persons, against the Ob­jections of Mr. Arnaud 143
  • CHAP. IV. A Defence of the fifth rank against Mr. Arnaud's Objections 154
  • CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's ninth Book. An examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation 163
  • CHAP. VI. Mr, Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification, and the Machins of Execution, examin'd. The state of the 12th. Century 172
  • CHAP. VII. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of forgetfulness, examin'd. The examples of the insensible changes alledged, in answer to the Perpetuity, defended 188
  • CHAP. VIII. That Paschasius Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence, and conversion of Substances. Mr. Arnaud's Objections answer'd 198
  • CHAP. IX. Proofs that Paschasius was an Innovator 214
  • CHAP. X. Of Authors in the 9th. Century, Walafridus, Strabo, Florus, Remy of Auxerre, Christian Drutmar 229
  • CHAP. XI. Of other Authors in the 9th. Century, Amalarius, Heribald, Raban, Ber­tram, and John Scot 242
  • [Page]CHAP. XII. Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his 11th. Book 259

An Answer to the Dissertation which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book, touching the Treatise of our Lords Body and Blood; publish'd under the name of Bertram, and touching the Authority of John Scot, or Erigenus.

The first Part.

Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Publish'd under the name of Bertram, is a work of Ra­tram a Monk of Corby, and not of John Scot.

  • CHAP. I. AN Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book, to hinder the advantage which we draw from it 277
  • CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca, does not at all make it the more probable 282
  • CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood, pub­lish'd under the name of Bertram 284
  • CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, publish'd under the name of Ber­tram is of John Scot 292
  • CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the name of Bertram, examin'd 299

The Second Part.

That the Authority of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood, Pub­lish'd under the name of Bertram, will be still of great weight, if we suppose John Scot to be the Author of it.

  • CHAP. VI. That John Scot was greatly esteemed, both in his own age, and in the fol­lowing ones 303
  • CHAP. VII. An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the employs of John Scot 306
  • CHAP. VIII. That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr 311
The end of the Table.


Coenantibus ejs accepit Iesus panem, et benedixit at fregit, dedit (que) discipulis fuis, et ait, accipite et comedite, hoc est & And as they did eat Iesus took the bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it and gave it to the Disciples and said take eat this my body. Mat. 26.


AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED, The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church, touching the Eucharist, defended.

BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed.


That I have reason to take for granted, as I have done, the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin, against the Book of the Perpetuity, till Mr. Arnaud hath shewed them to be Invalid.

ALthough the Passion, which appeareth throughout Mr. Ar­naud's whole Book, doth in a manner perswade me that his Censures are not always reasonable, yet shall not this hinder me from examining them with a composed Mind: If they are found just, I ought to make my Advantage of them, with­out minding the sharpness which accompanies them; and if they are not, the Interest of my Cause requires I should endeavour to ma­nifest the Injustice of them by a modest and Christian Defence.

AND this Method I intend to use, not only in the beginning but likewise in all the following parts of this Work, which I dedicate to the discovery of Truth, and the advancement of Gods Glory, who is the Author and Father of Lights, and of Truth.

IT is certain, saith Mr. Arnaud, in the beginning of his Book, that pro­vided Mr. Claude may be granted the Priviledge, which he immediately lays ‘hold on, of inventing, and supposing, what he lists, he takes a very sure way to conclude from thence what he pleases. I only admire that while he [Page 2] fancies he has this peculiar Liberty, he yet still busies himself in writing Books: For he can absolutely determine all our Differences with a great deal less trouble. For he has no more to do but only immediately to sup­pose that the Reason is on his side, and that the Catholicks are in the wrong, and so the whole Controversie will be at an end, and thus may he satisfie himself with writing half a Page instead of an entire Answer, for it decid­eth the whole; 'Tis but supposing that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath gotten the Victory over the Romish Schools, and that he has manifested to all the World, the Change the Roman Church hath made; That the Proofs are clear, strong, and numerous, which make the Change sensibly apparent, and that he hath not been opposed with any other than false and imaginary Reasonings: What need is there then of any other reply, and to what pur­pose does Mr. Claude take upon him all this Trouble? Calvinism hath now won the Day, and Catholick Religion is utterly Routed.

THE right of opposing to the reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity, the Proofs of the matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book, and to speak our Thoughts concerning it, is not so marvelous, nor such an extraor­dinary design that Mr. Arnaud should need raise such a Contest about it. This Author having undertaken to make us confess, if we are not desperately ob­stinate, that the Belief of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity, and having made use of no other reasonings for this purpose, but those which are taken from the moral Impossibility of this Change which we believe hath hap'ned; Common Sense convinces us that he is bound to examine the Proofs of Matters of Fact on which the Opi­nion, he would root out of our Minds, is established, for till then all his Ar­guings will be to no purpose. Neither can we justly be denied the Liberty of mentioning these Proofs according to our real Thoughts. For seeing we offer them against the Author of the Perpetuity, only as a prejudication which hinders us from heark'ning to his Arguments, it is therefore very requisite we should speak our Thoughts about them, to the end that if this Author continues in the design of bringing us to an acknowledgment of what he pretends, he especially take care to remove, as much as in him lies, those things which render all his other Endeavours ineffectual.

I do not at all doubt if mens Minds were free from Prejudice, but it would be granted that Mr. Aubertin's Book doth perfectly decide the Controversie touching the Eucharist. It being a complete Piece, in which this matter is searched to the bottom. He hath answered those who have treated on this Subject before his time, and yet his Book has layn even to this present unan­swer'd, which is a sufficient Reason to presume he hath gotten the better, and that his Proofs, let Mr. Arnaud say what he will, are plainly evident and nu­merous; but for as much as it is needful for the ending of a Difference, and quieting Contradiction, to suppose Principles granted by both Parties, and seeing the Church of Rome doth neither agree in the Proofs nor in the Change, here in Question, I do thereupon freely confess the Controversie lyes still open in this respect, and that in general we cannot stop any mans mouth by the simple supposition of the Strength and Solidity of that Book, for every Man is at liberty, and hath Right (if he pleases) to examine and answer it.

BUT had not Mr. Arnaud suppressed a great part of what I wrot on this Subject, as well in my first as second Answer, it would immediately appear, [Page 3] I have bin so far from making such a claim as that wherewith he chargeth me, that I have every where expresly maintained the contrary.

SEEING that Mr. Aubertin has made it appear, by express Passages taken out of the Fathers (these are the Words in my first Answer.) That Transubstan­tiation was unknown to the antient Church, we may then well conclude there has hap'ned a Change, especially considering that this same Transubstantiation was not heard of till the 11th. Century; Now considering this, for a Man to Philoso­phize on the impossibility thereof, is to give himself a great deal of Trouble to no purpose. If there yet remain'd any thing farther to be done, it would be to shew that the Passages produced by Mr. Aubertin are either false, or alleaged imper­tinently against Transubstantiation: but to pass by these matters of Proof, which are clear, express and conclusive, to adhere to I know not what kind of pre­tended impossibility, this is to trifle with the matter in hand.

OBSERVE here again what I said in my second Answer. We had reason to hope that the Author, treating my Abridgment in the respects and relations which the sequel of its Reasons oblige him to, should have applyed himself unto one of these two things.

EITHER to make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, on which we have relyed, are false, and of no force, or that the Consequence, which is pretended to be drawn from them, is untrue; That is to say, it do's not follow a thing is possible, altho it be made apparent that this very thing has actually hap'ned.

WHEN a man makes Suppositions of this kind, how absurd is it to say, such a one puts himself in Possession of any Priviledge, or usurps that mar­velous Right, of terminating Differences, or deciding Controversies by groundless Suppositions? For I not only give this Author of the Perpetuity the liberty of opposing Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, and to shew, if he can, the falsity of them, but I conjure him so to do, being engaged thereunto by the consideration of his own Reputation, and the necessity of this Course to end the Controversie. Now if this may be stiled by Mr. Arnaud the decid­ing of a Difference, I am certain that in the style of a more impartial Judge, this would be called, a disengaging of the Debate out of an endless turning, to bring it back to a necessary Discussion on which dependeth the decision of our Controversie. Mr. Arnaud therefore unjustly chargeth me with intend­ing to decide the Question, and terminate the Difference by a simple Sup­position, and 'tis through want of Sincerity he has suppressed those Passages in my Answer, which plainly evidence my real Design. But besides these two Defaults which immediately offer themselves to be observed in his Pro­ceedings, I must ingeniously declare that 'tis very hard for me to compre­hend what he would have me to do. He seems to desire me to prove that the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin's Book are clear, strong and numerous, before we suppose them to be such. But pray what means proving of Proofs? How can a man otherwise prove them than in producing them, and engaging to defend them when they shall be attacked? Now this hath bin done, they have bin produced, in referring to a Book which is easily met with, there has bin an Abridgment made thereof, they have bin set forth with some Enlargments; The Author of the Perpetuity hath bin requested to shew the insufficiency or falsity of them. What can Mr. Arnaud desire more? Would he have Mr. Aubertin's Book reprinted at the Head of mine, together with a Commentary on the Solidity of his Proofs? But yet still [Page 4] perhaps he would not grant us the Liberty to speak advantageously of it, we must have proved the Solidity of the first Commentary by a second, and that of the second by a third, and so heap up Commentary upon Commen­tary till Dooms-Day. For he that would have us prove the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin's Book may, by the same reason, require us likewise to prove the solidity of our Commentaries, and having set no bounds to his Demands, 'tis probable he would have extended them farther. These are the first Fruits of Mr. Arnaud's frollicksom Philosophy, the next time when he lights not into so pleasant a Humor, we shall have others, but perhaps not such di­verting ones. But be it as it will, there is (I am sure) a great deal of disor­der in this proceeding, for the strength of a Proof is with good Reason sup­posed by that Person who offers it, till it hath received a satisfactory Answer, and so likewise the solidity of an Answer is taken for granted by him who makes it, till such time as it shall be opposed by a good Reply. And cer­tainly such a man would appear Ridiculous, who would offer to put a stop to a Dispute, and exempt himself from replying thereunto, by saying, prove to me the solidity of your Answer. If a Proof be not good, it belongs to him who answereth it, to shew its Defects, and if an Answer be impertinent, it lies upon the Opponent to discover the absurdity thereof. For till then e­very man is at liberty to speak his Thoughts.

ALTHO this is not a proper Place to treat on the different Use which may be made of Suppositions in a Controversie, yet will I not forbear to speak somewhat thereon to discover more plainly Mr. Arnaud's Mistakes.

THE Suppositions then commonly made use of, are of two sorts, some of them tend absolutely to decide a Difference, others serve only to re­gulate it.

WHEN a man makes a Supposition to decide absolutely a Difference, there ought to be supposed no other things but those which are acknowledged and granted to be true by the Adversaries themselves, for these Suppositions are as common and inviolable Prejudications which ought to serve as a Law to direct the Judgment in the whole Controversie.

BUT when we make Suppositions only to regulate the form of a Con­troversie, and hinder men from casting themselves into fruitless Contests, it sufficeth the things supposed be esteemed true by them who suppose them, others remaining still in the liberty of judging and opposing them, if they think fit. So that after this manner each Party supposeth his Senti­ment true, and termeth it his Hypothesis, that is to say his Supposition; and if a man supposed it not true, he would not maintain it. We suppose like­wise at the same time the Sentiment of the contrary Party false, for if we supposed it not false, we should not reject it. And this is the true state of a Controversie. That every man be permitted to suppose he hath truth on his side, and act, or defend himself on this Supposition, yet allowing others the li­berty to suppose the contrary; And this is not that which decideth a Debate, but that which forms it; For by this means there is given to the Controver­sie its just Bounds, and a man avoids wand'rings, in running after needless things; both parties have a just Equality allotted them, and so far as this, a Person cannot be required to shew his Proof for what he supposeth, provi­ded he fully and unfeignedly declares his Opinion.

IN the following Parts of a Controversie, there ought to be a distinction made between that Person who opposeth a thing, and he who answereth or defendeth it. The first of these designs so to order it that his Adversary shall be obliged to change his Opinion, and therefore he ought not to pro­pose any thing which he makes not good by Proofs; but he has likewise Right (as I said just now) to suppose his Proofs good, till such time as the contrary party has made some Answer. And it would be very absurd to affirm such a one designs to end the Difference by his Suppositions, or is obliged to prove his Proofs are good, seeing he grants every one the Liber­ty to answer them, and in effect if there appears no Answer, the Dif­ference is decided.

NOW as to him who answereth a matter, having upon this account no other aim but that of rendering ineffectual the Attempt of his Adversary, he has always the Right to suppose his Opinion true without proving it, being only obliged to answer the Proofs which are brought against him, and discover either the falsity or insufficiency of them. A man cannot perhaps fall into a greater irregularity, than to constrain him that Answereth, (and who has no more to do than to refure the Arguments alledged against him,) to make Arguments himself, and to pretend that he hath no right to propose his Answers taken from the Opinions themselves which he defend­eth, if he hath not before this proved his Opinion. Either he who opposeth must make apparent the falsity of the supposed Opinion, or else he must yield it to be true.

I know that in a publick Dispute, mannaged by writing, it commonly happens, that the same Person opposeth another and defendeth himself, pro­pounds and answers, according as the occasion and matter requireth, but we are notwithstanding obliged to distinguish these two Qualities, of Aggressor and Respondent, and preserve to each his Right apart; for it would be a very disorderly matter to expect a man should do that when he answereth, which he is not obliged to do but when he opposeth, or to expect he should do that when he opposeth, which he is not obliged to do but in answering. It sometimes happens that an Adversary makes an Exchange, and whereas he is obliged to answer directly to the Proofs of the contrary Party, or to op­pose others against him of the like Nature and Force, he shifts them and falls into a Discourse to no purpose, and all this while the contrary Proofs he should have answered, remain firm. In such an occasion we have Pow­er to reduce such a one from his affected Wand'rings, by supposing the Proofs he has left unanswered, strong and sollid. For in such a case they are not supposed good and firm, but only to oblige him to answer them, and shew their weakness or falsity, and if he answereth them not, we may reckon as to him the Question in effect is decided, because when a man hath nothing to say against the Method of proceeding, and that the forementi­oned Proofs have bin proposed according to the exact Rules of Disputation, a man must then either acquiesce in them or answer them, and to do neither of these is mere wrangling.

NOW to apply these Maxims to the matter in hand, and to judge of Mr. Arnaud's Censure, we need but consider first, That when I supposed Mr. Aubertin's Proofs to be firm and good, I did not thereby propose to my self an absolute end of the Question touching the Change which hath hap­ned in the Church of Rome, by this simple Supposition; but only to regulate [Page 6] the Debate, and reduce it within those Bounds wherein it ought to be. Secondly, that in supposing them good, I have only delivered my Opinion which I take upon me to maintain against the Author of the Perpetuity, without depriving him of the Liberty of defending the contrary. Thirdly, that I have supposed them to be good without proving them so, because we ever suppose Proofs sufficiently firm, till such time as something at least is objected against them, and hitherto Mr. Aubertin's Book has layn unanswe­red. Fourthly, that I made use of them as a means whereby to resist the Author of the Perpetuity's attempt, and when a man only defends himself in a Dispute, he is not obliged to prove any thing. Fifthly and lastly, I did not offer them but only as Prejudices at his Opinion, which ought necessa­rily to be removed out of our Minds, before the Arguments of the Perpetui­ty be offered us; for as much as these Prejudices make the Author's Reaso­nings ineffectual and improper to that design of making us acknowledg there hath bin introduced no Change into the Roman Church. From whence it follows, that I may not only suppose these Proofs are clear, firm, and nume­rous, seeing that 'tis under this Notion we have entertained these Prejudices; but morever suppose them without proving them, and I do so, to the end I may oblige the Author of that Treatise to shew us (if he can) that they do not amount to what we imagine.

IN short if he would obtain his end, he must shew us that our Prejudice ought not to hinder us from hearkning to what he hath farther to offer us, (which is to say,) supposing our Proofs to be most firm and evident, yet ought they not to avert our Minds from considering his moral Conjectures;) or shew us that our Prejudices have no grounds, and that our Proofs are neither plain nor sufficient. The first of these is absurd, the second is what we desire him to take in hand. But instead of this Mr. Arnaud has bethought himself, and requires us to prove the validity of our Proofs.

IF our Proofs, being supposed good, are in effect the Calvinists Victory, and the Romanists Defeat, as Mr. Arnaud himself granteth, we have rea­son to admire he should think he hath overthrown them, by five or six Lines stuffed with Raillery.

HATH he bin more concerned at the calling of the Reasonings of the Perpetuity, imaginary Conjectures, than at the glorious Victory over the Romish Church which hath bin attributed to Mr. Aubertin's Book, and this Innova­tion brought in by the Church of Rome, which is apparent to all the World? Doth he more value the Reputation he thinks he hath gotten by writing a small Treatise, than the settlement of the Catholick Church? and ought he, for the interest of a particular work, to have rifled both East and West, whilst in the mean time the Catholick Church perisheth before his eyes, lying pro­strate Mr. de Vence in his Appro­bation. at the Feet of Victorions Calvinisme. I will grant my Supposition resides but in my own Imagination, and in theirs of the same Communion, yet certainly this a man would think, should be sufficient to stir up the Zeal, of a Person whom the Son of God hath given to the Church to be a Teacher of Truth, and who hath bin enlightned by his Grace, and filled with his Spirit, on purpose to rescue and vindicate Truth from the Subtilties, and false Glosses of Error, as speaketh one of his Approbationers.

THIS I think should be sufficient to make him prefer the Reputation of his whole Church before that of a single Author, of whose name the [Page 7] greatest part of the World is still ignorant. And moreover, as hath bin already said, this Prejudice under which we labour, whether true or false, makes a distinction between the interest of this Treatise, and those of the Romish Church, for it puts a stop to all the pretensions of the Author, and bereaves him of all the Conquests he promised himself. For to regain the Author of the Perpetuity's Reputation, will be to no purpose, seeing that Calvinisme will not give over celebrating Aubertin's Victories, and stand firm to his Proofs. The Confutation of Aubertin's Book would be to give such a mighty stroak, as would ever stop the Mouth of Calvinism, and at the same time, raise up the Glory of the Catholick Church out of the Dust. There ought to have bin no waverings between these two Parties, and yet Mr. Arnaud, this Doctor who hath bin given to the Church furnished with such Gifts, betakes himself to the writing of a Treatise, and sends the Church away till another time.

IN short, to finish the justification of my yet unproved Supposition, I need but propose the Example of a man who, to shew me the Victorys which the Treatise of the Perpetuity hath obtained against us, if we have any Reason left us, supposeth without proving it, that the Proofs of this Book are plain and solid. If I should apply to him Mr. Arnaud's Maxims, and tell him that provided he may have the Liberty which he immediately makes use of, inventing and supposing what he pleaseth, he is in a sure way to conclude thence what he will, that these kind of discourses founded on unproved Suppositions, are not wholy judicious, and that they shew he knoweth not how to distinguish between the things which he is not permitted to assert till he hath proved them, and those which may be justly supposed without being proved.

IF this man reply to me, he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself, but by shewing (if he can) the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just; May I not then justly retort upon him, that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm, that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself, but to shew, if he be able, that these Proofs are invalid? Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so rea­sonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles, and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious diffe­rence on my side, seeing, as already mentioned, I am Respondent in this Dis­pute; whereas this Person would be the Aggressor. But you will ask me, who this man is, that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims? Even Mr. Arnaud himself, who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book; to shew us that the Learned, and Unlearned, the Simple, and Obstinate, and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity, he thereupon makes this Conclu­sion, 'Tis true, saith he, that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity, suppose the Proofs are clear and solid; and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude, who would have them rejected without examining them, on this general Reason, That they are Argumentative Proofs. Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing, if he can, the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound. We shall see by what follows, whether he had reason to make this Supposition, I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example, that every man may make Suppositions, provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate, but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion [Page 8] of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with. And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself.


That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful, and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous.

THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess, as he says; that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity, hath appeared so strange and irregular to me, that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon.

I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion.

II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect.

III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Inva­lidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures.

IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments, we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact, and by gathering them into an Abridgment, to give a general view of them.

Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch. 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, provided, saith he, that I maintained Equity and Truth; It may be, I think, then supposed I have so far done nothing con­trary to Rule, it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Re­flections.

I shall not insist long upon the first of these, because Mr. Arnaud hath al­ledged The first Obser­vation justified. nothing against it, appearing undenyable in it self. It is grounded on this, That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touch­ing the Eucharist, the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided, not by the word of God, but the Churches Consent in all Ages, and Depositions of the Fathers, and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church, he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers, but by Arguments. Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course; it being a Principle of common Sense, that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally de­cided by the Rule of Right, then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact, and that again naturally the [Page 9] Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves, or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Depo­sition.

Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule, and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact; (which is that holy Scripture, wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will;) it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe, and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages. For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures, so likewise we, who have the same Faith with them, ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle. The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Reli­gion, but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest, than an Example for us to Imitate, and an Example too submitted to the same Rule, which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that; so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages, is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things.

IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith, seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition. Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him: For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie, and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion, he must ground this Method on Principles grant­ed by both Parties; for if his Positions are such as may be questioned, he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them, before he can suppose them. For if he take not this Course, he will quickly be at a loss, and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual. Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done, for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith. 'Tis true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers, and that we should do, if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship. But this reaches not our Question: for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith, neither in the matter of our present Debate, nor in any other: For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Re­ligion, by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyn­eth us to believe, without becoming a Rule themselves and without arroga­ting this supreme Authority over mens Consciences, which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature.

But perhaps it will be replyed that, provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist, what need we matter, by what means we obtain it, whether by means of the holy Scripture, or by Consent of the antient Church? If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith, let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate. To which I answer, That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing, though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours, so that this doth not at all trouble us.

BUT be it as it will, we must not forsake the Word of God, nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be, that is [Page 10] to say, A Divine Faith, were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers. This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us, without having any fixed Principle, is certainly of very dan­gerous Consequence. For 'twould happen at length after some Ages, that the last would have no resemblance with the former, because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation, would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it, as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture, Draughts of which being taken one from the other, become still every time less Perfect, as they are farthest distant from their Original.

THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him, that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact; Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact, to depend on the force of his Reasoning. The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist, and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves, but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose. I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact, the Truth of which can­not be attested by any Witness, and I confess in this case, no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings, because there being no other E­vidence to help us in our Search, even Necessity warranteth this way of Pro­ceeding, altho it be indirect. But we are not in these Circumstances, see­ing we have the Writings of the Antients, and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eu­charist; which if we will apply our selves unto, we shall soon discover their Opinions about it. What need is there then, for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers, to hearken to the Author of the Perpetui­ty's Arguments? May we not now justly complain of him, and answer him, this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us, and comparing these two ways, the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain. From whence it immediately follows, That his manner of proceeding, may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful, for it is u­sual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road, to walk in by-Paths.

MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, re­spects The second Observation justified, Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book. And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity, for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie, and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner. I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads. I shall first then make it ap­pear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, and hath bin the first oc­casion of this Debate. Secondly, that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner.

THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words, for on one hand I have no more to do, but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity, where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains, his whole design is only to re­fute Mr, Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation: And on the other, I have no more to do but declare to [Page 11] the World, That from the first Moment of our Debate, which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise, I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account, but defend in general the whole Book, against the indirect attempts of that Treatise. Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest, I know not any long­er how to name things. For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate, which is not here? Must a Book be assaulted? this hath bin so. Must it be defended? this hath bin so. Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it, to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit? This hath bin likewise my Design, because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth. Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me?

THE Author of the Perpetuity, saith he, never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book, and in a matter as this is, which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living, it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him, as from him, he is mistaken, and that this Author never designed what he charges him with. Moreover he adds, That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament: and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio, in a Preface: That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation: That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way, who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World: And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin's pre­tended Innovation, but medleth farther with no other part of his Book.

Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me, if I affirm that there's not one word of Truth in all this. For, to speak properly, the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dis­pute, seeing our Debate began but from that time I interposed. For had I not stept in between, the Author had talked only to himself, and when a man does so, we are not wont to say, such a one is in a Dispute. To find then the real Occasion, Mr. Arnaud should have sought it in the causes mov­ing me to interpose, and not in the Author of the Perpetuity's Intention. Mr. Arnaud hath not considered there is a Difference between the Occasion of a Debate, and whether the Subject of it be real or imaginary. For to de­cide the latter of these Particulars, we must look back to the Author of the Perpetuity, and consider what he has done, and what he would do, but to be ascertained in the first of them, I ought thereupon to be consulted: and when it shall appear I was deceived by a groundless Imagination that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, then it might be truly affirmed I raised a Quarrel to no purpose, seeing the occasion of it only sprang out of my own Fancy, but yet what I have said since cannot be charged with notorious Falsity, viz. That this Book was the first occasion of the Debate betwixt us, seeing that in effect I only engaged in this Controversie to defend it.

THERE is moreover in Mr. Arnaud's Discourse a false Supposition in the Term of Refuting, for he supposeth I charge the Author of the Perpetui­ty with a design of formally and directly refuting Mr. Aubertin's whole Book, and 'tis thereupon he tells us, that seldom any man undertakes to refute a large Folio in a Preface. But he does not consider, that I did not for this reason use the Term of Refuting, but Assaulting, and that far from charging the Author of the Perpetuity with this Design of a Refutation, my complaint hath bin on the contrary, that he has not refuted this Book, and which [Page 12] hath been grounded on the Necessity urging him to have done it, as I shall shew hereafter. Now to justifie what I said, that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath been the first Occasion of this Debate, and at the same time, that this is not an ill grounded Supposition, I need not repeat that the Author of the Treatise designed to refute that whole Book, it appears to me sufficient he hath assaulted the last part of it, and undertaken to answer it throughout the second Section of his Treatise. It sufficeth me that his first Section tendeth to render incredible Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation. It sufficeth me, the drift of his whole Work is to make Mr. Aubertin's Proofs of matters of Fact altogether useless to us. And this is more than need to be said to refute this fierce Accusation of notorious Falsity, with which Charge Mr. Arnaud hath begun his Book. Now this is apparently true, and a man needs but his Eyes and common Sence to be satisfied in it.

Mr. Arnaud may tell us what he pleases concerning the Author of the Per­petuity's real Design. Yet shall I answer him, that when men judge of a Work, their Judgment is guided by what appears in the Work it self, and not by the secret Intentions of its Author. For mens Designs many times lye hid, but the drift of their Work lies open. I do not pretend to penetrate into mens Hearts, yet cannot I be withheld from judging of the Treatise of the Perpetuity, because 'tis before my Eyes.

THAT this Treatise was at first, but a simple Preface, or that it was not, it avails me little to know, for I am not usually so much in Love with Rari­ties, as to extend my Curiosity into the Author of the Perpetuity's disavowed Designs. If this Work hath been heretofore but a Preface, and that it hath been since raised to the dignity of a Treatise, there hath been reason perhaps for its ennobling, its Desert hath made it worthy of this Honour; and they are at this day to blame who have reproached it with the meanness of its for­mer Condition, in an occasion, which called for the establishment of its Glo­ry. But be it what it will, Preface, or Treatise, it is all one to me, it assault­eth never the less for this Mr. Aubertin's Book.

BUT saith Mr. Arnaud, he refutes it by the way. By the way, of four score and eight Pages which it contains, there are one and fifty of them imployed in a formal Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation, and the drift of the rest, as I have already said, is to shew that this Account is incre­dible, because tis impossible, and indirectly to overthrow the whole Work. So that here I think the charge of our first notorious Falsity, appears to be un­true. Let us see the second, which is that I affirmed, The Author of the Per­petuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book after an indirect manner. But to apprehend throughly the truth of this Observation, Mr. Aubertin's whole Book must be granted to be a Discourse only touching the Eucharist, and which is divided into three Parts. In the first he handleth this Subject by Arguments drawn from Scripture, and humane Reason. He produceth the Passages thereof, and Arguments fetched from thence, and refutes the An­swers made thereunto, nay he near upon answereth whatsoever Controver­tists have stated hitherto considerable on this Subject. In the second, he ex­amines the Churches Belief, during six Centuries, by an exact Discussion of all Passages produced on either side, makes it plainly appear that Transub­stantiation, and the real Presence are Doctrines which have bin unknown during all that time. And in the third, he gives an account after what man­ner their Doctrines have been introduced.

THE first part treateth of the Question of Right, shewing the true Rules of it, and serves as a Foundation to the second. The second Part handleth the Question of matter of Fact, by a faithful deposition of Witnesses, that is to say, by the Fathers from Age to Age, and serves as a Foundation to the third. And the third Part shews the Degrees of this Innovation, the Time when it begun, its Authors, and the Opposition which it hath met with.

THIS being so, I say, it is an indirect Proceeding, to single out this last Part from the second, and attempt the refuting of it alone, as the Author of the Perpetuity hath done. And the Reason is manifest, because the on­ly Foundation on which the last Part is built, and which communicateth to it all its force of Perswasion consisteth in its second. For wherefore do we believe, for Example, what it saith concerning the Innovation which Anastasius Sinaite hath introduced, in reference to Expressions, he having bin the first that rejected the Terms of Type or Figure on the Subject of the Eucharist? It is because he shews us in his second Part, that the Fathers who preceded Anastasius, ever made use of this manner of Expression, for we find not any one of them who rejected them. Wherefore do we take Paschasius to be the first who ever thought of the real Presence? The Rea­son, is because we never meet with any before his time, who thus deliver themselves. So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessari­ly prepare the Reader for the third. In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church, for the six first Ages, to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome: The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation, and supposes it to be not only possible, but that it hath actually hap'ned, so that it only remains to know, when, by whom, and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced, and this is suffici­ently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone, without the greatest Injustice and Disinge­nuity; for this is to strip it of all its Strength, and to deal with it, as the Philistims did with Samson, cut off his Hair before they set upon him.

Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it; Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind, or rather, to speak better, with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions. Now this is not fair Dealing. For to proceed orderly, he ought to have be­gun with these first Preparations; and made it appear (if he could) that they were fallacious, and so discover the unjustice, falsity, or weakness of them, and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us. Had he taken this Course, we should have had nothing to charge him with, touching his Me­thod; but to stifle these Preparations, and cut 'em off from the Dispute, and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation, is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing.

AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account, it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former. As for Instance, Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients, in saying, The [Page 14] Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ. Now to refute directly this Historical Passage, (being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius) there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him, and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself. But instead of this, the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course, for he demands, how this can be, That Perpetuity of the Faith, P. 50. 51. &c. Anastasius, who could not be ignorant of the Churches. Belief in his time, should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed, and this without acknowledging, he proposed a contrary Opinion? He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West, and that Anastasius's real meaning, and that of them who spake like him in this particular, could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them. And the same doth he, in respect of Paschasius, whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence, for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion, and that he did not teach a new Doctrine, he sets himself upon shewing, that if Paschasius had bin an In­novator, he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time, that he would have bin opposed, and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church, as he has done. I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments, neither will I say they ought to be re­jected for this Reason alone, that they are indirect, The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable, and it must be granted, it is not; for the chief design of this his Account be­ing only to demonstrate, that Anastasius, and Paschasius introduced Innova­tions; Now to make it appear they were not Innovators, there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who pre­ceded them, which should come near the same Expressions, or at least a­mounted to the same Sence as that of theirs, which the Author of the Per­petuity hath not done.

LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then, if he pleases, the Question, and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths, the one, that Mr. Auber­tin's Book was the first occasion of this Contest, the other, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner. Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former; it will not be amiss to answer his Objections, and shew him first, That I pretend­not to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination: for, provided he handles them in a regular manner, he will thereby oblige the publick. Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book, and leaving the other, provided this Part may be well refuted alone, and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separati­on. Thirdly, Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetui­ty to account about his employing himself, and require of him two Volums in Folio. For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult, and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book.

AND as to what he tells us, that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject, than that he suppose nothing which is False, or Obscure, and draw not from thence ill Consequences, seeing the truth and clearness of Principles, and the justness of their Consequences are in them­selves sufficient, to assure us of the Truth, and gives us a clear and perfect [Page 15] notion thereof. To which I answer, This is true, when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject, and do take this course to decide the principal Questi­on of it, for in this case, only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined. But if this be not consented to, but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method, then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not, nor Whether their Consequences are true or false, for this follows afterwards. The Method of handling the Subject is only considered, without regard to the Princi­ples or Conclusions; That is to say, Whether 'tis direct or disorderly, na­tural or against Nature, sufficient to perswade, and end the Controversie or not, and on this account, it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong, one which is a Natural, ra­ther than that which is not so. For such a one may well be told, He spends his time to no purpose, that takes not a right way to obtain the end of what he designs. Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity, as will appear in the following Chapter. We have rea­son to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions, he I say, who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter, that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusa­tions against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, upon the Defects I found therein, provided I establish Truth and Reason. But this doth not well a­gree with what he saies here. That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject, but only this, That he lay down good Prin­ciples, and draw thence true Conclusions. For the falsity of Principles, or Con­sequences, proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter, or Form of an Argu­ment in Particular, than in a Method in General.


THE third Observation justified, viz. That the Author of the Perpe­tuity has bin to blame in pretending to overthrow the Proofs contain­ed in Mr. Aubertin's Book, by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere Conjectures.

MR. Arnaud seems unwilling to grant, That the Author of the Perpetuity has endeavoured to invalidate our Proofs of Matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by his Arguments, and thereupon has only proposed the Question in these Terms: viz. Whether a man may not argue against matters of Fact: And takes it for grant­ed Lib. 1. Ch. 2. he may in some particular Cases. It is then our part to shew, he wan­ders from the Point, and that the Author of the Perpetuity has not only de­signed to oppose, but even overthrow by his arguings our Proofs of Fact, so that the Question now is whether this Endeavour of his is just or unjust, whe­ther according to a regular Course or contrary to it.

AND for this purpose, I shall only desire Mr. Arnaud to consider, That the Design of the Method, or advantage expected by it, as it hath bin ex­presly [Page 16] declared in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise, Is to bring a­ny unprejudiced Person, to acknowledge the Church of Rome's Belief touching the Eucharist to be the same with that of all Antiquity; and this new Method is proposed to remedy an Inconveniency, usually attending that ordinary Method, called Discussion, wherein it frequently happens, that men seldom sufficiently comprehend the strength of Proofs; because they are not considered in their right order, which ever so placeth them as that they mutually assist and for­tifie each other. I need but entreat him likewise to remember the first Title of the Treatise, before it was printed, when it was put into my Hands to be answered; which was as follows, A Treatise containing an easie Means to convince Hereticks, by shewing them there has no alteration bin made in the Churches Belief touching the Eucharist, as I already observed in the Preface before my Answer. Lastly I have no more to request of him, but only to remember the new Title under which the first Treatise, and them which followed, were published, which is; The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Ca­tholick Church touching the Eucharist. For what else can be expected from a man that promises to make us confess, the Church of Romes Belief is the same with that of all Antiquity, and hopes to convince us of the Truth of this, but that he should invalidate all our Proofs of matters of Fact, by which we think we have established the reality of an Innovation? Would Mr. Ar­naud grant me the favour to suppose a while that I am not obstinate: and I will likewise on the other hand suppose I was mistaken in Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that the Perswasion I had of the truth of his Proofs concerning an Innovation hath bin false. Now should the Author of the Perpetuity pre­tend, that his Method is able to undeceive me and dissipate all the false Im­pressions which Mr. Aubertin's Proofs have wrought in my Mind; should he, I say, pretend to this, he has imagined, as I have already mentioned, that he is able by his Arguments, to invalidate our Proofs; and again on the other hand, if he pretends not to do this, he hath bin certainly to blame in saying, He would convince Hereticks, and make them acknowledge, (if they are not In­vincibly Obstinate) the Perpetuity of Transubstantiation, and the Real Pre­sence. We shall see by what follows, whether or no Mr. Arnaud has up­held the honour of so great a Design, or whether he has not abated some­thing of it. I shall content my self at present with only shewing the pre­tension of the Author of the Method.

IT cannot be alleadged in his behalf, he had not these aforementioned Proofs in his Mind, but only offered his own; which he judged conclusive; for besides that when a man lays down a Method as sufficient to produce an effect, he ought consider whatsoever may hinder the producing of this or the contrary Effect. We may farther observe he assaults Mr. Aubertin's Book in this Treatise, wherein are contained these Proofs, concerning which he could not pretend Ignorance, seeing they make up the greatest part of that Book. It ought moreover to be considered, that he refuteth, as I alrea­dy said in the foregoing Chapter, an Account whose whole strength is ground­ed on these Proofs of matters of Fact, an Account which taketh them for its Foundation, and borroweth from them whatsoever it would perswade, and refutes it not in opposing other Proofs after the same manner, but by Arguments. Whence it follows he imagins his Arguments are sufficient to overthrow these Proofs, it being impossible if they stand firm, but that the account of the Change or Innovation should do so too.

Mr. Arnaud's way of shifting the Question that he might draw on the [Page 17] Reader to another matter, is so plainly evident, that I need not give him the least hint of it. For there is certainly a great Difference betwixt barely Op­posing Arguments against our Proofs, and pretending to invalidate them by Arguments. The first of these may be done without thinking on the second; these Arguments may be examined and compared with our Proofs, without any other Pretence than the keeping the Mind in Suspence, and hindering it from determining on either side. Had the Author of the Per­petuity kept himself within these Bounds, we should have answered him af­ter another sort; but he hath extended his design so far as to bring us to a final Acknowledgment. The Question then is not so much about his bare Opposition; altho that shall be shewed him at length to be useless, and that he cannot expect any advantage from it, for the Debate at present con­sists either in the Justice or Injustice of his Design, when he imagined this Opposition was sufficient to convince us, notwithstanding our Prejudices against it, occasioned by Mr. Aubertin's and other Ministers Proofs.

BUT to state the Question clearly, it ought to be farther supposed, that we compare not here the Proofs drawn from Arguments, then when they are made use of to establish Matters argued, with Proofs of matters of Fact, which are intended for a confirmation of the same matters of Fact. For I am far from denying, but there may be at some times Proofs drawn from Arguments, which are as conclusive in their kind, and bring along with them as much certainty of Evidence, as Proofs of Fact do in theirs. The Debate concerns the comparing these two sorts of Proofs, in respect of a matter of Fact; for the Principal Question betwixt us, is whether the Do­ctrine of the antient Church is the same with that of the Church of Rome at present, now this is a matter of Fact, which on one side is demonstrated by Proofs of Fact, and which the Author pretends on the other side to demon­strate by Proofs drawn from Arguments; which two sorts of Proofs form contrary Conclusions on the same subject.

IT is farther to be considered, the Question lies not in supposing our Proofs are frivolous, or uncertain, for then they might be opposed by Proofs drawn from Arguments; by pretending that the Fact would be more plainly demonstrated by this means than by the other. Had the Author of the Perpetuity made this Supposition and well grounded it, we could not a­ny longer keep to our Proofs of Fact, of whose weakness and insufficieney he had already convinced us, we must then have hearkned to his Arguments. But we are not in this case, for he leaves our Proofs of Fact untouched in their whole strength, and we are perswaded of the truth and solidity of them. It being then thus with us, it remains to enquire, whether his Proofs drawn from Arguments can be sufficient to make us alter our Judgments. The Author of the Perpetuity pretends they are, and I deny them to be so, so that to decide clearly this Point, we must compare these two ways of Proving, one with another.

I affirm then first of all, our Proofs of Fact are regular and natural, as I made apparent in my second Chapter: whereas those of the Author of the Perpetuity are unjust and preposterous. Now to compare these two Methods one with another, that which is natural is least suspicious, for there can be nothing said against it, common Sense leads us to it, but the other is ever lyable to Exception, by reason of its contrariety and obliquity. The [Page 18] latter of these leads a mans Mind by several Turnings and Windings, and the other makes it go straight.

MOREOVER, our Proofs of Fact demonstrate the matter immediate­ly in it self; but Proofs drawn from Reason cannot do this, but by a Pro­spect thro other things, and by means of Connexions and Consequences; Now it cannot be denyed, but of these two ways of knowing things, the one being immediate, and the other mediate; the one near, and the other distant, but that the first of these is the most distinct and certain: for not to say, that the Ideas of things grow weak, when they are discovered by a Medium, and that the Mind is more attentive, and so by consequence more distracted, and less able, when it is forced, to apply it self at the same time to three dif­ferent Objects, viz. on the Conclusion, Principle, and Dependance which the Conclusion hath on its Principle, than when it hath but one only Ob­ject to consider; besides this I say, the orderly Connexion of things being less known to us than the things themselves, it is easier to take for a Conse­quence what is not one, than to take one thing for another. It is easier to deceive us by affirming, if an Alteration hath hap'ned, there must such and such Accidents have followed it, than it is by only telling us, Loe here the Alteration, and certainly a man is in less danger of being deceived this way than the other.

WHEN two Methods are offered as proper to demonstrate a Question in Debate, it seems to me, that a mans Reason will incline him to choose that way which brings him to the consideration of the Point debated in all its several Relations and Circumstances, rather than that which shews it him but in one. The Mind must be permitted to make several Reflections, be­cause divers Reflections strengthen one another, and uniting together, they form a more extended and perfect Knowledg, even as several Rayes uni­ted give the greater Light. Now it cannot be denyed but our Proofs of Fact have this Advantage over them of the Perpetuity. For the latter of these respects no farther than the only impossibility of an Alteration; and concludes from thence, that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath bin the same with that of the Church of Rome at present. But our Proofs ex­amine the Belief of the Antient Church, in all the ways it can be examined in it self, by its necessary Consequences, by its Consequences of Congruity, by way of Negation, and Affirmation, by Circumstances of Time, Places, Persons, and Occasions, and in a word, after all manners imaginable, whereby the Mind may form a more solid and certain Judgment. What likelyhood is there then, that being already perswaded by a considerable number of Proofs, which this Method draws from all these Particulars, we should receive a contrary Impression by the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments?

A greater humane Certainty than that of Sence cannot be found, now that of Reasoning falls commonly under this Degree, especially when we apply it to matters of Fact.

BUT when Proofs drawn from Arguments shall be extended to the same Degree of Conviction, as those of the Eye-sight, and common Sence, they can never ascend higher, or proceed so far as to convince us, and make us renounce their Evidence. It seldom happens that these two Lights justle one another, but when this falls out, a mans Mind never fails of tak­ing [Page 19] one part or the other, it may remain for some time interdicted and a­stonished; but unless some vain Philosophy, as that of the Academicks, or Pyrrhoniens has corrupted it, and made it wander, it will soon rally it self on the side of common Sence. I will produee an Example drawn from Physicks. Our Eyes and Sences shew us that a grain of Sand is not only fi­nite, but far less than a Mountain, or the whole Globe of the Earth; yet there are People who endeavour to demonstrate by the force of their Ar­guments, that this little grain of Sand comprehends an infinite number of Parts actually existent, because it may be divided ad infinitum, and it is not, say they, well conceivable how a thing can be so divided, if there be not in it actually an Infinity of Parts, seeing each Division supposeth the actual Existence of its Parts, from whence it seems, that this grain of Sand is as bigg as a Mountain, and the whole World besides, it being impossible, say they moreover, there should be a greater and larger heap than that which actually contains an Infinity of Parts. I doubt not but a mans Mind would be soon entangled in this Labyrinth, but he would extricate himself thence, not by the help of his Senses but his Reason, he will turn it on every side, and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing, as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject; yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense.

IT will be replied perhaps, that unless we are extream Obstinate, we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind, which is to say, that they have the certainty of our Senses; for they are taken from the Testimo­ny of the Fathers, whose Faithfulness may be called in question, by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis, mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, which is, That all our Passages are false, and invented by the Disciples of John Scot, or else in saying, that the Fathers are mistaken, or some such like matter, which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question; and moreover that our Passages are not so plain, but they may well be questi­oned, seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides. To which I answer, in supposing two things which seem to me, to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud, we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude, as is that of our Senses.

MY first Supposition then shall be, That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church. He cannot disagree with me in this Point, for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome, they produce it themselves, and we use it only out of Conde­scension to them, not having need, as to our own particular, of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist. And when this Point should be questionable, yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it, before he proposes to us his Arguments, and not having done it, we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle. The other Supposition we must make is, That we know very well, what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucha­rist, and that we rightly apprehend it, so that there is no danger of our Mi­stake in this matter, and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed a­gainst us. In effect, we neither say, nor imagine any thing on this Subject, more than what we find in Books, and hear discoursed on every Day, which is, that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood, there not remaining any thing more of the Bread [Page 20] and Wine but their meer Accidents, which are not sustained by any Sub­ject; and further, that the Substance of our Saviour's Body, is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth, on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated: that they which communicate, eat and drink this Sub­stance with the Mouths of their Bodies, and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria. This is undenyable.

I say then, on these Grounds, we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self. For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist, our Eyes behold them, and our Senses are Judges of them. But there are not any of these Articles to be met with, which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church, neither in express Terms, nor in equivalent ones. We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles, and in what they mean; we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found, in case the Antient Church had taught them. We know likewise, that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sen­se to seek them, and judge whether they are there, or no; for when a Church believes and teaches them, she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood, and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Princi­ples, or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense; or wrapt up in Riddles, from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study. If they are in them they ought to be plain, according to the mea­sure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding. Yet when we seek them, we cannot find 'em: if they were set down in express Terms, our Eyes would have discovered them; had they bin in Equivalent ones, or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences, common Sense would have discovered them. But after an exact and thorow Search, our Eyes and common Sense tell us, they are not to be found in any man­ner. This altho a Negative Proof, yet is it of greatest Evidence and Cer­tainty. After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home, we are agreed both touching the House and the Person, that one might not be taken for the other; and after an exact Search, if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there, the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence. Yet we are upon surer Terms, for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House, and steal away from the sight of those that seek him; and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect, to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search. But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages, (as is pretended,) it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings, they must near the matter have appeared in all of them; whence it follows, our Negative Proof is yet more certain, by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof, which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles, and these two Proofs joyned together do form one, which appeareth to be so plain and intire, that there needs nothing to be added to it. And yet this is it which the Author of the Per­petuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments. But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will, I believe he will find few Persons approve of them, and who will not judge, that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us, which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search, the only means to disabuse us would be; to desire us to return to the using of them again, and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient, we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find. [Page 21] For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments, they will do us no good, we may be perhaps entangled with them, if we know not how to answer them, but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact.

WE are confirmed in this Belief, when we consider the Nature of the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments. For they are not Demonstrations which convince a mans Mind, or of equal force with them which appear in our Proofs; being at farthest but mere Probabilities. They are Moral Impossibilities which he finds in the Alteration we suppose; as tho it were not possible but that the Bishops and others of the Clergy, together with the People, would have opposed these Innovations, and disturbed the Peace and Unity of the Church, under so great a Contrariety in their Opinions; and many such like things doth he alledge, which are not grounded on any certain Principles, nor drawn from undeniable Consequences. In general, its a hard matter to determine which are impossible Events, if you except them which carry along with them a palpable Contradiction; for the Cau­ses or Principles of things are at a great distance from us, we know little of them but by their Effects, and these Effects not always shew themselves at the Bottom, so that a man cannot positively say, this can be, or this can­not be. Moral Impossibilities are for the most part doubtful, especially those grounded on the Inclinations of the People, whose ways are many times so uncertain, and have so little of Uniformity in them, and so great Depen­dance on particular Circumstances, that we cannot take any certain Rules from thence. Had the Author of the Perpetuity shewed us, That the Alte­ration we speak of, doth imply a Contradiction, That 'tis contrary to the Nature of things, That there follows from it evident and intolerable Ab­surdities, we should then have examined his Arguments without troubling our selves with his Method. But to tell us what the Clergy and People would do in this, this can amount to no more, at farthest, but meer Conject­ures, and even Conjectures very uncertain; for he is not the Arbitrator of all humane Actions, neither doth he know all their Principles and different Interests, nor understands all the Causes which concur in great Accidents, or all those things which hinder them from hap'ning.

IT is then a great piece of Injustice to desire, our Proofs of Fact should yield to his way of Reasoning, and I hope Mr. Arnaud will not take it ill that in making use of his own Terms, and accomodating them to my Sub­ject, I tell him, That 'tis in vain that he contesteth, and heateth himself a­bout Lib. 10. Ch. 7 Pag. 55 this Subject of an Alteration. Arguments signifie nothing in matters which are obvious to Sense, and we can make them appear to be so in this Case.

IT remains, for the finishing of this Chapter, I should satisfie some of Lib. 1. Ch. 1 P. 10. Mr. Aruands's minute Observations. The first of which is, That it is every whit as bad to oppose vain Arguments against Proofs of Fact which are firm and solid, as to object solid and convincing Arguments against vain and Fri­volous Proofs. But there is no body who doubts of the Truth of this, and this is not the matter in Question. When he shall have made it appear our Proofs are vain and frivolous, he shall be permitted to oppose against them his Arguments: Yea, and call them solid and convincing ones, 'till such time as they be refuted. But our Proofs must always be begun withal, their [Page 22] weakness and vanity laid open, for without this we shall still be at liberty to hold them for good, firm and Conclusive.

HE addeth, That not only Proofs of Fact are Invalidated by Proofs of Reasoning; But likewise, that Proofs of Fact are reducible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning; and even all of 'em grounded on Arguings like unto those of the Author of the Perpetuity, that is to say, on the impossibility of certain Events, and that 'tis from these Arguings they borrow whatsoever they have of Solidity. And this he proves by the Example of the literal Proofs taken from History, to establish certain matters of Fact, and by the Proofs of Moses's Miracles, and the Refurrection of our Saviour; concerning which the humane Certitude depends on a Moral Impossibility, which yet is not perceivable but only by force of Reasoning. From thence he concludes, That a Proof is not to be Rejected, because it is called a Proof drawn from Reason; no more than it is to be believed, because 'tis called a Proof of matter of Fact; but that both one and the other are contemptible, or estimable, accordingly as they are Obscure or Evident, True or False, Slight or Solid, and that 'tis on the Quality of a Proof and not by its Kind, we ought to form our Judgment.

TO which I answer, we must distinguish two kinds of Proofs of Fact, the one Immediate, the others Mediate; the Immediate depend on our Sen­ses, the Mediate consist in the Deposition of Witnesses. The certainty of the first of these doth not depend on Arguments, it being evident in it self by its own Nature and Original; for in that we believe our Senses; this Perswasion cometh not simply from Reasons dictitating this to us; but because their Testimony is perswasive in it self, and that we cannot doubt of the things we see, unless we have corrupted our own Natures by a strange Extravagancy.

AS to the second kind of Proofs, we must consider them either absolute­ly, or in their Circumstances; if absolutely it is clear, their Certitude de­pendeth on Arguments, for we do not give Credit to Witnesses, but only upon the account that Reason dictitateth we ought to believe them. Yet doth not this hinder them from being commonly stronger, in respect of the Fact they prove, than the Reasoning grounded on the same matter of Fact; and that which distinguisheth them is not their simple kind, but the Matter, or Subject to which they are applyed, seeing that an Argument is more Just and Certain, when it establisheth the Fidelity of Witnesses, than when it would decide the Fact it self concerning which the Witnes­ses make their Depositions, whence it follows that the Testimony autho­rised by stronger Arguments, ought to be preferred before those which are weaker. And after this manner do we prove the Truth of our Sa­viour's Resurrection, beause the Testimony of the Apostles, being grounded on mighty Arguments, stands more firm, than all that the Wit of man is a­ble to devise against it. But if the Proof taken from Witnesses is attended with this Circumstance, that is to say, that the Fidelity of the Witnesses be agreed upon, and that this be an acknowledged and uncontroulable Prin­ciple, then, I say, this is no longer a Mediate Proof, but an Immediate one, it depending no longer on Arguments. For the Validity of a Testimony being a Point once decided, which ent'reth not into the Proof, but only as an undoubted Principle, it then remains only to know what the Witnesses depose, and this is a Matter of which we may be informed by our Senses, [Page 23] whence it follows, we must examine their Testimony, and that this way is to be preferred before that which is Argumentative on the same Fact.

IF we consider the Fathers, not in respect of their own Belief, but as Witnesses of the common Belief of the Church, I confess, their Authority dependeth on Reasonings, and that it may be questioned; but besides, it would not hence follow that the Proofs drawn from Arguments in this mat­ter, that is to say, on the Churches Belief, would be more certain than their Testimony, seeing their Testimony may be established on a Reasoning stronger than these Proofs, and consequently may be preferable to them. I say, besides all this, this Point of the Fidelity of the Fathers is a Principle, we have the Advantage of supposing against Mr. Arnaud, seeing that hither­to the Church of Rome hath never questioned it, and that we take the Fa­thers only from his Hands, and descend to the Examination of their Testi­mony only out of complyance with him, as I have already mentioned: so that to speak properly, we have no more to do, but only to know what hath bin their Doctrine. Now this is another matter of Fact, of which we think we can be informed by our Eyes, and by the Light of common Sense, and we cannot imagine without a great Mistake, that there hath bin more per­spicuity and certainty, in the Proofs drawn from Arguings; whence I may conclude again, that we are at Liberty to reject these Proofs, without troubling our selves with any farther Examination of them.

IT appeareth then clear enough (I think) that Mr. Arnaud's second Chapter is but a vain Amusement. And I cannot but be troubled, find­ing my self obliged to alleadg several things which cannot but be grievous to them who shun Contention. But I could not but mention them, to fol­low Mr. Arnaud, to the end he might not take Advantage by my leaving him unanswered.

WHAT he saies concerning pretended Proofs of Fact, viz. That they are often invalidated by Proofs fetched from Arguments, toucheth not our Question. For there is no body denys that Reason doth not sometimes cor­rect a Mistake in Sense; and sometimes again invalidates the Deposition of Witnesses, whether by making it appear that these are False-Witnesses who impose on us, or else in shewing they themselves are mistaken, or lastly that their Testimony contains quite another thing than what is pre­tended. But altho that Proofs of Fact ought to be tried by Arguments, to know their Goodness, yet doth it not follow that when the Question re­spects a matter of Fact, but that the way of Proofs is to be preferred before that of Arguments, on the same Subject; it doth less follow that when Persons are prevented by Proofs of Fact, that they can be made to alter their Judgments, by simple Proofs drawn from Arguments, with­out shewing them that their pretended Proofs of Fact are not good. What he addeth concerning the Proofs of Fact, that they are all of 'em redu­cible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning, is not true, in reference to im­mediate Proofs, and whatsoever there may be of Truth in this, yet is it useless, because the Question is not about a general Comparison of Argu­ments with Proofs of Fact, but concerning the Comparison applyed to the Fact it self, which the Proof establisheth, and which lies now in Debate. All the following Discourses, touching the Fidelity of Historians, the Bat­tle of Canes, of Pharsalia, of Philippes, Actium, Caesar, Pompey, and the [Page 24] City of Constantinople, are Digressions which our Dispute hath nothing to do with. The Proofs of the Truth of Moses's Miracles, and them of the Resurrection of our Saviour, are good, but they belong not to our Subject. If the Question concerned the proving the Fidelity of the Fathers Testi­mony, we would consent to the making use of Arguments, after the same manner as they are made use of to prove the Fidelity of Moses and the A­postles Testimony. But this is not the Point, our whole Question is on­ly to know what the Fathers have believed; and for this, Arguments are far less fit than Passages faithfully collected from their own Writings. Mr. Arnauds Hypothesis, that all our Quotations of the Fathers have bin foyst­ed in them by John Scot and his Followers, is, as he is pleased to express it on another Occasion, a Fantastical Hypothesis, from whence he can draw no Advantage, and what at farthest can have no Ground but in the Dis­quisition of the Passages themselves. And lastly his Conclusion that the Proofs of Fact, and the Proofs taken from Arguments, are either to be valued or slighted, as they are either Obscure or Evident, False or True, Vain or Solid, and that 'tis by the Quality of the Proof, and not by the kind of them that we must judge, this is I say a disingenious Conclusion, for it is true that Proofs are estimable or despicable by their Quality, and not by their Kind: but their Kind and the Matter to which they are applied serve to foreshew us their Quality, and their Quality being foreknown, rendreth them Estimable or Contemptible. A Proof drawn from Argu­ments, being made use of to subvert a matter of Fact, which is found e­stablished by the sight of our Eyes and common Sense, bears, in this sim­ple Comparison, a sufficient Number of false Characters, to make us con­clude that it belongs to the number of those subtile and loose Proofs Mr. Arnaud mentions, which evaporate of themselves, and vanish out of the Mind, Lib. 1. C 2. P. 10. as the Ayr doth out of our Mouths, it not being necessary to enter into a more particular Examination of them. Seeing then we have Reason to suppose our Proofs are good and Substantial, as I made it apparent in my first Chapter, we may likewise well conclude in this, that the Author of the Perpetuity's Reasonings are vain and groundless, and consequently to be re­jected without troubling our selves any farther with them.


My fourth Observation Justifi'd; viz. That we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, to make them Invalid.

IT will be needless to prove this Observation, seeing Mr. Arnaud ac­knowledgeth enough to establish the Truth and Justice of it. We do not in any wise pretend, saith he, to deny him (he means me) the use of his Proofs of Fact, (if he hath any) provided he makes a right use of them, and follows the Rules of Reason, in so doing. He may then Con­clude Lib. 1. C. 2. P. 15. as long as he will, that the Alteration in Question is possible, in making it appear if he can, That it hath actually hapned. He may deny the Impossibi­lity of a thing, by proving its actual Existence. All this is allowed him, nei­ther are we so unreasonable, to deprive him of these kind of Proofs. He wrongs the Author of the Perpetuity, in charging him with such a Thought. This Acknowledgment is not of so small Importance, but that it deserves to be considered; for it perfectly overthrows the Author of the Perpetuity's re­al Design, and makes all those great Hopes he conceived of his Method, to vanish away, in two or three Periods. We have allready seen that he hath offered it, as a sufficient Means to convince us; and make us confess, by the Evidence of Truth, if we are not desperately Obstinate, that the Church of Rome's Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity. But this Discourse do's not well agree with that of Mr. Arnaud's. For, if this Method will lead us so far on one Hand, as the making of us come to this last Confession, mentioned by the Author of the Perpetuity, the Dispute ends there, and our Proofs of Fact are Insig­nificant, seeing they are Succors which will stand us in no stead, being al­ready overthrown. And on the other, if we may employ our Proofs of Fact against the Method, provided we make a right use of them; if we may deny the Impossibility of an Alteration, in shewing it hath actually hapned; we have at least the Power to Suspend this Acknowledgment, to which the Author of the Method would oblige us, until such time as it is examined whether we make a right Use of our Proofs of Fact, and draw a true Conclusion from them. But how shall we make these two Gentle­men agree? Seeing one of 'em would have the Dispute ended by his Ar­guments; and the other would have us keep it still up by our Proofs of Fact. The one pretends, we ought to reckon our selves Vanquished as soon as ever he has done speaking, and the other gives us time, and allows us to produce our Passages. If we Expound the Author of the Perpetuity's Meaning by Mr. Arnaud, he hath undertaken no more than the bringing us to make this forementioned Acknowledgment, Exclusively; for between his Proofs and our Confession, we may put in our Proofs of Fact, which is to say in short, that he hath supposed his Method able to effect any thing, but what it ought. And if we expound Mr. Arnaud's Meaning, by that of the Author of the Perpetuity, he designs, that we shall not make use of our Proofs of Fact till such time as we acknowledg there hath no Alteration hapned; which is to say, that he will not grant us the use of them, til we [Page 26] confess, they are of no use to us. So that should we comply with both these Gentlemen, we oppose and contradict our selves; for we must then acknowledg that we have bin to blame, and yet at the same time maintain that the Reason is on our side: And so again we shall acknowledg, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same with that of the Primitive Church, and yet still prove that there hath bin made an essential Alterati­on. And thus are we guided by these Gentlemens Speculations.

TO speak ingenuously, I take Mr. Arnaud to be a very bad defender of the Method; for he not only forsakes it in a Capital Question, wherein its Honour is chiefly concerned, (which is to know whether it be sufficient to Convince us in the State we are in, and make us confess the Truth of what it proves) but he moreover exposes the Uselesness and Vanity of it; for if after all his Endeavours, we may still return to our old Proofs of Fact, I see not any Use that can be made of it; unless it be to entangle and length­en out our Debate, wherefore I think it may well be laid aside, and the Au­thor of it content himself with his Method of Discussion.

NOW to clear up this Dispute, it will not be amiss to examine here, what Mr. Arnaud tells us touching these two sorts of Methods of Prescrip­tion, and Discussion. The Method of Prescription, saith he, is that in which, by the Examination of certain principal Points, the Controversy is decided, Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 16. the other is that in which is particularly laid down the Proofs of all the Matters debated, and all the Objections against them answered, From thence he takes occasion to discourse of the Advantages which the Church hath over us by these Methods of Prescription; and afterwards coming to a Conclusion, It is necessary addeth he, For the Method of the Prescriptions keeping its Advan­tages, and producing the Benefit expected from it, that it remain separate from the Method of Discussion, because otherwise we should inevitably fall into Pro­lixity, and the Perplexity of particular Examinations, which we intend to avoid. So that, whereas the Discourses designed for the Discussion of particular Matters, ought to be written with the greatest Exactness, no difficulty, which may perplex the Mind being omitted in them; So on the contrary, those which are made ac­cording to the Method of Prescription, ought precisely to contain no more than may serve to illustrate the Proof which a Man intends to make use of, and it would certainly be a great Defect to joyn thereunto the Examination of particu­lar Questions, which do but confound the Mind by their Multiplicity. At length he concludes, That the Author of the Perpetuity could not with Pru­dence undertake to answer Mr. Aubertin's chief Difficulties in his Treatise. That had this Treatise bin made according to the Method of Discussion, he had bin in a manner obliged thereunto, but being a Method of Prescription he could not do it without spoiling his Design, and evidencing he understood not the Na­ture and Advantage of the Method he followed, which was short, perspicuous, and accommodated to all Capacities.

ALL this Discourse is nothing to the Purpose, for by it we understand no more than this, that when men consent to make use of the Method of Prescription, they must only serve themselves with it according to the Rules which it enjoyneth. Very good! But this decides nothing if we are not a­greed, but on the contrary, dispute against it, for then the Question is no longer, how we ought to use the Method of Prescription, nor whether it ought to be joyned with that of Discussion, this is no longer the Point, but the Question is only whether we ought to use it or not. Mr. Arnaud per­petually [Page 27] imposes on his Readers, he carries them off from one place to ano­ther, from the matter in Question, to that which does not concern it, and thereupon entertains them at his Ease. We do not dispute the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity ought to have ordered his Method of Prescription, supposing this were a proper Place for it, this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions; but our Dispute lies, whether he could reasonably use it against our Proofs, even so far as to promise the Effect which he hath pretended to draw from thence. Now this is a Difference which hath bin already dispatched by what I represented in the foregoing Chapters. And in effect, seeing he would convince us there hath bin no Alteration made touching the Eucharist, notwithstanding we are prepossessed to the Con­trary, by literal Proofs, how can he, I say, take from us this Perswasion, and give us another quite contrary to it, unless his Method of Prescription hath an Evidence and Certainty beyond that of the Proofs aforementioned? This he ought to shew us, and not straggle into the common place of Methods of Prescription. But this would be to undertake to shew a thing impossible; for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments: all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili, as the Schools term them, could not surmount the strength of our Proofs of Fact, which depend on the sight of our Eyes and common Sense, a great part of which propose the thing imediately in it self.

BUT how then? may we never establish our Sentiments by a Method of Prescription? We do not say so. We only mean thus much, that when the Sentiments of Persons are opposed, which are grounded on Proofs of Fact, and which they believe to be (as I have already said) as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senses, it is then I say an unreasonable thing, to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Me­thod of Prescription, grounded on moral Impossibilities. This is the Knot of the Question. If a man hath to do only with People prepossessed in favour of his Opinion, he may then use his Method of Prescription, to con­firm them in the thoughts they have already entertained. There could no­thing be alledged against his manner of Proceeding, the strength of his Proofs are in that Case only to be considered. If he has to do with indiffe­rent Persons, that is to say, with such who have not yet taken any side, and desire to be instructed, he might then likewise use a Method of Prescripti­on, provided his Principles be well grounded, and his Conclusions more decisive, than any thing which can be alledged against them; There need then be nothing to be replied, unless there were something indirect in his Me­thod; but this could do no more at farthest, but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles, and that of its Consequen­ces, and not make them reject them; for indirect Arguments conclude some­times with as great Evidence as direct ones. Nay I will not fear to say, that when he should have to do with Persons prepossessed with Opinions contra­ry to what he would perswade them, he might then lawfully use a Method of Prescription, for it would not be sufficient to say that a man is prepossessed by another Method, nor object that that of Prescription proceedeth indi­rectly, or follows not the Order of Nature, these kind of Objections may cause Suspicion; but they ought not to proceed so far, as to make men absolutely reject Arguments, which perhaps, are attended with a greater Perspicuity and Certitude, than those which have occasioned the Prejudice. But as to what concerns us, against whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written, we are in none of these Circumstances; being not only [Page 28] led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypothesis, and by Proofs which propose us the Point in Question immediately in it self; but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction, and yet he would have us change our Minds, by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones, and which at farthest can amount to no more but meer Probabilities, being appli­ed to the Subject in hand. We have then Reason to say, that these are mear Chimeras in our respect, and that without considering them any o­therwise than in their own kind, and in the matter on which they treat, they cannot make such a strong Impression on us, as to deface that which we have already received; for 'tis not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities, than with solid Proofs which are grounded on common Sense.

MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Comparisons, of the Methods of Protestants with them of the Church of Rome. It may be made apparent that we have surer and shorter ones than those which it pro­poseth. But this is not our Question, and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions. His Words cost him nothing, and Peo­ple are disposed to receive them, be they what they will, as Oracles. But 'tis not the same with me, for, should I wander from my Subject as often as he does, there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our De­bate. I shall only tell him, he is mistaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion, a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controver­sies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion. We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read, or hear them read pub­lickly: Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Sal­vation, and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace, even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister, under whom they live, is able and wil­ling to shew them the way of Life, and whether our Society be the true Church. For in this Case we need but examine two things. The first whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God, and secondly, if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of these things; for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to satisfy our Consciences, and to live in the fear of God, and to ascertain our selves in our Saviours Promises: and moreover, if nothing be taught or practised which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity. For if nothing doth offend the Conscience, we ought to be perswaded, we are in the true Church, it being needless for us to enter into a Discussion of all the Errors which have troubled, or still perplex the Christian Religion. Af­ter the same manner as 'tis not necessary to Salvation, for a man to know all the particular Heresies which have troubled the Peace of the Church, nor to make a formal and positive Renunciation of them, for it is sufficient that we are not tainted with any of them, and firmly to believe the fundamen­tal Truths of Religion, neither is it likewise necessary to assure our selves, we are in the true Church, that we inform our selves of the several Opi­nions of men: It may suffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members, teacheth what it ought, concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification, and maintains nothing which doth not answer these Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church, for if he compare his Mi­nisters Doctrine with the Word of God, he will be satisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein, he shall perceive likewise that we mix no Doctrines of men with it, which overthrow its Foundation. This way of Examination is short, easy, and proportionable to the Capacity [Page 29] of all People, and thereupon there may be made a Judgment, as certain as if every single Controversy had bin examined apart.

THE most simple then among us may live in perfect Peace; But it is not so in the Church of Rome; for these Methods of Prescription, menti­oned by Mr. Arnaud, are not built but upon one of these two Principles, either that the Church, which is to say, the Body of the People, cannot err, nor cease to be the true Church, in ceasing to believe what it believes, or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe; or that the represen­tative Church, that is to say, the Councils, or the Pope, cannot err. The first of these two Principles is natural; the second is of a Supernatural Or­der. I handle not at present this Point, whether they are false or true at the Bottom, it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so dif­ficult and require so much time, that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them, is plainly to deride them: I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter: where I shall make it appear that 'tis impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him, or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it's built. It suffices me to say, that People are not commonly so regular in things, which they believe by a distinct Faith, but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines, and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries. The Author of the Perpetuity tells us, that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology: and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular. There has bin made on this Subject, I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity; there have bin Catechisms compiled, intit'led Catechisms of Grace. Which evidently shew, it has bin believed, that it was not impossible to make the People re­cieve by way of Illustration or Addition, Articles which they knew not be­fore, whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change; for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms, if the People cannot of themselves, either diminish, or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith. This Principle is not then so certain, but that it may be doubted of, nor so clear, or evident in it self, that the most simple may be ascertained in it, having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it.

AS to the second, it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils, or Popes, is not so easie, that the most simple People may master it. All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it. If this Church hath this, she hath it by a particular Priviledg, which must be ex­amined before it be received. For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church, without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle, which is, that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible, because she saies so; and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true, because she is infallible. Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Autho­rity, this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable, by things independent on the Church of Rome, and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves. Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Con­clusion. For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is. That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith; now she af­firmeth she is infallible, from whence it follows that she is so. A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense, will never be con­vinced [Page 30] by this Argument. The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living, before it can be supposed that such a one, or any other will receive its Doctrine, founded on this Principle. Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities, for if it be proved by way of Scripture, it is not so plainly described therein, but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense. They are controverted Places, and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judg­ment. Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition, and a Judgment accordingly, he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of parti­cular Doctrines, and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture, in relation to what is produced on either side.

NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments: he that endeavours to do this, engageth himself yet farther into tedious Pro­lixities, and Difficulties, which surpass ordinary Apprehensions. In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question. This Infallibility, saith he, Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self, seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God, which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture. The Church not being naturally Infallible, we must prove that it is supernaturally so, either by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Series of Arguments. Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments, nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith, to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence. And 'tis for this Reason, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle, than that of Priviledge. Mr. Arnaud testifies as much; for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular, that is to say, of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question. Reason, saith he, doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility. So that this Author (mean­ing the Author of the Perpetuity) being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence, and not on a Principle of Iraditi­on and Authority, or on abstracted and remote Arguings, he must then necessa­rily contain himself within the reach of things, in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason. There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error, on any Point which it proposeth. But it's evident to Sense, that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors, relating to matters of Faith, seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful. The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is imme­diately apparent to Sense, there needs more abstracted and remote Argu­ments to prove it, whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this. Much less are they fit for this, should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition, for it would be to send them far enough, in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils, to be informed in this matter; besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church, and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently, their Testimony upon this account would signify no­thing.

IT is then manifest, that common Apprehensions not being able to as­certain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge, as I come now from proving, nor in the Point of popular Infallibility, as I have already hinted, and which I shall do more fully in the end, they cannot remain in the Church [Page 31] of Rome, with a safe Conscience, there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands, such as are, Birth, Education, Interest, Custom, and the Example of others, which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation. They are then obliged to range them­selves on the side of the Reformists, from whom they receive for a Rule, things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture, and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry, and more­over, where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace. If it be replied, that we must first, satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures. I answer first, that this Principle doth not fall under Debate, seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World, but only to the particular Opinions of Christians, for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, I answer, that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures, than other Churches, seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible, she must evidence her self to be a Church, which she cannot do, if the Divinity of the Scripture be de­nyed her, and she will not take the Pains to prove it; besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility, depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture, and consequently they suppose its Divinity. But in fine, I say the Characters of Divinity, which shine in all parts of these Writings, are so lively, and so many in Number, that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them, if they apply them­selves to the Consideration of them, with a pure Heart and unspotted Con­science. Now this is it, to which the meanest Capacity is obliged, as well as the greatest, and if they do it not, their Damnation is just, and their Im­piety without Excuse.

AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak, briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription, this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly. But to return to the principal Subject of our Dis­pute, we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud, in that he takes it not ill, I endeavour to prove by several Passages, that the Alteration pretended to be impossible, is real and true. The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this, seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it; and if he doth agree to it, he must suffer me to draw this Consequence, that I could have hindred the Effect he promi­sed himself from his Method, which is, to make us confess if we are not ex­tream Obstinate, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Sacra­ment, is the same with that of all Antiquity. This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us, as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us, and the Production of some Passages of my Writings, starteth a particular Debate, which Mr. Arnaud approveth, for he only complains, I have not produced them in a right manner, but mained, and dislocated from their Consequences, and that I have con­cealed all those which might be opposed, and understood. But this Com­plaint is Unjust, and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment, which is, That that Book was made in Rela­tion to that of Mr. Aubertins, whose Proofs I take upon me to defend. If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio, into a Preface, neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer, which contains no more than thirty Pages.

I never pretended that my Abridgment alone, should absolutely determine [Page 32] his Thoughts. I know this cannot be expected; but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth, which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers; I design'd to shew them of my Communion, what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner, we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind, and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties, the matters of Proof with which it is furnished, their Nature and Force, do contribute that Truth to it, which an Abridgment ought to have, and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain. There can be nothing more required to con­clude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is not the same with that of the Fathers, and that there has bin made an Alteration, for the Princi­ples of this are marked out, and their Consequence doth plainly appear, that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader; Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then, Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, for we may ea­sily conclude from what I said, that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome. His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridg­ments, which allways refer to another work, in supposing that the Princi­ples they mark out are clearly established in that Book, to which they refer, and from whence they draw their Conclusion. And this is all that can be desired in this matter, but yet this is a way of concluding; and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined, viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist. I confess that to determine his Judgment, we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion, we must go to the Spring, and see whether what is supposed issues thence; but it doth not thence follow, that the Abridgment is in fault, nor that it should be esteem­ed as a Heap of Difficulties; and indeed it would not be an Abridgment, if in effect it did not abridge some other work, wherein the Matter is handled at large.

A Heap of Difficulties, to speak properly, is a Collection of several Ob­jections which are formed against a Doctrine, without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established, nor the Proofs or Argu­ments by which it is recommended, nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections, and in short, without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled. It is certain that in a Controversy, this manner of proceeding is confused and captious, and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind. But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud, to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind; for as to my part, I find that it hath all the Characters of it. For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief, touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist, of moral Impossibilities heaped up one upon ano­ther, without any examination of the Grounds or Proofs of our Belief, nor of the Answers which may be made concerning these Impossibilities, and without any Supposition of another Work. For to tell us, as Mr. Arnaud doth, that he sends us back to all the Catholick Books, this methinks, seems to be a kind of shifting and evading, and is not sufficient to protect the Trea­tise of the Perpetuity, from that just Title I have given it of a Heap of Diffi­culties. Now if this Author meaneth all the Books written by Catholicks, when shall I be able to judge of them? This will be perhaps when I have [Page 33] run thro above two hundred Volums. And if I should say on the other side, that my Abridgment after the same manner, supposeth all the Pro­testant Books, and I send all Persons to them; Our Readers without Questi­on would be very well informed and edifyed.

BUT saies Mr. Arnaud, People do not use to call Matters which are per­fectly handled, a Heap of Difficulties, but those things which are hard to be Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 31. judged of, whereas the Author of the Perpetuity hath handled whatsoever relates to his Design in an orderly length. I answer first that this Author very im­perfectly handles what respects his Design in General, which is to make us forsake our Belief, concerning the Church of Rome's changing the Primi­tive Doctrine: And secondly that he yet more imperfectly handles what respects his Design in particular, which is to shew the Impossibility of a Change; for he does not consider of any Answer which may be given his Arguments: so that to speak truly, it is nothing else but a Heap of Difficulties. It can bear no other Title until such time as shall be published the two Vo­lums in Folio, which Mr. Arnaud mentions to us. We will receive them whensoever he will please to give 'em us; but we shall not be in haste to make that Confession, to which the Author of the Perpetuity hath promi­sed to oblige us, till we have seen them; and in the mean time, because Mr. Arnaud will have it so, we will have once more the Pleasure, or rather the Pain of examining (altho it be needless) the Author of the Perpetuity's Proofs. I say because Mr. Arnaud would have it so, and not because the reason of the thing requires it; for what he alleageth concerning the Passages of my Book, that they contain but an indirect Answer to the Author of the Per­petuity's Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 24. Argument, and therefore it is necessary immediately to examine what I have answered directly. This I say is not a sufficient Cause, we ought to see rather which of us two is first found in the Possession of this Argu­ment, that is to say, which of us has bin first answered indirectly, and it will appear without doubt that it hath bin my self, seeing the Author of the Perpetuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that he hath assaulted it in­directly. Whence it follows that he ought at least to have begun by the Ex­amination of our Proofs.


The pretended Advantages of Mr. Arnaud attributeth to the Trea­tise of the Perpetuity Examined.

ALTHO the Conclsion which I have drawn from Mr. Arnaud's Confession, in the preceding Chapter, is clearly enough establish­ed, yet do I not think he will be satisfied, till I have examined what he saith in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book. He will tell us without doubt, that it doth not hence follow we should defer the rendring our selves up to the Arguments in the Perpetuity, altho I have still the liberty of opposing against them our Proofs of Fact, and that this he hath clearly shewed in these two Chapters I last mentioned. Let us then see what he saies in them; and judge of them without Partiality.

Mr. Arnaud imediately meets with a Difficulty, For I much marvel, saith he, Mr. Claude has not observed when a point of Doctrine, as this in Question, Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 32. is established on one side by considerable Proofs, and on the other by Proofs which are believed to be valid, that we must if we intend to judge aright, compare these contrary Proofs together, and prefer the strongest before the other; from whence we may conclude, that it will always be necessary to come to that which the Author of the Perpetuity will not yield to, which is, to examine our Proofs of Fact; For to solve this Difficulty, he supposeth; first, that they who read the Treatise of the Perpetuity, have their Sentiments alrea­dy wholly formed on the Proofs of Fact, produced by Mr Aubertin and o­ther Ministers; but that these Sentiments are not Uniform, because some judge of them from what they are in themselves, others by what they have heard of them, and by external Circumstances, which give them to un­derstand what they ought to believe concerning them. That some do esteem them, others on the contrary slight them, and others again are in a Dispo­sition of Indifferency, He afterwards represents us with a Calvinist or Re­ligionary, (for so is he pleased to call us) who being dissatisfied with the Scripture and Fathers, by reason of the uncertainty wherein he findes him­self, by harkning to different Voices, which call to him from all sides; and moreover less satisfied with the Divines of either Party, who cannot con­tent him in the Solutions which they give to the Passages of their Adver­saries; he thereupon turneth himself towards the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which shews him, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real Presence, have bin received by the Greek and Latin Churches, and in all other Societies, which are equally Enemies both to the Latins and Greeks, toge­ther with the Impossibilities which are in this insensible Change, which the Ministers have invented; whereupon this Calvinist determines, in for­saking all these Doubts, to believe the same which is believed thro out all the Earth, seeing the whole World would never believe it, if it had not derived this Faith from the Channel of Tradition. And for as much as this Contrivance could not be well ended, unless I were brought in as a Party, he therefore introduces me, with my Aubertin in my hand opposing this Re­solution. But my Mouth is imediately stopt, being told, that these Proofs [Page 35] are Unsatisfactory, and thus am I sent away with my Rhetorick and En­thusiasmes.

BUT this being no more than a Supposition, it must be established. And for this Effect, Mr. Arnaud calls to his Assistance several learned Divines from Germany, Switzerland, France, and Holland, by whose Suffrage he concludes, that the Fathers are rather against us than for us, in what con­cerns the Eucharist, or that at least, the Proofs taken from Passages out of their Writings are very uncertain. And so here is already the understand­ing People among us convinced, and as for others that are not able to make a Judgment themselves, they must have recourse to Persons of greater Knowledg, by which means both the one, and the other, are obliged to rend­er themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Per­petuity, because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them, but as unevident and uncertain▪ and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Ca­pacities, and grounded on the Light of common Sence, it may be under­stood by all in general. This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter.

IN the sixth Chapter, he extends his Pretention a great way farther, for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side, he will not suf­fer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands, It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53. being necessary for this, saith he, to enter into an Examination of all those Passages, without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing. But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People, observe after what sort he declares his meaning. He saith then, that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand, and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other; these two con­trary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments, and hin­der us from determining, and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties. And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which leading us hither, Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us, we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect, and pass over to the Catholick Religion, first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal, Original, Successive, and Catholick So­ciety, from which we must never make aschisme. Secondly, because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors, before we separate from it, and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that So­ciety we are of, to keep in it. Thirdly, because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry, of the ordinary Vocation, and Authority, and that the Mi­nisters who have not been above a hundred years standing, have none of these things. Fourthly, because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us, being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity, and consequently to return to the Church of Rome, they ought to serve for Ex­amples to the Judicious, it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society, to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong. Lastly he confesseth, that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial, and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition, to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self, than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid, and so by conse­quence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done, by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method.

AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters, in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author [Page 36] of the Perpetuity, and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work, he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence. Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not, we are so different in our Apprehensions, that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project, I have found nothing at all therein of Reason, nor co­herence of Parts, neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences, and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest.

FIRST, methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World, in propo­sing as it were from us, a Difficulty, which weakens our Cause, altho it do's not concern us. For I do not pretend that one of our Communion, into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity, and who is able to read it, is absolutely obliged, before he forms his Judgment thereupon, to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs, with those of that Treatise; I maintain that he may reject these last, by the general Consideration alone which he may make, without entring into the Examination of each Parti­cular, because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them, viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability, nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity, which are ground­ed on common Sence. Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted, and that if we take the trouble to examine them, 'tis out of Condescension, not Necessity.

IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the seve­ral ranks of Men, who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity. For the greatest part of them in our Communion, judging this Perusal needless, will not mind it, for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this; the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther. But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons. We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26. heard the Owners Experience of it; would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation, by Ar­guments offered only on one side, in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions? The least which ought to be done by them, who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion; is to hear both Parties, and weigh their Reasons. I answer, that these Persons I mentioned, will act very Justly and Reaso­nably in doing what I said. For there being two Questions, the one touch­ing what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist, and the other touch­ing what has bin believed by the Primitive Church. The first Question be­ing once dispatched, we need not trouble our selves about the second. Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion, the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God. For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith. This is it which judgeth us all, and had the Author of the Perpe­tuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle, there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him; but instead of this, he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages, and perswades himself, that hence­forward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to, when they say in ge­neral, that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God.

THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages, may be decided three ways; First, by the Rules of Christian Charity; Secondly, by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises, and cares of his Providence; Thirdly, by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages. [Page 37] Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People, is need­less. It is enough to a well meaning Person, that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe, touching the Eucharist, and thereupon charitably pre­sumes, that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Er­rors. It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church, that he would never forsake it, have had their accomplishment, and what­soever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it, by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths, yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful, and execute the Decree of his Election. So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History, nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums, which will not yield him the least Satis­faction, much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetui­ty's Method, which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquaint­ed with. When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book, and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned, I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way, which is only proper to the Learned, the Truth he believes has bin illustrated, neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith, what is told him concerning it; but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation, and left its Relyance on the Word of God, for it remaineth still where it was; so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, or that of any other Minister, relating to this Subject, he will not be troubled about it, nor farther concern himself in these Debates, for he knows his Incapacity. He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers, and with his Confidence in God, leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them.

NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book, I know none in our Communion of that number, and perhaps in the Church of Rome, there will be found as few of that Mind, if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends, who have given their Judgments about it, after a very slighting and pe­remptory manner. But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here, but continue my Observations. I do affirm then, I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains. I was never yet told, That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts, Lib. 1. C. [...]. P. 34. which it doth not resolve, and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fa­thers Obscure, and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him, and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart. Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires, drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving, and offered to them who would hence­forward be of the number of its Proselytes. But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud, or the Author of the Perpetuity's Pro­selyte, would Sacrifice the Scriptures, Fathers, and Divines of both parties to them. What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man? Howsoever it be, it's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition, and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief; and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty, for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty, touching the Fathers, but not at all as it relates to the Word of God, from which a good man will never depart, even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers.

BUT let us see who these Persons are, who are represented to us float­ing [Page 38] on Doubts and Scruples. They are two sorts of Person, the most know­ing Ministers on one hand, and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other. It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False, saith Mr. Arnaud, that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them. To which he addeth, that all Protestants of mean Capacities, who are not able to make this Search, are rash in be­lieving it, and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor. The for­mer of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs. Observe here the first of them. Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, in reading St. Austins Works; that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the E­vangelists; that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts, by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained; yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind, he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers; but could not be fully satisfied by them, because he oftentimes met in their Writings, with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacra­ment. Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men, he wholly applied himself to the Word of God, and then the Truth appeared more clear­ly unto him. This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this, that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy, to discover immediately the Truth, seeing that Oecolam­padius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works, and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures, was puzled by reading the Fathers, till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God, by which he was put out of Doubt, and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Do­ctrine of the Fathers, whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth. This shews us the strength of Prejudice, and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers, to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures.

AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg, it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession, and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy. For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side, some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expres­sions, which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence, which would overthrow their Doctrine. How­soever it be, they are not of the number of our Ministers, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy.

THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us, is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written, and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends, seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs. This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pre­tended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy, which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries, and Absurdities. For the School Boyes, from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press, have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads, after a childish and inconsiderate man­ner, which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion. More­over Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to make this Rhapsody, turned Roman Catholick, which might well transport him by a Zeal common to young Converts, to make his Master speak a [Page 39] word or two in favour of Transubstantiation, Mr. Arnaud seems moreover to speak of Ministers, but it is known by every one that Scaliger was none.

WITEMBOGARD was one of the chief of the Arminian Party, in­teressed against the French Ministers, neither is he a Witness to be fully be­lieved in what he tells us concerning Casaubon; yet if what Spondanus has written of Casaubon; be true, we must acknowledge that this Person, who altho otherwise was extraordinarily learned, did not excel in Judgment. He was a man, saith he, of a fickle Mind, and ever wavering in maters of Re­ligion, Annals Eccl. ad An. 1600, art. 12. he was willing to please both Parties, and by that means pleased nei­ther. It is very likely that near Familiarity he had with Cardinal Perron, drew him into this ambiguos Humour, which ought not to be made use of against us, much less to be proposed as an Example for the regulating of our Conduct. And besides he may more justly be said to be Critick than a Minister.

I shall not here trouble my self with what is alleaged concerning Socinus and his Followers; for there is a great deal of Passion and Injustice shewed, in Confronting them with us, seeing the Point here in Question is what our most knowing Ministers hold about this matter; I confess the Socinians reject Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, but it is moreover so much their interest to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers, that 'tis no marvel if they speak so unjustly of them. They have built on the antient Heresies of Photinus, Macedonius, and Pelagius, and seeing themselves opposed by Councils, and by the writings of the Fathers, this hath moved them not on­ly to have no respect for them; but likewise to lay to their charge things which they never believed; to the end they might render them odious, and marr their Credit. So that Mr. Arnaud, imposes on us (when he tells us) that the Socinians have no interest in acknowledging that the Writings of the Lib. 1. C. 5. Pag. 41. Fathers favour the Catholicks, and that it would have bin more to their Ad­vantage to deny this. The contrary of which is apparent.

WHEN he should produce some of our Ministers who doubted whe­ther the Writings of the Fathers favour us in the point of the Eucharist, or who even believed they were against us, should this appear so strange to us? It is not an easy matter for a man to disentangle himself out of all the cor­rupt passages which are fasly attributed to the Fathers, and set forth un­der their Names, and from all the Artifices made use of to disguise their Doctrines. I have written a Chapter on purpose in my Answer to Father Noiiet, wherein I produce several Examples of this, which the Readers may peruse at their Leasure. Even Casaubon himself whom I now mentioned, is one of them who hath fallen into this Snare, for he hath taken two prepa­ratory Prayers for the Mass, to be the true and undoubted Works of St. Ambrose, altho that in effect, they are composed by Anselme Bishop of Can­terbury. Now if any Person has bin deceived like Casaubon, and doubted whither the Fathers were for us, must this be used as a Proof against us, ought such a ones Mistakes to be the Rule of our Thoghts, this certainly is contrary to reason.

BUT for one Minister or two whom Mr. Arnaud can bring against us, we can produce a great number who have not hesitated in this matter. Cal­vin himself, who lived in a time when these Fopperies were scarely disco­vered, yet asserts that the Fathers have retained the pious and orthodox Sence [Page 40] of this Mystery, and affirms, that not having found them at all to derogate Inst. Lib. 4. C. 18. from the only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he could not therefore consent to the charging of them with Impiety, altho he doth not think them wholly excusable in the form of the Action. To Calvin we may add Cook (who was Tutour to King Edward of England, and supposed to be Author of a Book intit'led Di­allacticon;) Thomas Crammer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; Bp. Jewel, Peter Martyr; the Author of the Orthodox Treatise; Andrew Volan, the Divines of the University of Heydelberg; Du Moulin, Chamier, Rivet, Faucheur, Mestresat, and Blondel; not to mention Du Plessis, and Mr. De Saumaise, nor several others who have written on this Subject, by the Testimony of the Fathers; which sheweth with how great precipitation Mr. Arnaud hath asserted: that it is most false, the most knowing Ministers are perswaded the Fa­thers are manifestly for them, and the Solutions they give their Passages are good and Solid.

WHAT he mentions concerning Mr. Daillé, is taken in a contrary Sence; for he never designed to deny the Advantage we have in the Fathers touch­ing the Eucharist, nor leave it to be questioned. His Book against Mr. Adam, and Cottiby is an authentick Proof of this, and being as yet thro Gods Grace, in a Capacity to declare his own Thoughts, there needs no more but to ask his opinion touching this Point, and see what Answer he will make. There will appear no Difference betwixt his Opinion and mine, provided his Words are understood as he meant them.

Mr. Daillé sais, 'tis a hard matter to gather from the Writings of the Fathers, De usu Pat. C. 2 their Opinions touching those Articles in Religion, about which we differ, because the matters they treat of are for the most part very remote. His meaning is that it is a hard matter to find a formal and express Declaration of their Sence in these matters; which should be declared in such Terms as these, I deny, or affirm, I approve, or condemn, I reject, or receive; and the Reason he al­leages do's sufficiently confirm this: for he saies, That the Matters they treat of are remote from our Controversies, and that they thought not of us when they wrote.

MY Sence differs not from his, and therefore I shall not fear to say with Ibid. him, that they that expect to find the Belief of the Fathers clearly set down in their Writings, are generally mistaken, even as he who thinks to meet with the Affections and Desires of his Mind amongst the sound of Bells. And indeed, if we expect to find a positive and precise Rejection of the Romish Doctrine in the Writings of the Fathers, like unto that which is at this day amongst us, we shall be much mistaken, and the Reason is apparent, in as much as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome being not extant in the time of the Fathers, they have not expresly condemned it, for men are not wont to condemn O­pinions before they appear. Yet do's not this hinder but that the Fathers are against Transubstantiation, by way of Negation, that is to say by their Si­lence, because they never inserted it amongst the Articles of their Faith, they never propounded it to their Hearers, nor unfolded the Mysteries of it, nor defended its Consequences, as doth the Church of Rome, as they had with­out question done, had they believed it. And this is what I say; and Mr. Daillé dos not gainsay it; but on the contrary a few lines after what Mr. Ar­naud has recited, he lays down this general Proposition: That the silence of the Fathers on the controverted Points which they so much value, is of some weight, and amounts perhaps to a clear Proof; but surely not in favour of them Ibid. [Page 41] who hold the Affirmative. So far Mr. Daillé and I speak precisely the same language. But I affirm likewise, that besides the silence of the Fathers there is to be found several things in their Writings; inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, and I hold this Proof doth e­vidently conclude they did not believe these Doctrines; Mr. Daillé speaking in general of this Order of Proofs, saith, he freely confesseth that every wise mans Faith is as a Body, whose parts have a dependance on each other. So that we Ibid. may know by the things he expresseth, what he thinks of those which he expresseth not, whether he doth believe them or not, it being unlikely he would admit what doth evidently oppose his Opinions, or reject their necessary Consequences, to which he addeth, that he does acknowledg that this way of handling the Wri­tings of the Fathers would be most profitable, and more proper to dive into their bottom, than any other, provided we suppose two things, the one, that the Be­lief of the antient Doctors is all of a Piece, and does no way contradict it self, and the other, that he who would judge after this manner, must have a piercing Wit, a good Memory, and a Judgment free from Prejudice.

AS to the first of these Suppositions, he saith, that it is not absolutely out of doubt; and as to the other, that all these Qualities do seldom meet in one man. What he saies is true, in this general Consideration. But this does not hinder me from adding, that in the particular case of Transub­stantiation, and the Real Presence, the first supposition is out of doubt; and the second is not absolutely necessary. To make this apparent, we need but consider, on one hand the rank these Doctrines hold in a Church which be­lieves them, and on the other, the number and nature of those things which oppose them in the Writings of the antient Fathers. The Example of the Church of Rome shews us, that they that believe them, respect them as in­violable Mysteries which must not be called in question, and such as are of greatest Importance in Religion, and which must be defended against the Contradiction of Sense and Reason, and for which we ought to be armed with the greatest Caution; as being in short, Mysteries which are daily re­presented us, in their Celebration and Participation of them, which should be distinctly known by all the Faithful, and cleerly and plainly taught the People, to the end every one may know that what he receiveth is the pro­per Substance of his Saviour, and give him the Worship due to a Creator. Whence it follows, that if the antient Church believed these things, it has believed them in this Degree, and that 'tis not possible but the Fathers in general would take such care as not to maintain things which overthrow them, or reject others which are the necessary Consequences of them. It is not possible I say, that they should all of 'em be thus inconsiderate as to assert several things which may justly scandalize their Followers and that in so tick­lish and well known a Point, as is that of the Substance of Jesus Christ, which they every day received. On the other hand, if we consider the Nature and Number of things to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers, contrary to Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, we shall observe they are con­trary to them by a primary, immediate and evident contrariety, for which there is no need of a sharp Wit, nor great Memory, but a sound understand­ing, and disinteressed Judgment: we shall find that these things are in great Number, and as well prevail over a mans Mind by their Multitude, as their Quality. And this Mr. Daillé has not denyed, so that as I do not thwart his Rule, so he does not oppose my Exception, therefore there is no Contra­diction betwixt us.

BUT Mr. Arnaud will reply, Mr. Daillé do's oppose our Exception, for he applies his Rule to the Subject of the Eucharist, acknowledging that as there are Passages in the Fathers Writings, which seem to be inexplicable, in C. 1. the Church of Romes Sence, so there are likewise some which can in no wise admit the Sence of the Protestants, as them which expresly import that the Bread chang­es its Nature, that by the Almighty Power of God it becometh the Flesh of the Word: and such like. If Cardinal Perron, saith he, and other sublime Wits on both sides, protest they find no Difficulty, we must acknowledg they said it only out of a Bravadoe, turning the best side outwards, or else that the rest of the World are very dim sighted to perceive nothing but Darkness, where these People behold nothing but Light. And elsewhere, taking notice of some Passages (which seem to deny the Consubstantiality of the Son, determined in the Council of Nice,) which are to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers who pre­ceded that Council. Let the Fathers, addeth he, affirm or deny that the Eu­charist is really the Body of Christ, they will not for all this contradict thy Opi­nion, whosoever thou art, whether Romanist or Protestant, more strongly than the Fathers of Antioch did in appearance contradict them of Nice. To which we may now add, that as the Arians had no reason to draw to their Opinion, and alleage, as decisive parts of their Question, such transient Discourses as were in­nocently meant by the antient Fathers, without any Design of treating on this: so likewise we have no cause, neither thou I say nor I, to alleage as Sentences pro­nounced in our case, which has bin stated but of late, the sayings of the Fathers, which were written by them on other matters, several Ages before our Controver­sies began, concerning which they have expressed themselves very differently and obscurely, and even sometimes in appearance contradictorily. Having shewn af­terwards that the Fathers designed to be obscure in their Discourses concern­ing the Eucharist, to hide this Mystery from the Catecumenists.

SEEING then, saith he, that in this and other Matters, they designed to conceal their Thoughts, we must not therefore wonder, if their Expressions have bin oftentimes obscure, and that which commonly is an effect of Obscurity, if they seem sometime to differ and contradict one another.

I answer that this being well understood, doth not at all obstruct my Ex­ception, nor what I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Daillé speaks of the particular Judgment which we may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties; and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs, and Difficulties brought against them; and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer, wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture, strength of Reason, and plain Instructions of their Ministers, may give to the mystical Expressions, which were then in use. These are things wholly different. I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers. Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of. He needed not be brought in question for this, seeing I plainly delive­red my Mind touching this matter, in the beginning of my Answer. I af­firm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist, by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers, is in it self a way which is indirect, preposterous, and very tedi­ous, wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings. These are my Words, and Mr. Daillé has said no more, and I do still affirm, that if a man examines these Passages apart, and protests he finds no obscurity in them, we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes. But this does not hinder [Page 43] but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fa­thers touching the Eucharist, and which resulteth from an exact considera­tion of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other, is undoubtedly on our side, whether these particular Passages, which seem at first to be diffi­cult, are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them, or when their Difficulty should remain, it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs. The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places, do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the cer­titude of this general Judgment, which I mentioned: for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity, they give us the like Examples in other Mat­ters, and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them, and satisfy a mans Mind.

BUT he saith, that neither the Romanists, nor the Protestants have any rea­son Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of la [...]e, the Discourses of the antient Fathers, written by them upon other matters, seve­ral years before. What he saith is true, for we should be to blame, should we take them for declaratory Sentences. But this hinders not but we may still conclude, they held not Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, because that if they had held these Doctrines, they would not have expressed them­selves as they do. Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation, which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines, that they held them [...]ot. Neither does this moreover hinder, but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs, we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Do­ctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour. So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose, when he undertook to shew this pretended Contra­riety, which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me.

But Mr. Daillé's Design, saith he, is to shew in general, that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies, and especially in that of the Eu­charist. Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it, because these Difficulties he mentions, do shew this way is long and troublesom; and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted, and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons, but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps. This I do not deny, but on the contrary do ever affirm, that the ho­ly Scripture is the only certain Rule, and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension. I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong, would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Dili­gence which is necessary, they would easily be able by the Guidance of com­mon Sense, to make this Evident and certain Judgment; That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present: and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I.

IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 'tis because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance, by making of them contradict one another. But return we to the rest of our Observations.


A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Ar­naud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity.

THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Ar­naud assures us, viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé's Mind (that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say, who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touch­ing the Eucharist, by the Writings of the Fathers, (seeing they are so obscure and intricate, that it is a hard matter to make them agree,) cannot re­fuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity, in case they judge them evident; whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere, on the one hand, and on the other, all they who cannot judge by themselves, will acquiecse in these Proofs. This Pretension is as ill ground­ed as the former. For there being, as I already said, two Questions before us, the one, touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist, and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church, the first of these, which is that of Right, respects in general all them of our Com­munion; but the second, for as much as it may be decided by History, on­ly respects them amongst us, who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves. So that the Prolixity, Difficulty, and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers, do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions, whereon depends that of our Controversies, seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us; altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second, because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought, to satisfy their Curiosity, neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour. If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs, they will answer they have no need of it, being satisfied with the Word of God; and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church, they will answer, that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity, and our Saviours Promi­ses. But if we proeeed farther, and suppose it be enquired of them, how it has come to pass that the Church of Rome has altered the antient Doctrine; they will answer, their Salvation depends not on this Knowledg, but that it must needs be, it has made an Alteration; seeing it believes at this day what it ought not to believe, and which without doubt hath not bin believed heretofore, as they judge out of Charity to the Antients. Should they be urged to tell how this has hapned, they will answer again, this is not an account wherein their Salvation is concerned, and that this Question ought to be proposed to those Persons who know it, and in all this they will have Reason. If this Treatise be offered to those of the second Rank, that is to say to them who are learned, and have had the Curiosity of informing them­selves, and to whom properly the second Question belongs; they will like­wise answer, they have no need of this Method, having already informed themselves by a natural and direct way, which is of more value than all these Conjectures, or if they have not done it, they will do it, being not so silly [Page 45] as to shut their Eyes, and reject the Evidence of their Senses, to betake them­selves to a Method wherein there can be nothing but Confusion to be expect­ed, and these last will have Reason too.

BUT saith Mr. Arnaud, we must suppose that the Proofs of the Treatise are evident, for they cannot be supposed false, till such time as they are exa­mined. You ought then to have begun here, wherefore your Exceptions signify nothing. I answer that these Suppositions are not juster than his Ar­guments. For if these curious Persons whom I mentioned, have already taken the Pains they ought, whereby to ascertain themselves in the Proofs of Fact, they will be prepared to judge, that the Arguments of the Treatise are false and captious, because that moral Impossibilities, such as these are, and in such a Subject as this, cannot subsist against Proofs of Fact, which are immediate, certain, and evident as ours are. If they have not yet taken this Pains, I say that without examining whether the Proofs of the Treatise be good or bad, they will only mind the Method, and by comparing it with that of Discussion, if they are men of Reason, they will prefer this last be­fore the other, because that 'tis in effect most natural in it self, and more cer­tain in its Proofs.

WHAT shall we do then with the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which has made such a Noise in the World? Will it be of no use? There are a crue of People in the World, who are curious and idle both together, who are willing to know the Opinions of former Ages on these famous Articles, a­bout which Europe is at this day divided; but yet will be at no Pains for this, because Labour is distasteful to them, and they have other things to do. It is then for such Persons as these, this Treatise has bin written. For it court­eth them, and presents it self to 'em, whether at Ease or in Business; it only desires them to spend two Hours on its Reading, whereby to decide a Point of this Importance. The Style of it is curious and enticing, and its Expres­sions emphatical, it winneth on the Mind, and leads it insensibly where it pleases. All this flatters mens Curiosity and Lazyness both together. But if this sort of People loved their Salvation, as we may suppose they ought, we should then have but two or three things to say to them. First, that they beware of these short Methods, which favour at the same time two Inclina­tions, which seldom agree, I mean Idleness and Curiosity. For we cannot arrive at any certainty in these kind of Questions, if we do not earnestly ap­ply our selves to them, for Labour and Knowledg do always go together, and it commonly happens that they who thus promise us such great Knowledg, without any trouble, do cheat us two ways, for they lead us into tedious Pro­lixities, and dreadful Difficulties, and at last having tired us, they leave us as wise as we were at first.

AND this is exactly the case of the Treatise of the Perpetuity, if we right­ly consider it; for it promises us immediately, nothing but Perspicuity, Fa­cilities, and Convictions, it being made up of undenyable Truths. Yet let a man take but the Pains to examine only his fixt Point, which is his first Sup­position, on which the whole stress of his Book lies; and he will find that 'tis impossible to be certain in it. I mean the Year one thousand fifty three, wherein Berengarius was at first condemned, and in which time the Author of the Treatise pretend's the universal Church was agreed in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence. Now to be satisfied in this parti­cular, we should have an exact Knowledg of the eleventh Century, to the [Page 46] end we may discern whether this Condemnation of Berengarius was the re­al Effect of the Churches Union, or only that of a Party, which was then the strongest at the Court of Rome. We should know each particular mat­ter of this great Affair, that we may be able to judge whether humane In­terest had no share in it: whether those that were concerned in it did not act against their Consciences; and whether the Procedings were just and regular. We must examine the State of Princes, Ecclesiasticks, and Peo­ple, to be satisfied in this supposed Union. We should have before us the Writings of Berengarius and others who held the same Opinions, to under­stand their Arguments and Defences. But all these things are impossible. We have no other account of this History, than what some interessed Wri­ters have bin pleased to give us, and in which there are Relations justly sus­pected to be false. The secret Designs and Motives which then prevailed are out of our reach. We know scarcely any thing more of the Persons who then made up the Church, but that they were the greatest part of them bu­ried in profound Ignorance. The Writings of Berengarins and his Follow­ers are lost, for there has bin Care taken to extinguish the Remembrance of them. In short, this is an Abyss wherein we behold nothing, whereby we may be able to affirm with any certainty, that the whole Church was united in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence. For a man to give Credit to any Relation of Berengarius's Adversaries; (who bragged that their Opinion was that of the whole World,) it would be to be over Credulous, in any Affair of this Importance, and so much the more, because the contrary appeareth by substantial Proofs, which should be examined, before we rest satisfied in them.

SO that here we are already sufficiently perplexed in the first Particular, and shall be no less in the others. If we would be ascertained in the Proofs of the Treatise, we should know perfectly the Tempers of the People, their Condition and principal Circumstances, in the Ages which preceded the e­leventh Century. We should know, how the Body of the Ecclesiasticks was composed, what was the Humour and Temper of them who held the first Rank, even how far their Credit and Authority reached, what kind of In­structions they gave the People, and after what manner the People received them. We must likewise examine the nature of the Change we speak of, by what degrees we suppose it has bin introduced, by how many ways and means it may be said to be possible. For if all this be not distinctly known, how can it with any Confidence be affirmed, that this Change is impossible. Moreover before it can be affirmed as an undoubted Truth, that had an In­novation touching the Eucharist bin attempted, the People would have risen into Tumults, the Religious clamour'd against it, the Ecclesiasticks opposed it, and the Councils taken notice of it, and in short the Bands of an external Communion would have bin broken; how many particulars must be clear­ed up first! We ought to know what kind of Zeal People had for the Glo­ry of God in those Days; whether the effects of this Zeal could not be hind­red by I know not how many things which occur in these different Orders of men, whom I mentioned, as Ignorance in some, simplicity and meanness of Spirit in others, the fear of disturbing the publick Peace, the Favour or Hatred of Persons, and several other humane Causes, which set men on acting or desisting from it. We should likewise have a true and particular Account of the Condition of the schismatical Churches at that time, when Berengarius was condemned, which is not an easy matter, as will appear in the sequel of this Discourse. In a Word, to attain the ends of the Design [Page 47] of this Treatise, when even its Proofs should be Substantial and Conclusive, a man must be more knowing than an Angel; for unless we knew the Thoughts of all mankind, for the space of two hundred Years together, or could raise the Dead to inform our selves by them of what they have done; and what they have not done, it is not otherwise possible to be at any cer­tainty. But it will be perhaps answered, we must judge according to the Light of common Sense, and what we see in our times▪ to which I reply, that even common Sense shewes us, that there is no certainty in these kind of Proofs, and that the Experience of our own Age contradicts them. And when it should be imagined that all these Difficulties are surmounted, I come then and trouble this Victory with my Aubertin, and Proofs of Fact, requiring, before the Question be decided, that my Objection be answered. Now should Mr. Arnaud pretend my Objection is groundless, and that I should be silenced in being told, that these Proofs have bin considered, and their pretended Clearness appears only to them, who suffer themselves to be transported by the Enthuthiasms of my Rhetorick, I shall make him an­swer, that I speak here only of curious and lazy People, to whom the Trea­tise of the Perpetuity is offered as a short Method▪ to ease them of the lengths of a way of Discussion: which sort of Persons cannot say they know all our Proofs.

I shall tell him moreover, that the reading of my Book, has not yet so far transported People with Enthusiastical Raptures, as the reading of his has done to his immortal Praise. For there are Latin Verses under this very Title of Enthusiasms, which Mr. Arnauds Friends its seems have not bin ashamed to print, in which there appears all the lively Characters of a Po­etical Fury. For they speak of his Book, as of the Sun, which contains in it self a great measure of the Divine Light: His Lines are called new Darts of the Sacred Cupid; and his whole Book is said to be full of God. Puro Nu­mine, mi Libelle, Plenus. It is compared to our Saviour himself, when he came down from Heaven; and is said to have done the same Miracles; there is one of its Readers introduced, who being filled with its Divinity, cries out, Numen ecce Numen, ibi Numen. Mr. Arnaud is termed, Vir sacro & numinis entheatus oestro, and his Wit, Mentis vigor entheus, and again he is set forth to us as an Hercules armed with Coelestial Weapons, trampling all things under his Feet, conquering the Conquerours themselves, and tri­umphing over the Triumphers. In short, France is congratulated upon the Glory it receives. Tanto prodigio superba fulge, felix prodigio futura tanto. All which considered, has not Mr. Arnaud pertinently mentioned Enthusi­asms? Certainly never the Tripos of Delphos, nor the Grove of the Sibyl Cumeé, inspired such like Ravings.

BUT to return to the matter in hand. Is it not possible will some say, to be ascertained of the matter in Question, by some way less tedious and in­tricate, than the examination of such a great Volum as Mr. Aubertin's Book? Yea without doubt; for, to know as much as is necessary, to the satisfying of a mans Mind, he need but judge according to the instincts of Charity, and the Confidence he ought to have in our Saviours Promises. Now if a man keeps to these Principles, he will draw a Conclusion as satisfactory as can be desired. The Promises of our Saviour assure us that his Spirit shall be with the Faithful to the end of the World; and Christian Charity obliges us to believe that the Fathers are of this Number. From whence I conclude; that there has ever bin a considerable number of true Christians, whose Faith [Page 48] has not bin corrupted by damnable Errors. This is a sure Conclusion, and sufficient to satisfy my Mind. I conclude likewise, that the Fathers have bin of this Number, this is a Judgment of Charity, and is sufficient to acquit me of my Duty. Should it be told me, if I proceed farther, it would be to give my self a great deal of Trouble, viz. to Read, Study, and Meditate, to compare the Proofs of both Parties, and if this offends me, I can complain of no body but my self, that is to say of my own Lazyness or Curiosity.

IT is then neither just nor necessary to require any other abridged Me­thods, than those which I now observed. Yet it must not be thought but that there may be such offered, it being no difficult matter. For 'tis but loo­sing from the Body of the Dispute, one of those captious Arguments, which seem to decide the whole Controversy by the Decision of one only Point. Which the Author of the Perpetuity has done, for he has singled out Bel­larmins Argument of the Impossibility of a Change, and proposed it with greater Enlargments, tho with less Force than he, and this is all the Myste­ry of this great Method of Prescription. So that this is not such a famous Undertaking; seeing every little Sophister could do as much. Take the Ar­gument of the silence of the Fathers on Transubstantiation and the real Pre­sence; insist largely thereon, write a Treatise on it; and here's then an a­bridged Method. Take the Argument of the certainty of our Senses; shew that the Fathers supposed it as an inviolable Principle of the Christian Re­ligion; shew the Absurdities which would follow, had they believed that what we see in the Sacrament is not real Bread; here is then another Me­thod of Prescription. Take likewise if you will, the Argument of the Si­lence of the Heathens, and accommodate it to the Treatise of the Perpetuity; and you will make another Method. It is the same with the Argument of the Accidents without a Subject, in respect of Transubstantiation; and of that of the Adoration of the Sacrament; and almost of all others.

TO speak my Sence of these Arguments reduced into Methods, I think they must be considered either absolutely, or in relation to some Circumstan­ces. If we consider them absolutely; we must not reject them, for this on­ly Reason that they are called Methods of Prescription. A rational Man will accept of them in a Controversy, as Arguments, he will weigh their Force; but whatsoever Strength they may have, he will not forme his Judg­ment by them alone, because perhaps there may be on the other side things more considerable. What is there, for Example, of greater Force than the Argument taken from the Silence of the Fathers, touching the Existence of Accidents without a Subject? Yet is it certain that this Argument alone must not determine a Man; for should it be demonstrated that the Fathers expresly taught the Adoration of the Sacrament, and Conversion of the Substance, with all the other Consequences of Transubstantiation, excepting this Existence of the Accidents without a Subject, our Argument would not be strong enough to invalidate these contrary Proofs. They must then be ranked in the order of the Controversy, to the end they may be considered in a decisive Judgment.

THERE is not, to speak properly, but one particular case wherein we ought to be determined by a Method of Prescription, which is when God does or does not declare his Will in Points of Religion; for what is there in the World that can excel, or equal the Validity of his Testimony or Silence. In matters of Religion, 'tis the Word of God which determines us to be­lieve [Page 49] positively such and such Points, and 'tis its Silence which determines us to reject others. Our Faith imitates the Wise Men of the East, it fol­lows the Star that conducts it, (which is the Heavenly Revelation) and stops where this Star settleth, as knowing 'twould be to wander, to go farther. This then is the only true Method of Prescription in Questions of this Na­ture.

BUT supposing the Argument was taken from the Evidence of all the Senses, and in the Circumstances which make this Testimony Valid and Infallible, may we not determine our selves, without proceeding any farther? I answer that to speak absolutely, the Senses may be deceived, even with all the Circumstances which render their Testimony allowable, for the Devil may impose upon them by his Illusions; yet because a judicious man must judge of things, not out of regard to these extraordinary and rare Cases, but according to rule and common use, it is certain, that such an Argument must decide the Question of Fact.

THE same may be required touching those Arguments which are cal­led in Philosophy, by the name of Demonstrations. If a Method was ground­ed on a Proof of this Force, would it not wholly decide the Question? I an­swer there are few Demonstrations, so evident and certain, that nothing can be opposed against them. Yet were there one offered which convinced the Mind, by an immediate and uncontroulable Evidence, (as those which ma­nifest an apparent Contradiction, and a formal Incompatibility in the Terms; or those which are established on a necessary and inviolable Dependance, and which cannot be hind'red, or which suppose one only Cause, without which 'tis not possible that a thing should exist; or lastly, such as are grounded on an indissolvible connexion of two Subjects which cannot be one without the o­ther;) I confess we ought then to yield; as when 'tis said, the Sun is risen, it is then day, or it is day, the Sun then is risen; there is a Son, there must then be a Father; I say, we cannot but acquiesce in these kind of Arguments. But because in things about which we dispute, these sort of primary and immediate Demonstrations are very rare, a judicious Person will not suffer himself to be surprized with every thing which bears the Name of Demon­stration, or that has the Colour and appearance of it, and especially when it relates to a matter belonging to another Light than that of Reason, as are the Objects of Sense, and those of Faith: he must then suspend his Judg­ment, and reduce his pretended Demonstrations into the Order of the Dis­pute, to be compared with the contrary Proofs, to the end he may make a right Judgment.

AND this is what may be said in general of these abridged Methods. In their Circumstances, they are to be considered, either as relating to the Persons they are offered, or to the Question which they decide, or the Rank which they hold, and according to the quality of their Proofs. If they be offered to Persons to whom the Question doth not belong, it is in their Pow­er absolutely to reject them, in alleaging, that this concerns not them, and they cannot justly be blamed when they should do thus. Should they be of­fered to Persons interessed in the Question, or who would take part in it, they ought ordinarily to proceed according to the Rules I have laid down, and especially if the Question which they decide is of that importance, as that it ought not to be slightly handled. But if we do suppose on one hand, that the Order of these Methods is indirect and unnatural, and that their Ar­guments [Page 50] are not taken but from Probabilities, and on the other, that we may be informed by a more natural Course, and a more certain and infalli­ble Means. I say, that a wise Man ought to prefer this last way before the other, altho it be more tedious and difficult, for tho he cannot answer these Arguments, yet this does not argue he must be determined by them; for it will be time enough to consider them, when after a due Examination of e­very thing that may be alleaged on both sides, he shall make his decisive Judgment. In fine, I say, that if we suppose a man already ascertained in the Question, by an orderly way, by numerous and conclusive Proofs, and by a Knowledg humanely Certain, and Infallible, as is that of his Eyes and common Senses on their proper Objects, he cannot reasonably be desired to change his Opinion by an indirect Method, which is from hence suspect­ed to be artificial and deceitful, in that the Proofs which it offers can amount to no more than Probabilities. If he be wise, he will keep to his first Con­clusion, and reject this Method as useless, without troubling himself with a particular Examination of it, unless to give himself the greater Satisfacti­on, he determines to discover the falsity of it.

WE see already what use must be made of the Treatise of the Perpe­tuity, together with all its long train of Arguments and Suppositions, which Mr. Arnaud has made in its Favour. For first, there is little Sincerity in the Objection he stated in the beginning, in which he doth not explain our real Pretension. Secondly, He passeth over in Silence, amongst the Number which he makes of the Persons of our Communion, several who trouble not themselves with the Dispute touching the Question of matter of Fact, that is to say touching the Belief of the antient Church, and in relation to these, who are the greatest number, we may already affirm that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is of no use. Thirdly, He has very ill proved that the most knowing Ministers do doubt whether the Fathers are for us, whence it fol­lows, that not being able to finde his Proselytes, neither amongst the [...]k of the Illiterate People, nor amongst that of the Learned, it is to be fear­ed he will find them no where. Fourthly, He hath bin shewed, that when it should be granted, there were Ministers, who doubted whether the Fa­thers were for us; yet would it not follow, that they would leave the Word of God, on which alone their Faith depends, to yield themselves up to the Arguments of the Perpetuity. Fifthly, He hath bin shewed that when one or two should be of this Opinion, yet could they not carry it away from all the rest who have bin, or are of a contrary Mind: whence it follows, that if the least judicious among us regulate their Opinions on this Point by that of the most knowing, they will 'tis probable range themselves on the side of the greatest Number, rather than on that wherein there is but one or two; so that here is almost all of 'em escaped the Treatises Conquest. Sixthly, It has bin likewise shewed him that the Prolixity and Difficulties to be ex­pected in the common way, which is that of Discussion, yield no advantage to the Treatise to make it received under the Title of an abridged Method. Seventhly, He has bin moreover shewed the insuperable Perplexities where­in this Method engages People: So that those who are most in Love with short Ways, and new Fashions, cannot but be disgusted at this. Eightly, It has bin demonstrated, that Persons who were never informed of the real Doctrine of the Fathers, and would willingly be ascertain'd of it, ought in all Reason to prefer a Method of Discussion, whatsoever tediousness and dif­ficulty there may be in it, before that of the Perpetuity. We have likewise manifested that the Proofs of his Method, have not that just and due ex­tent, [Page 51] necessary to the forming of a judicious man's Mind: and which ours have. Tenthly, and lastly, It has bin proved to him that discreet Persons, who know our Proofs of Fact, and have examined them, may justly reject this Treatise as useless.

WHAT he then saies concerning these two contrary Evidences that hold the Mind in suspence between our Proofs of Fact, on one hand, and the Arguments of the Perpetuity on the other, is a meer Fancy. For this Unresolvedness is impossible in a man of Judgment. And Mr. Arnaud does not ground it but only on a Supposition, which he has no right to make, That Lib. 1. C. [...] P. 54. the Proofs of the Treatise intimate the impossibility of a Change, to that de­gree of Evidence, as will convince the Mind as much as the contrary Evi­dence. Which I deny him, and that with good Reason, when I compare his Proofs with ours. His Proofs are grounded on a Supposition, in which it is impossible to be ascertain'd, they are of the kind of moral Impossibili­ties, which never carry in them a Certitude beyond Exception, and more­over, the Subject or Matter they handle, makes them still a thousand times more uncertain and doubtful; for what is more uncertain than that which depended on Peoples Inclinations, who lived seven or eight hundred Years ago, and on the Conjunction of a thousand things, of which we scarcely know one. We need but consider these Proofs in this respect, to declare them uncertain; But to demonstrate the falsity of them, we must compare them with ours, against which there can no general Objections be made, seing they are numerous, and throughly handle the Question, and which taken severally, have all possible Strength and Evidence.

TO find out distinctly and clearly the knot of this whole Controversy, and judge of it with less Trouble and more Solidity, it needs only be consi­dered that Mr. Arnaud and I do make almost the same Suppositions, and draw the same Consequences, but each of us in his own Favour. He sup­poses my Proofs of Fact are uncertain, and I do not only suppose they of his Treatise are so, but that they are moreover False. He supposeth that they of the Treatise are Evident. I suppose that mine are so. He concludes mine are to be Rejected, and them of the Treatise Embraced. I conclude that they of the Treatise are to be Rejected, and mine Entertained. For to judge aright so far, it needs only be considered which of us two has most reason to make these Suppositions, and settles them on surest Grounds; for he that does so, has the Consequence for him. Mr. Arnaud grounds his on the En­thusiasms of my Rhetorick, on some pretended Testimonies of the Learned, and his own Judgment on Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that of the Perpetuity. I build mine on the Right a Respondent has to suppose his Opinion in a Dis­pute. Whence I conclude, I may suppose my Proofs of Fact to be good and firm; I ground them on a general Comparison I make of his Proofs with ours, and manifest that ours are according to a natural and direct Me­thod, and his according to an indirect and forced one; That ours are suffici­ent to enable a man to make a sound and solid Judgment, and that his are not so, that ours are obvious to Sence, whereas his are but meer Conje­ctures. And 'tis upon this we ought to be judged. But we must proceed far­ther; for Mr. Arnaud goes so far as to suppose his Proofs and mine appear equally evident, and 'tis upon this that he grounds the whole Argument of his sixth Chapter. He would have that these two contrary Evidences form­ing a Suspension of Mind, a rational Man is thereby obliged to determine himself by the Advantages which appear moreover in the Church of Rome, [Page 52] and here we begin to take two different ways, for I will not grant him the Evidence of his Treatise, as he grants me that of my Proofs. And in ef­fect no man may make groundless Suppositions, which being impossible, cannot therefore be reasonable. Now it is not possible that a man who is perswaded of the Evidence of our Proofs, can find any Evidence in his, be­ing such as they are, because they have a Defect in their kind, which makes them vanish before ours. 'Tis moreover on this we ought to be tried.

YET let us suppose, by way of Divertisement, these two contrary Evi­dences which hold us in Suspense, what follows thence? that we must be de­termined by the Authority of the Church of Rome. This indeed Mr. Ar­naud saies: and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scri­ptures, and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers, that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God; and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church. What must we then do about this new Difference? Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome, to know which of us two has most rea­son. And these are the Effects of this admirable Method, the Glory of our time, and Quintessence of Humane Wit, which after several windings and turnings, several hot Debates and sharp Disputes, and after an Invitation of all France; and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this fa­mous Contest, refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church. And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity. And in­deed if we continue to dispute after this manner, I think the World has lit­tle reason to concern it self in our Debate, seeing 'tis a vain amusement. We wrestle against one another with all our Might, we sweat, and take a great deal of Pains, and make our Books be bought dear: and after all we are to begin again. For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church, wherefore did we not do so in the beginning? Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this? Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self, but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us? Or is it not worthy our regard, and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour. Is it that either the Church of Rome, or the Scripture have need, (to the end they may be recommended to us,) the one of the Treatise of the Per­petuity, and the other of my Answer, and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance. For my part I pretend not to this, and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy.


The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined.

MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces, which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity, nor our Proofs of Fact; and the greatest part of them consisting in fruit­less Digressions, which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist: it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlarg­ment to his Book, and as a means to tire his readers Patience. Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer, it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects, and charge my self with unnecessary matters: but howsoever concise my Answer may be, yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud.

HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity, concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People; which he grounds on this, that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them, nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion; for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils. The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations, which we sup­pose to have insensibly crept in, as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy, praying for the Dead, the invocation of Saints, and prohibition of certain Meats. These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter. That I may proceed orderly, I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibi­lity, by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils, for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Per­petuity the Objection contained in my Preface. This Question will be soon ended, if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insen­sible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church, in several Points, as Perpetuity of the Faith, Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative, and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting. That he has not offered in general this Maxim, that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change, in the use of Ceremonies, or in Opinions which are no ways Popular, but Spe­culative, that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality, and there­fore has restrained it to capital Mysteries, which are known to all the Faithful, by a distinct Faith. To answer after this manner, what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points, which are not popular. Which Con­fession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome.

IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibili­ty Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge, and a humane and popular Infallibility, and to as­sert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils, as it respects all kind of Mysteries, whether Popular or others. For these Examples I produced, do equally op­pose [Page 54] all manner of Infallibility, and to acknowledg it in any kind, would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge. I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular, yet are they Innovations nevertheless, and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility, yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace, seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion. Whence it follows, that a man who believes them to be true, cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome, which is, that the Popes and Coun­cils are only Infallible, and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion: for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular, she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points. 'Tis certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Exam­ples I produced, pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered, al­tho the Practice of it has bin so; but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace, which is not a Point of Practice but Belief, contenting himself only with saying, That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith. Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology, and that 'tis false, they are not still the same in principal and essenti­al Points. But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular, and which are neither principal, nor essential, in the matter of Grace, there has hap'ned a Change. Now these Points whatsoever they be, whether principal or not, great or small, are Doctrinal Points which cannot be altered, without passing over from Truth to Error, or from Error to Truth. If then it be true, as I have already said, and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed, that the Church has bin several times of contra­ry Opinions, upon which account it is impossible, but she has bin in Error, and consequently she is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace, and Pri­viledg attributed unto her. The Author of the Perpetuity's Answer doth e­vidently suppose the actual reality of this Change; it has then given me just Occasion to make this Objection I have made, and Mr. Arnaud's Di­stinction comes too late.

IT is in vain, he assures us, that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the least thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace; The Question here is not to know absolutely what that Author believed, or not believed, what he thought, or did not think; when this shall be questioned, we shall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter; but here it concerns us to enquire into the Consequences which may be drawn from his Terms, and whether he hath given me a just occasion to make that Objection against him in my Preface. It will not be sufficient to make De­clarations on this Matter, it must be shewed that the Consequence is not true.

Mr. Arnaud imagins, he has sufficiently justified his Friend, in assert­ing, he made not use of the Infallibility of Priviledg, because 'tis a Priviledg to be proved, and not supposed, and the Calvinists denying it, it is thence clear, that to make an advantagious use of it, it should have bin established before, which is to say, there ought to have bin an intire Treatise made of the Churches Infallibility, before it could be made use of in this Dispute. But, saith he, to conclude from thence, he hath denyed it, and doth not acknowledg it, is one of the most rash Consequences as ever was drawn, altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book.

AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character, that he is never more fierce, than when he is Gravelled, or alleageth things wholly besides the Purpose. We have not grounded our present Objection on the Author of the Perpe­tuity's not using the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle, this is a wil­ful mistake. For it has bin grounded on this, that the terms of his Answers to the instances of a Change, which I had affirmed, do oppose this Infallibi­lity which the Church of Rome pretends to, and acknowledg no other but that of the People. Now 'tis to this he should apply himself, and not con­tinually entertain us with impertinent Digressions.

MOREOVER, what signifies his telling us, that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved, and not supposed, and that the Rea­son disswading the Author of the Perpetuity from making use of it, is be­cause we deny it. We no less deny the pretended popular Infallibility, which is a Principle needs proving, as much as the other. He himself tells us, in the beginning of his eighth Chapter; that the Principle of insensible Alte­rations, which is directly opposite to that of popular Infallibility, is a ne­cessary Foundation to the Calvinists, whereon to build the greatest part of their Doctrines, and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation, consisting of so many different Opinions, has almost need upon all Occasions of this Supposition, That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow, has bin insensibly Introduced into the Church. And thus does he speak, when he would have us deny him his Principle; but when he would have us grant it him, he then holds another Language. The Author of the Perpe­tuity, Lib. 1. c. 7. sais he, does not design to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them, and which Mr. Claude doth him­self grant. Never any Person disposed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud. We Deny, we Confess, according as he pleases, he brings us on his Stage as often as he list; making us say sometimes one thing, and sometimes another, and is not this to Dispute successfully? But whether we Confess or Deny this his popular Infallibility, it is all one to me, for here the Question is not about this, but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not opposed the Infallibility, attributed to the Pope and Councils; this is the true State of the Controversy, and Mr. Arnaud is at a loss how to defend himself from it.

WHAT signifies his telling us, that there are an infinite number of things, Lib. 1. C. 7. wherein not only the whole Church, and all the People of the Universe, but a particular number of People, a Province, a City, a Borough, a particular Person, is Infallible, that is to say wherein it cannot happen he should be deceiv­ed himself, nor would deceive others? Wherefore must we have the Gaze­tier brought in for an Instance of this, who is Infallible, when he tells us any considerable News, such as is the Kings going into the low Coun­tries, the taking of Cities in Flanders, the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales, the Death of Pope Alexander the seventh, and the Election of Clement the ninth; If he relates this News only, to advertize us, he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries, every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting, for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book, altho 'tis already far ad­vanced; but be it as it will, I dare say, that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be so certain as those of our Monarch. If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us, but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility, [Page 56] I have reason to tell him, that these Instances are besides the matter in hand, for there must be a distinction made, betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Testimony of a single Person, or a particular sort of People, and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People. I would call the first if you will an Infallibility of Testimony, and the second, an Infallibility of Perseverance in one and the same State. There is a Difference betwen these two. The first of these may be attributed to a People, a Church, a Province, a City, or a particular Person, without the second. I will grant likewise 'tis im­possible, in certain Cases, for the whole Body of a People to be mistaken in the News it relates, tho to speak the truth even this happens not seldom, there being nothing more usually false than popular News. But tho I grant this is Impossible in some Cases, yet this is far enough from acknowledging, that a People governed by certain Persons, may not insensibly without any Noise, alter their Sentiments, and pass over into an Opinion which they knew not before. For to make such a kind of Change as this is, there needs only the Concurrence of two or three great Persons in Authority, to whom all Businesses are referred. We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome, hath bin changed not long ago, and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons; Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes, and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseve­rance in the same State, should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander. But after all, this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has op­posed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to.

AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud, had he done me the Honour he mentions, which is, to have conferred with me about my Objection, and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him. I would have added two Observations, which would have made him better com­prehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace, or Priviledge. The first of these Obser­vations is, that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation, if suf­ficiently preserved by natural means, that is to say, by the inviolable In­clinations of the People, there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace; which will be at farthest, only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular, that is, to the Questions of the Schools, which the Church may well be without, and which are but (as speaks the Author of the Perpe­tuity,) Theological Consequences. The second is, that the Reason where­fore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibili­ty for his Principle, than that of Grace, supposeth that this latter is abso­lutely less evident, and harder to be proved than the first. This Infallibi­lity of the Church, saies he, being denied by the Hereticks, cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them, unless we establish it by separate Proofs. For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refu­ted, upon the Subject of the Eucharist, if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them. All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false: But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church, which is Infallible: Therefore it is false. Not but this Reasoning is good: but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible, being a controverted Point, it is thence plain, that before it can be made use of, it must be proved, that is to say, there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility, before this Point could be used. For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in [Page 57] it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God, reavealed in Scripture, The Church not being naturally Infallible, 'tis then by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Train of Arguments, that it must be proved she is supernaturally so. Now to make this Argument good, we must suppose that this Infalli­bility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty, what­soever Course is taken, whether by Scripture or Reason, for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture, Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain, for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it, seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self. His reasoning then to be conclusive, must sup­pose 'tis impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibili­ty of Grace, without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties. Whence it plainly appears, that this is not a proper Principle for the Un­learned, who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion. It is of no use to them, according to Mr. Arnaud, and that so much the ra­ther, that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such, whereby they may discern the true Church; Ways, saith he, which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions, which Ignorance, dulness of Apprehen­sion, and the Exigences of Life, do make so many Persons uncapable of. So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility, being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty, will be only serviceable to the Learned, and of which in effect they have no great need, seeing they can of them­selves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines, without the help of Authority. And to this is reduced, thro Mr. Arnaud's means, this Infallibili­ty of Grace and Priviledge, which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion.

THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book, treats, as I already said, on several other Alterations, which we pretend, have insensible crept into the Church. But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist, and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them, Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty, of saying what he pleases concerning them, for I think my self no ways bound to answer him. When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise, Blondel, or Daillé, after the manner he ought, he will not perhaps want an Answer. It is an easy matter, to joyn three or four Passages together, on any Controversy, and thereupon make Declamations. For this is the common course of the World. People usually begin where they will, and end when they please: but were one of these Books I mentioned, examined to the Bottom, and e­very particular undertaken, I am sure this would not be such an easy Task.

THE supposition of insensible Alterations, is a Principle the Holy Scrip­ture establishes, which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth. St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity, which began to appear in his time, and which would, in the end, produce this great effect, he calls a Revolt, or Apostasy; which has all the Characters of an insensible Change, seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time, and at length these mysteri­ous Projects should come to their Perfection. Our Reason likewise tells us, that important Alterations which happen in Societies, are never introduced all of 'em at one time, but are brought in gradually; and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations, each one of which apart seems inconsiderable, and to make thereby a great Alteration, than if [Page 58] this should be undertaken all at once. This is a Maxim amongst all Politici­ans, and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize, but this many times happens of it self without any Design. Experience it self con­firms this by sundry Examples; for 'tis after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection: Languages and Customs of Countries are al­tered; 'Tis after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished; and not to seek for Instances of this kind, any far­ther than in the Church, and Christian Religion, by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy arrived through several Ages to that De­gree wherein we now see it. Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the ad­ministration of Baptism abrogated, and other new ones adopted in their places. Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children, bin abolished, and we have passed over in­to a contrary Opinion. Null us, saith St. Austin, Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist. 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo, sine cibo carnis ejus & sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam, ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios. There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith, that either denys, or doubts but that little Children, who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ, nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood, are deprived of everlasting Life, and consequently ly­able to eternal Damnation.

LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed. St. Austin tells us that 'tis an Article of the Catholick Faith, he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it, that is, it was a popular Opinion: And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome: how comes this Change? We might produce several other Instances, if they were necessa­ry: but at present one Example is sufficient, to overthrow this false Prin­ciple of Mr. Arnaud's, and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable.

YET to speak a word, on each of these Points he has handled, does he think, that on the Subject of Episcopacy, his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom, who tells us, That before there were partialities in Religion, Hier. Com. in Epist. ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests, but since, every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him, and not to Christ, it was ordained throughout the whole World, that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests, should be set up above the rest, and have the Charge of the Church committed to him, to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme.

DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead, we will a­bandon the Doctrine of St. Paul, who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, eternal in the Heavens. These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven, whence it fol­lows they have no need of our Prayers. That if the Antients have menti­oned the deceased in their Prayers, it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins, which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day pro­pose in its Prayers. We Celebrate, (saith an antient Author in his Com­mentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job, which are thought to be Origens) Not the Day of our [Page 59] Birth, but that of our Death; for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations; but that of Death is on the contrary, the end of Sorrows, and a Freedom from all Temptations. We commemorate then the Day of Death, because they who seem to dye, do not so. And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints, and devoutly commemorate our Fathers, or Friends who have departed in the Faith, as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy, as also to desire of God, that we may continue in the same Faith.

DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints: that we should believe him rather than O­rigen, who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time, in his Dis­pute against Celsus, who would have them to worship the Sun, Moon and Stars, seeing they are Celestial Angels. We believe saith he, we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures, who do themselves pray unto God, especially considering, they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him, whom they likewise serve, than to them, not being willing we should after any sort share our Devo­tions.

AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats, Tertullian who was a Montanist, will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can, the Judgment Tertul. de je­jun. C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time. Arguunt nos, saith he, quod jejunia propria custodiamus, quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus, quod etiam Xe­rophagias observemus, siccantes cibum ab omni carne, & omni jurulentia, & uvidioribus quibusque pomis, ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus. They censure us because we observe particular Fasts, that we make them last till the Evening, that we observe Xerophagies, using dry Meats without Flesh, and Juice, and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them, to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine. And a little farther, as to Xerophagies, they say, that 'tis the new Name of C. [...] an affected Devotion, and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions, such as the Mortifications of Isis, Apis, and the Mother of the Gods, which puri­fy by abstinence from certain Meats. And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars.

WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy, we need not pro­ceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn, which may be said, without breach of Charity, equally to offend both in its quantity and quality. For having shewed, as I have done, that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected, upon the only consideration of its Method, it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece, Muscovia, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Aethiopia, and the Indias. Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact, what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries? Neither the Greeks nor other Christi­an Nations, considered from the eleventh Century, or from the seventh, will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church, to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony. Yet shall I make him an exact Answer, not out of any Necessity, but only out of Con­descension, and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars.

I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book, is grounded on an extravagant Fancy; That it cannot bear a rational [Page 60] Interpretation; nor is made with any kind of Sincerity; that it supposeth a great Mistake; that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church of Rome; and in fine, may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Exam­ple. Which is the Summary of the first Chapter.

II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect, and contra­ry to Nature, seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact, and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments: which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding, as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful.

III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Auber­tin's Book, and that after an indirect and artificial Manner, which lies as a Prejudication against him. Which is the Summary of the second Cha­pter.

IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity, being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact, or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds, does nothing less than this, whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless. Which are the Contents of the third Cha­pter.

V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity, in pre­tending to defend him, and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise.

VI. That these Methods of Prescription, which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in, are vain and ineffectual, and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short, certain, and easy to the meanest Capacities: whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers, are tedious, diffi­cult, uncertain, and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions: Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome.

VII. That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact, which I offer'd in my first Answer, has bin regular; and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion. These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter.

VIII. That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity, in relation to the Learned and Unlearned, and to those he terms the Obstinate; are groundless Imaginations, which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise. Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters.

IX, And lastly, that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity, nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils, it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome; Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter.


Wherein is shown, that when it should be true, that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation; yet would it not thence follow, that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians.


Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches, and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present. Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open.

WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek, and other Eastern Churches, touching Transubstantia­tion and the adoration of the Eucharist, and must en­deavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insult­ings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends. We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Tri­umph, seeing all the World knows it. For the Author of the Perpetuity has 2d. Part of the Perpetuity. C. 5. P. 256. already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side; and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing, is continually charging us with Absurdities, Rashness, Confidence, Con­victions, Demonstrations, and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs. He tells the World in his Preface, that he hath left us no rea­son P. 11. to doubt, in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christi­an Churches, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. He tells us moreover in L. 2. C. 2. P. 113. another place, that this is a Point most clear and evident, and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy, we should confess as much our selves, and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences. Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World; it had already gotten the Name of Invincible, like to that Legion of old, under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius, which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies. And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pre­tended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations. Now if it be enqui­red of Mr. Arnaud, what Advantage he can expect from this whole Contro­versy; He will tell us, it is the Interest of the Catholick Church, and that be L. 2. C. 2. P. 115. will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of [Page 62] his Hand, seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery, wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World. That God preserves all these Christi­an Societies, altho divided from his Church, and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up, nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite ex­tinguisht amongst them, to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause, in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny. If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, have hitherto made use of this Argument; he will tell you, that no In his Prefa. P. 10. one yet hath exactly handled this matter. Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church, and this Proof, which is one of the most famous she hath, whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion, in respect of this Mystery, was reserved for Mr. Arnaud, and that the Divine Providence has not withheld, for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels, nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans, nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East, but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise, which was to be the Admiration of the Universe. You must not then think it strange, if he himself after this, hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes, and Dedicated even to the Head of the Ro­mish Church, and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise. What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World. And this Honour has not bin wanting to it.

THE Author of the Enthusiasms says, that as the Son of God before his Birth, purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner, and having wrought this Miracle, left the Virgins Bosom, to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace; So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book, when as yet in the Bosom of its Author, has replenished a great Man with its Divinity, and having begun its Mira­cles by this Conversion, was published in the time of this late Peace, made in the Roman Church. So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty.

NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum & numine numini libellum aequa­re, ut gravibus licet Poetis. Iis omnibus diem subibis, O quantum omnibus Li­belle faustis, quibus Sydereus subit puellus, qui dum delituit tenebricosus sacris vi­sceribus Sacrae Puellae, quot miracula sunt secuta natum? Hoc monstro fuit auspicatus uno quod cum numinis ad sui perenne lumen & prodomo suo (que) Vali futuro in­genitas fugâsset umbras, purgasset veteri (que) labe foedum, nil beatius aestimârit il­le quam per pacificos subire plausus diem, & Virginis sinu Parentis involare si­num recentioris pacis. Quid melius beatiusve iis ominibus diem videbis? O quantum ominibus libelle faustis, ex quo, dum latites tenebricosus, abs (que) sole, tui in sinu Parentis Dius—immigravit ardor affulsit (que) viro undequa (que) numen quod imas animi in sui medullas, quando ambilius vir ille sensit chartis gliscere de tuis libelle magis gliscere quo magis magis (que) lustraret latebras sinus (que) rerum tua luce, liber, nitoribus (que) raptus numine quo tumebat intus raptus numine, numen, ecce numen, ib numeni ait, severior (que) in se se exerit hoc sides libello, Enthu­siasmo.

TO all which I have no more to say, but only that I am not at all concern­ed at this pretended Divinity, and that Mr. Arnaud's Thunder has neither scared nor hurt me, his twenty Million of Witnesses are no more in my Ap­prehension than twenty Millions of Phantasms; and in short I doubt not but I shall prove the Truth of these three Propositions. First, supposing that Mr. Arnaud is able to make good his Pretences concerning the Greek and o­ther [Page 63] Eastern Churches, from the eleventh Century to this present, it would not hence follow, that either the Alteration here in Question must be impos­sible, or that it hath not actually hapned, and consequently, that this tedi­ous Dispute on this Subject is vain and useless, in respect of the main of the Cause which I defend. Secondly, That the true Greek Church, and others whom the Latins call Schismaticks have never reckoned Transubstantiation, nor the Adoration of the Sacrament amongst the Articles of their Creed. Thirdly, That all Mr. Arnaud's Endeavours to prove the Affirmative, are In­effectual, and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends. And for as much as it may not be amiss to enquire into the Reasons of this his pretended Triumph so loudly proclaimed, we shall therefore in confirming these three aforementioned Propositions, ob­serve likewise how Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World, to the end his Pro­ceedings may be the better laid open.

TO Evidence then the Truth of the first of them, we must begin from the State of the Eastern Churches, since the eleventh Century, that is to say from the time Berengarius was condemned, to this present, for by this means we shall come to know those happy Fields which have furnished Mr. Arnaud with so many Laurels, and at the same time discover the first of his Artifices, whereby he would conceal the Condition of those Churches, to the end he might make the World believe the Argument he draws from their Consent, hath all the Weight and Strength which it is possible for Arguments of this Nature to have. I say since the eleventh Century to this present, because that Mr. Arnaud having divided his Discourse touching the Greeks into two parts. The first from the seventh Century to the eleventh, and the other from the eleventh to this present, and having begun with this latter part, I am thereby obliged to follow his order, that I may accommodate my self as much as in me lies to his Method. It must then be remembred, the present Question only concerns these Churches, and especially that of the Greeks, from the eleventh Century to this present; for we shall examine in its place this other part of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse, which reacheth from the seventh to the eleventh Century.

IT must not be imagined, these Christian Churches are now in as flourish­ing a Condition as they have bin heretofore. For they lost soon after the e­leventh Century their antient Splendor, being fallen into a most profound Ignorance, and corruption of Manners, and a horrid Croud of Superstitions, and Disregard to the Mysteries of Religion; Which State of theirs instead of being amended by time, has grown every day worse.

WILLIAM Arch-Bishop of Tyre, describing the Causes of the Inun­dations of the Barbarians into Syria, and the Holy Land, and of this long Bell. S [...]cr. L. 1. C. 8. Servitude of the Eastern Christians; The Faith, saith he, and fear of God de­parted the whole Earth, and especially from amongst them who styled themselves the Faithful. Justice and Equity were no longer to be found amongst them, for Fraud and Violence reigned everywhere, and Malice had taken up the Place of Virtue, so that the World seemed to be at its Period, and the time of the coming of the Son of Man at hand. For the Charity of many waxed cold, and there was no longer Faith to be found on Earth. The whole Face of things was changed, and a man would have thought the Universe to be at the point of falling into its antient Chaos. The Princes instead of keeping their Subjects in Peace, broke their Allyances and made War upon every frivolous Occasion. Wasting whole [Page 64] Provinces by their Violences, and exposing the Goods of the Poor to the fury of the rude Soldiery, there being nothing which could be preserved from their Snares. Men were haled into Prison, and suffered the most exquisit Torments to make them confess and resign up their Estates. Neither could the Churches Treasure, nor Monasteries escape their Hands, altho their Priviledges and Immunities had bin granted by Princes. The Sanctuaries were Violently broke open; the Vessels dedicated to Gods Service, together with the Sacerdotal Vestments and Ornaments were forcibly carried away. The Churches were no longer a shelter to the Misera­ble. The High-ways were filled with Robbers, who spared neither Pilgrims nor Religious. The Towns and Cities were as little free from Danger, being full of Cut-throats who la [...]d wait for innocent Blood. Fornication in all kinds was com­mon, and suffered without shame or Punishment, as a thing lawful. Men added Incest to their Adulteries, and Chastity which is a Virtue so acceptable to God, was grown out of use amongst them, as well as Moderation and Sobriety, which were forced to give Place to Luxury and Drunkenness. And as to the Ecclesi­asticks, they lived no more regularly than the others, it was the same with the Priest as with the People, as speaks the Prophet. For the Bishops growing care­less, became dumb Dogs, having Respect to Persons; They besmeared their Heads with the Oyl of Sinners, like Hirelings abandoning their Flocks, and leaving them to the Mercy of Wolves; and becoming Simonists they forgat the Word of God, freely you have received, freely give. The Almighty then being provoked by so many Crimes, did not only suffer the Faithful in the Holy Land to remain in Bondage, but farther to Chastise them who were at Liberty, he stirred up Belphe­rus the Satrapas of Persia and Assyria against Romainus Sur-named Diogenes, Emperour of the Greeks.

JAMES de Vitry, who makes almost the same Observations touch­ing Jacobus de Vitriac [...]. L. 1. C. 14. Gods Displeasure against his Church, addeth moreover a thing very likely, which is, that the Carelesness and Ignorance of the Prelates, and the several Heresies, which had then Infected the East; occasioned the succesful­ness of the Mahometan Religion.

LEO Allatius, discoursing of the State of the Greeks during the twelfth Allat. de Ec­cle. Occid. & Orien. Perpe. Consens. L 2. C. 13. Century, tells us that, after the Death of the Emperor Emanuel, the Grecian Empire began every Day to Decay, either by the Incursions of them of the West, and the Barbarians of the East, or else through the softness and delicacy, or Ty­ranny of the Emperors, or Avarice of their Ministers; and frequent Insurrecti­ons of the Nobility, till such time as at length, this Empire was miserably op­pressed by the Armies of the Latins. Religion it self likewise was involved in the Ruin of the Empire, for matters were no longer determined by Reason and Honesty, but by Rage and Hatred, which transported mens Spirits into Rashness and Fury. At that time all things were in Confusion, Divine and Prophane, the Just and Unjust were mixt together without any Discrimination, and these Christi­ans (who had indeed no more of Christianity but the Name) instead of obeying the Doctrine of the Church, minded nothing but how to be revenged on their Enemies.

WILLIAM de Rubruquis an Emissary sent by Pope Innocent the fourth Ru [...]n qu [...]s his Voyage. C. 13. to the Tartars, in the Year 1253. Relates that the Allains, which are saith he a kind of Christians that speak the Greek Language, and have Grecian Priests, but are so Ignorant, that they know not any of the Ceremonies belonging to the Christian Religion, and scarcely have learned any thing more than the Name of Christ.

THE Author of the History of the Council of Florence, relates a mat­ter Syropul. Sec. 3. C. 7. which sufficiently shews the Ignorance and small Capacity of the Greeks, for he tells us, that when the Emperor John Paleologus determined to go in Person to the Council, and take along with him some of his Clergy, he sent for Marcus of Ephesus and George Scholarius, who altho they were the most Learned in the Empire, yet were fain to apply themselves to the study­ing of Cabasilas's Treatise, and to sent to Mount Athos for Books, to the end they might be instructed in the Points Controverted between the two Churches.

AND 'tis in effect in the Monasteries of this Mount, wherein hath for a long time bin confined all the Knowledg and Learning of this Church, to Lib 4. C. 8. P. 400. which Mr. Arnaud Consents; for he tells us, that this Place is the Seminary of all the Religious in the East, because they who are there Educated, do afterwards disperse themselves over all the Provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and are usually setled as Superiours over the rest. So that adds he, the Doctrine of Mount Athos, is the same of that of all the Religious of the East, and the Belief of the Religious of the East, is the same with that of all the Bishops, who are all taken hence. Whereupon we may conclude I think from Mr. Arnaud's own Testimony, that the Knowledg at Athos is that of all Greece, and con­sequently to understand wherein consists this Knowledg, we need but Read what they Relate who have travelled into these Countries. The Greeks be­longing Belon's Obser­vatiuns. L. 3. C. 39, & 40. to the Monastery of Mount Athos, saies Belon, have bin far more Learned heretofore than at present. There are not any of them now but are very Ignorant, there being not to be found above one knowing Calojer in each Monaste­ry. He that desires to have Books of Divinity, in Manuscripts may be furnish­ed with some, but as for any Books of Philosophy or Poetry they have none. We must attribute this loss of Greek Books to the Carelessness and Ignorance of that People who are totally Degenerated. And not only within our own Memory, but for a long time there has not bin any Learned Man thro out all Greece. A­mongst the six thousand Calojers that Inhabit the Mountain, in so great a Mul­titude I say, scarcely can we find above two or three in a Monastery that can Write and Read.

JOHN Cottovic speaking of the Monks of this Mount, and others that in­habit Itinebar. Hi [...] ­rosol. & Syr. L. 2. C. 6. the Mountains of Sinay and Olympus, tells us they apply themselves parti­cularly to Husbandry, that they Live on their Labour, and that there are few of them addicted to Study, the greatest part of them being very Stupid and Ignorant.

HE that wrot the Voyage of Mr. De la Haye who went Embassador from the late King to Constantinople, gives almost the same account of the Learn­ing Mr. Hays Voyage. Paris Edit 2. 1629. P. 338. of those good Religious: we Visited, saith he, Mount Athos, which they of that Country call the Holy Mountain, because of five thousand Calojers who live in great Austerity in twenty three Monasteries about it; these Religious are of St. Basils Order, and acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople for their Head. They are greater Lovers of an Active than a Contemplative Life, for there are few of them that can read; so that the greatest part employ themselves in Tilling of the neighbouring Grounds, which are very fertil. De Graecor. recentior haer. ad Greg. XIII. L. 6. Ms. ex biblio. Reg. P. 75.

ANTHONY Caucus Arch-Bishop of Corfu, giving an Account to Pope Gregory the thirteenth, of the State of the Greek Church in his time, de­scribes it after this manner. There is no body but knows, saies he, that the [Page 66] Arts and Sciences came from Greece, as the Hero's out of the Trojan Horse. But it is now much otherwise, for I found so much Ignorance of all things amongst these modern Greeks, and especially the Priests that have the charge of Instruct­ing the People, that scarcely do they know how to read the Church Service. And we need not be astonished at this: for those that are called to the Exercise of the Ministry are Tradesmen, who leaving their Shops and Trades become immediate­ly Papa's. It is ordinarily observed in Greece, that to day you may see a man who is a Taylor, to become to morrow a Priest. To day he is a Perfumer or Barber, who the next day is a Papas. To day a Goldsmith, and to morrow a Prelate. If you ask them concerning their Belief, or Ceremonies, and require a Reason for their Customs, they return no other Answer, but they follow their Predecessors. If you proceed farther and ask who these Predecessors were, they become mute.

THE same John Cottovic whose Testimony I already produced concern­ing the Monks of Mount Athos, Olympus, and Sinay, affirms the Religious thro out all Greece, to be no better learned than those aforementioned, That It n [...]r. L. C. 13. which I find, saies he, most despicable in this Nation, is, they have no town nor Ci­ty, wherein there are any Schools or Colledges for the bringing up of their Youth. Neither take they care to form their Childrens Minds, to Arts or Sciences. They are so averse to Learning, that they seem as it were to be afraid of it: So that we may truly affirm, Learning is wholly banished from Greece, which was here­tofore the Mother of it. For at this day there is not the least Trace to be found of it, the Greeks becoming Barbarians with the Barbarians.

BELON made the same Observation before him: All the Greeks, saith Observat. L. 1. C. 3. he, as well those under the Venetians, as them under the Turkish Empire, are so marvelously Ignorant at this day, that there is not a City thro out all their Coun­try, wherein there is any University; for they care not to have their Children In­structed.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Francisan Fryar, who was an Emissary in Bar­bary, Holy Land. L. 2 C. 2. tels us (in his Description of the Holy Land, That the greatest part of the Religious and Secular Priests (he means of the Greeks in Palestine) are extreamly Ignorant, and apply themselves to mean Exercises, and mechanical Arts.

Mr. Thevenot confirms the same, in his Voyages, where speaking of the Thevenot's Voyages Part 1. P. 188. Greeks of the Isle of Chios. Learning, saith he, is a Stranger to them of that Country, being all extreamly Ignorant. And a little farther, speaking of the Island of Nixia, and of a Church there, it is served, saies he, by Monks, who are all of 'em Peasants, void of Learning, and 'tis not only so there, but 'tis the same in all the Islands of the Archipelago, they are so Ignorant that it may be truly said of them, they Worship the unknown God.

FRANCIS Richard the Jesuit, in his Relation concerning the Isle of Relation of the Isle of St. Erini C. 9. St. Erinis, makes the same Observation, the Ignorance, saies he, of our My­steries is so great in Turkey, especially where the Emissari's have not frequented, that I wonder, considering the several particular Difficulties in our Faith, and the Temptations they have offered them to leave it, that all of 'em do not take the Turbant, after the same manner as them of Candia, where above sixty thousand Persons have already done it.

DU Loir, discoursing of the Arnautes, or Albanoises, (that are a kind of Peo­ple Loir's Voyag­es. P. 303. whose Original is scarcely known,) they are, saies he, dispersed over the Cam­pains of Greece and call themselves Christians, but yet know nothing of our Re­ligion more than the Name, and exercise no more of it but the Sign of the Cross.

BUT it may be perhaps answered, there ought not to be the same judg­ment made of the Greeks at Constantinople; seeing the Patriarchal Church being there, it is likely they are not so Ignorant as the others, where the same Care has not bin taken for the Preservation of Religion. I am willing to believe that if there be any Knowledg left in Greece, the Church of Con­stantinople hath it, and yet if we would know the Condition of this Church we need but read John Barbarean's the Jesuits Letter which was written from Forrain Let­ters sent to the Procur of the Emiss. printed at Paris, 1688. Let 1. P. 3. Constantinople, the tenth of July, 1667. The Schismatical Greeks, saies he, which are in this City to the Number of three hundred Thousand, are so many Souls to be won to our Saviour, because that in effect, after they have told us they are Christians, and for a Testimony thereof have crossed themselves, there is no other sign of Christianity to be expected from them: for as to what concerns Pray­ers and other religious Exercises they are Names and Things unknown to them. I have oftentimes asked Persons whom I took to be the most intelligent amongst them, whether there were more Gods than one, and whether Jesus Christ from whom they derived their Name, was God and Man, and several other Questions which are put to Children in France, when they learn their Catechism. But they all of 'em answered they were not so deeply learned in Divinity as to answer such great Points, and when I told them they were bound to know these things under Pain of Damnation, I perceived they were not much troubled thereat, for as they believed nothing, so they feared nothing. Now not only the common People and Seculars are no better Learned, but most of their Prelates, and others of the Clergy. I have oftentimes asked the Priests of religious Orders, who were brought up all their life times in Monasteries, concerning their Belief, whether they thought there was more than one God, and whether Jesus Christ was the true God, and other principal Mysteries, but I could not find one amongst them able to answer me. And some of 'em being ashamed of their own Ignorance and Stupidity, made this Excuse, that their Abbot knew all these things, but for their parts they ne­ver studied Divinity. And demanding how it was possible they could live twenty or thirty Years in a Monastery, without hearing any Mention made of these neces­sary Points, they thereupon told me, that in Monasteries and in all other places, all their Endeavours are laid out in getting their Living; (He afterwards tells us) that one of the chiefest Causes of this Disorder is, that the Patriarch buys his Patriarchate, and sells all other Ecclesiastical Promotions, and that the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops do the same to their inferiour Clergy. Neither must we imagine other Eastern Christians in a better Condition than the Greeks. Pietro Della Vallé a famous Traveller, assures us, that the Christians at Bag­dad, being of several Communions, know nothing of Religion, but its Name, and Pietro Della Vallés Voy­ages. Tom. 1. P. 76. to make the sign of the Cross, having no Churches, Sacraments, nor Persons who can administer them, or if they have, their Priests are so Ignorant that 'tis im­possible for them to instruct the People in those things, they themselves do not understand.

THE same Author speaking of the Christians of Presbyter John, there Tom. 4. P. 434. are, saies he, I know not how many Chaldean Christians, called Christians of St. John or Sabea, but have no more of Christianity than the name, for they have [Page 68] no other Church but the Lodgings of a Priest, a very ignorant man, which place they had in my time, and where scarcely any body assists at Divine Service. They keep no Fasts, nor observe any Abstinence from Meats, Eating indifferently of all sorts, neither have they scarcely any thing like a Sacrament amongst them. He observes the same concerning the Georgiens, they are, saies he, less in­fected Tom. 3. P. 188. with Errors than others, and being less addicted to Learning than the Greeks, they have less Malice, and more Ignorance.

THOMAS Herbert, a famous English Man, (whose Voyages are Trans­lated into French, by Mr. De Vicqfort) speaking of these same Georgiens, in Herbert's Voyages L. 2. P. 244. the City of Assepose, saies he, and thereabouts, dwell near forty thousand Geor­giens, and Circassians, who all of 'em profess Christianity, but live most misera­ble Lives, being Slaves, and destitute moreover of all Knowledg of the Christian Mysteries, only they have a great Veneration for St. George, who was Bishop of Cappadocia, and their Apostle.

AS to what concerns the Coptites, they are said to be as Ignorant as any of Thevenot's Voyages Part 2. C. 75. the rest. These Coptites, saies Mr. Thevenot, are a sort of very dul and stu­pid People, so that there can be hardly found a Person amongst them who is fit to be a Patriarch, Montconys, after the same manner tells us, that the Coptites Montconis Voyages. P. 129. hold the heretical Doctrine of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and are very Ignorant in matters of Religion.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Franciscan Fryer, one of the Popes Emissaries Description of the Holy Land. L. 2. in Barbary, speaking of these Coptites, tells us, That this Nation is the most dull and Ignorant of all the Eastern Christians. They are never heard to discourse concerning Divine Mysteries, or Religious Matters. The greatest part of their Priests can neither Write nor Read, and seem to act with as little Reflection as bruit Beasts, as far as I could perceive, all the time I sojourned in Egypt, He adds, that the greatest part of the Religious, who dwell in Monasteries in the Deserts of Thebes, are extream Brutish, and work like Horses.

Mr. De Sponde Bishop of Pamiez, giving an Account in his Annals of a Spond. Ann. Tom 3. Ann. 1561. pretended Union of the Coptites with the Church of Rome, made in the Year 1561, Pius the fourth being Pope, he tells us amongst other things, that their Patriarch whose Name was Gabriel, was a very ignorant Man, and one of their Errors was, they reckoned seven Sacraments, and instead of those of Marriage, Confirmation, and extream Unction, they substituted Faith, Fasting, and Prayer, which they adopted into the Number of Sacra­ments. The Armenians are no less Ignorant, for Anthony de Gouveau tells us Gouveau's Relations. L. 3. C. 3. P. 368. they are a Peope wholly Unlearned and Simple, and that moreover David their Pa­triarch knew no more than only to Write and Read in his own Language, which is, adds he, a thing very common amongst them.

JOHN Barbereau, a Jesuit whom I already mentioned, saies they are in Constantinople to the number of above sixty Thousand; and are, if possible, more Ignorant than the Greeks. They hold the same Errors with them, and have a particular Heresy which distinguishes them from the rest. Their Ignorance, ad­deth he, is so great, that I have heard themselves say, they never go to Church Forrain Let­tors Let. 1. but when they Consecrate, knowing neither the Use nor Design of that Mystery, and who can instruct them in these things? their Patriarchs and Prelates are busied in getting Mony, like the Greeks, that they may have whereon to live.

VINCENT le Blanc, speaking of the Christians of the India's, cal­led the Christians of St. Thomas, and who follow the Nestorian Heresy, the Le Blanc's Voyages. Part 1. P. 115. Christians of these Places, saies he, have still retained some part of the Instructi­ons left them by St. Thomas, but they are extream Ignorant in the principal Ar­ticles of Faith, and know not how to sing in their Churches, so that 'tis a hard matter to keep them in any kind of Tune.

THE Inhabitants of the Isle of Socotora, saies Du Jarric the Jesuit, call themselves Christians (being likewise Christians of St. Thomas, that is to say History of the East Indias. L. 1. C. 6. P. 84. Nestorians) they very much honour and reverence the Cross. They are all of them very Ignorant, so that they can neither Write nor Read, and 'tis the same with their Caciques (that is to say their Priests) who having learned certain Prayers by rote, sing them in the Church, and often repeat a Word which comes near to our Halleluja.

THIS same Du Jarrick, who wrote the History of the Reduction of the Nestorians of Malabar to the Obedience of the Pope, which was brought to pass by Alexis de Meneses Arch-Bishop of Goa in the Year 1599, does suffi­ciently set forth the Ignorance of this People. For he tells us, that there was so great Confusion amongst them, in respect of the essential form of Baptism, that eve­ry Cacanar (for so do they call their Priests) baptised after a several manner, and the greatest part of them, (addeth he) cannot be said in any kind to admini­ster the Sacrament, seeing they use not Words essential thereunto. So that the Arch-Bishop found one of the greatest Towns of this Bishoprick of (Angomalé) to have bin deficient in this important Point of our Religion, whereupon he pri­vately Baptised the greatest part of the People, after a right and due manner. He relateth moreover that there were several amongst them who were not Baptised at all, and yet received the Eucharist, which was a very common thing amongst them, that they usually did not Baptise their Children till some Months or Years after their Birth: and that there were some at ten or eleven years of Age Unbaptized. That they were wont every Sunday to kindle a Fire in the middle of the Church, and having cast Incense thereon, every one drew near to take of the Smoak with his Hand, with which carry­ing it to their Breasts, they thought thereby their Sins were chased out of their Souls. He adds, that the Latin Bishop which was sent them, after their Reduction, visited several Places of his Diocess, in which there had no Prelate bin for this thirty Years, where he found such a Degeneracy both as to Points of Faith and Manners, that most of them had no more of Christianity in them but the Name.

ALTHO the Maronites have bin long since reconciled to the Church of Rome, yet are they not better Instructed than the rest. Joseph Besson in his Treatise of the Holy Land, saies, They are striken with four Plagues worse than the Plagues of Egypt, viz, Ignorance, want of Devotion, Usury, and Injustice, they can scarcely be perswaded, saies he, that the second Person of the Trinity is the Son of God; and that Jesus Christ who is God, dyed, and that God ever had a Son. It is incredible say they with the Turks; How can he have a Son see­ing he was never married? and if he was God how could he dye?

I could easily produce several Testimonies touching the State of the Mos­covites, Abyssins, and Jacobites; for their Condition is no better than the rest, God having suffered all these Churches which were heretofore so favoured [Page 70] with the Light of his Truth, to fall insensibly into so great Darkness, that a man can scarce perceive the least Mark of Christianity amongst them. There is not in Moscovia, saies Possevin the Jesuit, any Greek Books or Aca­demies; having made diligent Search for some that understood Greek, I could find none. They have heaped up Error upon Error, and altho they brag of their Bibliot. Select. L. 6. C. 5. Christianity above other People, yet do they refer all things to the Wisdom of their Prince as to an Oracle, having imbibed this Principle from their Infancy. They value not Strangers nor suffer them to come into their Country unless they be Po­landers, Germans, or Portugaises, for they despise all others. He saies more­over Derebus Mosco. P. 2. the Moscovits have such Confidence in their Prince, that when they are asked touching any Point, they commonly answer, God only and our Prince know that. Our great Czar knows all things, he can immediately solve all Diffi­culties. There is no Religion whose Ceremonies and Opinions he is not acquainted with. Whatsoever we have or are, whether on Horsback, or in Health, 'tis all owing to our great Prince, he saies farther, they have neither Schools nor Aca­demies amongst them, only bringing up their Children to Write and Read, learn­ing them the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, a certain Chronicle which they have, with some of St. Chrysostom's Homelies, and the Lives of some of their Saints, that should any Person endeavour to make a farther Progress in Learning, he would be in danger of being punished. As to their Priests and Monks, he assures us, they are prodigiously Ignorant, for having demanded of them who was the founder of their Order, not one of them could answer him; and as to the People he saies, they work at all times, not excepting Sundaies and Holy­daies, and think it belongs to Gentlemen, and not to them to frequent the Church. That they are very well pleased with their own Simplicity, and often make the Sign of the Cross, and are great Worshippers of Images. As concerning the Russians, which are under the King of Polands Government, he saies, that sometimes their Bishops performe the Divine Service in Greek, altho few of them, if any, do understand that Language, and that they are very Ignorant in Divi­nity.

AS to the Abyssins, the Relation of the Jesuit Paez, which Du Jarrick has inserted in his History of the East Indias, gives us sufficiently to understand their Ignorance. For he tells us, that the Spiritualities of the Empire, depend wholly on the Emperour. That the Ecclesiasticks do nothing but what he would have them, and that should he command them all to turn Catholicks, they would not disobey him. He tells us he disputed with one of them, upon occasion of the legal Ceremonies which they observe, and that this Person could not tell how to answer him otherwise, than that there were some who could sa­tisfy him on that Point. He farther adds, That these People knowing little, there was immediately spread a Report concerning me, that I was a great Doctor, and thereupon never came any Person afterwards to dispute with me. Du Jarric observes that the Jesuit Paez having taught some Children their Catechisme, the King and all his Court were so astonished at the matter, that he told those about him, saying, what should our Monks dispute with this Father for, who are not able to answer these little Children, the plain Truth of it is, we have neither Doctrine, nor Instruction, neither any thing more than the Name of Christians.

MAFFEUS the Jesuit, relates, that a Priest named Gonsalvus Rhode­rick, sent from Goa to Claudus King of the Abyssins, in the Year 1556. Found History of the Indias. L 16. P. 938. him and his greatest Courtiers very Ignorant both in the Knowledg of Councils, and all kinds of Divine and Humane Learning. These are his own Words.

Mr. De Sponde, relating in his Ecclesiastical Annals the principal Articles Annal. Eccl. ad ann. 1524. of their Belief, according to the Confession of Zaga Zabo, concludes in these Terms. They have so many ridiculous Fopperies amongst them, that they have scarcely any thing more of Christianity than the Name.

MOREOVER they are not only Ignorant of the Mysteries of Religi­on, but likewise in all kinds of Learning, which made Besson the Jesuit say concerning Syria. That the Sciences are more rare in the Eastern Parts than the Phenix, and mechanical Arts more prized than Sciences, wherefore, addeth he, the continual multitude of Books which encrease every Day in Europe, con­tinually decrease in Syria. The best of them have already passed the Seas, seve­ral of which are to be seen in the Libraries in France, so that those which remain are very ordinary ones.

TO this gross Ignorance, we may joyn their Superstition, the usual attendant of Ignorance; for 'tis certain these People are incredibly guilty of His [...]r. Eccl. L. 18. C 53. it. The Armenians according to the Testimony of Nicephorus, still Celebrate Easter after the manner of the Jews, slaying Sheep and Oxen, and sprinkling the Posts of their Doors, with the Blood of a Lamb, and instead of communicat­ing of the Blood of our Saviour, they Sacrifice a Lamb, which being Roasted they divide it amongst them. This Custom being a very antient one, is yet in use amongst them.

BESSON the Jesuit tells us, They call this Sacrifice Korban, and that he that offers it, causeth a Sheep to be brought to the Church Porch, where the Priest Holy Syria. Part 1. of the Armenians. P. 48. blesses Salt, and puts it down the Throat of the Sacrifice, afterwards Consecrates the Knife, and then laies his Hand on the Head of the Sheep and cuts its Throat, The Bishop and Priest take their Share, one part whereof is distributed to the Poor, and another serves for the Feast, which is Celebrated with all publick Testimonies of Rejoycing. The same Emissary informs us, that the great Disorders of the Levant are its Superstitions, and the Peoples Recourse to Magicians, the number of whom is very Considerable amongst Christians, whose Poverty and Sicknesses make them use these wretched Remedies,

THE Coptites, and Abyssins, besides Baptism, use Circumcision, which they receive the eighth day, after the manner of the Jews. The Abyssins Boucher Bou­quet sacr. L. 4. C. 7. Brerowood's Inquiries. C. 22, 23. Villamont, & alii passim de reb. Mosco. P. 6. Baptise themselves every Year on Twelfth Day, in the Lakes or Ponds, in re­membrance of our Saviours Baptism. Possevin relates the same of the Moscovites. For he tells us that twice a Year, viz. on the day of the Epiphany, and that of the Assumption, the Metropolitan Blesses the River of Mosco; and that the Priests Bless after the same manner other Rivers, that several Men and Women Wash themselves therein with the Ceremony of a triple Immersion; that the Horses and Images are Baptised in like manner, and that this in their Language is called Baptism. Christoph. Angel. Stat. & rit. Eccl. Graec. C. 25. vide Annot. Geor. Felsau. Eucholog. Goar P. 689. Allat. Epist. de quorun [...]. Graecer. opin.

I scarce know what to think of that Custom amongst the Greeks, of tak­ing up their Dead, a Year after they are buried. If they find their Bodies are not yet consumed, they examine what remains of them, and if it doth not stink, but hath a good Colour, they esteem that Person a Holy Man: But if on the contrary, the Corps be Black or Swelled, they repute him to have bin an ill Liver, and an Excommunicated Person. Wherefore it is, that in their form of Excommunication, one of their Imprecations is, that such a Person [Page 72] may not be consumed after Death, neither in this World nor in that which is to come, but that he may be swelled like a Drum. They verily believe this is per­fectly accomplished: And Leo Allatius tells us several Stories of those Phan­tasms which they call Burcolaques, which are saith he, Excommunicated Per­sons, who being deceased torment the living, and of whom the Greeks are as much afraid, as our Children, when we tell them of Fryar Bourru's Ghost. Nay so greatly are they Prepossessed with false Opinions, as to imagine an Ex­communication pronounced by a Christian that afterwards turns Turk, pro­duces the same Effect, that is to say, keeps the Body from Consuming, and causes it to grow hard and swell, till such time as this Excommunication be taken off by him who pronounced it, altho never so great an Infidel. Which is confirmed by Leo Allatius concerning the Patriarch Raphael, who to dis­solve Christoph. Angel. C. 42. the Body of an excommunicated Person, was forced to apply himself to a Renegado for his Absolution.

WE may reckon in the Number of the Grecian Superstitions, the belief they have long held, touching a Miracle that happens every Year, in the Se­pulcher at Jerusalem, on the Saturday before Easter, which is, That all the Lamps being extinguished, the Patriarch enters alone into the Sepulcher, and God sends a Beam of Light from Heaven, wherewith he kindles the Torch he holds in his hand, and therewith lights all the rest. Which is per­formed Annot. Al­lat. de quo­rund. Graecor. opinat. & alii passim. with great Ceremony, and publick Acclamations of Rejoycing, not only by the Greeks, but all the Eastern Christians which are at Jerusalem, for they all hold this Miracle to be true.

NEITHER do they at all suspect the Truth of another Miracle, which Christoph. Angel. C. 42. they say happens once a Year in Caire, near the River of Nile, and which lasts from Holy Thursday to Ascension Day. Which is, that in several Countries the dead Bodies arise out of their Graves: But this Miracle only happens when they celebrate Easter according to antient Custom; Where­as should they Celebrate it according to the new Kalender, the Miracle would infallibly cease, as it fell out about fourscore or a hundred Years since, when the Greeks altered the time of the Celebration, upon which the dead Bodies arose no more, and the Sacred Fire was also withheld from the Sepulcher, which obliged them to the Observance again of the former Day, whereupon the Miracles returned. And this Relation we have from Christo­phorus Angelus, and some others. We might give a farther Description of the Ignorance and Superstition of these poor People, were not what has bin already mentioned sufficient to inform the World of M. Arnaud's vain Triumphs. For when it should appear that all these Sects held Transubstan­tiation and the real Presence, what Advantage would accrue to him thereby? Would it hence appear impossible that these Doctrines have crept in amongst them, by the same means the true Mysteries of Christianity have slipt out; for Ignorance and Superstition are but sorry keepers of Evangelical Truths. It is easy to impose on these People whose Minds have bin so darkned with Er­rours, all marks of Christianity having bin long since lost amongst them. They may be made believe any thing, being in this respect as white Paper, whereon men may write what they please. There needs but one mans falling into an Errour, to draw all the rest after him. And this Mr. Poulet hath well Relation of the Levant, or the Sieur of Poulet's Voy­age. Part. 2. C. 28. observed in the Account he gives us of the Nestorians, who still obstinately re­tain their old Errours, for which Reason they are hated by all the Levantine Christians, They know not what they Believe, saies he, being ready to receive a­ny new Opinion, be it what it will, provided it includes not a Submission to the [Page 73] Holy See. Which is as much as to say, they are not firm or Precautioned, against any Article but that of Obedience to the Pope, having bin oftentimes tempted, and sometimes surprized into an acknowledgment of his Suprema­cy, but as to other Points, they are very Ductil, being ignorant of their Meaning. And these are such People Mr. Arnaud desires, and who seem to him fit Objects to ground his Dispute on. He thought to make his Advan­tage of this Confusion; but certainly he ought to give the World a true ac­count of these Matters, and not so highly to extol his own Victories, seeing the Honour of them is much diminished by what I have allready offered.


That the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Cen­tury, and the Efforts the Latins have [...]ade to communicate to them their Religion, do invalidate the Proof which is pretended to be drawn from their Belief. Mr. Arnaud's Artifice discovered.

HERE is then Mr. Arnaud's first Deceit detected, which consists in the concealing from us the real Condition wherein this People have so long layn, as to Religion, to the end the weakness of his Arguments may lye undiscovered.

The second consists in setting before us several impertinent historical Pas­sages, on purpose to avert his Readers Mind, from a due Consideration of those things which he knows would prove disavantagious to him. It is with­out doubt a very disingenuous Artifice, thus to change the natural Use and Order of things, and snatch out of mens Sights the true and important Con­sequences may be drawn thence, by substituting others which are but mere Amusements. And yet this Mr. Arnaud has done: for not being able to de­ny that the temporal State of the Eastern People, since the eleventh Centu­ry, hath very much facilitated the Attempts of the Latins, establishing their Doctrines in those Parts; He thereupon supposes I affirm the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation: and under pretence of opposing this Fancy sprung from his own Brain, he retails out the History of the East, to shew that the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist. I will not insist at present on the little reason he had to charge me with this Opinion; I shall make it appear in the following parts of this Discourse, that this is his Chimera and not mine. I shall only represent here the same historical Passages, Mr. Arnaud has pro­duced, in that manner wherein they ought to be proposed, to make a right Judgment of this Dispute, and not in that false View wherein he has re­presented them. In a Word, I pretend to manifest by those very things he has offered and Perverted, That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians doe believe Transubstantiation, as fully as the Church of Rome, yet does it not thence follow that this Doctrine has bin perpetual in that Church: [Page 74] seeing they might have received it from the Latins.

FIRST then Mr. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove, there has bin a frequent Commerce between the Greeks and Latins, for he tells us that L. 2. C. 8. P. 172. Pisa, Venice, Rome, and several other Cities of Italy were full of Greeks, That Constantinople was full of Latins, and Latin Churches; that the Armies were usually made up of Greek, Italian, and French Soldiers, which were continually in great Numbers at Jerusalem, where they communicated in the same Churches from the Hands of the Patriarch, and Priests of that City; That so great was the multitude of Pilgrims, that they administred the Sacrament every Day, that Persons of the greatest Quality, namely Kings, Princes, and Prelates, and La­dies of the highest Rank, undertook these Pilgrimages, and that Jerusalem was then, that is to say in the eleventh Century, a place whereunto all the Nations of the World resorted.

I shall not now enter into a Debate concerning what he tells us touching the Christians receiving the Communion at Jerusalem, from the Pa­triarch and Priests of that City. He affirms it without proving it, for there is very little likelyhood that [...]ersons of different Churches, who were so greatly divided, would receive the Communion together from the same Person. But be it as it will, I am so far from raising a Contest about this frequent Commerce of the Greeks, with the Latins, that I take it for granted, to the end I may thereby demonstrate to Mr. Arnaud the weakness of his Ar­gument. For when he shall prove, that the Greeks believe the Conver­sion of Substances, and adore the Sacrament, he may then well con­clude against me, that I have bin guilty of Rashness in denying it: but he cannot any ways thereby advantage his Cause, seeing it will remain still to be examined, whether these People did not receive these Doctrines from the Latins, by means of their mutual Commerce since Berengarius was last condemned. What I related in the preceeding Chapter touching the Igno­rance which hath reigned for so long a time in those Countries, and the foo­lish Superstitions which were introduced, even without our Knowledg of their Original, will ever render this Supposition probable, it being no diffi­cult matter to conceive that a Doctrine of this Nature might creep in, in the Dark amongst ignorant and superstitious People, who held a perpetual Com­merce with others, that make open Profession of this Doctrine.

Mr. Arnaud proceeds farther, and relates the History of the Croisado's to­wards the end of the eleventh Century, and in the twelfth, for the Conquest L. 2. C. 10. of the Holy Land; and this History does well deserve our Notice; For there will result from it these two Truths, the one, that the bad Condition of the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians obliged them, how Proud and Haughty soever they might otherwise be, to a servile Complacency with the Latins, and to an accommodation with their Humours and Interest: And the other that the Latines have not neglected this favourable Occasion, which the Con­juncture of Affairs then offered them, to establish their Religion in the East.

WE all know in what Condition Palestine, Syria, and Egypt lay, when Guilliel. Tyr. Bell. Sacri. Lib. 1. C. 1. those of the West went thither. The Saracens had overrun these Coun­tries from Heraclius his time, that is to say from the seventh Century, and the Power of these Infidels grew formidable to all the World, whilst the Greeks strength continually decayed, whether by the Supinity of their Em­perours, [Page 75] or by the horrible Crimes with which the same Emperours disho­noured their Throne. The Turks, having subdued Persia, overspread the whole East, and possessed themselves of Palestine, Syria, Cilicia, Isauria, Pam­philia, Idem L. 5. C. 9. Lycia, Pisida, Lyconia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus, Bythinia; and moreover of a considerable part of Asia minor, and so greatly terrified the Greeks, as relates Wm. of Tyre, that scarcely did they repute themselves safe within the Walls of Constantinople, altho the Sea was as a Rampire betwixt them. The Christians in the East had already received the Benefit of Char­lemain's Intercession for them to Aron, under whose Government they then Idem. L. 1. C. 2. lived. But this lasted not long, for the Miseries into which they fell after­wards became so intollerable, that towards the end of the eleventh Century, Simeon Patriarch of Jerusalem, according to the Relation of Wm. of Tyre, Gill. Tyr. L 6. C. 11. Jacob. de V [...]r. Hist. Orient. C. 16. and James de Vitry, resolved to procure the Assistance of the Latins, and write to Pope Urban the second, and the Western Princes, as well in his own Name, as in that of the whole Church, by means of a French Pilgrim called Peter the Hermit, a Native of the Diocess of Amiens. Wm. of Tyre ob­serves that in the Conference the Patriarch had with this Hermit, he told him, amongst other things, That they could expect no help from the Greeks, al­tho of the same Blood with them, and their Neighbours, because they could hard­ly preserve themselves, having fallen into such a Declension, that within a short time they had lost above half their Empire. In effect, Mr. Arnaud hath him­self very well observed; that the Emperours of Constantinople finding them­selves P. 192. unable to withstand the Turkish Power; implored the Assistance of the Christian Princes in Europe and especially that of the Pope, who at that time was the most Powerful even in Temporals of all Christendom, and that Alexis Com­nenus sent for that Purpose Embassadors to the Council of Plaisance.

THIS then was the true State of Affairs amongst the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians, which forced them to a great Complyance with the Latins, from whose Assistance they expected their Establishment.

THESE Letters of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Entreaties of Alexis, together with the Sollicitations of Peter the Hermit, procured the Expedition of the Latins into Syria and Palestine. The Success is known; I shall say no more but that the Christians of that Country, only changed their Masters; for the Lattins setled themselves there, not only as Friends, and Deliverers, but Conquerors, which made all things depend on their Will, for as soon as ever they possessed themselves of Syria and Palestine, they e­stablished Latin Bishops there, and drove out the Greek Bishops from their Churches that would not yield Obedience to the Roman Church, nor ac­commodate themselves to its way of Worship. Mr. Arnaud does not wholly accord with me in this. We must imagine, saies he, there was a mil­lion L. 2. C. 10. P. 193. of Transubstantiators that passed over from Europe into Asia, and made themselves Masters of a great part of these Eastern Provinces. As soon as they took any City, there was established in it a Bishop of the Latin Communion with a sufficient Clergy for the Service of that Church. Sometimes the Christians of the East ranged themselves under his Obedience, and othertimes they were per­mitted to have a Bishop of their own Choosing. He farther adds, that after the taking of Antioch, there was no other Patriarch established than him that was there before, and that he remained for the space of two Years. That after the taking of Jerusalem and other Cities of Syria and Palestine, there was another Patriarch made, and several Latin Bishops, the Greeks and other Christians of Syria being left at their own Liberty as to their communicating with the Latins.

THIS pretended Moderation of the Latins is first of all refuted by the same Author whom Mr. Arnaud quoted, who is James de Vitry. James de Vitry, saies he, Testifies that the Christians of Syria, who were of the same Re­ligion with the Greeks, had Bishops of their own. 'Tis not possible for an Ibid. Author to be cited with less Sincerity; for these are James de Vitry's Words; The Syrians exactly observe the Customs and Ordinances of the Greeks in the Celebration of Divine Service, and other Spiritual matters, and obey them as their Superiours. But as to the Latin Prelates in whose Diocesses they live, they Hist. Orient. C 75. freely affirm they obey them with their Mouths, but not in their Hearts, super­ficially, and for fear of their temporal Lords. For they have their own Greek Bishops, and would dread neither the Excommunications nor other Laws of the Latins, did they not fear our Lay-men would break off all Trade and Commerce with them. For they say amongst themselves the Latins are Excommunicated. Now where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's Sincerity in thus alleaging James de Vi­try's Testimony to prove the Moderation of the Latins, who obliged not the Syrians to communicate with them unless they pleased themselves. These Words of his declare the Syrians did still acknowledg their Greek Bishops: But then again on the other hand, that they were constrained for fear of their temporal Lords to acknowledg the Latin Prelates; and render them an external Obedience: which is expresly contrary to what Mr. Arnaud con­cludes. And yet he has not contented himself with thus alledging James de Vitry, in a contrary Sence, but has made a Principle of it; From whence he draws this Consequence, concerning the other Christians: We ought, Ibid. P. 194. saies he, to conclude the same of the other Sects of Armenians, Jacobites, and Nestorians, with which all Syria was at that time filled. This seems to me, to be a too free disposal of Principles and Conclusions.

IN the second place, this pretended Moderation is refuted even by those very Letters which Pope Paschal the second wrote to the Latins in the East, after the taking of Jerusalem, in which he tells them, he has charged his Le­gate Baron. ad ann. 1100. to endeavour the regulating of the Church, which God has delivered by their Hands, and that which should hereafter be delivered by them, to correct whatso­ever should be found contrary to sound Doctrine, to Plant and Edify whatsoever he judged fitting, by their Assistance; which plainly shews that the Latins, after they had freed these Eastern Christians from the Tyranny of the Infi­dels, suffered them not to live according to the form of their own Religion, and that in this respect they subdued them to themselves.

ALLATIUS a Latiniz'd Greek, and keeper of the Popes Library, has bin more ingenuous than Mr. Arnaud, for he freely confesses that the Latins De Eccl. Oc­cid. & Orient. Perp. Consens L 2, C. 13. established Prelates of their own in the East, and drove out them of the Greeks, when they could do it with safety, and severely chastized Schisma­ticks and Obstinate Persons. And as to what Mr. Arnaud alledgeth out of Balsamon, That Antioch only excepted, in all other Cities the Latins permitted Ibid. P. 194.the Greek Bishops to exercise their Episcopal Functions, altho they had estab­lished Bishops in the same Places. I have not met with any such Passage in his Nomocanon of the Parisian Edition printed in 1620. Those that publish­ed it relate this Passage in a Supplement annexed to the end of the Book, and tell us that these Additions are not to be found in any Greek Copy, but on­ly in the Latin Version of Gentian Hervetus; so that the Truth of this Te­stimony is doubtful, and Mr. Arnaud that seems to have taken his Quotati­on from Baronius, ought to have more certainly informed himself. Howso­ever [Page 77] it be, Balsamon lived towards the end of the twelfth Century, about a hundred Years after the entrance of the Latins into the East, in a time where­in their Affairs were in Disorder; for the Infidels had retaken Jerusalem with a great part of those Places which were held by the Latins: So that we need not wonder if the Latins slackned their Rigour towards the Greeks, and so much the less, because it appears by this same passage of Balsamon, that the Infidels gave the same Liberty to the Greek Bishops, to exercise their episcopal Functions in their Dominions.

IT is certain, this Moderation Mr. Arnaud speaks of, is a meer Chimera Guilliel. Tyr. L. 6. C. 23. & L. 7. C. 8. & L. 9. C. 15. & L. 10. C. 16. & L. 11. C. 12. & L. 1. C. 2 [...]. & L. 15. C. 11. of his own. For immediately after the taking of Antioch, there were La­tin Bishops put into all the neighbouring Cities; the Patriarch for some time kept his Dignity, but at length was forced to withdraw to Constanti­nople, and a Latin Bishop was substituted in his room. After this Dabert Bishop of Pisa was made Patriarch of Jerusalem; Baldwin Arch-Bishop of Cesarea, William Arch-Bishop of Tyre, Adam Bishop of Paneada, and all o­ther Diocesses furnished after the same manner, as it appears by Wm. of Tyre's Account.

WE may then I think, without farther Trouble, conclude that the La­tins did not omit so favourable an Occasion of Introducing their Religion and particular Doctrines in the East. We may moreover consider another historical Passage of which Mr. Arnaud makes use according to his ordina­ry manner, which is to hinder us from beholding the just Consequences may be drawn thence: This History concerns the subjecting of the Grecian Em­pire to the Latins.

IN the Year 1204. The Latins took by Assault the City of Constantino­ple, and seized almost at the same time on the greatest part of the Grecian Empire, which they bestowed on Baldwin Earl of Flanders. They kept it fifty eight Years till Michael Paleologus retook Constantinople, and drove the Latins out of Greece. The Greeks were no more moderately dealt with af­ter this Conquest, than they were after that of the Holy Land. The Latins, De Eccl. Occ. & Orient. Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 13. saies Leo Allatius, established in the places they Possessed Priests and Prelates of their own, who ruled the Church after their manner, and drove away the Greeks, whensoever they could do it with safety; and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks, who would not relent and embrace the Truth, they severely punished them, as they had done heretofore in the East, and especially at Antioch. He after­wards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author, which I shall here set down, and so much the rather, because of the Consequence which may be made of this History. Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu's Ibid. time, to that of John Batatza's the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands. They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats, and substi­tuted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them. And this they did at Constantinople, Cyprus, Antioch, and other Cities, and not content with this, they constrained all the People, not excepting the Priests and Monks, to be of their Opinion, and Communion, and commemorate the Pope. They were Friends to those that obeyed them; but as to them that reprehended them, they treated them as Hereticks, and those that abhorred their Communion, were punished openly, even to the making them suffer Martyrdom; and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians. Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus, whom they kept three Years in Prison, because they would not Communicate with them, Inflicting on them all [Page 78] manner of Torments, and in fine, not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good, being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes, and drew them over Precipices, causing othres to be burnt alive. John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God, one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire. And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator. He farther adds, that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes, under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice, who complaining of these Cruelties, received for Answer, that the Pope was troubled thereat, and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received, It was only, saies he, to deride and impose on us, that they would have us send first to them, as it were to accuse our selves, and acknowledg our Error, which plain­ly appeared afterwards by their Letters.

BUT to the end, we may not think Leo Allatius, who relates this Com­plaint of the Greeks, is suspected by the Latins, under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth, it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes. If this Author, saies he, means the Greeks, who remaining fixt to their Cere­monies, embraced otherwise the Truth, he is mistaaen; For the Latins have Ibid. bin so far from driving them away, that they have made use of them, as often as they have Occasion. If he means the Schismaticks, and those that maintain­ed the Errors of the Greeks, he trifles; for how can he imagine, the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church, should suffer in a Country, they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood, the Greeks their Enemies and Adversa­ries to their Faith, to live unpunished? These erronious People must be redu­ced, being Rebels to their own Faith, not only by simple Banishments, but by Fire and Sword. And this is Allatius his Moderation, which does not well ac­cord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines.

BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him, we need but hear him­self, to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences, to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks. After the taking of Constantino­ple, L. 3. C. 1. saies he, the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches; they establish­ed a Latine Patriarch, they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests, they cre­ated a Latin Emperor, who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders, and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece, they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever apper­tained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople. The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia, having but three or four Cities left him, which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks. Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins, but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes. He adds a little after, that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope, that at length the Emperour Henry, Baldwin's Suc­cessor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus. He tells us like­wise L. 3. C. 7. in another place, that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans, and Fryar Minorites, that is to say, Inquisitors as he himself calls them, who had often performed this Office in France, and Germany, and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks, who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them, and a great part of their Piety to have them se­verely Punished, that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks, and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them, and examine their Doctrine.

WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Ar­naud's good Intentions towards them; these historical Passages he has of­fered, were enough to make him suspected. For this deplorable Conditi­on of Greece and all the East, and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion, for several Years together, that is to say, for near two hundred Years in the East, and fifty eight in Greece, might well introduce amongst these People, the Belief of a substantial Conversion, and there is methinks, more reason to admire, if this has not hapned, than if it hath.

WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories. He tells L. 3. C. 7. us three things worth our Observation. The first is, that altho Constantino­ple was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus, yet they kept still seve­ral places in Greece, and even whole Provinces, as Achaia. Secondly, that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands, as Cyprus, Crete, Eu­beé Rhodes, and divers other Places. Thirdly, that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes, caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them, and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople, so that there was always a great number there, who made Profession of the Romish Religion. Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce; but in several places their Lords and Masters, and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion.

LEO Allatius, tells us likewise that, when the King of England had Pos­sessed De Perp. Con­sens. L. 2. C. 15. himself of Cyprus, and given it to the King of Jerusalem, that he might return home, the whole Country was immediately filled with Priests and Latin Bishops, to bring over the People to Piety and Orthodoxy.

WHEREUNTO Mr. Arnaud Consents, and saies, That they were L. 3. C. 1. P. 256. more rigorously handled for their Religion in Cyprus, than in Greece, that se­veral Greek Authors have grievously complained of these Cruelties; and that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, residing in Asia, most pathetically laid open their Sufferings to Pope Gregory the ninth.

FRYAR Stephen, a Portugais, in his History of the Kingdom of Cyprus, General Hist. of the Isle and Kingdom of Cyprus. Fol. 71. Relates that altho Guy de Lusignan, was King of Jerusalem, yet was he forc'd to be contented with being King of Cyprus. He brought along with him seve­ral Greeks, Armenians, Coptites, Maronites, Jacobites, Indians, Nestorians, Iberians, and Georgians, who would not acknowledg the Romane Prelacy, each of these having their own Patriarch. 'Tis true, saies he, that the Kings of Lusignan would not permit their Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them, Ibid. but ordered they should only administer to them the Sacraments, leaving the Over­plus to the Jurisdiction of the Latine Arch-Bishop, to whom these Nations in this respect were Subject. He likewise Relates, that about the same time, there was published the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget, in which our Saviour himself exhorted the Greeks to submit to the Roman Church. Let Ibid. the Greeks know, (these are the Words,) that their Empire, Kingdoms, and Lordships, will never be in Peace and Security, but always subject to their Ene­mies, from whom they will continually receive exceeding great Dammages, and perpetual Miseries, till such time as they submit themselves to the Church of Rome with a true Humility and Charity, obeying its Holy Constitutions, and [Page 80] Ceremonies, and wholly conform themselves to her Faith. And after this manner did they make Heaven and Earth meet, to cause these People to change their Religion.

WE may then I think plainly enough see, that it has not bin the Latins Fault, if the Greeks have not received their Doctrines, from whence it fol­lows that if it dos appear they have from that time Believed Transub­stantiation, and it not appearing they held it before, we may then rea­sonably conclude, they received it from the Latins. This is a Consequence which follows naturally of it self. The Testimony of the Greeks cannot be any longer produced as that of the pure Greeks, after so many endeavours to make them embrace the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the more Mr. Arnaud strives to prove the Entercourse of these two Nations, the greater hold he gives us to contest with him the Advantage he pretends to have obtained from hence. But he uses an admirable Expedient, to hinder us from minding this Consequence. For having seen on one hand, that these Histories were too well known, to be passed over wholly in Silence; and on the other, that if he should sincerely produce them as they are in them­selves, they would certainly make for our Advantage, as it hath bin already observed; he has thereupon bethought himself, and presented them in ano­ther kind of Dress, whereby he may insensibly turn aside his Readers Minds, and amuse them by an agreeable Diversion. And to this end has thought good to suppose, I denyed the Greeks knew what was the Belief of the La­tins, and to employ all these historical Passages in opposing this Phantastical Supposition, that is to say, in manifesting the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist, I shall make appear in its proper place, that this is but a vain Pretence, and a meer quibling on Words, which he has designedly taken in a Sence contrary to my meaning. Where­fore I here declare it never entred into my Thoughts to deny, what he makes me deny. For this is an Invention he has used on purpose to conceal his in­direct dealing.


That the Greek Emperors, led by politick Interests, have themselves favoured the Design of the Latins, in Introducing their Doctrines into Greece. Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered.

IT has not bin only the Latins that earnestly endeavoured to make the Greeks receive their Doctrines. For even the Grecian Emperors them­selves have favoured this Design; induced by politick Respects, which put them upon seeking the Friendship of the Western Princes, and especially that of the Popes, who in those times, as speaks Mr. Arnaud, gave Laws to all the rest, and that even in Temporals. We all know what a great Influence the Inclinations of Princes have, not only on the People, but Ec­clesiasticks and Prelates. It is usual with Subjects to turn themselves on that side which is most pleasing to their Sovereign, and there are few Persons who make it not their Business so to do, especially when Princes openly de­clare their Minds, and make use of their Authority in punishing those that withstand them, and rewarding those that approve them. Now this the Grecian Emperours have often particularly done, in favour of the Church of Rome, to which they have endeavoured to unite their Subjects.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit, reckons up fourteen of these interessed Reuni­ons, De reb. Mos­covit. P. 7. the Greeks, saies he, have bin reunited to us fourteen times, by publick Confessions, and have so many times departed from us. And it is certain that as they have ever known the Popes earnest Desires to submit them to the See of Rome, so likewise have they not failed to flatter this Desire by fair Promises, when they needed that Churches Assistance, either for the obtaining of some important Design, or for the averting of some dangerous Tempest which threat­ned them. But as soon as ever these have bin over, they have returned to their first State, and slighted these Reunions. I know not how it hath come to pass that the Popes having bin so often deceived, should still continue so Facile; but perhaps it was not a single Interest, but be it as it will, the Popes have never bin backwards in these Matters.

MY Design is not to set down here all these Reunions, one after another, and relate their particular Circumstances, seeing an Account thereof is to be met with in sundry Historians, but more especially in the Book Leo Allatius wrote touching the Agreement of these two Churches. I shall only here take notice of some of them observed by Mr. Arnaud, and which will be suf­ficient to shew after what manner the Greek Emperors have proceeded in Favour of the Latins, when they wanted the Pope's Assistance.

MICHAEL Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo Bishop of Acrida, having written some Letters against the Church of Rome, to Peter the Patriarch of Antioch, thereupon caused the Latine Churches to be shut up at Constantinople. Pope Leo the Eleventh was greatly moved at it. He therefore wrote to Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida a long Letter, wherein he [Page 82] answered their Objections, and accused likewise the Greek Church of Light­ness, Rashness, and Presumption. This hap'ned about the middle of the ele­venth Century. The Emperor Constantin Monomaque who then Reigned, seeing this Difference, did not stick to take the Church of Rome's part: he commanded therefore Cerularius to write back to the Pope, Letters of Re­conciliation and Peace; and the Pope sends thereupon to Constantinople (in order to the Churches Re-union) his Legats, Humbert, and Frederic, Cardi­nals, and Peter, Arch-Bishop of Melphus, with Letters to the Emperor and Patriarch. The Emperor granted to these Legates whatsoever they desi­red, even to the constraining Nicetas Pectoratus, a Greek Monk, that had written against the Romain Church, to burn publickly his own Book, and anathematise all those that would not acknowledg the Pope's Supremacy, or dared in any wise censure the Doctrines of the Latins. This Protection so raised the Legates Courage, that coming into the Patriarchal Church, in the presence of all the People and Greek Clergy, they Excommunicated the Patriarch and Bishop of Acrida, and all that took their Parts; which raised such a Tumult in Constantinople, that the Emperor had much ado to save the Legates from the Popular Fury, who after this returned into Italy; where­upon the Patriarch Excommunicated, on his Side, the Legates, and rased the Popes Name out of the Diptyches, which are Tables, wherein the Names of those that are prayed for in the Divine Service were set down. Some Authors say, that he Anathematised the Pope, and all the Latines, as Here­ticks; but Leo Allatius cites the Testimony of an anonymous Author, by which it appears, that the Emperor hindered, by his, Authority this Ex­communication. In the time, saies this Author, that Michael Cerularius Anonym. apud Allat. de perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 8. held the See of Constantinople, the four Patriarchs rased the Pope's Name out of the Dyptiches, and yet did they not fully pronounce the Anathema against the Latines, being hind'red by the Emperor, who considered them as a great and mighty Nation, and therefore was afraid of their usual Incursions.

IN the Year 1071, Michael Parapinacius was made Emperor, being a Prince that loved his Ease, and therefore withstood not the Turks Progress into Europe. He observed the usual Policy of the Greek Emperors, which L. 2. C. 8. P. 173. was, to favour the Latines; and Mr. Arnaud observes from Baronius, and Leo Allatius, that Pope Alexander the second, sent to him Peter, Bishop of Anag­nia, Allet. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 9. as his Nuncio. Allatius adds that Peter remained a Year at Constanti­nople. Which shews us, saies he, This Emperor was in the Communion of the Roman Church, and in effect, Gregory the seventh Excommunicated, upon his account, Nicephorus Botionatus, who had usurped the Empire, and shut up Michael in a Monastery.

IN the Year 1081 Nicephorus Botoniatus, was handled by Alexis Com­nenus, in the same manner that Michael was used by Nicephorus, that is to say, he was deprived of the Empire and shut up in a Monastery. But Alex­is getting into his place, varied not from the Custom of his Predecessors: the necessity of his Affairs obliging him to turn himself on the Side of the La­tins, more openly than others had done before him, and observe their Mea­sures, altho inwardly he did not affect them. He obstructed their Designs on the Holy Land, as much as in him lay, and hind'red their Passage thither, obliging them sometimes to turn their Arms against him, and chastize him Rationar. temp. Part 1. L. 8. C 13. Baron. ad ann. 1095. severely; which caused Pelavius the Jesuit, to say, That it was impossible for a man to be more deceitful and unjust than this Emperor was towards the Latines in this whole Expedition. Yet had he sent his Embassadors to the Council [Page 83] of Plaisance to sollicite the Pope and Western Princes to undertake the War against the Infidels. He flattered the Romain Church on all Occasions, send­ing Allat. de Cons L 2. C. 10. oftentimes Presents to the Monastery of Mount Cassin, using likewise the same Liberality towards the other Latine Churches, and especially that of St. Marc at Venice, on which he bestowed considerable Revenues, as 'tis obser­ved by Allatius, who alledgeth for this the Testimony of the Princess Ann Barron. ad ann. 109 [...]. Comnenus the Daughter of this Emperor. He likewise gave his helping Hand towards the Essay of a Re-union made at the Synod of Bary in the Year 1097. He sent Embassadors to Rome in Behalf of Pope Paschal, the second Baron. ad ann. 1112 & ad ann. 1118. who obtained the Papacy, two Years after the Synod of Bary, and this Pope in the second Year of his Popedom, sent him the Arch-Bishop of Milain. Eo solo nomine quod ipse existimo, saies Allatius, ut si quid erat in Graecia Allat. ubi supra. noxium ex Cerularii Schola radicitus extirparet, Graecosque alios contineret in fide. To the end he might utterly Extirpate, whatsoever remained of Cerulari­us his Doctrine, and keep the other Greeks in the Faith.

JOHN Comnénus, who succeeded Alexis, was yet more favourable to the Latines than Alexis, for this I suppose is the Jesuit Peteau's meaning, when he saies that he was, Patre aliquanto commodior, a little less troublesom than his Father. I do not observe there has bin any thing more said of him on this Subject, unless, that he received a Letter from Peter the Abbot of Clugny, in which he entreated him to surrender a Monastery belonging to them of his Order at Constantinople, and which had bin taken from them, promising he should participate of all the Merits of that Order, if he re­established them. Baronius saies likewise that Anaclet the Antypope to In­nocent Baron. ad ann. 1130. the second, wrote to this Emperor, informing him of his Promotion to the Popedom; and that he called him his most dear Son.

AFTER John succeeded Manuel Comnénus, a Prince very much addict­ed to Dissimulation and double Dealing, who on one hand did the Latines all the Mischief he privately could, by the Secret Intelligence he held with the Sarracens, and on the other, earnestly endeavoured at a complyance with the Desires of the Church of Rome, touching the Re-union of the Greeks. Allatius tells us, that he sent Embassadors to Pope Alexander the Allat. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 11. third, to treat with him concerning this Re-union, and that the Pope sent John the Sub-Deacon of the Church of Rome, to Constantinople, to reduce the Greeks by his Sermons. He likewise tells us, 'twas this Emperor that ob­liged Hugo Eterianus to write against the Greeks, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost; that the Empress his Wife (as Mr. Arnaud himself ob­serves) after him, was a Germain and of the Romish Religion: and that he be­stowed great Gifts on the Latine Churches: whereupon the Latine Bishops for an acknowledgment of his Munificence, set up his Image in their Church­es. It is difficult to Imagine how a Prince who in his Heart so greatly hated the Latines, that the Jesuit Peteau has not stuck thereupon to call him, homi­nem subdolum & Christianis rebus quae ad Latinos spectabant infestum & iniquum Ration. Temp. Part 1. C. 8. C. 21. adeo, ut cum Saracenis in eorum conspiraret exitium, that is to say, a Person so deceitful and cruel to the Latine Church, that he conspired its Ruine, together with the Saracens, yet should favour the Latins in his Empire, and endea­vour to procure the Re-union of its Church with the Roman. But Allatius unties the Knot, by shewing us in the Acts of Alexander the third, that the Allat. ubi Supra. Design of this Emperor was so to bring it about, that the Pope who was at Variance with the Emperor Frederick, should take away from him the Latin Empire, and render it to the Greeks, to whom Manüel affirmed it did justly [Page 84] belong: and for this Effect he sent Embassadors to the Pope; and the Pope sent back together with his Embassadors the Bishop of Ostia, to negociate this Affair at Constantinople. Howsoever it was, it sufficiently appears that all these different Interests yielded the Latins fit Opportunities to plant their Doctrines amongst the Greeks.

EMANUEL'S Intrigue was so far carried on, that he assembled a Allat. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 2. Idem. Ibid. Council at Constantinople, where the Reunion of the Churches was propo­sed. Some say, the Latins required no more of the Greeks, but the Acknow­ledgment of the Popes Authority, the grant of Appeals, and the Comme­moration of him in the publick Prayers of their Church: Others say, the Latins would have intirely subjected the Greeks to their Wills and Customs. That which is certain is, they could not Agree, and that the Emperor him­self lent his helping Hand to separate them, yet not daring to Anathematise Ancyr an. apud Allat. Ibid. the Latins, because, saies a Greek Author, Cited by Allatius, they were a great and famous People.

AFTER the Latins had established their Empire at Constantinople, the Greeks withdrew into Asia, where they chose an Emperor and Patriarch, and the Affairs of the Latins falling to decay, there was an after Tryal made upon the Greeks, touching a Reunion. Mr. Arnaud observes, that the Pope wrote about it to Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, and 'tis ve­ry L. 3. C. 2. likely he forgot not to sollicite the Emperor, who was then John Ducas. He sent two Dominicans, and two Franciscans, who caused an Assembly to be called for this Effect, but to no purpose. For each of them had his par­ticular Interest and Design in this Affair.

THE Pope intended to subject the Greek Church to himself, and the Em­peror endeavoured to hinder the Pope from favouring the Latins, who held Constantinople, and to Regain this City, as the Greeks did some time after; Mathew Paris gives an account of these Letters of the Patriarch to the Mat. Par. in Henrico. 3. Pope, and of the Popes to the Patriarch, concerning this Negotia­tion.

THEODORUS Lascaris succeeded John Ducas, in the Year 1255. Raynald. ad ann. 1256. numb. 47. Pope Alexander the fourth fail'd not to sollicite him to a Reunion: he sent him an express Legate for that purpose; but this Emperor soon died, where­upon this Affair was no farther prosecuted.

ALLATIUS observes there was then a Greek Patriarch, Named Blem­mida, Allat. de Cons. Perp. L. 2. C. 14. who was a Learned Man, and very Zealous for this Union with the Latins.

MICHAEL Paleologus, obtaining the Empire, and having a while after made himself Master of Constantinople, endeavoured above all others at L. 5. C. 1. P. 255. a Reunion with the Latines, Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, that having united himself to the Church of Rome, he forced, by all manner of Severity, the Bishops and Religious Greeks to do the same. This Prince Contracted a particular Friendship with Gregory the Tenth, before he came to the Popedom, accord­ing to Allatius, which gave him the greater Facility to Negociate with the Allat. de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 15. Church of Rome. He sent several times his Embassadors, and the Pope his Legates in order to a Reconciliation. He held several Councils on this Oc­casion, Ibid. and Inflicted the greatest Torments on those that had the Courage to re­sist [Page 85] him, and promoted others who embraced this Union; these are Allatius his own Words. He falsly accused John Veccus, Treasurer to the Church of Constantinople, and caused him to be Imprisoned; because Veccus had said in his hearing, that altho the Latines were not respected as Hereticks, yet were Pachymer. Hist. Lib. 5. C. 12. they such nevertheless; which so greatly provoked this Emperor, as caused him to think of nothing but Revenge; And for as much as Veccus had shelt­red himself in the Temple of St. Sophia, and the Emperor daring not to Violate this Asylum, he wrote to him very kind Letters, intreating him to come to him, which Veccus had no sooner endeavoured, but was apprehend­ed, and carried to the Tower, where he was sollicited to joyn with the Idem C. 13. Latins.

THIS Prince made and unmade Patriarchs at his Will, he usurped, saies the Historian Raynaldus, the Ecclesiastical Authority, placing and displa­ing Raynald. ad ann. 261. Num. 32. Vide. Pach. Patriarchs at his Pleasure. He first of all constrain'd Arsenius to resign up his place to Nicephorus; and after the taking of Constantinople, he recal­led the same Arsenius, who had excommunicated him, for what he had done against John Lascaris the Son of Theodorus, to whom the Empire did of Right belong; and whose Eyes he had caused to be put out; and seeing he could not prevail on this Patriarch, he raised up false Witnesses against him, and caused him to be deposed in a Synod, and Germain chosen in his place. Germain not being sutable to his Humour, he so far prevailed with him as to obtain a voluntary Resignation to Joseph; but Joseph not consenting to the Reunion with the Latins, nor the sending of Deputites to the Pope, with whom the Emperor had charged them to conclude this Affair, he caused him therefore to retire into a Covent, upon Condition that if this Matter broke off, he should enter again into his charge of Patriarch. Now the Deputies being returned with the News of the Reunion accomplished, the Emperor chose this same above named John Veccus, who at length suf­fered himself to be won, either by the reading of some Books put into his Hands, or by the Miseries he had suffered during a long Imprisonment, and hope of a contrary Usage: Yet Veccus did not please him long.

IT would be a difficult matter to relate here all the Violences and Cru­elties of Michael, against those that withstood the Reunion of the two Churches. It will be sufficient to relate here two or three of them, by which we may judge of the rest. He Imprisoned Holobulus Rhetor of the Church of Constantinople, whose Office, according to Codinius, was to Interpret the Holy Scriptures, and caused him to be cruelly Scourged, and at length a Pachymer. L. 5. C. 20 Codin. de Offi­ciis Const. Cap. 1. Rope to be fastned about his Neck, and to be thus exposed thro out all the City, with his Wife and Neece, together with ten others, bound after the same manner, causing the two former of these to be flapt ever and anon on the Cheeks, with the Entrails of a Sheep, which is amongst the Greeks, a kind of Infamous Punishment, wherewith only the Vilest Offenders are treat­ed, and those who add Obstinacy to the Crimes of which they have bin Guil­ty. He likewise Imprisoned four of the Chief Officers of his House, two of which were his Kinsmen, and there kept them a long time laden with Idem. L. 6. C. 16. Irons. This Severity seemed very great, but not content therewith; when the Pope sent Legates to Constantinople, to Confirm the Greeks in their Obe­dience to him, he made them Witnesses of his Cruelty towards the Oppo­sers of this Union, commanding a certain Bishop of Ephesus, to conduct them to the Prison, and shew them these four Persons, who were of the chiefest Rank in Greece, they were in a square Room, each of 'em chained [Page 86] to a corner thereof, and laden with Irons, and that which was an Aggrava­tion of their Misery, was to be thus exposed a Spectacle to their Ene­mies.

WOULD we know the Motives inducing this Prince to use so great Idem. L. 3. C. 18. Severity in this matter. Observe we then what Pachymerus tells us. He sent oftentimes Embassadors to the Pope, and endeavoured to gain him by Pre­sents. For he plainly perceived the Danger lay on that side, and that the Itali­ans could not lye long Idle; Wherefore he made Proposals of Union, to the end he might be secure as to them, and the better Dispose of his other Affairs. These Embassies then were frequent, and the Presents Magnificent, not only to the Pope, but likewise to several Cardinals, and others whom he judged powerful in the Court of Rome. In effect as soon as ever Pope Urbain the fourth, receiv­ed Raynald. ad ann. 1262. num. 3. &c. ad ann. 1262. the News of the re-taking of Constantinople, and the Progress of the Greeks, he earnestly endeavoured to stir up the Princes and People to assist the Latins; he wrote for this Effect, to the Fryar Minorites in France, and enjoyned them to Preach a Croisado on this occasion, with the same In­dulgences which had bin granted them that undertook the Holy War; he wrote likewise to King Lewis upon the same account; and threatned the Genoises who favoured Michael, (being at Varyance with the Venetians) that if they forsook not his Allyance, he would excommunicate them, he wrote to the Prelates of England and France, exhorting them to contribute to this War, in short he forgot nothing he judged necessary in this Occasi­on. Michael then seeing that the only means to shelter himself from this Storm, Raynald. ad ann. 1263. num 22. was to fly to the usual Policy of the Greeks, that is to say, to negotiate the Re-union of the two Churches; he thereupon wrote to the Pope, Letters full of Respect and Affection to the Roman Church, and having received such an Answer as he desired, he earnestly applyed himself to this Business. Mr. Arnaud himself is agreed on the Motives which set this Emperor at work. Foreseeing, saies he, the Popes would not fail to arm the Western Prin­ces L. 3. C. 2. P. 266. against him, and that he had a potent Enemy, in the Person of Charles D'Anjou, King of Naples, and Sicily, with whom the Emperor Baldwin, being driven from Constantinople was allyed, he resolved thereupon to reunite the Greeks with the Roman Church, that he might by this means deliver himself from the fear of those dreadful Croisado's, which made the Greek Emperors tremble at that time in Constantinople, the Sultans in Babylon and Grand Caire, and the Tartars themselves as far as Persia. It is certain, adds he, that this Re-union was carried on upon politick Respects.

AND these in effect were the true Reasons of Michael's Undertakings; which being his greatest Interest, he therefore left no means unattempted whereby to accomplish it. Which Mr. Arnaud does still grant; We may read, saies he, in Pachymerus, that he endeavoured too violently, to bring the Bishops over to his Will. But did he not acknowledg it, we need only L. 3. C. 3. P. 274. read what Michael himself saies in his harangue to the Greek Clergy, assem­bled upon this Occasion. I must acknowledg, saies he, that I have stisled with­in me the most tender Sentiments of Nature, to accomplish my design. You know Pachym. L. 6. C. 15. I loved a Person, with the same tenderness and Respect, as if he had been my own Father, and I believed I ow'd him more than my Father, seeing he gave me the Communion, and received me into the Bosom of the Church, which I esteem more than the giving me Life, and yet have I Sacrificed him to this Interest. 'Tis the Patriarch Joseph I mean. I have violently handled several others, even my intimate Friends, and oppressed divers among your selves. I have moreover [Page 87] several of my near Kinsmen in Prison, there having bin no other Reason for their opposing me, or my punishing them, than only this Re-union with the La­tins. I think this is sufficient to Convince us, that this Emperor abused his Power in Favour of the Court of Rome.

I confess those that succeeded him, altho they had the same Opinion touch­ing the Re-union, yet used not the same Extremities, nevertheless John Pa­léologus Raynald. ad ann. 1370. endeavoured earnestly to effect this, and therefore went in Person to Rome in great Pomp, to make his Declaration.

EMANUEL the second who succeeded him, trod in the same Steps, addressing himself to Pope Boniface the ninth, who published a Croisado for his Assistance against the Turks; and a while after, he treated with Mar­tin the fifth, touching the Reconciliation of the two Churches. In Fine, John the seventh, Paleologus came to the Council of Florence, and Syrop. Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 2. C. 5. sent his Clergy thither on the same Design.

WE may then well conclude the Latins wanted not Opportunities to in­troduce their Religion amongst the Greeks. For first it is not to be supposed but that this great Passion these Emperors shewed towards this Union, in­clined the Minds and Hearts of several Persons, as well of the Clergy as Laity to favour the Roman Church, to embrace its Interests, and accommo­date themselves to its Doctrine. We all know how weak and fickle the greatest part of mankind are, they approve and esteem whatsoever is in Fa­vour and Credit, there being few whose Minds are not Byassed even in Re­ligious matters, by temporal Advantages. Men commonly in such cases en­deavour to Mollisy and take in a good Sence, that which before was a Sub­ject of Scandal: they enlarge or diminish Objects, to bring 'em to the Point they desire; they hearken to nothing but what is pleasing, and behold what­soever opposes their Interest in such a manner as shall be sure to render it unjust and odious.

IN the second place, we need not doubt but this same Passion of the Em­perors obliged several others to manage these Controversies, and let go di­vers Articles as being but of small Importance. All the Schismatical Greeks, De Perp. Cons. L. 3. C. 12. saies Allatius, are not like minded towards the Latins, some of them are more moderate than others, making the Difference consist only in one or two Points; o­thers more Rigorous, for whatsoever the Latins do, which agrees not with the Ce­remonies and Rites of the Greeks, they Condemn and Reject, as an Abomination. He Confirms afterwards what he saies, by a Passage taken out of Demetrius Comatenus, which tells us, that several moderate Greeks, agreed with the La­tins in divers Particulars, acknowledging the proud and fierce Humor of their Nation, which hath almost become Barbarous by their frequent Commerce with the Barbarians, and that these aforementioned have only stuck at the single Ar­ticle touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Arnaud himself saies, 'twas L. 2. C. 10. P. 200. observed the Greeks were of different Dispositions in those times (he means in the twelfth Century) for some of 'em maintained the Latins ought to be treat­ed as Hereticks, and others blamed these Transports of Passion. But 'tis certain even the most rigorous amongst them, only stuck to those Points which were openly debated by the two Churches, amongst which the Principal were touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Azymes. The Constancy they shewed in Reference to these Articles, sufficiently exposed them to the Hatred and ill Usage of their Emperors, so that we need not [Page 88] descend to the Examination of other Particulars, which broke not out into Disputes on either side.

NEITHER need we any more doubt but that several condescended to the Will of their Emperors, upon this Consideration, that altho they were Reunited to the Church of Rome, yet should they suffer no Alteration, ei­ther in the essential Parts of their Religion, or Ceremonies, and that there was no hurt in cheating these Latins, by this Fancy of a Union, which sig­nified nothing at th'bottom, but which yet would yield them great Advantage in their Affairs. And this was the chief Reason which Michael Paleologus offered to his Clergy, according to Pachymerus his Relation, he shewed them, saies he, that the only Cause moving him to procure this Peace with the Latine Pachym. Hist. L. 5. C. 1. Church, was to hinder those Cruel and Bloody Wars which threatned them, and to spare his Subjects Blood. That as to the rest, they might assure themselves, that after the Reunion, their Church should remain as it was, without any Inno­vation? That he himself would take care of it. That the whole Reconciliation with the Church of Rome, might be reduced to these three Articles, viz. The Primacy, Appeal, and Commemoration, all which signified nothing, if rightly considered. For when, saies he, will the Pope come to Constantinople, to take Possession of this Primacy! who will make Appeals, to end them in so far a Coun­try, who will Cross the Seas for this. And as to the Commemoration of the Pope in our Patriarchal Temple, and your other great Temple, (when the Patriarch shall Officiate there,) being prudent as you are, can this appear such a strange thing to you. Do you not know the Fathers have often made use of Dispensati­ons, and frequently submitted themselves for the publick Good. Pachymerus adds, that there were some in effect who let go these two Articles touching the Primacy, and Appeals, upon this Consideration, that the Pope would have only the Name and Shadow of the thing, but never enjoy the thing it self.

BUT in fine, we need not question, but this Carriage of the Emperors, much encouraged and imboldned the Latins, to endeavour effectually to insinuate their Opinions into the Minds of both Clergy and Laity, under pretence of instructing, and making them capable of this Union. We know what a Religious Zeal can do, and especially when 'tis countenanced by Pow­er, and seconded by hopes of Success. Had the Greek Church remained but some Years in this Condition, it might be said, that these have bin but slight and transient Attempts, which have not had time to produce any great Effects. But 'tis certain that since the eleventh Century, which is to say, since the time Berengarius was last Condemned, till now, she has bin continually as it were under the Roman Yoke, and they have had all desira­ble Opportunities to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and 'tis a kind of Miracle if they have not obtained their Ends. For when men have had to do with an ignorant and gross People, in matters of Religion, as the Greeks are, and have bin for a long time, when Persons have had a familiar and ordinary Commerce with them, and have besides all proper means to prevail on them, as Power, Authority, Mildness, the way of In­struction, Fear, Hope, and moreover upheld by the Emperors, Patriarchs, and Bishops; it is so far from being difficult to do what one will, that 'tis on the contrary very difficult not to do it. Whence it follows, that even when Mr. Arnaud should make it appear that Transubstantiation, and the A­doration of the Eucharist, have bin established amongst the Greeks since the eleventh Century, his Proofs would be useless and of no Consequence, as [Page 89] to our Debate; for it might always be answered, that this Doctrine hath bin communicated to them by the Latins, and the ways of this Communication are not hard to be understood. Mr. Arnaud has bin very sensible of the truth of what I say, and therefore was willing to relate, himself the greatest part of these Historical Passages I mentioned: But he has otherwise represented them, to the end he might draw fruitless and impertinent Conclusions from them, and by this means hinder us from making a just and right use of them. This Deceit of his, is like to that he has us'd in the foregoing Chapter.

WE shall in the insuing part of this Discourse, overthrow his pretend­ed Consequences. It may suffice at present to observe the Circuit he has taken, on purpose to divert his Reader from discovering the real Truth. For I do not believe there is any rational Man but will judge, that seeing these Doctrines appeared not in the Greek Church, before these Disorders; if they should appear afterwards, they must be introduced by them. This is a natural and plain Conclusion.


That the Monks and other Emissaries, with which the Eastern Coun­tries have bin for a long time Replenished, do Invalidate the Proof taken from the Belief of these People. Mr. Arnaud's fourth De­ceit laid open.

MR. Arnaud's fourth Artifice consists in concealing from us, the Care taken for several Ages, to fill Greece, Asia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Indias, and in a word, all the Countries wherein there's any People professing Christianity, with Religious, and other Ec­clesiastical Persons, sent expresly to plant the Roman Religion, and even to establish fixt Seminaries, who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks. This Artifice of his, is not of small Importance: for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars; without which 'tis impossible to make a true and right Judg­ment of this Controversie. And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Ar­naud's Ingenuity. For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us, if they are so publickly known that 'twill be to no purpose to conceal them, he then produces them, but in so doing, applyes them to o­ther matters, on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them: and on the other hand, if they are Passages less known, and that he may well conceal them; he then either not mentions them, or but lightly touches on them, to the end they may not be throughly considered. He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions. Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches; he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them, or [Page 90] if at all, so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of, lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret, and overthrowing himself, what he has taken upon him to defend. But seeing he has no reason to ex­pect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity; and that they must know no more but what he tells them, so he must not take it ill, if I relate what he would have concealed.

I say then, that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land, and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire, all Greece and other Eastern Nations, have bin filled with Monks, or Emissaries, whose only design and employ­ment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries. Mr. Arnaud, who commonly takes things in the worst Sence, will be sure to tell me I am to blame, in blaming this Design; Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Re­ligion, it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith, to do all they can, to make Schismaticks, and Heretical People to Embrace the same. To which I answer, I do not at all blame the Endea­vours of the Roman Church, to win these People. Seeing she believes they are in an Error, and therefore would undeceive them, and so far is Christi­anly and Charitably done; but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use, which savour so much of worldy Policy, they are in no wise to be commend­ed. I do not, I say, blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to pro­pagate their Faith; seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Com­munion.

YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud, who knows full well, what the Monks and Emissaries have done, and do still in the East. That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason, That they are to be found established amongst these People. For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind, no means ha­ving bin left untried to effect this; how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation, this Doctrine hath bin received by them, at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them? Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence? Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction, Instruction, Conversion, or what else he please? Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us, That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, for whose sake the E­missaries have taken such Pains, do believe Transubstantiation, it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches, for this is a way of Arguing, which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him, that if these People believe Transubstantiation, 'tis because the Emissaries have taught it them, unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them. And this is the Contents of this Chapter. The Consequence I pretend to draw hence, is clear enough in it self, and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks, and Emissaries in the Le­vant.

FIRST then, it is evident, that after the Conquest of the Holy Land, both Palestine, and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order. Mr. Ar­naud himself acknowledges it, and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry, who tells us, that multitudes of People resorted from all parts L. 1. C. 10. P. 194. of the World, to the Holy Land, being allured thither by the Odour of those Ve­nerable [Page 91] and Holy Places, where they repaired the decayed Churches, Built new ones, and founded Monasteries in several Places, by the Liberality of Princes. In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors, who were present at the Councils held at Napolis, a City of Samaria, and at An­tioch. Guill. Tyr. L 12. C. 1 [...]. L. 15. C. 16. & L. 12. C. 25. He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians, and Patriarch of Jerusalem. Mr. Arnaud him­self saies, there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks, together with others of St. Norbet, and St. Bennet, in several Commodious Places.

NEITHER need we any more doubt, but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece, the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof, to which Mr. Arnaud consents, and tells us, That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites, that is to say, Inquisitors who had often performed this Office, in France and Germany. He farther saies, that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks, and examine their Doctrine; which is not a difficult matter to believe.

IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius, Pope Alexander the third sent Baron. ad ann. 1177. a certain Physitian, called Phillip into Ethiopia, to convert the Christians of that Country, and Instruct them in the Romish Religion.

NOT long after, Innocent the third obtained the Popedom, and imme­diately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over Raynald. ad ann. 1193. num. 55. to the Roman Church. And sent for this Purpose John, and Simon, into Dio­clia and Dalmatia, and some others into Bulgaria, Albertus, and Albertinus, to Constantinople, and the Arch Bishop of Mayence, into Armenia.

GREGORY the ninth his Successor, continued the same Design. Ray­naldus Reports in his time, all Asia was full of Religious, who went up and Raynald. ad ann. 1233. down, Preaching from place to place. He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip, which he wrote to the Pope, in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of the Patriarch of the Eastern Jacobites, of two Arch Bishops, one a Jacobit, and the other a Nestorian, of the Conversion of the Patriarch of the Nestorians, and of an other Patriarch of the Jacobits in Egypt. He added farther that all these Nations, viz. the Christians of Chaldea, Media, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Phe­nicia, India, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt, yielded themselves to their Exhor­tations▪ there remaining none but the Greeks that persevered in their Malice, and who every where withstood the Doctrine of the Roman Church, either privately or openly, in blaspheming all its Sacraments.

INNOCENT the fourth who succeeded Gregory, wrote to the Prince Raynald. ad ann. 1245. num. 11. of Bulgaria, Solliciting him to embrace the Religion of the Latins, and for this effect sent him several Monks and Fryars, entreating him to give them a favourable Hearing. In the Year 1246 he sent Fryar Ascelinus, Simon of St. Quentin, Alexander, and Albertus of the Order of Preachers, and John du plan Carpin, with Fryar Bennet a Polander, of St. Francis's Order, to the Tartars, to perswade them to receive the Christian Faith; they passed thro Russia, and delivered to Duke Daniel, to Basil his Brother, and the Bishops of that Country the Popes Letters, which conjured them, to forsake the Greek John du Plan's Voy­age C. 9. & C. 24. Religion which they professed, and unite themselves to the Roman Church; they likewise endeavoured with all their Power to effect this, and the Suc­cess of their Negociation was, that the Russians sent Deputies to Opizon, [Page 92] who was then the Popes Legate in Poland, offering to submit themselves to the Roman Church, provided the Pope would raise their Countries into a Kingdom, and bestow the regal Crown on their Duke. Opizon gladly receiv­ed them, and granted what they demanded. The Pope sent the Arch Bishop of Prusia in quality of a Legate, and ordered for their Instruction in the Ro­mish Religion, a Mission made up of as many Secular Priests, as Religions, of the Order of Preachers, and Fryar Minorites, amongst whom there was cho­sen a certain Preaching Fryar named Alexius, who was particularly to attend the Prince. The Arch Bishop of Prussia reconciled King Daniel, his Brother Basil, who was King of Laudemirie, and likewise their People to the Church of Rome.

BUT whilst Innocent, endeavoured the Conversion of the Russians, he neg­lected not the rest of the Christians in the East. He earnestly laboured, saies Raynald. ad ann. 1247. num. 30. & ad ann. 1253, num. 38. Raynaldus, to Reduce those People, how far distant soever they were, and for this purpose sent them several Religious, who were Learned and Zealous for the propogating of the Faith, whom he honoured with the Title of Apostolical Le­gates. He farther saies, that he gave to Lawrence his Penetentiary a large Commission, for the same purpose, injoyning him to take care of Armenia, Iconia, Turky, Greece, Babylon, and endeavour to gain the Greeks, who were in the Patriarchate of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Kingdom of Cyprus, as well as the Jacobites, Maronites, and Nestorians.

IN the Year 1253, the foresaid Innocent the fourth, sent William de Ru­bruquis, Voyage of Rubriq. C. 1. &c. and Bartholomew de Cremone, who were of the Order of Fryar Mi­norites, into Tartaria, where they found several Christians of the Greek and Nestorian Religion, for the Reduction of whom they laboured with all their Power.

URBAIN the fourth imitating in this his Predecessors, sent in the Year 1264 Nicholas Bishop of Crotonia, with Gerard and Rayner, Monks of the Raynald. ad. ann. 1264. num. 64. 65. Order of Fryar Minorites, to Michael Paleologus the Grecian Emperor, who had re-taken Constantinople, To the end, saies Raynaldus, he might be instruct­ed together with his People, in the Orthodox Religion. It appears by the Let­ters of Clement his Successor, that Urbain, sent moreover other Monks to Constantinople, on the same Design, to wit, Simon, Peter de Moras, Peter de Raynald. ad ann. 1267. numb. 73. Ibid. num. 81. Crista; and Boniface, and Clement sent Dominicans.

IN the Year 1276, two Bishops, and two preaching Fryars went into Greece, by order of Pope Innocent the twenty first, to instruct farther the Idem. ad ann. 1276. num. 45. & ad ann. 1277. num. 20. 21. Greeks, and confirm them in Obedience to the Roman See, to which the Em­peror Michael Paleologus had obliged them to submit themselves.

A little while after, there was another Mission of Fryar Minorites to the Tartars, to instruct them more fully in the Articles of the Roman Faith, who Idem. ad ann. 1278. num. 17. 18. &c. had embraced the Christian Religion. This was in the Year 1278, under Pope Nicholas the third.

TOWARDS the end of this Century, Nicholas the fourth sent others Idem. ad ann. 1288. num. 29. 30. 31. after the same manner, for the Reduction of those People who professed the Greek Religion. Raynaldus tells us, that this Pope made use of Dominicans particularly for this purpose, and sent them to preach thro out all the East, Ibid. num. 32. in Greece, Bulgaria, Valachia, to the Syrians, Iberians, Allains, Russians, Jaco­bites, [Page 93] Ethiopians, Nestorians, Georgians, Armenians, Indians, to the Tartarian Christians, and generally to all strange Nations, separated from the Roman Church. And for this purpose, he likewise made use of the Fryar Mino­rites, of whose Order he had bin himself, that he sent to several Eastern Ibid. num. 33. Bishops a Summary of the Christian Faith, according to which he would have the People instructed; and earnestly recommended his Emissaries to Kings and Princes, to the end that being respected by them, their Labours might be the more Effectual.

BONIFACE the eighth, renewed these general Missions into the East, and to encourage them the more, to acquit themselves well in their Employ, Idem. ad ann. 1299. num. 39. 4041. he augmented their Priviledges after a very considerable manner. This was in the Year 1299; These continued under the following Popes, as it appears by the Letters that John the twenty second sent them, in the Year 1318, wherein he gives God thanks for the Progress the Fryar Predicants had made, and exhorted them to continue there. The same appears by other Letters, of Gregory the eleventh towards the end of the fourteenth Century.

THERE are likewise two other Relations of the Voyages of two Domi­nicans, The wonder­ful History of the great Cham of Tar­taria, Paris 1529. Fol. 40. one named Brother Bieul, the other Brother Oderick, who went by the Popes Command to preach in the East. The first of these does not set down the time, but I suppose 'twas about the fourteenth Century, for there­in is mention made of the Death of Argon King of the Tartars, which hap'ned towards the end of the thirteenth Century. The second bears date 1330. It ap­pears by the first of these, that there was at that time Houses of Dominican Fryars, set up in Asia, for the Conversion of the Schismaticks. We came directly, saies this Author, to the stately City of Baudas, where the Fryar Predicants of our Order who dwelt there, came out to meet us, Receiving us with great Joy. And by the second, it appears likewise, that the Emissaries of the Order of Fryar Minorites, had already gotten as far as the Indias, for Fol. 55. there is Mention made of three Fryars, who after a long Dispute against the Nestorians, were put to Death for speaking against Mahomet.

IN the Year 1369, Urban the fisth sent Fryar Minorites, amongst all these Raynald. ad ann. 1369. num. 14. Ray. ad ann. 1370. num. 8. Nations, with the same order to Preach, and propagate the Catholick Faith. He sent likewise four Bishops into Albania and the neighbouring Provinces, to reduce these Schismatical People to his Obedience. He took the same Care for the Instruction of the Russians, Moldavians, and Valaquains, to whom he sent twenty five Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites. An­thony Bishop of Miléve was ordered to instruct the Georgians, and other Ea­stern Christians, together with twenty five other Monks, who were joyned to him. Under Gregory the eleventh, there were several Convents Found­ed in Bosnia, Bascia, for the same Design of Converting the Schismaticks. This Pope enlarged the Priviledges of the Eastern Missionaries, on Conditi­on Idem. ad. ann. 1372. num. 32. they would remain in those Countries, and not return into the West, un­der Penalty of being deprived of all their Priviledges.

IN the fifteenth Century, Martin the fifth took Care again of the Mis­sions, which had bin in some sort Interrupted during the Troubles of that great Schisme, which began under Urbain the sixth, in the Year 1378, and Idem. ad ann. 1418. num. 19. 20. which ended not till after the Council of Constance in the Year 1414, where­in Martin was chosen. He made the King of Poland his Vicar, thro out the whole Extent of his Dominions, to the end he should endeavour the Re­duction [Page 94] of the Greeks, giving him for this purpose full Authority over the Ecclesiasticks and Monks. He conferred the same Power on the Duke of Lituania, giving him an express Charge to endeavour to propagate the Ca­tholick Religion.

EUGENUS the fourth, Martin's Successor, set forth a new Mission, which consisted of twenty Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites, to­gether Idem. ad ann. 143. num. 29. with a Bishop, whom he sent into Asia, for the propogating of the Roman Faith, and the particular Instruction of the Christians that dwelt in the Caspian Mountains. He employed Gregory Arch Bishop of Moldoblachie, who was a Latinized Greek, for the Reduction of the Bulgarians, Valaqui­ans, Moldavians, enjoyning him to apply himself thereunto with all possi­ble Care and Diligence. He sent Andrew Arch Bishop of Colossia into Cyprus, to bring back to his Obedience, the Christians of different Sects who Inha­bited this Island, namely the Nestorians, Armenians, Coptics, Chaldeans, Ja­cobites, together with the Greeks who were the Natives of that place.

IN the sixteenth Century the Portugaises having setled themselves in the East Indias, it is well known they established Missions and Seminaries in divers places, and earnestly endeavoured to Instruct the Ethiopians, Ne­storians, and other Christian Sects which are in that Country.

LEO the tenth sent several to Instruct the Russians and Muscovites, he Idem. ad ann. 1514. num. 87. 101. 102. & ad ann. 1519. num. 60. num. 60. Spondan. ann. Eccl. ad ann. 1531. num. 13. Ray­nald. ad ann. 1515. num. 69. & 73. took the same Care for the Abyssins, and Maronites; for these last, altho they had submitted to the Roman Church, yet retained their antient Errors.

CLEMENT the seventh received an Embassador from Basil, Duke of Muscovia, and sent to this Duke a Legate to treat concerning his Reunion to the Church of Rome. This was in the Year 1531, according to Sponda­nus, Raynaldus refers it to the Year 1525.

IN fine, if we would know the present State of all the East in this Re­spect, 'tis but considering that the Emissaries have so far overspread these Countries, that scarcely is there any place where they have not setled them­selves, and wherein they do not exert all their Learning and Industry, not for the Conversion of the Infidels, for this they cannot expect, but for the gaining of these Schismaticks, Insinuating the Roman Religion amongst these Ignorant and Dull People, who still profess Christianity.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Recollet who was sent into Barbary, in his De­scription of the Holy Land, tells us, That those of his Order have maintain­ed Holy Land, L. 2. C. 3. themselves in Palestine, from the Year 1333; to this present, and have two Convents at Jerusalem, one at Bethlem, one at Nazareth, one at Rama, one at St. John of Acra, one at Sydon, six in Aegypt, two in the Isle of Cyprus, one at Aleppo, one at Damascus, two at Mount Libanus, one at Alexandria, and one at Constantinople.

JOSEPH Besson the Jesuit, in his Holy Syria, tells us, that the Soci­ety Holy Syria. C. 1. & 3. have five Seminaries in Syria, to wit, at Tripoly, Sidon, Damascus, Alep­po, and at Questroan, which have bin setled there since the Year 1652, and sent over by the Order of Urbain the eighth.

FRANCIS Richard in his Relation touching the Isle of St. Erinys, gives us this Account. Since, saies he, Princes have ceased to Succour this Letter to the Clergy of France. poor Eastern Church by Arms, our Kings continue to assist it by means, which altho not so Expensive and Famous, yet no less Effectual for the Salvation of Mens Souls, which ought to be the chief end of such like Undertakings. And in another place, Our Society being preserved in this Country by the Providence of God, and Charity of the Faithful, have not ceased to continue their Services to this desolate Church. And to the end the Fruit of our Labours may not be in­closed within the Walls of Constantinople, our Society has extended it self as far as Thessalonica, Patras, Athens, Naples de Romanis, Milos, Paros, where they have for some time Sojourned, and afterwards setled themselves at Smyrna, Scio, Naxie, Negrepont, St. Erinys, not to mention Syria, where they have four o­ther places of Residency, viz. Aleppo, Damascus, Seide, and Tripolys. And now they design for Mount Athos, and all other parts where Schisme and Here­sy reign. And certainly they have undertaken no easy Task, having so many and distant Countries to Travel over, so many Errors to Oppose, and to Correct such a number of Abuses, which Ignorance and Heresy have Introduced amongst these People.

Mr. Thevenot informs us, that there is a Convent of Capucin Fryars in the Isle of St. Andra, which do very much help the Bishop by their Preaching, and Thevenot's Voyages. Part 1. C 13. & C. 61. & C. 66. Discoursing of the Isle of Chios, he say's, that besides the Jesuits, who have a Church and Colledge, there are also Capucins, who teach humane Learning and Divinity, and also Jacobins, and Gray Fryars, who have all of 'em beauti­ful Churches. He tells us likewise, that in the Isle of Nixia, there are Je­suits, Recollets, and Capucins, who make great Progress in the propagating of the Catholick Faith. Besides the Jesuits and Capucins that are, according Stochove's Voyage. P. 225. to Thevenot's Relation, in the Isle of Chios, the Sieur Stochove tels us of Car­melite Fryars who are there likewise.

AT Smyrna there are both Capucins and Jesuits, saies the Sieur Boulaye Boulay Le Goux Part 1. C. 9. P. 20. Le Goux, and Villamont observes that in the Isles of Cephalonia, and Zant, there are Religious of the Order of St. Francis.

WE know that the Jesuits have settled themselves since the Year 1609 at Constantinople. The Jesuits, saies the Sieur Stochove, have St. Bennet's Church, where they are very well accommodated, having a fine Garden; The Villamont's Voyages. L. 2. C. 4. Stochovie's Voyages. P. 98. Church altho it be but small, yet is a very beautiful one, being covered with Mosa­isk Work. These Fathers, saies he, do make great Proficiency in the Conversion of the Hereticks and Schismaticks, Instructing them in the Catholick Apostolick Roman Faith. But besides the Jesuits, there are Jacobins, and Cordeliers. The Cordeliers, say's the Sieur Du Loir, are at St. Marys, the Jacobins at St. Peters, and the Jesuits at St. Bennets, which is a very fair Church and Painted Loir's Voya­ges. P. 67. also with Mosaick Work, very Rich, but not well Contrived. It is well known there are Emissaries likewise in Hispaham in Persia, who have spread them­selves as far as the Borders of the Armenians. We have not seen any City in all our Travels, saies the Sieur de Bourges, which is better provided with Emis­saries, the Reverend Fathers the Austin Portugais Monks, Carmelites, and Je­suits, have successively established themselves since some Years: and by the Per­mission of the Prince, they exercise with a great deal of Liberty their Functions. The Reverend Fathers the Jesuits, having setled themselves at Julfa, which is a small City about a League distant from Hispaham, chiefly consisting of Armeni­ans, [Page 96] have a particular Conveniency, for the Conversion of Schismaticks. He tells us likewise, That there is at Surat, a Mission of French Capucins, and another at Babylon, and speaking of the former of these, These are, says he, the only Emissarys in this City. We have been Witnesses of the Re­spect shewed them, and of the Fruit of their Labours, to bring home to the Church the Armenians, Jacobites, and Nestorians.

I shall not trouble my self with mentioning the Missions of the Indias, nor them of Ethiopia, for the relations of these are publick, and known by all the World. We may read what John Peter Maffeé and du Jaric, both Jesuits have written in their Histories of the Indias touching this mat­ter. And likewise the Relations of Ethiopia taken out of the Letters writ­ten to the General of the Jesuits Viteleschy, and another History of the East Indias Printed at Arras Anno 1628. but what I already mention'd is sufficient to discover the fallacy of Mr. Arnaud's Argument, who pretends to prove the Perpetuity of his Faith from the Testimony of the Schismati­cal Churches. For now after what I represented, all which has been faith­fully transcribed out of Authors never suspected by the Church of Rome, what assurance can we have if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, be found established amongst these people, that it has not been communicated to them by all these Emissaries, who have been sent for so many years, for no other purpose? It ought, methinks, to be shewed us (to colour over this proof) that the sources whence they drew their Christianity have not been adulterated, that these Springs have run clear, without being troubled to this day; or at least the time of these Missions must be laid aside, and Mr. Arnaud (if he intends to deal sincerely) must begin from the Ages which precede them; for if it does not appear these Schismaticks believed the same as the Church of Rome concerning the Eucharist, before all this care for their instruction, what likelihood is there we shall suffer our selves to be surpriz'd by so frivolous an Argument. I will suppose for once that I was deceiv'd, when I maintain'd that any one of these Nations who profess the Christian Religion and submitted not to the Pope, did not reckon Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Creed, nor the Adora­tion of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies. Will Mr. Ar­naud then imagine that my mistake has prejudiced my Cause, or justified the Consequence he pretends to draw from his Principle? This pretension of his in my mind, would be very unjust and unreasonable. For whether the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, do or do not believe Transubstan­tiation, this is only a question between him and me, to which the Subject I defend has no relation, and therefore he can expect no more at utmost than a Victory over me and not my Cause, seeing the Consequence he would draw hence will be continually disputed him, to wit, that Transubstan­tiation has been perpetually believed in these Churches. Whence it follows that he has been to blame in passing over so slightly as he has done, a point of this importance, on which depends the whole force of his Proofs, and he may justly be complain'd of in the Church of Rome, in that he hath in his whole proceeding betrayed a greater care for his own private Reputation, than that of the Church whose cause he takes upon him to de­fend. As to what concerns my self I hope I shall be able to give the World a good Account touching what I denyed: and were I mistaken, I would not be ashamed to make an open Recantation without the least ap­prehension that this my Retractation would in any sort prejudice my Cause, seeing in effect, I do not believe it follows that a Doctrine has been perpetual [Page 97] in Religion, altho Schismatical Churches now profess it as well as the La­tins. This Consequence must be proved, as well as its Principle, did Mr. Arnaud take a direct course and argue in a requisite manner to satisfie judici­ous Persons. And therefore he ought to have given a sincere account of this whole History of the Missions, which I come now from representing in this Chap. for I cannot imagine how Mr. Arnaud could pass over in silence as he has done, an History so important and necessary for the making of a right Judgment of this whole Controversie; seeing he could not be igno­rant of it. If he believes he has done right, I must needs say, he has a kind of sincerity different from that of all other people; and if he be­lieves he ought not to have taken this course, we must affirm, that his silence is so much the more criminal, in that he has acted against the light of his own Conscience.


That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Ro­man Religion amongst the Schismaticks, The Seminaries which have been set up for the same design, and the particular Instructions given them touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, do sufficient­ly shew that there can no Advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their belief. Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice discovered.

WHOSOEVER considers the foregoing Chapters will not I suppose overmuch value Mr. Arnaud's Labours touching the Grecian and other Eastern Christians called Schismaticks. For 'tis certain there was never a more vain and fruitless Amusement, than his whole Dispute on that Subject; at the end whereof I am much mistaken if he finds not he has ill bestowed his time, having given no light at all to the main Question, which is to know whether the Doctrine of the present Roman Church is the same with that of all Anti­quity. But besides what I already offered, it remains, that I make some important Reflections on those things, the most part of which Mr. Arnaud has past over in silence, and which I shall recollect as briefly as I can in this Chapter, to the end I may not any longer detain the Reader on a point, which I believe I have sufficiently evidenced.

First, Then I find in the Relation of the Emissaries of St. Erinys, that one of the reasons for which they were sent, was to endeavour the Ad­vancement of the honour of the Holy Sacrament. The Author of these Relations desirous to give the World an account of the Honours they have endeavoured to procure from the Inhabitants of this Island, to the Sacrament, begins thus, I believe, say's he, the Gentlemen of C. 20. P. 304. the Confraternity of the August Society of the Holy Sacrament, having testi­fied [Page 98] so great Zeal for the Advancement of this Devotion, especially in the Eastern Countries, will approve of these Discourses, seeing they will be inform'd by them that the Prayers and Vows they have made for the Conversion of these poor wretches, were not fruitless. These words sufficiently shew (if I be not mistaken,) that one of the chief ends which the Emissaries propo­sed to themselves in the Conversion of the Greeks, is to give them those Sentiments which they have not yet entertained concerning the Holy Sa­crament, and 'tis unto this whereunto tends the Zeal and Prayers of the Confraternity.

WHENCE it follows, that 'tis no great wonder if they have accomplish­ed their Design; and that if these people do at this day believe Transub­stantiation and Adore the Eucharist, it cannot be hence concluded that this Doctrine has been amongst them ever since they first received the Christian Faith.

BUT the better to convince Mr. Arnaud of the vanity of his pretended Consequence, and how little I would esteem his victory if it were as real as it is false and imaginary; I need but set before him the means these Emissa­ries have used whereby to insinuate the Roman Religion, in these Countries, in all which I shall relate no more than what I learn from Authors no wise suspected by the Church of Rome.

THE first instrument they use is Money, Francis Richard the Jesuit, in the foresaid Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, plainly tells us so. Above an hundred poor Greeks, say's he, became our own, being drawn over to us by C. 16. P. 247. some small Charity we bestowed on them. Money can do all things in these parts, and we are certain that provided we had wherewithal to give the Greek Bishops, they would suffer us, to Confess, Preach and Instruct them who are under their Charge, in whatsoever we pleased. So that are not these very fit people to de­termine the Antiquity of our Doctrines. Anthony de Gouveau one of the Anthony Gou­veau's Relati­on lib. 3. Emissaries of Persia, in his History of the Reduction of the Armenians, which were carried over into Persia, under the Conduct of the Patriarch David, expresly observes, that one of the first courses the Missionaries took to draw these people to them, was to distribute money amongst them, by which means they were easily wrought on to come to Catechisings.

BUT besides Money, they make the practice of Physick, to serve as a pre­tence, for the introducing of them into Houses, where they take their oppor­tunity, Relation of the Isle of St. Eri­nys C. 16. p 248. to discourse of Religion. By this means, say's the Jesuit Richard, we have free admittance into the Houses of the Greeks, and many times gain by Conversation what we could not effect by Preaching.

THE knowledge of the Mathematicks draws to 'em several persons and furnishes them with occasions of entertaining them. Besson the Jesuit, speaking of one of their Emissaries at Damascus; he drew, say's he, to our Holy Syria part 1. 3 Trea­tise c. 5. house several Greeks, by the fame of his Skill in the Mathematicks, which is a Science in great Esteem amongst the Levantine People, and especially Astronomy, upon which account our Emissaries have easie admittance into great Houses, whe­ther of Turks, or Christians.

THEY endeavour more especially to gain the Bishops and Patriarchs, and that with success, as it will appear, by the Testimony I shall produce. [Page 99] Father John Amien, say's Besson speaking of the Emissaries of Tripolys, gain'd Ibid. Treatise the 4. c. 4. the Greek Bishop of Tripolys to the Romish Religion.

The same Besson, discoursing of the Mission in Aleppo, and of one of its Fathers, he hath intirely won, say's he, Philip the Patriarch, who is Pa­triarch Ibid. Treat. 1. C. 9. of great Armenia whose Seat is in Persia, at Eschiniadzin. This ve­nerable Prelate being come to Aleppo, to visit the holy Places, received the Father with great Expressions of good Will, and shewed him that he was a Catholick in hit Heart, being of a very frank Nature, he farther declared this in the pre­sence of another Patriarch. He say's moreover that this same Emissary con­verted an Armenian Bishop, who was afterwards forc'd by the Schismaticks to leave his Country, and retire into a Monastery in Cappadocia, and would turn Jesuit, but, say's he, whatsoever great qualities he had, it was not judg'd meet to deprive the Armenians of this Pastour.

Speaking in another place of an Emissary of Aleppo, he has brought over, say's he, to the Roman Church another Greek Bishop, and with this person en­dowed Ib. chap. 10. with such good Qualifications, he doubts not but he shall gain several o­thers who will 'tis likely follow so great an Example. Certainly, adds he, in these Missions of the Levant there ought to be a particular regard had to the Bi­shops, whose Example the people will not fail to imitate.

Discoursing elsewhere, of the Emissaries of Seyde. We are obliged, say's he, to the Bishop of the Greeks, who besides his being won to the Roman Church Treatise 6. c. 7. by one of our Fathers lays other Obligations on us. For he opens to us his Heart as well as his Church, and publickly declares to his hearers that the Frank's Church and that of the Maronites are, the true Churches. These Conquests cannot be lost, unless by the ill conduct of the Pastours, and the pernicious Maxims they may give out. Gain but one of them, and you gain them all, but if one of 'em holds out and will not yield, what you have done already signifies nothing.

Discoursing of the Mission of Aleppo, he say's that the Bishop of the Syrians at Aleppo, before his Ordination, conceived a great hatred against the Sy­rian Heresie, and turn'd Catholick, and within a while, went to Rome, from whence returning, he was Consecrated by the Patriarch of the Maro­nites, and settled in the Syrian Church at Aleppo. From whence being constrain'd to withdraw, he was brought there again at the request of the Curats and by the Assistance of Mr. Piquet. He generously serves, adds he, Almighty God amongst his own people, whom he exhorts to keep stedfast to the Church of Rome. And thus have the Endeavours of our Emissaries, been assisted by the Divine Grace, which we doubt not but will prove of great consequence to the Syrians, seeing that in gaining a person of his merit, they have done as much as if they had converted a whole Nation.

The Sieur Stochove, speaking of the Jesuits at Galata, These Fathers En­deavours, say's he, have not been ineffectual amongst the Hereticks and Schisma­ticks, Stochovius's Voyages p. 98. for they converted several Greek Bishops and disposed others, in case of any Revolution, to abhere to the Roman Church.

I acquainted my self, say's Busbequius, the Emperour's Embassadour, with Metrophanus the Metropolitain and Superiour of the Monastery of Chalcy, he Busbeq. Voya­ges lib 4. p. 5. 26. is an honest and learned Man, and one that passionately desires the re-union of [Page 100] the two Churches, contrary to the custom of his Nation, who detests them of our Communion, as prophane and impure Persons.

GOUVEAU the Monk relating how he and other Augustin Portugai­ses Gouveau's re­lation lib. 5. 3. proceeded in order to the Re-union of the Armenians in Persia to the Roman Church, tells us, that they particularly applyed themselves to the winning David their Patriarch, making use of him afterwards as an instru­ment to prevail on the Bishops and all the rest of the People.

NOW tell me, I pray after this, with what sincerity the Greeks and other Eastern Christians can be alledged in this matter? they are won by Money, several pretences are made use of by the Emissaries to introduce themselves into their houses, they prevail on their Bishops, not making them publickly change their Religion, but leaving them in the same Communi­on wherein they find them, to the end that they may likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith. Now what can be said of these people, but that if they believe Transubstantiation (it not appearing they believed it before all these Intrigues) they have received this Doctrine from the Emissaries, by these indirect ways which they practise.

BUT this is not all, for one of the most usual and effectual Courses they take to establish insensibly, and without any noise, the Roman Religion in Greece, and amongst all other Nations, is the instruction of their Youth, which employment they commonly take upon them wheresoever they come; for under pretence of instructing them in Human Learning, they instil in­to their minds the Principles of the Romish Faith, so that a great part of the Greek Prelates are of this number, that is to say their Schollars, having received from them in their tender Age a favourable Opinion of the Roman Church.

WE are inform'd by the Author of M. de la Haye's Voyages who was Voyages of M. de la Haye c. 5. pag. 125. Embassador to the late King of France, that the Jesuits at Galata, are very suc­cesful in their undertakings in this kind; for besides their Preaching and Con­fessions, they instruct all the Youth, as also the Schismaticks, whom they have con­vinced (for the most part of them) of their Errors, so that several Principal Greek Bishops and Archbishops, (who have been their Schollars) do favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and are capable of doing it great Service.

THE Sieur Stochovius, speaks to the same effect, the Greeks, say's he, do Stochov. Voya­ges pag. 98. not at all scruple the sending their Children to School (he means to that of the Jesuits) wherein they are instructed as well in the Catholick Religion, as in Hu­man Learning. And discoursing of the Isle of Chios, he tells us, that the Je­suits have a strong-built Convent there, besides a fair Church, that they are twenty in number who are all of them naturaliz'd, and take upon them ac­cording to their custom the instruction of Youth, and bring divers over to the true Religion. The Carmelites, adds he, have a Church and Convent there, who likewise apply themselves to the instructing of Youth, and convert divers from the common Heresie of the Greeks.

THE Sieur du Loir tells us likewise, that the Jesuits of Galatia, keep Loir's Voyages pag. 67. Thevenot, part. 1 c. 61. School for the Children of the Greeks and Armenians. And the Sieur Theve­not informs us, that in the Isle of Chios, there is a Convent of Capucins who teach human Learning and the Christian Doctrine, to several Children who re­pair [Page 101] thither. He tells us in another place, that in the Isle of Andria the Ca­pucins do greatly ease the Bishop, by their Preachings and Confessions, and by Chap. 13. their School, to which go all the Greek Children, and that some are sent from Athens for that purpose.

LA Boulaye le Goux tells us, that the Jesuits have a convenient House at Boulay's Voy­ages part. 1. c. 9. Relat. of St. Erinys c. 5. Smyrna wherein they instruct the Greek Children. And the same do they at St. Erinys, as appears by the relation of Richard the Jesuit, who introdu­ces another Jesuit speaking as follows, I set open my School every day to all that will come and learn any thing, being ever ready and most willing to instruct Youth, as well out of Obedience to my Superiour, who earnestly recommended to me this course, as for that likewise it has been revealed to me from Heaven, that this is the surest way to reform by degrees the Greek Church, and perhaps one of the most likeliest means to maintain us in these forraign Countries.

IT already appears, by these Testimonies, that one of the principal things recommended to the Emissaries, when they are to be sent abroad, is the E­ducation of Children, as an infallible means to set up the Romish Religion in the midst of these people, and that the Emissaries on their side do well acquit themselves in this particular. But the Author of the Book called A Description of the Holy Land, delivers himself more plainly. For discour­sing how the Jesuits employ themselves in the City of Aleppo, he tells us, that their chief business is to instruct Youth, which has always been esteem­ed a matter of great importance and highly conducing to the reformation of these Nations. Observe, I beseech you, what he says, that the Emissa­ries do not only carefully apply themselves to this, and that by order from their Superiors, but that this is an especial means to make all these people in a short time to become insensibly Roman Catholicks.

BUT we must likewise take notice that these Gentlemen who leave no means untryed, do wholly betake themselves to these two last ways, name­ly, that of gaining the Prelates and that of instructing Youth. For when they have won any Bishop to their Party, they oblige him to set them upon the educating of their Children, making use of his Authority that they may manage their business with greater success and security. Which the same Author of the Holy Land shews us, Father Queriot, say's he, was a fit per­son to offer his service to the Greek Metropolitain, who was a good Catholick, Holy Syria part. 1. Treat. 1. c. 4. and a man of a strict Life (he means the Metropolitain of Aleppo) he has ob­lig'd him to trust us with the Education of the Grecian Children of that Country, and to slight the discourses of the Enemies of the Roman Religion. And a lit­tle farther, it is to be moreover observed, say's he, that the Patriarch of Constantinople reprehending him for employing a Religious Frank in the teach­ing of the Greeks, even in his Episcopal House, this great man who is ever like himself, does notwithstanding permit the Father to proceed on still in his under­taking.

SPEAKING of the Mission of Damascus, this Mission, say's he, is the work of Father Jerom Queriot who was sent from Aleppo to Damascus, in the beginning of the year 1643, by the Greek Patriarch Euthymius, who was of the Isle of Chios, and of the Romish Religion, for the instruction of Youth, and especially of his Nephew, and for the composition of his circular Letters and Greek and Arabian Patents. Yet he tells us, this Father was forc'd to leave [Page 102] the place, the Greeks growing jealous of him, in as much as that he being a Religious Frank was employed in the chief affairs of the Patriar­chate.

I cannot forbear mentioning what the said Author relates on the same Subject, namely, the instruction of the Greek Youth. We must betake our selves to this Course, say's he, for the converting the Greek Schismaticks. We are too old, said Jerasimus an Archbishop and Vicar of the Patriarchate, to receive new Impressions: but instruct our Youth, who by your care will be capable of trying good things and prove a Seminary of perfect Christians; words, say's he, which he uttered in the hearing of the Youth on purpose to encourage them to make use of the advantage offered them. It is certainly a great satisfaction to us when we see young Greeks who are naturally eloquent, to instruct so hand­somely their Servants; and I had almost said, even their very Parents, who be­come as it were their Disciples in Religion. Is there any thing more great and glorious than the building of new Churches with the Apostles, and converting the World? For new Churches are planted by the settlement of these Missions, and the old ones repaired at the same time, by means of the Instruction of Chil­dren who teach their Parents. This Jesuit lays open the matter plainly and sincerely, whereas Mr. Arnaud does not so, for he would have these new Churches pass for old ones.

THE same Author relates that having observ'd John Damascen was e­steem'd in this Country as an infallible Doctor, and that his Testimony a­gainst Heresies was of great weight with them; One of our Fathers, say's he, undertook to teach this Saints Logick and Divinity touching the controvert­ed Points. He say's, this invention took, and inspired the Schollars with great Zeal. But say's he, this their forwardness was taken notice of by some envious Per­sons, who informed the Vicar of the Patriarchate of the matter, and so far in­censed him that he caus'd the young Students to be brought before him, and ha­ving reprehended their Boldness, condemned their Opinions and charged them to desist from such Discourses, adding therewithal, that if they obeyed not his Com­mands, he would ruine them and their Families. These Arguments, say's he, could not prevail with the Schollars to change their Opinions, or break off their Assemblies, and forsake their Masters, but they were more cautious afterwards, and did forbear publishing any thing in the Circles as they had heretofore done.

IT is is an easie matter to comprehend the Advantage the Church of Rome makes of the labours of these Emissaries; and to be more particularly informed thereof, we need but read what the Sieur Poulet has written con­cerning Poulet's Voy­ages 2. part. C. 20. the Jesuits, and their manner of proceedings in the East. They rightly understood, say's he, how difficult it is to work on the mind of a Person grown old in his Errors, and that the first impressions being strengthened by a long custom, become a new Nature in us, wherefore our instructions must be bestowed on them whose minds are not yet corrupted by Maxims of Schism and Heresie. They have therefore very advisedly, set up Schools, whereunto the Children of Schismaticks and sometimes of Turks too do resort. The desire of having some Images, or Agnusses draws them to our Congregations, where hearing our Doctrine, they become effectually Catholicks without perceiving themselves to be so: as for the other Schismaticks, they hear our Sermons, and pretend to be Catholicks only in hope of some Advantage they expect by this their Dissimulation.

WE need likewise but read what Besson the Jesuit has written, touch­ing Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 11. the proceedings of the Society at Aleppo. The Religious Orders, say's he, even the most regular amongst them, have received from the Society at A­leppo not a few Advantages, and the Eastern Church has had such Prelates from them as are at this day the greatest lights of the Syrian Clergy. Whereupon he tells us in another place, that the Greeks and Syrians admit Apostolical Men in­to Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 2. their Houses. They likewise permit them the use of their Churches, and the Curats accept of our help, the Bishops entreat us to prune their Vines, and this Church in the East being now weary of its miseries, and blinded with its tears, expects from the West the most pure lights of the Gospel.

I confess these Gentlemen have been very dext'rous and fortunate in per­forming what has been given them in charge, and that the Church of Rome in general is very much obliged to them, but I [...]ind Mr. Arnaud to be more fortunate than they: for it seems as if these persons had foreseen long be­fore, by a Prophetical Spirit, the book Mr. Arnaud was to make, and there­fore would prepare him Materials, and furnish him with this fine Collection of Attestations and Testimonies. Who would ever have thought that these Gentlemen the Jesuits should pass over the Seas and run to the farthest parts of the World to do Mr. Arnaud honour? Yet is it true, that they have been his Messengers, and a man would be apt to think, they went only into these Countrys upon his account.

NEITHER must we pass over in silence the Seminaries, establish'd in Rome, and other places, for the bringing up of Greek Children, where­in they are taught on one hand the Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church, and on the other, the Doctrines and Opinions of the Church of Rome: for leaving these Schools, they betake themselves to the East, where it frequently happens they are called to the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Fun­ctions, and these are as so many of the Court of Romes Creatures, who endeavour to the utmost of their power to establish the Doctrines and Max­ims of the Latins. It is well known that during the Popedom of Gregory the XIII, there was a Colledge founded at Rome; to what end, we may be infor­med by Leo Allatius. The Colledge of the Greeks, say's he, was built in Gre­gory De Perp Cons. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag 970. the thirteenth's time, to the end the Grecian Children might learn the Arts and Sciences, which are not now to be found in Greece, and also be instructed in the Catholick Religion, that they may afterwards communicate it to others, and especially to them of their own Nation. And in the following Chapter, relating what means has been used to propagate the Roman Religion in Greece, since those Countrys have been possessed by the Turks, he adds, Thus thro a long series of time has Religion made its progress in Greece. But at length Gregory the XIII, desirous to quench the fire which wasted all Greece, and remedy its miseries, has therefore caused to be built at Rome the Greek Church, which he Dedicated to St. Athenasius. He bought likewise at the same time, the neighbouring Houses, for Dwellings to entertain the Greek Schollars which should be brought over from Greece, being all the Children of Greeks. He gave likewise a considerable yearly Revenue for their Maintenance; to the end that they being instructed in the Greek and Latin Tongues might serve as an Ornament and help to their distressed Country. Now this is not a matter needs proving, seeing this Church continues even to this day at Rome, in the same use for which 'twas intended.

THE Fruits gathered hence are not inconsiderable, for there has been and is now every day sent, I know not how many persons, full of Zeal for the Roman Church its Rites and Ceremonies, into the East, who spread­ing themselves over all parts of it, and professing the Religion of the Schis­matical Greeks, and living in the same Communion with them, do not fail to insinuate the Doctrines of the Church of Rome into their minds. Leo Allatius has made a Catalogue of these Persons, which the curious may see, if they please, he has observ'd that several of them have been made Arch­bishops, and a great number of others promoted to Episcopal Charges: some of them having been too zealous, occasion'd the Greeks to rise up a­gainst them; and others have been so succesful in their Endeavours, that they gained the very Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves. He mentions amongst others one Josaphat Azales, who having finish'd his Studies in the Seminary, was sent to Messene, a City of Pelopenesus, to instruct the Monks of St. Basil who live there, and having been some time after made Papas, that is to say, a Greek Priest, he went to Mount Athos, and there say's Allatius, he taught the true Faith. Now it is to be observed, that this Mount Athos is the general Seminary of the whole East, as Mr. Arnaud tells us, it be­ing from thence the Religious do disperse themselves over all Greece; from this place they have their Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops, so that to carry the Roman Religion to Mount Athos, it is to go to the source, which is a means to gain in a short time all the Greeks. He mentions ano­ther, whom he calls Ignatius Mindon, who leaving the Seminary, return­ed into Greece, where he taught several years; and from thence went to Trebizonde which is a City on Pont Euxin, where as before he set himself to the instructing of people, and that with such success, that he was taken by them for a Prophet; And in fine, being sent for by Raphael the Patriarch of Constantinople, to be Rector of the Patriarchal Church at Pera, he endea­voured, say's he, with all his power to advance the Interest of the Church of Rome.

IT is in this Seminary wherein were brought up two Persons who made Arcudius E­pist, ad Sigism. Regem Polo­niae de reb. Mosc. pag. 10. a great noise in the World, to wit, John Mathew Caryophilus Archbishop of Iconia, and Peter Arcudius; the first of these was sent into Greece, but ha­ving not discreetly carried himself, was forc'd for his preservation, to re­turn to Rome, where he set himself to writing against the Greeks: and the other was sent into Poland, Lituania, Russia and Muscovia, where he employ­ed himself, according to his own relation for the space of twenty years in the propagating of the Roman Faith.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit writing to Pope Gregory the 13th, touching the means to be used for the introducing of the Doctrines of the Roman Church amongst the Moscovits, he so highly esteems Seminaries, that he advises him to settle one at Rome for the Russians, and another at Vilna in Bibl. Select. lib. 6. cap. 1. Lituania, where he say's, that the Jesuits have likewise their Colledge in which there are many Schollars. He tells us in another place, that this Pope in effect founded several Seminaries for the Russians in Lituania and other places.

M. the Bishop of Pamiez having told us in his Annals that Gregory found­ed Spondanus. Annalaom. 3. [...]d ann. 1584 a Seminary at Rome for the Maronites, says farther, that the same Pope [Page 105] founded others for the Eastern and Northern Countries as well at Rome as in the Provinces.

AS to what remains we must not imagine the Turks, under whose Go­vernment the Greeks live, do hinder the Endeavours of the Latins; it was never heard of, say's John Cottovicus, that the Turks have been in any sort se­vere against the Religious, who having finished their Studies at Rome, and ta­ken Orders, returned into their own Countrys and were raised to Dignities, nor that the Turkish Magistrate hath upon this account made them suffer the least Dammage. In effect provided they oppose not their Religion, they are rea­dy enough to connive at all other matters. They favour them that give 'em most Money, and from thence 'tis we see on the Patriarchal See of Con­stantinople, Persons who keep a good Correspondency with the Court of Rome, or else such who have been the Jesuits Schollars, who feeing them­selves rais'd to this Dignity, do not fail to favour, as much as in them lies, this change so long prosecuted: and 'tis in this rank we must place Raphael, Neophytus, Timotheus, Cyrillus of Berrhaea, and I know not how many o­thers whom the Roman Party has at divers times helped to the Patriarchate, and who in requital did them afterwards great Service.

ALL this, me thinks, shews evidently that Mr. Arnaud has been very dis-ingenuous in his whole proceeding, who concealing these Intrigues, confidently undertakes to convince us, of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist, upon this Principle, that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches, as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither, or as if the Latins had never attempted this. Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere, or invented them themselves; Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument; neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience: But seeing he knew well enough, the Latins have been perpe­tually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys, and con­stantly laboured at this, since I know not how many Ages; he therefore upon supposal they have effected this, comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine, this is, to speak modestly, such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men.

IT will perhaps be objected, that I do indeed here shew, That the La­tins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East; but that I do not make it particularly appear, they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. To which I answer first, this is not neces­sary; for proposing only to my self at present, to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed, touching Transubstantiation, in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same, it suffices me to shew there­upon, That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves, in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East, especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it. And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist, he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned, and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them. For unless he proves, that Tran­substantiation has been believed in these Churches, before all these endea­vours [Page 106] to bring them over to the Roman Faith, there is no Person endued with sence, but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it, seeing he is ever lyable to be told, they have received it from the Latins, it not appearing amongst them before.

BUT in the second place, I will not have it stick here, to the end Mr. Ar­naud may receive full satisfaction touching this point. I say then, that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman (as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book) he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith, which he would have receiv­ed by the Greeks, because he found that which the Greeks sent him, not only deficient in several things, but full of Errors, altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it. Now Amongst other Articles in this Con­fession there is one, which relates to the Eucharist, and which runs thus in Latin. Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia, tenens & docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, which is to say, the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Bo­dy, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks.

IN the Year 1272, Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece, Raynald. ad ann. 1272. num. 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks, under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus, who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate, and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith.

IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites in­to Idem ad ann. 1288. num. 30. Esclavonia, to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome, he gave them Letters to King Urosius, and Helena the Queen Mother; and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine, con­taining the Article of Transubstantiation, to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People.

THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East, who embraced his Communion, exhorting them to instruct the People accord­ing Ibid. num. 33. to the Doctrine contained therein, and at the same time he recommend­ed to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries, for the Conversion of the Greeks, Bulgarians, Valaquians, Syrians, Iberians, Alains, Russians, Jaco­bites, Nestorians, Georgians, Armenians, Indians; whence it is easie to con­jecture, that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary.

IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confessi­on Raynald. ad ann. 1318. num. 13. to the King of Armenia; And not only, say's Rynaldus, The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia, and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church: but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens, had retired into Chersonesus Taurique. They submitted themselves to the Ro­man Church, in the presence of the Bishop of Capha, who was a Latin. The Pope, adds he, congratulated them, and shewed 'em, that in the Divine Myste­ries, the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species remaining entire.

IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains, Idem ad ann. 1338. num. 77. who were a sort of Christians, that professed the Greek Religion, and lived under the Government of the Tartars. He return'd them an answer, and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction. Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I late­ly cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria, which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it.

IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann. 1366. num. 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome, that he might be assisted against the Turks, Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him, as his Predecessors had done to Mi­chael this same Confession of Faith.

SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians, but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to the end it may not be said this Con­fession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith, as well as that of the Substantial Conversion, it is to be observed, that it has two distinct parts: in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained, and in the other there are several particular points expresly determined by the Church of Rome, propter diversas Haereses a quibusdam ex ignorantia & ab aliis ex malitia introductas, by reason of certain Heresies introduc'd by the ig­norance of some, and Malice of others. Now 'tis under these last points that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained; which plainly shews, that this Doctrine was proposed to them as lately defined by the Church of Rome, and of which those People had at that time no certain Know­ledge.

MR. Arnaud then must seek elsewhere for Proofs whereon to ground his pretension touching the Antiquity of the Opinion in question, and I will not stick to affirm, he must be an extraordinary Person if he can solidly acquit himself of what I have lay'd before him, and in all which I defie him to produce a false Quotation. He has been shewed five remarkable deceits whereby he has imposed on the World, in concealing whatsoever was necessary to be known in order to a right understanding of this Con­troversie, and in turning to a vain and unprofitable use whatsoever concludes directly against him. He has been shewed the profound Ignorance where­in these People have lay'n from the eleventh Century to this present, and the fond Superstitions reigning amongst them, which makes them very un­fit Judges of our Controversie. He has been shewed the miserable condi­tion of these Churches in respect of Temporals, and the Violences offered them by the Latins to make them change their Religion. We have repre­sented him with the Persecutions they suffered from their own Princes up­on this account; We have observed all these Countries ore-spread with Monks and Emissaries, time out of mind, and that without interruption to this day; We have represented him with a particular account of what the Emissaries do, and what the Seminaries contribute towards the making them receive the Roman Faith. And in fine, we have shewed him, that one of their chiefest cares for these People was to make them learn the Mystery of the Substantial Conversion. Now after this, whether they do believe it, or not, it is an indifferent matter in respect of the main [Page 108] of our Controversie. So that it only now lies upon me to vindicate my own particular Reputation; that is to say, whether I have rightly or no affirmed that they do not believe it, and which I shall demonstrate by God's Assistance in the following parts of this Work, and that in such a manner as I doubt not but will satisfie all reasonable Persons.


Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation.


The Question stated, and M. Arnaud's sixth Deceit manifested.

IT may be remembred, that at the beginning of this Dispute touch­ing the Schismatical Churches, I undertook to prove the truth of of these three Propositions. First, that when Mr. Arnaud shall prove what he pretends concerning these Churches, since the ele­venth Century to this present, yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in the Christian Religion, or the change in question impossible, or that it hath not actually hapned. Secondly, That the true Greek Church and o­thers which the Latins call Schismaticks, never reckoned Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Belief, nor the Adoration of the Eucharist a­mongst their Rites and Ceremonies. Thirdly, That whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative, is void and ineffectual, and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends. I have already made good the first of these Propositions in the preceding Book, and shall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the ele­venth Century to this present; that I may thereby accommodate my self to Mr. Arnaud's Method. And as to the other Greek Churches, I shall treat of them in my fifth Book. But it is first necessary to lay down the true State of the Question, to the end, that what we undertake may be the better un­derstood, and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected. Who continually wanders from the point in dispute, supposing impossibilities, proving imper­tinencies and confounding what ought to be distinguished.

WE must know then there are two sorts of Greeks, the one reunited to the Church of Rome, who acknowledge the Popes Jurisdiction, and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council, living in Peace with the Latins; The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, having their Communion apart, and separate from the Latins. And this I suppose Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny, seeing that in their Observations on the Request of M. the Archbishop of Ambrun they have themselves made this distinction of the Greek Catholick Church, and the Greek Schismatical one. It is needless to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact so well known. In effect the Endea­vours of the Latins to subject the Greeks to themselves have not been wholly fruitless, for besides that in Greece it self and other Patriarchates, they have [Page 110] acquired a great number of Persons and intire Families, besides this I say, there are whole Nations which observe the Decrees of the Council of Flo­rence, and live under the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome, who yet still ob­serve the Rites and Customs of the Greeks. We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy, Rome, Venice, Tuscany, the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples, which are called Italian Greeks, we may also bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians. For Allatius testifies, that not only all these do ob­serve the same Ceremonies as them of the East, but that the Pope likewise obliges them to an Observance of them, and therefore maintains a Greek Bi­shop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode, to hinder 'em from re­ceiving them in the East, from the hands of Schismaticks. We must likewise comprehend the Russians which inhabit black Russia, and Podolia, under the Government of the King of Poland; who submitted themselves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the last Century. Arcudius com­mends Sigismond the Third, for that he did not only sollicite but in a manner Arcud. Epist. ad Sigismond. constrain them to make this Union, ut ad Romanam, says he, hoc est ver am Dei Ecclesiam se adjungerent excitasti ac pene dixerim impulisti. Our Question does not concern them, their Submission to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Dispute, I expresly excepted them, when I denyed that the Greeks and other Christians held Transubstantiation, and Adored the Sacra­ment, having said in plain terms, except those that submit themselves to the Pope.

SECONDLY, We must remember that one of the chief Advantages Answer to the first Treatise towards the end. the Church of Rome makes of these forementioned Seminaries, and Emissa­ries in Greece, is the gaining of Proselytes and instructing young People in its Doctrines, to use them afterwards for the Conversion of 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 'tis 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 [Page 111] 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. 'Tis 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 112] 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 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 [Page 113] 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. He sets himself upon proving to no purpose, that the [Page 114] Greeks do not believe as we do the Sacrament to be a Figure or Representa­tion, and that they are not Berengarians. 4. He maintains that the Point in question is to know whether they believe the Real Presence, and that the Dispute turns especially on this hinge. 5. He set himself to shew that the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a point of Controversie with the Latins. Now all this is no more than a general Illusion, which alters the state of the Question.


The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the Term of Transubstantiation. The second from their not expresly teaching the Conversion of Substances. Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion.

MY first Proof is taken from the Greeks not using the Term of Transubstantiation, when they explain their belief touching the Eucharist. And this Arcudius himself (who cannot be suspected by the Roman Church, seeing he is a Person devoted to its In­terests) is forc'd to confess in the same place, where he would perswade us, that the Greeks believe the Conversion of Substances. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, say's he, the Greeks acknowledge, embrace and believe, with a firm Arcud. lib. 3. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 2. Faith, veram [...], a real Transubstantiation, as it appears by the Testi­mony of the ancient Greek Fathers of all Ages, and lately by that of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the tenth Chapter of his Censure of the Luthe­rans. So far he agrees with Mr. Arnaud, but what follows does not well accord with what he said before, And altho they use not this Term, yet have they invented others, by which they explain themselves as fully as can be desired. Dicunt enim [...], aliaque id genus, we shall by what follows whether he has reason to say these Terms signifie and express areal Transubstantiation, it suffices me at present to represent what he acknowledges, That they use not the Term of Transub­stantiation. This justifies it self by the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius, a real false Greek whom Mr. Arnaud produces with so great ostentation, and that which shall be considered in its place; vox etenim, say's he, [...], transubstantiatio tametsi nova quodammodo videatur, & a pluribus non libenter ut recens suscipiatur licet nihilominus, &c. This Term of Transubstantiation altho it seems in some sort new, and that several by reason of its novelty do not willingly receive it, &c. These several he speaks of are all the true Greeks, which is to say, all them which are not as Paysius, who holds intelligence with the Latins.

I might likewise here produce the Testimony of Mr. Basire Arch-Deacon of Northumberland, and Chaplain to his Majesty of Great Britain, a wor­thy Person, exquisitely Learned, exemplary for his Virtue, and well ver­sed [Page 115] in Languages, who has not only voyaged into Greece and other Eastern Parts, but has lived there a considerable time, and publickly Preached in the Greek Churches. For in one of his Letters he sent me, and out of which I shall produce hereafter some Articles, he assures me he has carefully read several publick Writings of the Greeks, as their Symbols, Confessions, and Catechisms, to see whether he could find the Term of Transubstantiation in them, which he could not find in any of them. He farther adds, that one of these false Greeks which the Latins make use of for the propogating of their Doctrines in these Countries, having compiled a Catechism, wherein he had inserted the Term of Transubstantiation, he was censured for it by the true Greeks. But all these Testimonies are not necessary, seeing we may read a great many of these authentick Pieces of the Greeks, as their Canons collected by Balsamon, Zonaras, and several others, part of their Liturgies inserted in the Library of the Fathers, their Euchology given us by James Goar a Dominicain, their Pontificia published by Mr. Habert Bishop of Va­bres, the Confession of Faith which their Prelats make at the time of their Ordination, the Typick, that is to say, the Book that regulates every days Office, with their Festivals, Fasts and Solemnities, their Anthology which particularly contains the Offices for Festivals, their Horologies consisting of daily Prayers and many other Ecclesiastical Books, a great number of which we find in the dissertation Leo Allatius wrote on this Subject. Mr. Arnaud who has made an exact search by himself and Friends, cannot pro­duce one passage that bears the expression of Transubstantiation, which in my judgment is an evident token that 'tis not in them. We may see like­wise the Books of their most approved Authors, as of John Damascene, Ni­cephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Germain, Balsamon, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabisilas, Marc of Ephesus, Jeremias the Patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whose works are extant, in which we find no such expression as answers that of Transubstan­tiation. Neither can it be said, that this expression being new and found out but since the Contest with Berengarius, the Greeks have therefore no such word in their Language whereby perfectly to express this, seeing they have the term [...], which signifies properly Transubstantiation. We have already seen that Arcudius, and Paysius Ligaridius, have observed it, in effect the Latinis'd Greeks do commonly use it, and it was ever inserted in the Formulary of Abjuration, which the Greeks make, when they em­brace the Romish Religion, as I shall make it appear hereafter. And Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to acknowledge, this word [...], is not Lib. 4. c. 6. pag. 387. that which the Greeks ordinarily use whereby to explain Transubstantiation, He should have said they used it not in the explication of their Creed. Moreo­ver he needed not insert the word, Ordinarily, for 'tis certain they do nei­ther use it ordinarily nor extraordinarily.

BUT it may be perhaps replyed, It does not follow that they do not believe with the Latins the Doctrine represented under this Term, altho they use not the Term it self. I answer first, that if we suppose the Greeks ever held this Opinion, as Mr. Arnaud would perswade us, there could not be any reason given why the word [...] has not been found all this while in use amongst their Authors, and so much the more because we find that of [...] & [...] in them. For the Latins who had not in common use either the Term of Substan­tiatio, nor Substantiare, have therefore invented and admitted of that of Transubstantiatio, and Transubstantiare, as most proper to express their con­ceptions on that Subject, so that this very consideration, That we find not [Page 116] these kind of expressions in the Writings of the Greeks, is a kind of proof that they believed not the thing signified by them. Moreover, the Latins having Invented the Term of Transubstantiation; how comes it to pass the Greeks have not all this while, following their example used that of [...], to keep up this perfect Conformity with the Church of Rome, which Mr. Arnaud has all along supposed? How comes it to pass that when this Greek word has been known to 'em, and even the Latins themselves have taught it them, yet they would not admit of it? and I pray, what ill conveniencies could they apprehend thereby, if they in effect believed the conversion of the Substances? It cannot appear strange to us, that there were heretofore Persons of sound Judgments, who scrupled to admit the term of Hypostasis, because that in effect ignorant people would take thence occasion to imagine, there were several Divinities; but there can be nothing like this alleadged in respect of Transubstantiation, for there is no danger of giving this an ex­cessive sence, beyond what ought to be believed, supposing we admit the Sub­stantial conversion. There is rather on the contrary, a kind of necessity to make use of it, because it expresses better than any other this kind of conver­sion, and the Terms, [...], being general expres­sions are consequently defective, and suffer a man to deny the change in que­stion, and fall into Heresie; which is as much the Greeks interest as the La­tins to prevent, if it were so they had the same Sentiments in this Subject with them, as Mr. Arnaud assures us they have. He mightily bestirs him­self with his Arguments, or rather Declamations on that the Greeks have never quarrelled about this Doctrine, and finds it strange supposing they were of a contrary belief to the Latins. But let him then tell us, wherefore they so obstinately refused to use the word [...], Transubstantiation, and would never express themselves on this Mystery in the same form as the Church of Rome; for I find this far more strange, supposing they hold in the main the same Doctrine with her. It cannot be alledged that their igno­rance has hind'red them from finding so proper a Term; for it has been made to their hands, or that they feared thereby to offend their Emperours; see­ing they were deeply engaged to favour the Church of Rome, or feared there­by to incur a greater hatred from the Latins, seeing they could not do 'em a greater pleasure.

HOW comes it then to pass, they never used it, but on the contrary, when the Latins in these forc'd and interessed Unions I mentioned in the pre­ceding Book, have proposed to them the Article of the Eucharist under the Term of Transubstantiatur, the Bread is transubstantiated, they kept to their general expressions, saying, only [...], the Bread is changed, as I shall hereafter make appear? Is not this an evident Testimony they would not adopt a Doctrine unknown to their Church, and which they regarded as a Novelty?

THIS first Proof shall be upheld by a second of no less strength than the former. Being taken from that the Greeks in the explicating of their belief on the Eucharist, not only do not use the Term of Transubstantiation, but whatsoe­ver Terms they make use of, they signifie not any thing which expresly bears the real conversion of the Substance Bread of and Wine into that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. When Pope Gregory, towards the end of the Ele­venth Century was minded to shew what his belief was on this Subject; he did not indeed use the Term of Transubstantiation, because 'twas not then found out, but explained himself in such a manner as was sufficiently clear and [Page 117] intelligible. The Bread and Wine, say's he, on the Altar are changed substanti­ally Mr. Arnaud lib. 2. ch. 8. p. 170. by virtue of the mystical and sacred Orison, and words of our Redeemer, in­to the true, proper, and lively Flesh, and real, proper, and lively Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and after the consecration 'tis the true Body of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and the real Blood which ran down his side, not only in a sign, and by vertue of a Sacrament, but by propriety of nature, and reality of substance.

WHEN Innocent the Third would have this same belief known in the Council of Latran, he clearly explain'd himself, and made use even of the very Term of Transubstantiation. In the Sacrament of the Altar, saith he, the Concil. Lat. sub Innoc. 3. cap. 1. Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the blood, by the divine power. In the same manner was it in the Council of Trent, which expresly declared their belief, and what they would have others be­lieve likewise. There is made, say they, by the consecration, a conversion of the Sess. 13. cap. 4. whole Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood, which conversion is rightly and properly called Transubstantiation.

AND thus speak the Doctors of the Church of Rome, and thus in effect they ought to express themselves for the forming the Idea of this Doctrine. But 'tis otherwise with the Greeks: for besides what I said, that they use not the Term of [...], but reject it, it will not be found they use any expres­sions which come near them of the Church of Rome, or mention any thing relating to a substantial conversion, or presence of substance under the accidents of Bread and Wine, or change of one substance into another, which is what ought to be said, to shew they believed Transubstantiation. We see not any thing of this kind appear in the Cannons of their Councils, Confessions of Faith, or Liturgies, Books of Devotions, or any of their Writings, whether published by their Modern or Ancient Divines, and certainly 'tis very strange these people should believe Transubstantiation, and yet at the same time not so much as declare in express Terms this their belief. For besides, that these Terms are but few and easie to be found out, there being nothing more easie to a man who believes the Substantial conversion, than to say, the Bread is substantially converted into the Body of Jesus Christ, or the substance of Bread is really changed into the substance of Christ's Body, in such a manner that the former substance remains no more. Besides this, I say, they have in the Greek Language words which answer exactly the expressions of the Latins on this subject, and upon this account they would be inexcusable, expressing them­selves as they do, differently from the Church of Rome, were their belief the same with hers.

YET is it evident, that the expressions of the Greeks are no ways like those of the Latins, and there needs only the comparing of the one with the other to discern the difference. Compare for Example the confession of Gregory the Seventh, with what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning Nicetas Pe­ctoratus and Theophilact. Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance, of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran, of Thomas Aquinas, and all the School-men, and in short of the Council of Trent, with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius, Nicholas Methoniensis, Zonaras, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabasilas and Jeremias; and you'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed, and on the other no such thing.

I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine, who had a par­ticular Commerce with the Greeks, and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books; observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam, Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere, neque voce, neque re. De publicis instrumentis, puta Symbolis, confessionibus, catechismis, &c. intelligi volo; quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem, neque in eorum vel unico, [...] vocis, ut & rei ipsius, priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae, vel vola vel vestigium. Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror, quoniam non sum nesci­us quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli, illam vocem [...] intrusisse, qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit: The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation. I mean in their publick Symbols, confessions and catechisms, &c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused, but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transub­stantiation, or the thing it self signifi'd thereby, which Doctrine was altogether un­known to the Greek Fathers. I matter not some private Doctors amongst them, for I know that a certain Monk, of the number of these false Greeks, had se­cretly inserted the Term of [...] Transubstantiation in his Catechism, which I saw at Constantinople, but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks. It will be perhaps replied, that Mr. Basire is a Protestant, and consequently to be suspected in this case; but besides that he is a person deservedly ho­noured for his integrity, and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice, and moreover a Divine, and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession, being a person of great Learning, and one that dwelt long in those Parts, and had not only the curi­osity, but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates; besides this, I say, Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground, that he is a Protestant; seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew, and Mr. Picquet, and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens, touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks.

BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony, that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn. I suppose there's no body doubts, but that Mr. Ar­naud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks, and 'tis certain, had he found any passages containing in ex­press Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he would not omit them. Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged, which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances, in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book, is but a meer Sophism, impo­sing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and La­tins by Michael Paleologus, and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year, 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place, and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them. In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs, which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject, he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses, wide Consequences, and negative Arguments, which at bottom conclude nothing. For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact, we expect thereupon Testimo­nies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud, and the im­possibility [Page 119] wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation, is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends. But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter, wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World.


The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general, and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion. The Fourth, that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith, the Decrees of the seven first General Councils. The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open. The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions. Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion disco­vered.

THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist, are these. They call the Symbols, the holy gifts, the holy things, the ineffable myste­ries, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the sanctified bread, the par­ticle or parts, the pearl, and the like. They say, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis the real Body of Jesus Christ.

AND to express this change, they use the Terms of [...], which signifie, to change. Now 'tis certain these expressions, whether we take 'em severally, or joyntly, cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation. For, besides that being gene­ral, they are capable of several particular sences, and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined, as may be justified by a thousand Examples, if it were needful; besides this, I say, our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determi­nate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms, unless it evidently appears from something else, that they had this particular sence in their minds.

I confess that in this case, that is to say, if it appears they have had a par­ticular sence in their minds, we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence, how general soever they may be, but if they come not up to this, we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning. We know for example, that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is com­monly believed, when then we are told, that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, or that 'tis changed into the Body of Christ; although these words are general, yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence, that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ. But had she not elsewhere expressed her self touching the change of the Substance, [Page 120] and had no Council defined it, nor were it to be found in the Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, and other Publick Books, and taught by the Roman Doctours, it is evident we should be unreasonable, in giving these general expressions any other than a general sence, and this generality it self would be an invincible Argument that she never descended so far as the distinct de­termination of Transubstantiation, and consequently this would not be an Article of her Belief. Now 'tis after this manner we ought to judge of the Greek Church, all its expressions are general, there appearing nothing elsewhere which determins this generality, or which engages us to attribute to her the particular and distinct sence of the Church of Rome, and whatso­ever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in the behalf of this, is of no weight. It then necessarily follows, that we ought to attribute to her no other than a ge­neral sence, and in no wise that of Transubstantiation, which is evidently particular and determinate: And even this consideration, that they of the Church of Rome are obliged to use Arguments to explain the common ex­pressions of this Church into a sence of Transubstantiation, is an infallible mark that she does not believe it.

NOW seeing this Proof is decisive, and that it not only establisheth my Sentiment, but likewise overthrows Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute, it will not be therefore amiss to illustrate it and consider well its Foundations, to the end it may be manifested whether the conclusion I draw from hence is just and true. First, then we must know that Transubstantiation is the precise and distinct determination of the manner in which the Bread is made the Body of Christ, to wit, by a real conversion of the substance of this Bread into the substance of this Body; so that 'tis impossible to believe it without forming a distinct Idea after this manner, seeing it is even this precise and deter­min'd Idea it self. It is then absurd and contradictory to look for it in a ge­neral and confused Idea, which determines nothing, for this is to seek for a determination in a thing undetermined, and a distinct sence in a generality, that is to say, light in darkness. And from hence appears what must be the expressions of a Church which believes Transubstantiation, and teaches it, for it is necessary she teach it in plain terms, which answer the distinct Idea she has of it, and which may immediately form the like in the minds of those that hear her. Now this cannot be done but by express and formal Terms, or by Terms so equivalent, that they cannot be turned into a contrary sence. What I say is verifi'd by the example of the Roman Church, whose expressi­ons are plain and clear, and which immediately shew her meaning.

MOREOVER we should consider that the Notion of Transubstantia­tion is not one of those which are called Speculative, but Practical Notions, which engages them that have it to several duties and performances, and especially to the soverain adoration of this same substance, which before was the substance of bread, but now the same proper numerical substance of the natural body of Jesus Christ, as speaks the Church of Rome, whence it necessarily follows, that a Church which thus believes it, teacheth it in such a manner, that the act of adoration follows freely and naturally of it self..

IT is likewise to be observed, that the matter here in hand concerns the Greek Church from the Eleventh Century, which is to say, that since the contests with Berengarius, the Roman Church has expresly determined the substantial conversion, which drove the Greeks into a greater necessity of [Page 121] speaking clearly on this point, either to shew their conformity of belief with the Latins, or to avoid the falling into the same inconveniencies which the Latins endeavour'd to avoid by this formal declaration. And this ob­servation is the more considerable against Mr. Arnaud, in that he grants the Greeks not to have been ignorant of this circumstance touching Berengarius.

TO know then certainly whether the Greek Church believes Transub­stantiation or not, we need but see after what manner she explains her self concerning the Eucharist; for if her expressions bear not a substantial con­version, either expresly or equivalently, in such a sort, that they may easily and immediately form the notion thereof, if they be I say general, and determine nothing of themselves, it is a certain proof she does not believe it, for that Church which believes it, and would have its Children do the like, cannot but explain it self clearly and fully on that subject. If we examine Mr. Arnaud's dispute on this Principle, which I esteem as the light of com­mon sence, we shall immediately deprive him of all his negative Arguments, taken from the silence of the Greeks, and that of the Latins; for altho these kind of Arguments are very good in other occasions, yet it is apparent that to end a question, such a one as this is, which is, Whether the Eastern Church believes and teaches Transubstantiation, Mr. Arnaud should have taken a course more decisive than that of considering what the Greeks have done in relation to the Transubstantiation of the Latins, or what the Latins have done in respect of the belief of the Greeks. It were better for us, directly to consider, after what manner, they themselves do positively explain their be­lief, touching the Eucharist. If we find Transubstantiation plainly declared in it; these Arguments of silence are no longer necessary, and if we don't find it clearly expressed, there will follow a Conclusion so greatly to my ad­vantage, that all Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments will not be able to subsist before it, for there is a thousand times more solidity in reasoning after this sort. A Church doth not clearly teach Transubstantiation, therefore she holds it not, than to argue thus; A Church does not oppose Transubstanti­ation held by the Latins, therefore she believes it. Besides that the first Argument concludes directly and immediately what the other does not, there is a greater coherence between believing Transubstantiation, and clearly teaching it, than there is repugnance between not believing it, and yet not opposing it in persons who do believe it. There is no reason can hinder the Greeks from distinctly teaching Transubstantiation, supposing they be­lieved it, but there may be several reasons which may oblige them from making this Point a matter of dispute with the Latins, altho they do not be­lieve it.

NEITHER must the Profession of Faith, which the Emperour Mi­chael Paleologus sent (as from the Greeks) to Pope John the XXI. to finish the work of the Re-union of the two Churches be made use of against us; for besides that this was an act extorted by force, which is not of any account a­mongst the Greeks, we do not find that the Latin expressions which bear that the Bread is really transubstantiated, do exactly answer the Greek expressions of the same act, which according to all likelyhood contained only, that the Bread is really changed, as we shall make it appear hereafter.

NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us, for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries, and that [Page 122] the quality of the Persons who make these attestations, does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question, which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church, all these pieces are too new where­on to build alone, a Tradition from the [...]venth Century, that is to say, since six hundred years.

WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences, which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them, which shall be done in its place; but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument, which is drawn, from that the usual expressions of the Greeks, I mean the clearest of them, and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist, only consist in general terms. Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation; for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions, seeing the belief of the substantial conversion, as I have already established it, is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and that 'tis not possi­ble but that a Church which believes it, and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly: And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments, I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's.

BUT this Argument I now produced, ought to be attended by this fol­lowing consideration, which will farther evidence its strength and solidity. Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith, the seven first general Councils, to wit, that of Nice, against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great, that at Constantinople a­gainst Macedonius under Theodosius, that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior, that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion, that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian, the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus, and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine, and his Mother Iréna. Now 'tis certain, there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transub­stantiation, for what is produced concerning the first at Nice; That we must conceive by Faith, that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World, lies ou this holy Table, that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests, and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood: This I say, as any man may see, is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice, as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book, wherein he relates it. And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances, as that of Gregory the Seventh, held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second, that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject, that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine, and in fine that of Trent, which esta­blished the preeeding decisions, the Greek Church receives none of these, nor makes any account of them. They all commonly say, say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit, in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed, and the Priests make the people believe, that at the end of the seventh Council, an Angel descended from Heaven; testi­fying that whatsoever concerned our Faith, was therein perfected, and there re­main'd [Page 123] nothing more to be added or decided. Leo Allatius likewise only menti­ons seven Councils which they approve. They have, say's he, in great esteem Allat. de prep. cons. lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils, and hold them inviolable, they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things, and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them.

ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians, Guag. in Mosc. descrip. which is the same as that of the Greeks, relates their Belief is, that 'twas con­cluded in the seventh general Council, that the matters determin'd in the prece­ding Councils should remain firm for the time to come, and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema; wherefore (adds he) they say, that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first, are accursed, per­verse, and desperately defiled with Heresie. Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia, tells us likewise, that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art. 9. the seventh, saying, they are not concerned in them, seeing they were held without their consent.

SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour, that there De uno past. part. 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded, and that whosoever receives the De­crees of an eighth or ninth is accursed. Mr. Basire, whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, confirms me in this matter by his Letter. In publica, say's he, Graecorum professione, non nisi [...] recipiunt quas [...] nuncupant. In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the De­crees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical. And Metrophanus Confess. Eccles. Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration: We only receive, say's he, the seven Oecumenical Councils, and as to the particular Councils, we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones. Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith, this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible, for in fine not to receive for a determi­nation of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Coun­cils, and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversi­on, are two things very inconsistent with each other, especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils, wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd. And in effect, it seems to me that this Doctrine is im­portant enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils, and not amongst the common customs, or practices which are still observed, altho not expresly determined, or amongst the Points, which being minute and inconsiderable, are therefore left unde­cided, altho they are held. Let the Reader judge, whether 'tis likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the De­crees of Councils, wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transub­stantiation, and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established, and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins, and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms, which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms, the greatest part of which are besides the purpose. What mean these Greeks by their general expressions, which are good for nothing but to puzzle people? For according to Mr. Arnaud, they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body, and teach as they believe, it being their interest to do so, to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed. They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of [Page 124] Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine. And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith, but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils, in which there's no mention of this Change of Substance, and to reject all those Councils which expressly de­creed it, and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms, which signifie nothing. And must Mr. Arnaud (to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World, and to whom they are obliged for their pre­servation under the Turkish Empire) tire himself, his Friends, and his Read­ers; exhaust his store of Consequences, that is to say, his stock of Delusi­ons, and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People? To speak impartially, he has reason to be angry with these Greeks, who are so obstinate, or at least so lazy, that they will not be at the pains to express plainly, and without ambiguity, a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds. And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves; but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome, they have changed the Latin expressions, and whereas in the Acts of these last, it is expressly mention'd, that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ, they have barely inserted, that it is changed, that 'tis consecrated, and in a word, they have ever substi­tuted their general expressions, to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins. What can Mr. Arnaud alledge, when on one hand he sees in Raynal­dus, this Confession of Faith, about which he has made such a noise, and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI. and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church, and that he sees it, I say, expressed in these Latins words, Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia, tenens & do­cens Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words, [...]. Allat perp. cons. lib. 2. cap. 17. [...]. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Latins say's, veré Tran­substantiatur, it is really Transubstantiated, and the Greeks [...], it is really changed.

Mr. Arnaud, who loves not to complain, when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good, passes lightly over this difference, as if it were a trifle not worth his notice, for having told us, that Raynaldus observes, some read in Latin Trans­mutatur, and others Transubstantiatur, he adds, Allatius who has given us the Original it self, makes it appear that these words, Transmutatur and Transub­stantiatur, are mere Synonimous Terms, seeing they have been substituted by In­terpreters to these Greek words, [...], &c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synoni­my, Transmutatur, and Transubstantiatur are both the same, because Inter­preters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term [...] [Page 125] [...]. But who are these Interpreters, who thus render Transubstantia­tur, are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where, and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force? If Transmutare and Tran­substantiare are Synonimous Terms, Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor. Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen, Christo indutus sum, in Christo Transub­stantiatus sum, for there is Transmutatus, and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen, Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus, he may read, H [...]m. 2. in di­vers. Iren. ad Haeres. lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus, and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster, Transmu­tatur in bonam olivam, he may render this, Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam. If we may as well substitute to the Greek word [...], these two La­tin ones, Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur, Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus, omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur, for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur, and the Greek imports [...], and when he shall find in the same Author, that Jesus Christ came to change the nature, he may understand it, that he came to Transub­stantiate the nature, forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare, and the Greek [...]. 'Tis certain that a man who reads good Authors up­on Mr. Arnaud's credit, and follows his Synonima's, will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations, and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all. He will say these words are Synonimy's, when they concern the Eucharist; for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantia­ted, is the same thing. It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstan­tiation, but not with them who do not believe it. But the Greeks believe it, say's Mr. Arnaud, which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it. Mr. Ar­naud's Arguments are really admirable, for they are very conclusive, provi­ded we suppose the truth of what they conclude. If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this Form of Faith, he will answer 'tis because the Term of Transubstantiatur is in it. Tell him that in the Greek there is [...], Transmutatur and not Transubstantiatur, he will answer that [...], Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are the same thing. But let this be examined, it will be found to be indeed the same thing to them that believe Transubstantiation, but as to others who do not, there is a great difference; so that to speak truly, to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good, it must first be supposed the Greeks believe the Substantial Conversion, as well as the Latins.

HE may adjust these matters when he pleases; but let me tell him in the mean time, that the Greeks used the same expressions in the Council of Flo­rence. The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Sa­viour Concil. Florent. Sess. 25. Jesus Christ, take, eat, this is my Body, which has been broken for you, for the Remission of your Sins, &c. (they added this Prayer,) and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cap, the preci­ous bloud of thy Christ, in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit; they answered they did acknowledge that the Consecrated Bread was made the Body of Christ by these words. The Latin Decree has this expression, fa­teri nos diximus per haec verba Transubstantiari Sacrum Panem, & fieri Corpus Christi, but the Greek expressions are these, [...], The Latin say's 'tis Transubstantiated, the Greek that 'tis Consecrated.

MR. Arnaud has recourse here likewise to his Synonimy's; for he tells us, that the Latins (to whom this answer was made) having taken it in the sence Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345. of an acknowledgement of Transubstantiation, it is ridiculous to pretend there [Page 126] was such a great equivocation between them and the Greeks, the one understand­ing a change of Substance, and the others a change of Virtue. He adds, That if the Greeks had not taken these words in the sence of the Latins, Syropulus, and Marc of Ephesus would have observed that the Latins were derided by this equivocation, and would have accused them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit. In fine, he say's, that Andrew de S. Cruce (who deserves as much to be credited, as any of the other Historians, who wrote on this Council, because he was there present) relates this acknowledgment of Transubstantiation, which Bessarion made in the name of all the Greeks, in a manner more precise, distinct, and with greater circumstances, and that he attributes to him these words, we have learnt that these are the words of our Lord, which Change and Transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, and that these divine words have the full force of Transubstantiation.

I answer, the more I study the Character of Mr. Arnaud, the more clearly I perceive that these things are no otherwise ridiculous and affrightful, but only as they agree not with his designs. For it is certain that [...], and Transubstantiari, are two different Terms, which signifie not the same thing; the first is applicable in general to all Mysteries, and signifies only, to be conje­crated, or perfectly consecrated; the second signifies a Change of one Substance into another. It is moreover certain, that when the Latins wrote Transubstantiari, the Greeks have only set down [...], why then will he have it, that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural signification, and in the usual sence given to it amongst them? Because say's he, that the Latins took this answer for an acknowledgment of Transubstantiation: But who told him, that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner; Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins should take it in this sence? The Greeks have kept to their general expressions, and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage. If there has been any equivocation in them, the Latins have voluntarily made it, and 'tis very likely, could they have made the Greeks say [...], instead of [...], they would gladly have done it, but not being able to effect it, they have made what advantage they could of [...], in interpreting it by the word Transubstantiation. And this is the whole Secret, which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other, than Mr. Arnaud's imagination.

And as to what he say's concerning Syropulus, and Mark of Ephesus, name­ly, that they would have observed the Latins were deluded by an Equivoca­tion, and accuse them who thus answered in behalf of the Greeks of prevari­cation and deceit; I see no reason they had to do this, for when the Greeks, sayd [...], they spoke their usual Language and derided no body. If the Latins understood it otherwise than the force of the Term and common use permitted them; 'tis they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them, wherefore there is no reason in this respect to accuse them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit. Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Bessarion according to the intention of the Latins, does but con­firm what I say, which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expressions of the Greeks, and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us, that he deserves no less credit than the other Historians, who wrote of this Council. Would he have it, that Bessarion who speaks for all the rest of the Greeks, did not use the Term [...]; This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council, and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not sufficient to correct a Publick Act, neither can his [Page 127] Latin alter the Greek. Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the [...] of Bessarion by Transubstantiatur? I grant it, and the Decree of the Council shows it, so that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his assistance. Yet may we observe that Mr. Arnaud himself is not fully satisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expressions on this Subject, do mean but one and the same thing, altho he tells us he is; for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce, relates from Bessarion, a more precise manner, more distinct and circumstantial, which is as much as to say after all, that the Transubstantiari of the Latins is more precise, distinct and plain than the [...] of the Greeks.

AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him; and it were well if it could likewise so far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge, that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Transub­stantiation. For had they believed it, what likelyhood is there they should thus carefully keep themselves from using the expressions of the Latins, which are proper, distinct and clear, and change them into others, which are general and equivocal, and that in the same Acts wherein those aforementio­ned exactly describe the conversion of the Substances, th'others should be so obstinate, as not to take notice of it. Had they been perswaded the Latins did not innovate, would they not have yielded to a thousand Reasons which seem'd to constrain them to manifest their thro Conformity with them? Their Affairs were in very bad circumstances, they left their Country to im­plore the assistance of the Western Princes; they were in the Pope's hands, and maintain'd at his charge; they consented to the re-union of the two Churches; their Emperors did not only sollicite but constrain them there­unto; and they had already offered great violences to their own consciences, for they consented to the addition of the Filioque in the Creed; what rea­son then could hinder them from acknowledging the Conversion of the Sub­stances, had their belief been the same with that of the Church of Rome; Wherefore should they still affect their general Terms, of [...]; Wherefore even in the very act of the re-union made at Florence, the Term of Transubstantiation was never inserted, but only that of confici, in the Latin, and that of [...] in the Greek? For thus was it set down, [...]. Item in azymo sive fermentato Pane triticeo Corpus Christi veraciter confici, Sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini Corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet juxta suae Ecclesiae sive Occidentalis sive Orientalis consuetudinem. That the Body of Jesus Christ is really consecrated, or made into Wheaten Bread, either with or without Leven, and that the Priests ought to make or consecrate the Body of our Lord with either of these, every one according to the Custom of his Church, whe­ther Eastern or Western. Here is no mention of the conversion of the Sub­stances, for the general Terms carri'd it away from the determinations of the Latins. Neither need Mr. Arnaud tell us as he does, that the Greeks took Lib. 4. cap 2. pag. 346. these words in a sence of Transubstantiation, because the Latins did so; For if the Greeks believed a true and real conversion of Substance, wherefore then was not that Article expressed in clear and proper Terms. The Latins were not ignorant of them, the Greeks knew them well enough, there being no word more common among them than that of [...]. That of Substantia had been already affected by the Latins in the Mystery of the Eucharist, and the Popes that preceded Eugenus the IV. were not wanting to bring it into that famous Confession of Faith which we have so often mention'd. In short [Page 128] Mr. Arnaud need not tell us so often of these Equivocations, for we know ve­ry well, that in these kind of Accommodations, wherein interest holds the chiefest rank, the two Parties agree commonly in certain generalities, which each of 'em endeavour to explain to their own advantage. There is no­thing more common than these kind of Treaties, in which when there's foreseen any insuperable difficulties, they are usually left untoucht, both Parties contenting themselves with general Terms, by which each of 'em think to compass their designs. Mr. Arnaud is a Person of too much reading and experience to question a Truth so well known, and I believe we need not go far for instances of this kind. But, howsoever, this is certain and undeniable, that in all the Decrees of the Florentine Council, there ap­pears nothing on the part of the Greeks, that establishes the conversion of Sub­stances, but on the contrary, it seems as if they had prevail'd on the Latins, to abate their expressions in the solemn act of their re-union.

BUT before we leave this Proof, it is to be observed that Bessarion Arch­bishop of Nice, who was one of the Principal Agents in this Accommodation, in behalf of the Greeks, was a Person already brought over to the Interests of the Latins, and for his good Services was soon after made a Cardinal in the Roman Church. It cannot then but be supposed he favoured the Latins, and used all possible means to prevail on his own Country-men. In effect Syropulus complains of this; in such a manner, as sufficiently shews, what judg­ment we ought to make of this particular. In the mean time, compare I pray, the Terms Bessarion uses when he speaks in behalf of the Greeks in the Conferences of the Council, with those he uses in his Treatise of the Eucha­rist, wherein he speaks from his own head, since he was made a Cardinal, in Specie, say's he, in this Treatise, Panis & Vini, veritas Corporis & Sanguinis continetur, cum in illa, Substantia Panis Vinique mutetur. The Body of Jesus Christ is really contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Substance be­ing changed into this Body and Blood; and a little farther, verba dicuntur qui­bus dictis mox Consecratio fit, Transubstantialitas perficitur; The words are no sooner said but the Consecration is made, and the Transubstantiation finished. 'Tis no longer [...] and [...], Consecration and Sanctification, but Substantia mutatur, Transubstantialitas perficitur, the change of Substance, Tran­substantion. Whence comes this difference, but from that the Greeks do not use the same expressions as the Latins, and that there is not any Conformity between these two Churches in this Point of the Conversion of Substances? Bessarion counterfiting the Greek, makes use only of general expressions. But when he discovers himself to be a Latin, he speaks plainly and di­stinctly.

BUT besides Bessarion, this same difference is observable in other Lati­nised Greeks, engaged to propogate the Roman Doctrines, if we compare their Style with that of the true Greeks. Compare for example what Mr. Arnaud tells us out of Emanüel Calecas, and John Plusiadéne, with what he himself alledges out of Cabisilas, Mark of Ephesus, Simon of Thessalonica, and others, and you will find these last mention not the change of Substance, whereas the former do expressly assert it. Emanuel tells us concerning the Eucharist, that God is able to change the inward Substance, and yet conserve the same Accidents entire. Plusiadene after the same manner, That the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body of Christ. Whereas there's no such expres­sions in the true Greeks: for we meet only with such expressions as these, that the Bread is really the Body of Jesus Christ, and that 'tis changed into the [Page 129] Body of Jesus Christ: but as to the Substance they make no mention of it, and there is nothing but Mr. Arnaud's Consequence or Synonimy, which can make them do it.


The Sixth Proof taken from the Greeks, employing on other Subjects, the same Expressions as on the Eucharist. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Delusion manifested.

THE only way to judge of the meaning of Authors, when 'tis matter of Debate, is to examine their Style in other like Matters, it being impossible, but in comparing their expressions some of 'em will give light to others. Had Mr Arnaud followed this me­thod, he would never have valued so highly several expressions in Greek Authors; for he would have seen at the same time, that they deliver them­selves almost after the same manner on other Subjects, where there's no Transubstantiation to be suspected. I know 'tis a hard matter for a Person that is prejudiced, to consider the question he handles, in those respects which are disagreeable to him; but besides that this prejudice is a fault, and there­fore to be avoided, especially when men write on a Publick Account, or take upon them to instruct People; besides this, I say, there are several con­siderable matters which so offer themselves to be seen, that we cannot abstain from beholding them; and 'tis more especially in respect of these, that mens neglect is blame-worthy, because 'tis affected, and is inconsistant with the Rules of Sincerity. As for instance, how can we approve of Mr. Arnaud's pro­ceeding, who has scarcely mentioned a word in his Book touching that prodi­gious ignorance which has overspread the East, in matters of Religion? How can we approve his taking no notice of that multitude of Emissaries, wherewith all that Country has been filled, for I know not how many Ages together, nor of the means used for the propogation of the Romish Do­ctrines, nor the progresses they made. These are things he could not be ignorant of, and are not matters of small importance; seeing the Judgment to be made of this whole Controversie, does in some measure depend there­on. But not to rehearse what we already mention'd, how can we bear with him, when he passes over in silence several Greek expressions, like unto those from which he would draw advantage, and yet are applied to Subjects which have not the least relation to Transubstantiation. These expressions offered themselves to him, and there needed little deliberation to determine what use was to be made of them, and what rank they hold in the decision of this Controversie. Yet has he taken no notice of them, for his desire of vanquishing has far exceeded his love to Truth.

BUT howsoever 'tis certain the Greeks speak almost after the same man­ner concerning the Church (it being likewise the Body of Christ) as they do concerning the Eucharist. Cabisilas is one of the Authors Mr. Arnaud has quoted with most complacency, having filled a long Chapter with Passages taken out of him, he alledges amongst others, these words of his 38 Chapter, [Page 130] The Church is represented in the Mysteries of Religion, not as in the Signs, but as the Members are marked by the Heart, the Tree by the Root, and the Vine­branches by the Vine, forasmuch as the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that this Body and Blood are the Nourishment of the Church. So far is his Allegation; but 'tis requisite to hear Cabisilas himself in the full extent of his Discourse, to judge of the Style of this Author, and Mr. Arnaud's Delu­sion. The Church, say's he, is represented in the Mysteries of Religion, not as in the Signs, but as the Members are in the Heart, the Branches of the Tree in the Root, and the Vine-leaves in the Vine, as speaks our Lord. For here is not only a Communion of Names, or a reference of likeness, but 'tis the Identity of the thing it self; For the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Now they are the real nourishment of the Church, and when she partaketh of them she does not change them into a humane Body, like unto other Food, but she her self is changed into them, [...], forasmuch as the most excellent part has the predominancy. Behold the iron, when 'tis joyned with the fire, it becomes fire, and it does not make the fire become iron, for the fire effaces all the properties of the iron; so in like manner if any one could see the Church of Christ in that respect, whereby 'tis united to him, and partakes of his Flesh, he would behold nothing but the Body of Christ, and therefore St. Paul say's, you are the Body of Jesus Christ, and each of you are his Members; For when he calls him the Head and us the Members, he does not represent to us thereby the cares of his Providence, nor our subjection to him in the same sence as we call our selves the Members of our Parents, or Friends, by an hyperbolical way of speaking; But he means what he says; That the faithful by the efficacy of this Blood, live the Life which is in Jesus Christ, and have their real dependance on him as their Head, and are clothed with this Body.

It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud, why he cut short this passage of Cabisilas, seeing the reason manifestly appears; for if we take but the pains to compare what he alledges from this Author touching the Eucharist with what I now related touching the Church, we shall soon find that these last expressi­ons are far stronger and significant than what he say's concerning the Sacra­ment. He excludes the bare communion of name and resemblance between Christ and the Church, and establishes a perfect Identity. He say's the Church is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He uses the comparison of iron inflamed, which others apply to the Eucharist, and as if he design'd to make us understand that the Church is Christ's Body in a litteral and complete sense, he assures us this is no Hyperbole, and that St. Paul speaks the same thing. I am greatly deceived, if there can be any thing found so pressing and comprehensive in relation to the Eucharist, either in this Author, or any other of the true Greeks; and this shews on one hand, how vain and groundless Mr. Arnaud's Triumphs are, and on the other, how requisite and necessary a thing it is, for men to shew the Substantial Conversion, clearly, and expresly in the Doctrines of a Church before it be concluded she believes it.

CABISILAS is not the only man who speaks after this manner touching the Church, for others borrow his proper Terms to explain them­selves fully like him; for we may find the same passage at large, in the first Answer of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Divines of Wittemberg.

PHOTIUS spake likewise to the same purpose, and Oecumenius after him, as appears by the Commentaries of the latter of these, on the Tenth [Page 131] Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians; The Apostle, say they, tells us, that the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ; but forasmuch as it seems that that which is communicated is of a different nature from him to whom 'tis communicated, he would now shew us that we do not communicate, but that we are all of us [...], the same Body of Jesus Christ: For as one piece of Bread is made of several Grains, so we likewise altho several, are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ: I believe there's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist, which exceed these.

BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church, we must like­wise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves con­cerning the Book of the New Testament, or Volumn of the Gospels, when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church., This entrance is called [...], the small entrance, designing to repre­sent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World. They bow before this Book, and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself, cry­ing out altogether at the same time, [...]. Come let us worship Christ, and fall down before him, Save us O Son of God. Assoon as they begin to read, the Bishop throws off his Mantle, and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action, tells us, 'tis to give a publick testimony of his Servitude; For, say's he, when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel, and is as it were present, the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle. Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him, when the true Shepherd himself appears, say's he, in the reading of the Holy Gospel, the Bishop throws off his Mantle, to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors, our God and Master is present. I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated, and yet they speak and behave themselves, as if it was our Saviour himself; which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious, and that we have no rea­son to impute Substantial Conversions to them, every time they make use of excessive Terms.

We may likewise see here another Example of what I say, even in the ve­ry Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration. The Greeks have two Tables, one which they call the Prothesis, and th'other the great Altar. They place on the former of these, the Symbols, and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God, that is to say, his Birth, Life, and Sufferings. They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar, where they consecrate 'em, so that before this 'tis but simple Bread and Wine, yet on which, they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ, and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure; Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germa [...] [...]n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after. Germain the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, calls them, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, he say's, that the Saints and all the Just enter with him, and that the Cherubins, Angels, and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him, singing Hymns, and accompa­nying the great King our Saviour Christ, who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice, and is carried by mortal hands. Behold, say's he, the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts, that is to say, with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre. And in another place, the Translation of Holy Things, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which come from the Pro­thesis, and are carry'd to the great Altar, with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the [Page 132] entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem. He say's more­over, that our Saviour is carried in the Dish, and shews himself in the Bread, [...]. And as yet 'tis no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated.

ARCUDIUS observes, some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud. lib de Euch. c. 20 & 21. Christ. He say's farther, that Gabriel de Philadelphia, calls it, the imperfect Body of Christ, and proves the Symbols are called in this respect, [...], the holy, divine, and unutterable Mysteries, which are the same names they give them after their Consecration.

WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar, the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn, in which are these words, Let the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd, and given to the Faithful for Food. At which time their Devotion is so excessive, that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud. lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry. Goar clears them of this crime, yet say's himself, that some bow, others kneel, and cast themselves prostrate on the ground, Goar in Euch. notis in Miss. Chrys. as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels, that all of 'em say their Prayers, or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests, and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ, as if he was per­sonally present, praying to him in the words of the good Thief, Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom. The Priests answer, the Lord God be mindful of us all, now and for ever.

THEY repeat these words without ceasing, till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary, and then they cry out, Blessed is he, that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there's not any Consecration, and much less a Conversion of Substance.

WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table, they separate a Parti­cle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour, and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary. They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first, in honour of the Holy Virgin, to the end they may say, in effect say's Goar, [...], The Queen is at thy right hand, in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours. They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist, another in honour of the Apostles, and several others for a remembrance of other Saints. Goar tells us, they sepa­rate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner, besides those of our Saviour, and the Blessed Virgin his Mother, and that this is done to represent the whole Cele­stial Court. They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar, where the Consecration is performed; but when they speak of these Particles, they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary, th'other the Body of St. John, th'other the Body of St. Nicholas, and after the same manner all the rest. I know Goar denies they are thus called, affirming the Greeks say only [...], the Particle of the Virgin, and not the Body of the Virgin, I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point, and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking. But Goar himself say's, that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine, that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of the Bles­sed Virgin in her Particle of Bread; and what likelihood is there, Persons endued with the least sense, should fall into this Opinion, if the expressions [Page 133] of the Greeks gave them not some reason for it? Arcudius assures us, that in Arcud. lib. 3. de Euch. C 9. his time, there was a certain Person in Poland, otherwise both Pious and Learn­ed, who perswaded a Lady of Russia to receive no more the Sacrament from the hands of the Priests of her Religion, because they administred not the Body of Jesus Christ, but that of the Virgin Mary, and St. Nicholas, &c. This man's mi­stake, to whom Arcudius gives another kind of Character than that of a Ca­lumniator, was no otherwise occasioned, but by the manner of speaking usual amongst the Greeks, who called these Particles the Body of this or th'other Saint. For 'tis not likely he invented this Fable himself, which Histor. Eccl. part. 4. p. 20. is so impertinent and ridiculous. Hottinger affirms, there's to be seen in the Library of Zurich a Manuseript, which bears the name of one Peter Numa­gen, in which is expresly mention'd, that the Greeks affirm, the remainders of the Consecrated Bread, (which is to say, of that Bread from whence the great Particle has been taken in remembrance of our Saviour, and which they distribute to the People at the end of the Action, calling it [...],) to be the remainders of the Body of the Virgin Mary. Guy Carmus relates the same thing, the thirteenth Errour of the Greeks, say's he, is, that they affirm the remainders of the Consecrated Bread, are the remains of the Body of the Bles­sed Virgin.

GERMAIN the Patriarch of Constantinople, speaks after this man­ner, Theoria rer. Eccles. we [need not doubt, say's he, but there are great spiritual blessings and ad­vantages which do follow from the communication of this Bread, which is the Bo­dy of the Blessed Virgin. And the same kind of expressions are to be seen in Sacred Nose­gay. lib. 4. c. 3. Boucher's relation touching the Greeks: They all of 'em, hold, say's he, a most ridiculous and extravagant opinion; for they believe that under these Particles of the Consecrated Host, is really contain'd the Body of the Virgin, after the same manner as the Body of her Son under the principal parts of the said Host, so that they receive these Fragments with new Prayers and Preparatives in honour of the Mother of our Saviour. I do not doubt but that Boucher is mistaken as well as those mentioned by Goar, and this good man of Poland mention'd by Ar­cudius, in imputing to them such a ridiculous Superstition; but 'tis certain the occasion of this charge was the manner of the Greeks expressing them­selves, who attribute to these Fragments and Particles of Bread, the name of the Body of the Virgin and Saints in the same manner as they call the great Particle our Saviour's Body.

NOW this manifestly shews we ought not to abuse (as Mr. Arnaud do's) their Mystical expressions; for seeing they apply them to the Bread, when as yet unconsecrated, and speak of it as if it was our Saviour himself, be­having themselves as if he was present in his Humane Nature; who then can find it strange if they express themselves above the ordinary rate, con­cerning the Consecrated Bread, which is the consummation of the whole Mystery? And seeing they are not sparing of their Mystical expressions touching the Particles of Bread: divided and set apart in honour of the Vir­gin Mary and Saints, what likelihood is there they should be more reserv'd in respect of that, which they consecrate in remembrance of the Son of God, and on which they express with so great Ceremony and Pomp, the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation? It is evident, that to attribute to them the be­lief of a real and substantial Conversion, according to the sence of the Ro­man Church they must have explain'd themselves in clear and proper Terms; for should we be guided by Mr. Arnaud, who makes the most tri­vial matters serve for Proofs, and draws Consequences from all Sides, either [Page 134] right or wrong, we should run the hazard of being deceived, as well as those that imagined the Greeks believed the real presence of the Virgin Ma­ry's Body, and that of St. Nicholas.


The Seventh Proof taken from that the Greeks do not believe the Parti­cles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be consecrated on the great Altar, as is that of our Saviour, and yet they distribute them to the People in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Fallacy laid open. The Eighth Proof taken from their believing that the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, has a greater virtue than that which is consecrated at other times. The Ninth Proof taken out of several Passages of their Liturgies.

WE have seen in the preceding Chapter, that the Greeks when as yet at the Prothesis, (that is to say, at the little Altar) do separate eleven Particles of Bread, the first and principal Particle in honour of our Saviour, the second in honour of his Holy Mother, and the rest in honour of the Saints, and that they carry all these and place them on the high Altar, where the Consecration is per­form'd.

WE must here observe they believe not that all these Particles are con­secrated, for they restrain this effect to that which bears the name of our Saviour, the others remaining unconsecrated. Arcudius affirms Simeon of Arcud. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. c. 10. Thessalonica (who lived in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century) to be the Author of this Opinion, against which he with much passion inveighs. Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not attribute this Error to all the Greeks; because, say's he, that Simeon protesteth before he proposed it, that he did not offer it dogmatically, but only as a probable Opinion; But Arcudius does not fully say this, he only tells us that Simeon, at the end of his whole Discourse adds, that he mentions not these things as Points of Doctrine, because he always follows the Sentiments of the Church. This is a Clause of Submission, but this is not to protest before the proposal of the Opinion, that he offers it but only as a mere Opinion. Mr. Arnaud adds, That 'tis likely the Greeks in the Council of Flo­rence did answer the Latins according to the sence of Simeon, for the Acts men­tion that the Bishop of Mytilene fully satisfi'd them touching the Questions pro­posed, amongst which this was one. But he is mistaken, for the Question of the Latins was not concerning the Consecration of the small Particles, but touching the Making of these Particles, and uniting them with the great one, [...]. They demanded of us wherefore we divided the Particles in the Oblation, that is to say, on the Prothesis, and afterwards joyned them to the Divine Bread, or great Consecrated Particle. Now this Question does not respect the Consecration of these Particles, 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 [Page 135] 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? 'Tis first the Faith, and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers, but in fine, I am perswaded of this, because 'tis 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 [Page 136] 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 the great Particle in the Cup, and mix them therein together, it is no more then but one and the same thing. For if we suppose, that as well the great one, as the lesser, are the Body of Jesus Christ, and mystical Saints, I find no difficulty therein, for he means that all these Particles put together make no more than one Mystery, which expresses that perfect Unity, which is between Christ and his Saints, which to­gether with him make but one Body. But if on the contrary we suppose that the first Particle is Jesus Christ in Substance, there will be found nothing more absurd than the expression of this Person, when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Substance of Jesus Christ. He is one and the same with his true Saints, whether they are in Heaven or on [Page 137] Earth, but to say he becomes one and the same with their Figures and Repre­sentations, or with Crums of Bread, which represent them on an Altar, is in my opinion such an extravagant fancy, that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it.

IN fine Arcudius assures us, that 'tis customary to administer these Parti­cles to the People, after the same manner as we do the Sacrament. He say's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to distribute them in this manner to the People, but to administer them with the great Particle mixt and pressed together in the Cup. Yet, adds he, Simeon ambiguously Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 10. expresses himself, for he say's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when they are mixt with the Body and Blood, and are not so being separate, and there­fore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament, which is to say, they may receive them as the real Sacrament. Now tell me I beseech you, whe­ther 'tis likely a man that believes the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ, in its proper Substance, would speak after this manner. These Par­ticles, say's he, become the Body of our Lord when mixt, but separate they are not so. Is it that the conjunction and mixture transubstantiates them, and the separation untransubstantiates them? If this be his meaning, why does he so earnestly assert, that they are not consecrated? Why does Gabriel his Dis­ciple, say, that they are not changed, altho united? He must certainly mean Ibid. they are the Body of Christ, otherwise than in propriety of Substance, and he sufficiently explains himself, when he says in the second passage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged, [...], they partici­pate Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331. of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which Mr. Arnaud understood not amiss when he translated it, they receive holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood. Which is to say, they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity, which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture, even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful. Now there are several things which do hence necessarily follow. For first, it follows that the Bread which is the Bo­dy of Jesus Christ, not in Substance, but in Sanctification, is sufficient for the Communion of the Faithful. Secondly, that the great Particle is the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Substance, and by consequence that it is not it self this Body substantially, for besides that this manner of being the Body of Jesus Christ is incommunicable, it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject, even to the making of it the Body of Jesus Christ, it then follows that this other Subject must be transubstantiated. In a word, Simeon's meaning is, that the great Particle is in such a manner the Body of Jesus Christ, that it may communicate this honour to the rest, and make them become the Body of Jesus Christ in such a sort as renders them proper for the Communion. And to the same effect are these words of Ar­cudius. He saith, say's he, that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when mixt with the Body and Blood, and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament, and these other words, [...], they communicate, or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evi­dent he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance, for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject, if we suppose at the same time as Simeon does, that this other Subject re­mains really Bread.

AND this is my Argument. Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of it, has [Page 138] endeavour'd to escape it by his usual Artifices, for on one hand he has con­cealed from us what Arcudius has expressly declared, to wit, that these Par­ticles are the Body of Christ being mixt, and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament, and on the other, he has mis-represented Sime­on's sence, and pretended it to be to his advantage. But all his Artifices can­not hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is; 1. That the Substance of Bread remains in all the Particles, that is to say, as well in that which is consecrated as in all the rest. 2. That the con­secrated Particle becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in full virtue of Sanctifi­cation, and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy. 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification, and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord, not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle, but in a far lower degree, which is yet sufficient to make them proper to be distributed to the People in the Communion, as being the Body and Blood of our Lord.

WE shall be confirm'd in this opinion, if we consider the eighth Proof which I shall here offer. It consists in that the Greeks believe the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, to have a greater efficacy than that which is consecrated at other times, which may be verifi'd if 'twere needful by the testimony of several Authors. See here what Prareolus say's; They assure us, say's he, that this excellent mystery consecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper, that is to say, on Thursday in the Holy Week, hath a more excellent virtue, and is more efficatious than when 'tis consecrated on other days, Prercol. Elem. Heres. lib. 7. pag. 201. and 'tis for this reason, according to Guy Le Carmes Relation, that they conse­crate the Eucharist (for the sick) on no other day of the year than in that where­in our Saviour made his last Supper, which they keep all the year only for this pur­pose. John de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne, and Ambassadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in the year 1514, relates the same thing of the Mosco­vites, whose Religion as every one knows, is in a manner the same with that of the Greeks. As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, say's he, which they con­secrate Raynald ad ann. 1514. on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, they say that this only is proper for the sick, and not that which is consecrated at other times, so that they consecrate Bread on that day for the whole year, in a Chalice prepared for that purpose, and put it dry and full of maggots (as it is) into the mouth of the sick with a spoon. Possevin the Jesuit in the writing he presented to the great Duke of Muscovia in the year 158 [...]. In which he reckons up the Errours of the Greeks, especially remarks this as one of the chief; They err, say's he, Possevin in Mosc pag. 43. in saying the most excellent Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, is more efficacious and of great­er virtue than that which is consecrated on other days. Anthony Caucus Arch­bishop of Corcyra in his Relation of the Errors of the Greeks to Pope Grego­ry the XIII. observes likewise in the 14th. Article; That they hold the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, has a greater virtue than that consecrated on other times. Allatius mentions this Article of Caucus, amongst others, which he censures as ca­lumnies; but altho he is very earnest to refute this Archbishop, and treats him as unworthily as may be, without any respect to his Dignity, even to the calling of him, os durum & Stygium, non nisi mentiri gnarum, yet has not he Allat. de per­pet. cons. lib. 3. cap. 17. dared to touch on this Article in particular, and his outrages only confirm in this regard the Authority of Caucus, and the truth of his Relation.

ALPHONSUS de Castro attributes this same opinion to the Greeks. Alphonsus de Castro. adv. bae­res. lib. 6. tit. de Euchar. haeres. 9. He alledges for this effect, the Testimony of Guy Carmus; and altho he has been accustomed not to spare him in his censures whensoever he can find the least occasion, yet does he agree with him in this particular, saying, we must not wonder if the Greeks be in this Errour, seeing the Genius of that People lies, in expressing themselves after a vain manner, and in inventing of Fables.

ARCUDIUS confirms the same thing, There are, say's he, People so Areud. lib. 3. cap. 55. impertinent, as to believe, the Holy Eucharist which is prepared on that day (Ho­ly Thursday) hath a greater virtue to sanctifie them who receive it, than that which is consecrated on another day. As if it were not still the same Jesus Christ, or as if our Lord was at sometimes more powerful than at others.

IF it be demanded what consequence we can hence draw against Tran­substantiation; I answer it appears plain enough in it self. For if we sup­pose the Greeks hold the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ, in virtue and efficacy, by means of this abundant sanctification which the Bread receives, we shall not find any absurdity in this other Opinion, which they hold, concerning the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, namely, that it is more efficacious than that consecrated on other days, for this sancti­fication of the Bread, and quickning Grace which accompanies it may have its degrees; it receives more and less, as the Schoolmen speak; but if you suppose the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ by conversion of Substance, this more and this less, which they imagine, cannot be admit­ted; it is true indeed that the Sacrament will produce various effects, ac­cording to the various dispositions of the Persons who receive it, and ac­cording as there shall be more or less devotion in a man's Soul, it will feel more or less the strength of Grace, but the cause will be in them who shall receive the Sacrament, and not in the Sacrament it self, nor in the day of its Consecration. If the Bread becomes the proper Substance of the Son of God, it is always of equal virtue in it self; and the time of Consecration, can neither encrease nor diminish it. It is then scarcely to be imagined, that Persons who believe Transubstantiation, can fall into this other Opinion; for is it not the same Substance, the same Jesus Christ personally, is it not one and the same Conversion, which terminates it self in the same Subject? Whence then can proceed this more and less? Would they say that the Tran­substantiation is made more on one day than another? This thought cannot happen in the mind of those that know what Transubstantiation means. Do they mean that the Body of Jesus Christ has greater virtue in it one day than another? This thought likewise cannot happen in the mind of those that know what our Saviour is. Do they hereby only mean that he displays a greater efficacy one day than another, altho he has ever the same measure of it in himself? It is certain that this more and this less of Grace, which the Faithful receive in the Communion (supposing we take the proper Sub­stance of Jesus Christ with the mouths of our Bodies) cannot proceed from any other cause, but that of more or less devotion, which we bring with us to the Lord's Table. So that this Opinion of the Greeks being found incon­sistant with that of Transubstantiation, and moreover it not appearing clear­ly to us that they have this latter, whereas it is plainly manifest they have the other, we are obliged to conclude they hold not the substantial Conver­sion. I know we must not imagine that men do always so exactly adjust their Sentiments, that they never contradict themselves; and I acknowledge [Page 140] the Greeks are ignorant enough to have on the same Subject contradictory Opinions, but besides that there are certain palpable contradictions, of which few men how bruitish soever they be are capable, as this would be to be­lieve that the Eucharist is the proper Substance of the Son of God, and yet to be of a more excellent virtue being consecrated on Holy Thursday than on other days; besides this I say, seeing it does not expresly and clearly ap­pear to us from any thing else that they believe Transubstantiation, it is far more just to give to their Terms, on the subject of the Change which happens to the Bread, a sence which agrees with this aforementioned belief, than to give them another which wholly contradicts it, and makes them ridiculous. If they must be led to the Substantial Conversion, or carried off from it by way of explication of their general expressions, there is more reason to ex­pound them in a sence conformable to their other Opinions, than to make them guilty of manifest absurdities.

WOULD Mr. Arnaud lay aside for a while this Personal Interest wherewith he seems to be transported in this Dispute, and consider things without passion; I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies, nor other usual expressions. As for example, we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies, Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit. Mr. Arnaud un­derstands them as mentioning a change of Substance; I say on the contrary, these are general Terms, to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence, and that if they must have a particular and determinate one, we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change, and a change of Sanctification, which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ, that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls, that it spiritually communicates him to us, and that 'tis accom­pani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it, and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ, and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains. Let us examine the Liturgies themselves, to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto.

WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom, and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks, that immediately after the Priest has said, Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ, and that Euchar. Grae­corum Jacobi Goar & Bibl. patr. Graecor. Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, he adds, to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them, that is to say, be made a proper means to purifie the Soul, by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit, &c. These words do suffici­ently explain what kind of change we must understand by them, namely, a change of Sanctification and virtue, for did they mean a change of Sub­stance, it should have been said, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood, or some such like expressions.

In the Liturgy, which goes under the name of St. James, we find almost the same thing; Send, say's it, thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts ly­ing Bibliot. Patr. Graeco. Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee, to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy, good and glorious presence; and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy [Page 141] Christ, and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ, to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it, namely, purifie their Souls from all manner of sin, and make them abound in good works, and obtain everlasting life. And this methinks does sufficiently determine, how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ; to wit, in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spi­rit, and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification.

The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc, has almost the same ex­pressions, Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit, that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them, even as God Almighty; and make the Bread, the Body, and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Sa­viour Jesus Christ, our Sovereign King; to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them, a means of obtaining Faith, Sobriety, Health, Temperance, a regeneration of Soul and Body, the participation of Felicity, E­ternal Life, to the glory of thy great name. A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice, cannot but perceive that this Clause, to the end they may become, &c. is the explication of the foregoing words, change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that it determines them, to a change, not of Substance, but of Sanctification and Virtue. This Truth is so evident, that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge, that if this Clause be taken (make this Bread the Body of thy Christ) in an absolute sence, Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say, that it be made the Body of Christ, not in respect of us, but simply in it self) it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow, to the end they may be made, &c. And he makes of this a Principle, for the concluding, that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer, but that 'tis already perfected by the words, this is my Body, directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks, who affirm 'tis made by the Prayer. So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church, to wit, that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer, we shall plainly perceive that their sence is, That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us, inasmuch as it sanctifies us and ef­fects the remission of our sins.

AND with this agrees the Term of [...] to Sanctifie, which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration, and that of [...], the Sanctifications, by which they express their Mysteries, as appears by the Liturgies, and those of [...], the holy Gifts, the sanctified Gifts, the holy Mysteries, the quickning Mysteries, the holy Bread, which are common expressions amongst them. All which favours the change of Sanctification.

ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecrati­on, in the Pontificia four times, and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread, it is so called seven times. In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration, Lord, remember me Archi. Habert Apud. Goar. in Euchol. a sinner, and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread, and Cup, grant we may live in Union, and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit. Like­wise what the Latins call Ciborium, the Greeks call [...], which is as much as to say, a Bread Saver, and 'tis in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread, being the Communion for the sick. I know what is wont to be said in reference to this, namely, that the Eucharist is call­ed Bread upon the account of its Species, that is to say, of its Accidents, [Page 142] which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject; but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication; for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term, which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins, it must there­fore be granted not to favour the Conversion of the Substances.

IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy. For in that of St. James there is a Prayer, which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven; altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him, [...], say's he, [...], Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. [...]. O thou Holy One, that dwellest in the Holy Places, sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace, and coming of thy Holy Spirit. We find this same Prayer in St. Mark's Liturgy. In those of St. Basile, and Chrysostom, there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven. Look down we beseech thee, say's it, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, from the Holy Place of thy Habitation, and Throne of thy Glory, which is in thy Kingdom, and come to sanctifie us, thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father, and art here with us invisibly. Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words, and who art here invisibly with us, not considering they relate to that part of the Petition, wherein, they beseech him, to come and sanctifie them, and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity, which he promised his Disciples when he left the World, and ascended up into Hea­ven. It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits. How comes it to pass, we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed, that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity, with the Veil of the Accidents, or some such like words? But on the contrary, when the Priest reads with a loud voice, [...], Holy Things are for Holy Persons, the Quire answers, there is only one that is Holy, only one Lord, who is Jesus Christ, at the Glory of God the Father. For 'tis clear, that these words, at the Glory of God the Father, mean that he is above in Heaven. In the Liturgy of the pre­sanctifi'd (Bread,) the Priest thus addresses himself to God, beseeching him, that his only Son may rest on this Altar, by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries there­on Eurho. Goar. exposed; thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ, and immediately prays, That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies, by a perpe­tual Sanctification, to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience, a holy assurance, and enlightned mind, and being quickned by them, we may be united to Jesus Christ himself, our true God, who has said, he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him. By which words it is evident, that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour him­self, and that those who receive them unworthily, are not united with him. In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays, That receiving with the Testimony Ʋbi supra. of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God, we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ, and that receiving these things worthily, we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts. These words do moreover distin­guish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained, and 'tis certain these Terms, of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts, do more plainly intimate a Spi­ritual Communion, than a corporeal one. In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular, makes a Prayer unto God, in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Cele­bration; but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation. We have, say's he, finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy, O Jesus Christ our God, as far as we have been able. For we have celebrated the memory [Page 143] of thy Death, we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection, we have been filled with thy never fading Life, and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures, grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come. Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the con­version of the Substances, which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery, that whereunto all the rest does tend, and whereon depends so much, that the rest without this would signifie no­thing. Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases, 'tis not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn reca­pitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office, did she in effect be­lieve any other Change in the Bread, than that of its Virtue and Holyness.


The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term, when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ. The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eu­charist, do receive the Body of Jesus Christ. The Twelfth from their believing the dead, and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce, do receive the same as we do in the Communion.

ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Je­sus Christ, yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome; and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith. One Proof of the contrary of this, is, that sometimes, when they mention the consecrated Bread, and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, they add a Term of Diminution, which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance. Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles. This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews, and celebrate their Feasts; and Balsamon takes hence an occa­sion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread, in these words. If a Balsam. in Canon. 55. A­post. Can 70. man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews, and expelled the Christian Communion; what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it, as of the Body of our Lord, and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do?

MATTHEW Blastarius, speaks almost to the same purpose, in Arcudi­us. They, say's he, that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread, Areud lib. 3. cap. 6. do greatly offend against the Christian Customs; for if they who only eat the un­leaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews, ought to be deposed and excommunica­ted, what excuse can they make for themselves, who receive it as if it were the Bo­dy of our Lord.

SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy, where the Priest perfumes the Gifts, in saying these words, Be thou exalted, O God, [Page 144] above the Heavens, and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth; the Priest, say's he, speaks of the Ascension of our Lord, and the Glory he re­ceived when he was preached to every Creature; as if, he spoke to our Saviour himself, and said to him, Thou art descended to us, thou hast ascended into Hea­ven, and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory. And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries, and partake of and possess thee eternally. Wherefore have we this (as if) he spoke to him, [...], which Goar has well translated, Quasi cum salvatore dissereret. How comes it to pass, I Goar in Eu­chol. p. 153. say, we have this, quasi, if in effect our Saviour was present, and the Priest spake to him? It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity, for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd [...], is meant, as being the Body of our Lord, or as if it were the Body of our Lord, that is to say, as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body. But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon, who tells us, that the Priest does, as it were speak to our Saviour; for it cannot be alledged, that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity, if I may so speak, nor give it another sence than this, to wit, that the Priest speaks no otherwise, than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him, and directed his Discourse to him, in the same sence, as he says, Let us see our Saviour speaking in the Apud. Allat. de perp. cons. lib. 3. cap. 13. Gospel, and that he is, as it were, present, [...], and elsewhere, That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand, gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession, as if it were our Saviour himself, [...], and says to him, behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us. Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages.

MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty: for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation, we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses. In effect, either they acknow­ledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as well as the leavened Bread, or deni'd it; if they acknowledged it, their sence is, that 'tis a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ, under the Ac­cidents of an Azyme. Now this is absurd: for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme, what crime is there in thus eating of it? For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme, but the Substance of the Body it self. Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast, and eat unleavened Bread with them? For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme, whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it, which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as the leavened Bread is, their sence will be that 'tis a greater Crime to eat an Azyme, in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ, than to eat the same Azyme, wittingly and willingly, in the Communion of the Jews. Now this is no less absurd, for the intention, and belief, which the first have, lessens their fault, whereas the knowledge and intention of the o­ther aggravates it. They that eat the Azyme with the Jews, mean only to eat an Azyme; whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord, pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme; so that it cannot be said in this respect, but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others. It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius, their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity, and that they mean, that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body [Page 145] of Jesus Christ, is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews, be­cause this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion, and to make of that which is accursed, the Mystery of our Lord's Body. Mr. Ar­naud will without doubt reply, that they dispute against the Latins, and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins. Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ, but as being really and in ef­fect this Body it self. I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins, whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles; but establish in general this Rule, that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery. So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn, for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks, and not in the sence of the Latins. But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term; yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius; We offer, say's he, leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of Apud Allat. lib 3 [...]e perp. C [...]ns cap 12. the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this [...], of the Greeks, as the Body, that is to say, instead of the Body.

IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, say's, That as often as we eat this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that in this Belief we eat the Bread, and drink of the Cup, AS of the Flesh of the Son of God, confessing his Death and Resurrection. We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus; Our Saviour, say's he, is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection.

ST. Athanasius used this Particle, AS a great while before him, Our Saviour, say's he, after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles, to gather Athan. disp. hab. in Concil. Nic. V [...]l ali­us sub nomine Athanas [...]. together the Nations, having spread his Table, which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread, to wit, his Body, and Wine that makes glad the heart of man, [...], mingling, AS it were his Blood in the Chalice. These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them, that Father Noüet, alledging this passage of St. Athanasi­us, has thought good to leave it out, and 'tis the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one, which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First E­pistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek reads, [...], ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, which they have translated, he shall be saved, but must pass thro the fire. The respect due to St. Paul could not save his quasi from the fury of these Gentlemen. And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture, when it speaks not according to their mind.

I know not whether the quasi's of Balsamon, Blastarius, Simeon of Thessa­lonica, Germane, Nicetas, and those of Athanasius are less distastful to 'em, than that of St. Paul: But howsoever these diminutive Terms do sufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, for th [...]se that do be­lieve it study rather to strengthen by clear and precise expressions the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, which is given to the Eucharist, than to weaken it by restrictions and diminutions.

BUT to go on with our Proofs, It is an opinion generally received a­mongst the Greeks, That the wicked who participate of the Eucharist, do not [Page 146] receive the Body of Jesus Christ. And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Testimony of several good Authors.

PRATEOLUS expressly mentions this amongst their Errors. They affirm, say's he, that those who live in the practice of any known sin do not re­ceive Prateol. Elen. Heresic. lib. 7. cap. de Graecis. the Body of Jesus Christ, altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord, and receive the consecrated Bread from the hands of the Priest.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit confirms the same thing, They err, says he, Possevin in Mosc. p. 43. in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar.

NICHOLAS Cabasilas does fully set forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point. The causes, say's he, of our sanctification, or if Gabisil. in ex­plicat. Litur. cap. 22. you will the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us, are purity of Soul, and love of God, an earnest desire to partake of the Sacrament, and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it. These are the things which procure our Sanctificati­on, and with which it is impossible but those that come to the Communion must par­take of Jesus Christ, and without which it is impossible they should. And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls seperate from their Bodies, do receive the same as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sa­crament. If the Soul, say's he, has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification, but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul, what more of the Mystery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies, than those which are stript of them? Is it that they behold the Priest and receive the Gifts from him? But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Priest, who is to them more than all these things, being the same likewise that administreth it to them alive, who receive it as they ought to do. For all those to whom the Priest administers it, cannot be said truly to receive it. The Priest administers it to all that come to him, but our Saviour gives it only to those that are worthy to partake of it: Whence it clearly appears that 'tis our Saviour alone, who by means of this Sacrament consecrates and sanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead.

LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Ma­mant's Works, who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century, and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine. Now in one of his Treatises there is a Hymn expressly relating to this Subject before us, to wit, that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jesus Christ when they receive the Sacrament. Allatius tells us that he has seen this particular piece, (being a Manuscript) in a certain Library in Italy, and that the Title of it is, That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And 'tis unto this whereunto relates what Nilus say's in his Sentences, Keep your selves from all corruption, and partake every day of the Mystical Supper, Apud Allat. de Simeon Nil. in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat. Tom. 2. for 'tis after this sort, that the Body of Jesus Christ becomes ours. And what we find in the Verse of Psellus on the Canticle of Canticles, Jesus Christ gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin, that is to say, to the Church, for thus does he speak to them, (but 'tis Only to those that are worthy) whom he calls his near Kindred, come my Friends eat and drink, and be merry my brethren, you Comm. trium. Patr. in Cant. Cant. that are my brethren in good Works, eat my Body and drink my Blood. And these words of Joanicius Cartanus, the Saints are made partakers of holy things, not they that are unworthy, and sinners who having not cleansed themselves from Apud Allat. de perpet. Cons. lib. 3. their sins remain still polluted, and elsewhere, when we shall draw near unto God with Love, Fear, Reverence and Repentance, and be in charity with all men, then [Page 147] shall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ.

NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is, which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks, you need but read what Chifflet the Jesuit and others have written touching a passage of the Confession at­tributed Chifflet. prae­fat. ad Lector. in Confess. Alcu. to Alcuinus which bears, That the virtue of this Sacrifice is so great, that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners, tanta est virtus hujus Sacrificii ut solis justis peccatoribus Corpus sit & Sanguis Christi. If the Sacrifice, or Sacrament, say's this Jesuit, be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to some only, and not to all, what remains then but to confess, that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin: and that he has denied the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? He tells us this passage has given him no small trouble, and endeavours to expound it, saying, that Alcuinus speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of their saluti­ferous effect which appertains only to the Just. But the Authors of the Of­fice of the B. Sacrament; having told us, that it seems we must read, tanta In their Histo­rical and Chronologi­cal Table un­der the title of B. Alcuin. est virtus Sacrificii ut solis justis, non peccatoribus Sanguis sit & Corpus Christi, they have added, that this expression has not been used since the Heresie of Beren­garius, and that the Schoolmen who have been more scrupulous as to Terms, have (after the rise of the Heresies touching this Mystery) avoided it. Which is as much as to say, in my opinion, that if we believe Transubstantiation, as the Church of Rome has believed it 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 [Page 148] 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, 'tis 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, 'tis 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. [Page 149] 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 Sun of our Souls, which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases, but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail, when we shall see him as he is, and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body. He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies, are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries, than when cloathed with their Flesh, that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy, is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup, of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living, and for this reason, our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper, to shew us thereby, that 'tis no­thing else but this Table. And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ; for we must not ima­gine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof. They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ, but after a spiritual manner, which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring in­to them. Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts, that they re­ceive the Mystery, and that which makes up their felicity, is this Bread and Cup, that they partake of it, and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living. All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual, for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we, and partake of our Bread and Cup, not in re­spect of their Substance and Matter, but in respect of the Mystery they con­tain and Grace they communicate, and thus it is certain that whatsoever be­longs to this Mystery is common to them with the living. But if we suppo­sed the Substantial Conversion, how could it be said, They partake of the Holy Gifts, that they receive what we receive, that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they, and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us? For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not.

BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt, we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition. For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, which he makes common both to the dead and living, respects not only the thing of which we partake, but likewise the manner of partaking of it; and in a word, he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually. First, then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ, as of one and the same thing, without the least difference, which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse. Now this shews us, he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord, for if it were so, the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification, as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge, and the reception of this Sub­stance, and the Sanctification, could not be considered but as two distinct [Page 150] things. Yet Cabasilas confounds them, and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty; how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation. Are they, say's he, in a worse condition in this respect than the living? No sure, say's he, for our Saviour communicates himself to them in Cap. 42. such a manner as is best known to himself. He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living, and their participation of Jesus Christ, and say's, 'tis not to have a Body, nor to come with feet to the Holy Ta­ble, nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth, nor to eat or drink, but that 'tis the purity of the Soul, Faith, Love of God, and other motives of Pie­ty, these are the things, say's he, which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ, and without which it is not possible to be so. Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation, and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections. Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual; and which they have in common with the dead, and which immediately respects the Soul. For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ, and that without them it is not possible for us to be so, and that the dead have the same advantage we have, it cannot then be said, we receive the pro­per Substance of the Body, seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome, the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it, and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it.

THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning, for what he say's con­cerning the dead, the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in De­serts, and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table. Jesus Christ, Ibid. say's he, sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification. How can we know this? I answer, because they have the life in themselves, and they would not have it, were they not partakers of this Mystery. For our Saviour himself has said, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. And for a further confirmation of this, he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints, the Gifts, by the Ministry of Angels. It is evident, he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts, the same participation of Jesus Christ, the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference, whence it follows, that our Com­munion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual, and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise, there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks.

BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows. The Gift, say's he, is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body, but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul, and afterwards communicates it self to the Bo­dy, by the Ministry of the Soul. Which St. Paul meant when he said, that he that is joyned to the Lord, is one and the same Spirit with him, because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul. This being the Seat of this San­ctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues. This is likewise the Seat of Sin. 'Tis here wherein is the Band of Servitude, by which the Sacra­ment links us to God. The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul, and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart, from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification; as well that of the Virtues, as that of the Myste­ries. If then the Soul has no need of the Body, to receive Sanctification, but the Body on the contrary of the Soul, why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their [Page 151] Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery, than those stript of them? We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice, if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion, and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue, it is easie to comprehend what he means, but if we suppose Transubstantiation, how shall we then understand what he say's, viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body, but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body? Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack, and does it not remain there till the change of the Species? How then shall we understand him when he say's, that our Com­munion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul? For 'tis certain, that to judge of it, in the sence of Transubstantiation, it would be establish­ed on the contrary first of all in the Body, which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse, to wit, that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living, for the living do communicate after two manners, Spiritually and Substantially, whereas the dead only in one? How in fine, shall we under­stand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery, than that which comes to it from the Soul? Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God.

CABASILAS stay's not here, for concluding by way of Interroga­tion, that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them, he continues to demand what they have more. Is it, say's he, that they see the Priest, and receive from him Cap. 43. the Gifts? But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest, who is to them all these things; It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive. Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does, should it be supposed he believed Transubstan­tiation? Could he not remember that the living have not only this advan­tage above the dead to behold the Priest, and receive from him the Gifts, but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour? Could not he call to mind, that the Spiritual Communion, remaining common both to the one and the others, the Substantial was particularly to the living? Moreover, what does he mean in saying, that as 'tis Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead, so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it? Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it? Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis, the Truth and Reality, and which Mr. Ar­naud always understands, when he finds these kind of expressions, the real Body, and Blood of Jesus Christ? Is it, I say, that this is not a Truth?

MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases, and 'tis likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation, seeing he himself has heretofore written, that God ad­mits Of frequent Com. part. 3. P. 725. us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all E­ternity, there being no other difference betwixt them and us, but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it, reserving both one and the o­ther of these for us when we come to Heaven. He will tell us there's no body doubts, but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators, seeing he has [Page 152] with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude, and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas. I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas, for if there be no other diffe­rence between the participation of the Faithful on Earth, and that of the Elect in Heaven, than that of the sight and sensible taste, which we have not here, nor shall have but in Heaven, I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies, and which enters into our Stomacks, is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, seeing 'tis certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner. But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another, should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors, all that I can do in his favour is this, freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas, when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome.


That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria, as the Latins do, and consequently believe not Transubstantiation. The Thirteenth Proof. Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion.

VVE may I think already begin to doubt, whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touch­ing Transubstantiation, and whether the assurances Mr. Ar­naud has given us thereof be well grounded. He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point, and behaves himself as a Per­son that has already conquered, but 'tis more than probable that these flou­rishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause, to the end they may obtain that by noise, which they could not by reason. But howsoever, it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections, Ar­guments, Attestations, Consequences, Keys, Systems, those confident Defies, and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs, and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy.

Omnia discerpunt & nubibus irrita donant.

THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this, but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it, and at the same time discover another of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions. My Proof shall be taken from the Greeks not adoring the Eucharist with that Sovereign Adoration the Latins do. Now if this be made apparent, what likelihood is there, that a Church which otherwise is not at all scrupulous in matters of Ceremony, and which has such a great devotion for Pictures, for the Writings of the Evan­gelists [Page 153] consecrated Bread which they call [...], and even the Bread of the Eucharist before 'tis consecrated, should believe the Substance of the Sym­bols to be really changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet not render it that Sovereign Honour which belongs to it. It con­cerns us then to know what the Custom of the Greeks is touching this Ado­ration, and so much the more, because this Question being one of the chief of our Dispute, it is therefore absolutely necessary to be throughly inform'd in it.

BUT before we proceed any farther, we must distinguish (according to the sence of the Greeks and Latins) two sorts of Adoration, the one inferiour and subalternate which is rendred to Subjects, in which we do not acknow­ledge an infinite Majesty, and th'other a Sovereign and Highest Worship, called that of Latria, which is only due to God.

WE must likewise distinguish according to the sence of the same Greeks and Latins, an Adoration called relative, which terminates not it self in any one Subject, but passes (as it were) from one Subject to another, as thro a Channel; and an absolute Adoration, which terminates it self in that Sub­ject which is worshipped, without a reference to any thing else.

IN fine there ought to be a distinction made betwixt an internal Adorati­on which consists in the motions of the Soul towards the Subject adored, and the external Adoration which consists in outward expressions.

WHICH Distinctions being premised, we are now to enquire whether the Greeks adore the Eucharist with a Sovereign Adoration, and that of La­tria, not relatively, (as we speak) but absolutely, and in the same manner we ought to worship the proper Substance and Person of Jesus Christ. And because the internal affections of the Soul, cannot be immediately known, it therefore concerns us to enquire whether the Greeks do outwardly express a­ny Sign of such an Adoration, either by their words or actions. Mr. Ar­naud holds the affirmative and I the negative, and this being here only a que­stion of Fact, 'tis likewise by Proofs of fact wherewith it must be decided.

FOR this effect I shall first here offer the testimony of a Cannon of Cra­covia called Sacranus, who in reckoning up the Errors of the Moscovits, (whom we all know do follow the Greek Religion) does expresly mention this. Before the Cup is prepared, say's he, they light Torches and expose to the Religio. Ruthe­nor. art. 20. Peoples sight with exceeding great devotion the Bread, which is to be consecrated, with the Wine and hot Water, which they pour into the Chalice. They carry these about, and the People bow down before them with the greatest testimonies of re­spect and veneration. But afterwards when the Bread is placed on the Altar and consecrated, there is no veneration shewed it, nor do they make any elevation of it.

JOHN de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne, and Ambassadour from Po­land Raynald ad ann. 1514. to Rome in the beginning of the last Century, makes the same relation of the Errors of the Russians, as Sarcanus had done before him. It is likely by what Mr Arnaud tells us, that he has only copied out what Sacranus wrote and appropriated it to himself, for we find their expressions to be both the same. But be it as it will, he has not forgotten this Article I now mentio­ned.

PETER Scarga a Jesuit of Vilna in Lituania has written a Book a­gainst [Page 154] the Greeks and Russians, which he intitled, de uno pastore, in which, Par. 3. cap. 2. art. 8. making a Catalogue of their Errors, he particularly mentions this. At Mass they worship on their knees the Bread before 'tis consecrated, but after its Consecration they give no honour to the most Holy Body of Jesus Christ.

SO that we have here already three Witnesses whose Testimonies are not to be rejected, seeing they are of far greater weight than the forced conse­quences of Mr. Arnaud, for they lived in those Parts, and were eye-witnesses, of what they tell us, and moreover considerable Persons in the Romish Church, the first of them being a Cannon, th'other an Archbishop, and the third a Jesuit, who do all three of them positively affirm the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist after Consecration. Behold here a fourth of the same Order, which is Anthony Caucus a Venetian, and Archbishop of Corfou. He had an order from Pope Gregory XIII. to inform himself exactly of the belief of the Greeks, and to make him a Relation thereof which he did. Allatius speaks of this Relation as if it were published. I confess I never saw it in print, but I have seen a Manuscript of it in the King's Library, wherein I found these words in the thirteenth Article of their Errors. They yield no Reverence, Honour, Veneration, nor Worship to the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist consecrated with leavened Bread according to their Custom, they carry it to the sick without Lights and Torches. They keep it in their Churches in a bag hanging against a wall in a little wooden box, and yet burn Tapers before the Ima­ges of all the Saints. He informs us elsewhere that the Greek Priests when they carry the Sacrament to the Sick, are wont to wrap it up in a linnen cloth, or Handkercher, and so put it into their bosoms without any other Ce­remony. But when he sets himself to the opposing of this Error, he thus speaks. There's no People (that I know of) who profess the Christian Religion that shew less respect and veneration to the Holy Sacrament, than the Greek Na­tion. They adore and reverence their leavened Bread before 'tis consecrated, even to the very idolizing of it, but after scarcely rise up to respect it. Their Priest carry the Eucharist in their bosoms to the sick, without any Lights, and that which is most absurd is, they keep it in their Churches in a little wooden box, tied up in a bag and hanged against a wall without any Lights before it, as if 'twere a pro­phane thing to the scandalizing of all pious People. I believe they have this Custom from the Heretical Sacramentaries, who deny the virtue of this most Holy Sacrament. They are moreover so super stitious and covetous, that when deceased Persons have bequeathed them any Legacy, they light Candles before the Images of all the Saints, drawing near to them with the greatest testimonies of reverence when they enter the Churches, but they turn their backs to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. I wondred to see them do thus, and being desirous to inform my self of the reason of this irreverence, shewing them how grievously they erred, in that they testifi'd a greater respect to the Saints who are the servants and friends of our Saviour than to himself, who is their Lord and Master. These Papa's gave me no other answer but that there was no command which enjoyned this respect and adoration. This answer is Heretical as I shall hereafter manifest, for John Oe­colampadus (that arch Heretick of our time the ring-leader of the Sacrament a­ries, asserted that our Saviour was not contain'd in the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist) has likewise written and publickly taught that we ought in no wise to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration of Latria, terming all them Idolaters that did so. Wherefore let Catholicks judge whether this does not well agree with the Opinion of the Greeks.

IT will be thought perhaps, this Author speaks only of some particu­lar [Page 155] Persons and not of the Greek Church in general, but such Persons may be soon satisfi'd when they read what follows towards the end of his Relation, Behold most Holy Father, say's he, all the Heresies of the Modern Greeks which I have laid open and confuted as well as I could. I say the Heresies of the Greeks, not only of the Inhabitants of Corfou, but of all the Eastern Greeks, to the end the others may not magnifie themselves, for they have all the same be­lief, the same will, and obstinacy, to maintain every where the same things, And here I think is another good Witness, being likewise an Archbishop, and a Person that wanted neither Wit nor Learning, who dwelt among the Greeks. He affirms precisely as well as the rest, that the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament. He proceeds farther and lays this to their charge as a crime, and aggravates it by comparing it with the respect they shew the Images; he relates their Reasons, there being no command enjoyning this Adorati­on. He condemns this Opinion as Heretical, and likens it unto that of the chief of Hereticks; he farther tells us, that this is not only the opinion of some particular Persons, but of all the Eastern Greeks, and in short he re­marks the irreverences which are directly opposite to all kinds of Adoration. What can be more expressive, and what can Mr. Arnaud reply to this? Will he call again here to his assistance Allatius who disputes against Caucus, and would have it believed that this Archbishop has falsely charged the Greeks. But besides that it cannot be shewed by what interest Caucus should be moved to form such an accusation contrary to the respect he owed the Pope, and that his testimony is found conformable to that of several others, it is certain that Allatius himself is of all men the most passionate and least sincere, fre­quently denying and affirming things according to his own Capricio, or ra­ther Interest, and that which likewise is most considerable, is, that Allatius who meddles with other Articles dared not touch in particular on this, so that his silence is a confirmation of what I say.

THE Jesuit that wrote the Relation touching St. Erinis, affirms almost Relation of the I sle of St. Frinis cap. 12. pag. 142. the same thing as Caucus. A great abuse, say's he, has crept in amongst the Greeks. For when the Priest comes from the lesser Altar to the Offertory, to pass on to the great one, all the People there present adore the Bread which is not yet consecrated, and shew a greater devotion during this action, than in or after the time of Consecration; for in the time of the Consecration they put out the Torches which they lighted for the Offertory. And in another place, We see Cap. 20. by what has been said in the foregoing Chapters how greatly the Greeks are to blame for the little respect they yield to this adorable Sacrament, seeing that having consecrated on Holy Thursday a great quantity of Particles, they keep them all the year in a little wooden box inclosed in a bag, and hanged on a nail over the Altar, or behind an Image, without a light or any other mark of venera­tion. When they enter into the Church to say their Prayers, you may see 'em make a profound bow, before the Images of our Lord, or Virgin Mary, or some other Saint, but you will never see them prostrate themselves before this adorable Sacrament. We have often reprehended them for this fault, and some have promised to amend it, others are really sensible of the unseemliness of this their carriage; but being loath to appear singular in their Devotions, they choose ra­ther to follow the Customs of an ignorant People than to render themselves up to reason. So great force has ill examples over weak minds. Some time since the Lady Margareta D'argenta, a Person both devout and eloquent, told me, that be­ing in company with some Greeks, she sharply rebuked them upon this occasion; you Greeks really show your selves, said she, in matters of Religion, to be void of sence, not knowing to whom you owe your respects, nor to whom to direct your [Page 156] Prayers. On one hand you acknowledge that Jesus Christ who is God and Man, our Creator and Redeemer, is really in the Sacrament, with all the Treasures of his Graces, and on the other, we can see you show him not any reverence answerable to the respect of his Majesty. I have been several times in your Churches, and having sought the only object of my affection, and the God of my heart, I found, you keep him close shut in a wooden box, hanging up in a little bag on a nail cove­red with dust and cobwebs. A Saviour in a pitiful box, an Infinite Majesty in the dust, an Almighty God in a bag, hanged on a nail! He is not thus treated a­mongst us, you may see him receive an other kind of usage, shewing him far greater respect than this. Our Priests keep him in a silver Pyx, he rests in a Ta­bernacle gilded without, and within covered with Sattin, and to shew that we be­lieve he is the Light which light'neth our Understandings, and enflameth our Af­fections, we have Lamps always burning day and night before him. When we come into our Churches we set not our selves upon considering the several Pictures and other Ornaments, for our affections do immediately lead us to the place where we believe our Treasure is. Whereas you keep your selves standing like the Pha­risees, and we fall on our knees with the Publican.

THAT which the Jesuit makes this woman speak concerning the Greeks believing the real Presence, is forged by him without any grounds in the sence wherein he takes it, that is to say, as a Substantial Presence, for 'tis cer­tain the Greeks do not thus understand it. But whatsoever he otherwise tells us is matter of fact which he has seen himself, and concerning the truth of which we have no reason to doubt. Now these Facts are such, that we cannot but judge them inconsistent with the belief of adoring the Sacrament of the Eucharist with such a Supreme Adoration as is due to the Son of God alone.

THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambas­sadour, Mr. Haye's Voyages, part. 49. observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag, and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar, wherein they put the conse­crated Particles. He says he thus saw it at Selivrée, and several other places. But because this remark might offend his Readers, he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks; but this is but a false co­lour, for the Greeks are not so poor, but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner, did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ. The true reason of this Custom, is, that they do not believe what the Latins do, (or as speaks Caucus) they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins.

MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller, gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages, part. 2 ch. 77. the manner, which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sa­crament; but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration, and he is even forced to say, that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins.

MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service, Montconis's Voyages, p. 228. &c. which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai; and ob­serves not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament, and [Page 157] several other Proofs which might be added, and which conclude the same thing, has betook himself to his usual Artifices. First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration, as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation, or the real Presence. He on the contra­ry handles it only as a necessary consequence of it, I would say, that instead of arguing thus, the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ; they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance, he reasons on the contrary after this man­ner, the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence, therefore they adore the Sacrament. Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method, for although Transubstantiation may be used, when 'tis agreed 'tis believed, as a means whereby to conclude, that those who believe it adore it, yet who sees not, that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud, it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation? For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts, a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees, and consequently is more sensible and apparent, and more easily known than an Article of Faith, concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned, judge of Persons, and weigh their expressions. It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does, or one equivalent thereunto, than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion. We may be imposed on by this last, for there may be forged attestations produced, and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses, whom a small pension will byass either way; or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks. A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change. The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged, as of that of a true one, and moreover 'tis no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Ar­guments. But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration. In a word, it plainly appears that Mr. Ar­naud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences, to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs.

THE second thing he does, seems to correct the first; for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs, which he calls gross Proofs, to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof, which he draws from the real Presence. He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9. these Terms, The faithful, desirous to shew their Faith, in receiving the Commu­nion do adore, bless, and praise Jesus Christ as God, who is manifested in the Gifts. I answer, he ought faithfully to translate this passage. Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts, and say's, That the Faithful adore, bless, and praise Jesus Christ, who is understood in them, [...]. Now a man must be very Cap. 37. little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know, that when the questi­on is concerning the Symbols, [...], or the [...], signifies the Spiritu­al and Mystical Object, represented by the outward Sign. Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts, is adored according to Cabasilas, and not the Gifts themselves. Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Pre­sence. For, say's he, Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is re­ally present in the Sacrament, and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317. in the Gifts. Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist. I an­swer, [Page 158] that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence, as I shall make appear in its place, and had the Author of the Perpetuity al­ledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud, we should not have been wanting to examine them, but the question then in hand only concerning the Ado­ration. I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dis­pute about the real Presence, before I could alledge one formal passage touch­ing the Subject I handled.

MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards, that Cabasilas blames those that adore be­fore Lib. 10. cap. 9. the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about, and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself, and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration. I answer, that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it, as to our Saviour himself, and yet it cannot hence be concluded, they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration, as if the Book were in effect our Saviour him­self. Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecra­ted Gifts, but does not approve they should do it before their Consecrati­on, altho he already acknowledges them to be Types and Figures, because he would have a difference made, they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Christ. But this is not to say they ought to give to the Gifts, either be­fore or after their Consecration, an honour which terminates it self in them alone.

AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Thessalonica, we have no other Ibid. assurance of the truth of these passages than the bare word of Allatius, that is to say, of a passionate man, ready to assert and maintain any thing right or wrong, for the interest of the Court of Rome. We shall have occasion to speak more of him hereafter, but in the mean time shall only say, that the words of Simeon be they what they will, do not conclude, we ought to yield the Gifts an absolute honour, which terminates it self in that Substance which the Priest carries on his head when he enters into the Church.

THE passage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted, as of Gabriel de Phi­ladelphia Second part, pag. 257. was more specious, but because Cardinal Perron (from whom 'twas borrow'd) does not recite the Greek Text, and Arcudius who relates some clauses thereof, describes him as a Person void of all kinds of Learning, ei­ther in Divinity, Philosophy, or Grammar, and that moreover the same Ar­cudius assures us, the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sa­crament after its Consecration, I therefore said I would suspend my Judg­ment till I could ascertain my self by reading the Book it self.

MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticisms, and willingly passes over the Answer to the 2. Treat. of Perp 2. part. cap. 8. matter, that he might fasten on the Person, imagines he has found here a luc­ky occasion to triumph over me. But I am sorry to find my self oblig'd to disturb his Enjoyments, which I would not do, could I well avoid it. I affirm then first, I had reason to suspend my Judgment, because that to judge aright of the sence of an Author, it is not sufficient that we see a passage translated into French by Cardinal Perron. For besides that, his Translations are not always very exact, as several have observ'd no more than those of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament (according to their Relations that have examin'd them,) 'tis probable this passage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand, by Persons unknown to us, and for whose Fidelity he was not willing to an­swer. In effect forasmuch as he has not inserted the Greek in the Margent, [Page 159] as he has done in the most part of his other Quotations, may justly give us a shrewd suspition of this. Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Transubstantiation which Mr. Arnaud himself confesses is not an usual expressi­on with the Greeks. There is likewise mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain, which is not the usual Style of the Greeks. I have then wrong'd no body when I suspended my Judgment, but have rather done what I and every man else ought to do in the like occasion. I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this, altho he pretends I was; for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reason, there being several things which pass there, in which he takes no part.

BUT, say's he, Arcudius Mr. Claude's great Author relates several pas­sages Ibid. out of Gabriel which are as expressive as that now in question. I answer, that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to suspend my Judgment, because that in it there are several Contradictions and manifest Absurdities, as I shewed in my Answer to Father Noüet, which the Reader may consult, if he desires information touching this particular.

I confess, adds Mr. Arnaud, that having not the least reason to doubt of the Ibid. Sentiment of this Author touching the passages produced by Arcudius, I have therefore avoided giving my self the trouble to inquire after his Book. And I for my part profess I am not so easily satisfi'd, for I cannot thus take things up­on trust. What shall we say, every one has his way, Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing, but mine is not so hasty, and indeed I never had cause to repent of my slowness in this particular, reckoning it to be the best way to prevent mistakes. Not that I would have him put him­self to the trouble of seeking after this Book of Gabriel's, as he has proffer'd me to do, for our Dispute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbishop, whofe Book, (if we will believe Arcudius) is a very extravagant one, and the Civilities of such a Person as Mr. Arnaud is, may be expected in a weightier occasion.

BUT as we must not suffer our selves to be prevailed on by his kindness, so neither must we suffer our selves to be run down by his Injuries. For he charges me with disingenuously suppressing Arcudius his words, which would have discovered the true sence of what I cited. He chages me with like­wise impertinently designing to invalidate the Testimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius. I must then justifie my self concerning these two particulars. The first of which will be soon dispatched by considering, that having in the first Edition of my Books only set down in the Margent the particular places of those Authors where are to be found the passages I made use of, I have in the last Edition inserted these passages themselves in full length, according as they are in the Original. Now that very place of Arcudius in question, may be seen there set down at large, together, with the Clause which Mr. Arnaud say's I have suppressed. Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page, and he shall find these very words therein, Nam etiam postea in elevatione Sacratissimae Hostiae quamtumvis eam non aspiciant, quamprimum ta­men Sacerdos ea verba protulerit, [...], sancta sanctis, statim procumbunt & cultu Latriae adorant, which are the same words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon. This is then a groundless Accusation, for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition, seeing he has mention'd it himself in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book, upon occasion of the Council at Nice.

BUT, it will be demanded, perhaps why I did not insert into the Body of my Discourse these words of Arcudius which do so plainly manifest his meaning. I answer, that if I had argued on the sence of Arcudius, I should have been to blame in not alledging whatsoever might give light to this sence. For when we would draw a true consequence, we ought to establish the Principle in a clear and perfect manner, to take away all occasion of mistakes. But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Person this Arcudius is, being a Greek latiniz'd Priest, brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks, extremely passionate for the Interests of the Roman Church, having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants, to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins, as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essen­tial Points. I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact, which do now and then escape him, after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron, and Bellarmin, and Mr. Arnaud himself, not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude, but as Persons who affirm things, from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe. And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé, and sundry others of our Authors. Now 'tis evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect, a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom, nor to relate all the words which may make it known, for this piece of imperti­nence would be good for nothing, but to tire the Reader's patience and trifle away the time. It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true. Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me, seeing I published this illu­stration in my Answer to Father Noüel, which altho well known to him; yet has it not stopt him in his carreer, concealing my Justification, neither more nor less than if I had said nothing.

IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude, that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist, notwithstand­ing whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted. Which is what I take upon me to maintain. He say's, that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts, Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying, this is my Body, this is my Blood, he then shews them little or no respect at all, he bows not his head, neither does he adore them, nor prostrate himself be­fore them, nor lights Candles, nor makes any Reverence. Mr. Arnaud answers, the question concerns not the Adoration in it self, but the time of the Adora­tion, Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adora­tion of Rite or Ceremony, that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins, because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission, which both one and the other do, as soon as the Consecration is performed, that as to what concerns the second, the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration, and the Greeks later, to wit, at the Elevation of the Hoste, which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate.

THAT we may examine this Answer, we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks, for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks, than his bare word, or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence; but this is what's in question, and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs. To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration, and an Adoration of Rite, he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucha­rist [Page 161] immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary, and that in their intention, this is a sovereign honour. But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence, and to perswade us the Greeks do this, is a plain abuse, for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts, and guessing at their thoughts? Those that have this inward reve­rence to the Eucharist, do certainly shew it by some outward Sign, and the Greeks shewing none, Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing, unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter.

SACRANUS, Scarga, and Caucus, who lived amongst the Greeks, were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence, for had they known any thing of it, they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence, Respect, or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration; nor would they call them, as they have done, Heretical, and Prophane People. Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration, knew nothing of this. This inward Reve­rence had its residence and operations in their Souls, and yet they knew no­thing of it; for had they known it, they would never return such an An­swer. None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret; but if he gives us not other Proofs, it is to be feared, his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits.

WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite, or Ceremony, which is used, as he say's, at the Elevation of the Hoste, and see whether it is an Ado­ration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self. Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned. The Greek Liturgy has these words, That the Priest and Deacon adore three times, in saying thrice with a low voice, O God be propitious unto me a sinner. The Au­thor of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sa­crament, Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's, that the Priest adores, and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are, in saying thrice softly, Lord be propiti­ous to me a sinner. My Answer was, that I found in Goar's Book of Rites and Answer to the second Trea­tise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies, not this Term of Lord, but that of God, which shews that this Ado­ration terminated it self in God, and not in the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth, leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit, and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy, then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise, and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow. Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist. But he ought to proceed sincerely; it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore, but it is like­wise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms, [...], O God be propitious to me a sinner, from whence 'tis plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist.

AS to Arcudius's Testimony (who tells us, that the People prostrate them­selves on the ground, as soon as they hear the Priest say, Sancta Sanctis, Holy Things are for Holy Persons, and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adora­tion of Latria) we need not be much concerned thereat, being a Person pre­possessed, and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant, Goar in not. in S. Joan, Chry­sost. Miss. pag. 153. Arcudius, say's Goar, altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of the Greeks, being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age. In effect what he say's [Page 162] 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; [Page 163] 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 [...]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 'tis done before the Consecration. What 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. [Page 164] 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 'tis the proper Substance of the Son of God, for 'tis 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 [Page 165] 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 H [...]mber. sum conir. t. 11. Tho. à Jesu lib 6. p. 3. c. 1. Thom. [...] 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 substituted some others equivalent to them, which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud takes no no­tice of this. He thinks it sufficient, to tell me, I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence, that I make extravagant and ridiculous Con­clusions, and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me, that he laughs at my Ar­guments, being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person, and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist. These are his usual Civilities, which yet shall not make me change my humour. I hope he will be one day of a better mind, and to that end I shall deal with him, not only in a calm and gentle manner, as it becomes a man of my Profession, but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him.

BUT before I finish this Chapter, I am obliged to tell him, he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist, a passage taken from Stephen Stylite, who told the Emperour Copronymus, That the Christians adore, and kiss, the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Either he has not examined this Passage, or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day, to wit, that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration, such as is given to Images, the Cross and consecrated Vessels, whose matter is not adored. And this appears through­out the whole sequel of his Discourse. The Emperor accused him for be­ing an Idolater in that he adored Images. He answers that his Adoration [Page 166] related not to the matter of the Image, but to the Original which the Image represented. And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry (al­tho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless) he alledges the example of the Cross, holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise ado­red, and in fine that of the Eucharist. Loe here his words which justifie what I say. What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the hu­mane Vita S Stepha­ni junioris a­pud Damas­cen. Biblii. shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen, and whom we worship? Is this to adore a Creature, or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter, when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will? We adore the Holy Vest­ments and Sacred Vessels, without incurring any censure, for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things. Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood? We worship, and kiss, them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification. Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him (if he has quoted this Author only from their Re­lation) or he has deceiv'd himself, or which is worse he has design'd to de­ceive others, when he produc'd this passage; for 'tis certain, that hence a­rises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question, and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive. There needs little strength of reaso­ning to make this Conclusion, and as little Meditation to comprehend it. We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputa­tion of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images, by the example of the Ado­ration of the Eucharist, and ranks in the same order, the Adoration given to the Cross, to the sacred Vestments, to the Vessels of the Church, to Images, with that given to the Eucharist. We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist, the Anti-Type, Image, and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ, whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucha­rist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us, but which refer to the Original they represent, wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored; but where by means of a material Symbol, a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds. In fine it needs only be observ'd, that if the Greeks adored the Sa­crament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament, never man was more impertinent than he, in endeavouring to excuse a re­lative Adoration by an absolute one, never man betrayed more his Cause, for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings, for which he may be justly reproach'd, he may be likewise told, he falls into a new Heresie, and horrible Impiety, making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels, or that of Images, whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore. Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents, for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped, and conse­quently, means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored. He say's, they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them. Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents, but to the whole Subject called the Eucha­rist. He say's, in short, that in partaking of these Anti-Types, we obtain Sanctification, which appertains to the whole Eucharist, and not the bare Ac­cidents.

DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen, and stifly maintain'd the same Cause, thus argues. I worship not, say's he, the Orat. 1. d. I­mag. [Page 167] Matter, but the Author of the Matter, who has himself become Matter for my sake, and exists in it, to the end he may give me Salvation by it, and as to the Mat­ter by which Salvation is procured me, I will ever worship it, not as the Divinity, God forbid, for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing, altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person, for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed, and remains what it was by Nature, to wit, Living Flesh, indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding, which has had a beginning, and bin created: AS TO THE OTHER MATTER, by which Salvation has been ob­tain'd for us, I honour and worship it, as being full of the Divine Grace. The blessed wood of the Cross, is it not Matter? The Holy and Venerable Mount Cal­vary, is it not Matter? The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ, and which was the Spring of our Resurrection, was it not Matter? Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written, are they not Matter? This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life, is it not Matter? In fine the Body and Blood of our Lord, are they not Matter? You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things, or grant the Adorati­on of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints. It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ, he means the Eucharist, and distinguishes it from the Natural Body, for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter, he adds, As to the other Matter, &c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity. It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross, Mount Calvary, the Holy Sepulchre, the Letters of the Gospel, and the Communion Table, and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration, an Adoration proporti­onable to that of Images.

WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body, he expresses himself after a different manner. I adore, say's he, one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I give to him alone the Ibid. worship of Latria, I worship one God, one Divinity, but I adore likewise the Tri­nity of Persons, God the Father, God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh, and God the Holy Ghost, which yet are no more than one God. I worship not the Creature besides the Creator, but I adore the Creator who hath made me, and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature. I do also toge­ther with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body, if a man may so ex­press himself, tho not as a Vestment, or fourth Person, God forbid, but as having been declared God and made without Conversion, that which it hath been anointed. Here the Humanity is adored in Person, with an Adoration of Latria, where­as the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration af­ter the same manner as the Cross, the Holy Sepulchre and Images. If you say, say's he, in another place a little farther, that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding, abolish then all corporeal things, Tapers, Incense, Prayers uttered with an articulate voice; nay, even th [...] Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter, to wit, the Bread and Wine, the Oyl of Unction, the Sign of the Cross, the Reed, and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence. Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished, which can­not be done, or not reject the Worship of Images; What he called a little above, the Body and Blood, he here calls Bread and Wine, but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood, or whether he calls them Bread and Wine, he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration [Page 168] unto that which he pretends ought to be given, Images and other material things he mentions, that is to say a relative Adoration.

WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen, and Damascene, in which he justifies after the same manner, the relative Adoration given to Images, by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries. He com­pares these two Worships together, and makes them of the same order and quality. When we adore, say's he, the Image of Jesus Christ, the Cross, and the Pho. de Synod. Sign of the Cross, we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things, but direct it to him, who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us. And thus do we adore the Temples, Se­pulchers, and Relicks of Saints, from whence do proceed those miraculous cures, praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power, and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments, we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it, for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means.

AND this is what I had to say on this Point; I leave now the Reader to judge, whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament accord­ing to the manner of the Latins, be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness, as speaks Mr. Arnaud, or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his. I ground my ne­gative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus, John de Lasko, Peter Scarga, Anthony Caucus, Francis Richard, all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks, who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular, who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sa­crament after Consecration, and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks. I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office, without observing this essential particular, but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Cere­monies the Latins use to express their Adoration, without substituting others equivalent to them. I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of o­ther Greek Fathers, who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration, like unto that given to Images, Temples, Crosses, and Relicks of Saints. And yet Mr. Arnaud, tells me, that he is both ashamed and sorry for me, and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example, and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations, which no bo­dy ever saw but himself, that is to say, on Chimera's with which the necessi­ty of maintaining his Th [...]sis, right or wrong, has furnish'd him. Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd, I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind.

I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins. For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons, Archbishops and Jesuits and not me, who only denied it after them. I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be e­steemed inconsiderable, my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle. Not only, say's he, the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily Book 10. chap. 9. annexed to the internal Adoration, but also to some act of external respect. For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors, [Page 169] such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days, yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence.


The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme, do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle, That the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration. The Fif­teenth, from the little care they take to preserve the Substance of the Sa­crament. The Sixteenth, from a Passage of Oecumenius.

WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread, and that there is touching this Point, between them and the Latins, so stiff a Controversie, that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon, and therefore when ever this happens, they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them. I shall not trouble my self, or Reader, with mentioning here any thing touching the be­ginning or progress of this Dispute, all that I aim at here, being only to give farther light to the question I handle. It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point, to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation, for we find them continually arguing from this Principle, that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration.

AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius, and Leo Bishop of Acrida, to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples; for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, they add, observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body. This ex­pression Bibliot. Pa [...]. Tom. 4. [...]d [...]t. 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will, does not well agree with the be­lief of Transubstantiation; for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd, that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body; but it cannot be said with good sence, that he calls the Bread his Body, seeing this latter expression signifies, he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body, which supposes the Bread remains, and receives the name of the Body of Je­sus Christ. Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Mi­chael Cerularius, but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesi­astical Books, [...], say they, having likewise related the words of the In­stitution [...] Allat de lib. Eccles. Graec. diss. 2. [...], Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme, let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread. It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius, that this Pas­sage Gennad p [...]o Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks. And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner, Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body, the Wine his Blood; He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation, but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter; He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expres­sion with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation, to wit, that the [Page 170] common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, [...], but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of [...], does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance.

IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme, and that they eat it as a Fi­gure of the Flesh of Christ, You offer to God in Sacrifice, say's Nicetas Pecto­ratus, the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews, and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ; and a little further, he that makes the Azyme, and eats it, altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews, yet does he in this imitate them, and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew. They ap­ply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo, which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews, and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks. But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread; for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme, is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews, and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them, that after the Conversion 'tis no longer Bread, neither leaven'd nor un­leaven'd, but the Body of Jesus Christ, and that in supposing this Conversi­on, the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous, as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th. which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book.

IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, that at the Council of Florence, wherein 'twas ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread, and with the Azyme, every one according to the Custom of his own Church, the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves, saying, Gennad. pro Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts, and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ, the one of unleavened, and th'other of lea­vened Bread. Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation; for besides that this would not be two Bodies, but one alone under the different Species, it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies, one made of leaven'd th'other of un­leaven'd Bread.

WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie, to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery, affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread, as the Soul is to the Body, because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven, so that they call leavened Bread, living Bread, as be­ing that which has Spirits, and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread, a dead Lump, unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ; and there­upon they ground this Accusation, that the Latins eat a dead Lump, inani­mate Bread, and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours, and is not void of Soul, as taught the Heretick Apollinarius. We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter, in that of Nicetas Pectoratus, and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert, and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd, The Christians Easter, say's he, Bibl Patr. Tom 4, Edit. 4. was celebrated, not with unleaven'd Bread, but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd; to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ. For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person; and as the Divine Nature is most simple, so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body, or Flesh. There being then [Page 171] in Jesus Christ the Divinity, the Soul and the Body, so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread, that is to say with lea­vened Bread, there are three things, namely, Flower, Leaven, and Water. But yours, far from being a true Sacrament, is no Sacrament at all, being so different from the Truth. But we find this arguing more clearly expressed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Bishop of Aquila: Those, say's he, that Auctar Com­besis, Tom 2. in not. ad Isaaci arm. Cath. am­bas inv. partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Heresie of Apollinarius, who did not stick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body de­stitute of Soul and Reason, affirming the Divinity was to him in stead of the rational Soul. The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven, is it not dead and inanimate, and worthy in effect of Death? Our Lord Jesus Christ who is per­fect God and Man has two Natures, and one only Hypostasis, having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Understanding, and given us the Mystery of the New Testament by means of perfect Bread. Supposing the Bread of the Eucharist to be a Mystery that represents Jesus Christ, its Substance still ex­isting, it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reasoning of the Greeks; for they mean, that the lump of Bread represents the Body of Christ, the Leaven his Soul, or Life, and the Salt his Understanding, or Rea­son, wherefore they say, that the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the Salt for the Understanding: So that partaking of this Bread, we mystically eat the animate and living Body of Jesus Christ, such as it is in effect, and not such a one as Apollinarius dreamt of. Whereas those that partake of an Azyme, do only mystically eat inanimate Flesh. But suppose, these People be lieved Transubstantiation, and judge then of their meaning. They that cele­brate the Eucharist, say they, with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump, how so? They eat not the Substance of the Azyme, but that of the living Flesh of Je­sus Christ. They offer, say they, Flesh that is dead. How so again, if they offer'd it in its proper Substance such as it now is, that is to say living? They eat not the Body of Jesus Christ which is consubstantial with us, because they eat an inanimate Azyme. But it is false that they eat the Azyme, they receive only the colours and appearances of it, in the same manner as others take the co­lours and appearances of leaven'd Bread. Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament, differing so greatly from the Truth. Their Sacrament being the Truth it self, it can admit of neither difference nor resemblance. Who sees not these People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Prin­ciple of Transubstantiation? For if they only mean, that the matter of the Sacrament must be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ, they must consider it in the time preceding the Consecration; as for instance, were I to shew that these Stones are not proper to build a Pallace, I must consider them in the time preceding the Building. Common sence leads us to this. But these People on the contrary are wont almost always to consider it in the time which follows the Consecration. You partake, say's Nicetas, of an inanimate Azyme, you offer to God an Azyme, being the dead Bread of the Jews; You are fed from the Hebrews Table, and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews, say's Cerularius, you eat a dead Lump, say's the Author of the Treatise of the Auctar. Com. bef. Tom. 2 in not ad Is. Ar­men. in. Azymes against the Armenians, you receive an Azyme, you offer an Azyme, be­ing dead Flesh, whereas Jesus Christ has given his Mystery, [...], with perfect Bread. All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Tran­substantiation.

NEITHER will it be less difficult to reconcile it with some other ex­pressions used by the Greeks in this same Controversie, as with that of Nice­tas, [Page 172] which I already mention'd; You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme, the Nicet. pect. in Lat. Bib. Patr. [...]4. dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews, which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of our Lord; and that which he adds soon after. You say that the Apostles receiv'd the Azymes of Jesus Christ, and that they left 'em to you▪ for the celebrating of the Mystery as a representation of the Body of Jesus Christ, And that of John Citrius which I already likewise mention'd, We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord, [...]. And that of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the Apud. Allat. Perpet Cons. lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigism. Reg. Mosc. Com. Salt for the Understanding. And that of John the Metropolitan of Russia in his Letter to the Pope, or rather to the Archbishop of Rome, as he calls him, Jesus Christ gave not to his Disciples an Azyme, but Bread when he said, Behold the Bread which I give you. Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will, yet I really be­lieve these expressions do not well please him. He may tell us the Eucharist may be consider'd in two different respects; and that when 'tis looked upon in reference to its external Vail, 'tis called a Figure and Bread, and yet the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation receive no prejudice thereby. But this will not satisfie the World, for 'tis plainly apparent, the sence of Nicetas and other Au­thors reaches farther than this; for to say, we offer dead Bread, unleavened Bread, and figuratively eat it as the Flesh of Jesus Christ, that our Saviour gave Bread to his Disciples, that he told them 'twas Bread he gave them, that this Bread, should signifie his Body, the Leaven his Soul, and the Salt his Understand­ing, this is not a bare consideration of simple Accidents. But 'tis on the contra­ry to suppose, that the Bread remains, for we can neither offer, nor eat, dead Bread, a dead Lump, unleavened Bread, the figurative Bread of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, if it does not remain Bread in its real Substance. The Bread can neither stand for the Body, nor the Leaven for the Soul, nor the Salt for the Understanding, if in effect this Bread, this Leaven and Salt do not any longer subsist, but give place to the Body, Soul, and Understanding of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud, may tell us, if he pleases, that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos, who taught Transubstantiation makes use of this way of speaking, that the Eucharist is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ, wee shall find he is a Person that would not wholly estrange himself from the expressions of the Greeks, if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins. But we must go on with our proofs.

OUR Fifteenth Proof, shall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament after its Consecration. For it is not to be imagin'd supposing their Belief to 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 Hogs­bristles. 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 [Page 173] Bottles, or scatter it about, is certainly a great neglect, and sign, that such have Humbert con­tr. G [...]. 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. 2 [...]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, 'tis not to be doubted but he would insist on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of these [Page 174] 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 'tis 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 is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century) expounding these words of Saint Pe­ter, Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers, they may glorifie God; Saint Peter, say's he, speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens, and if you would know the particulars thereof, read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus, and Blandina, and you will be perfectly informed. This in few words is an account thereof. The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists, used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries, and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them, remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ, imagining that 'twas, In effect Flesh and Blood. Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks, and by torments forced the Martyrs, Sanctus, and Blan­dina to confess it. But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them, how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh (whose use was permitted them,) should do any such thing.

THIS passage may be considered in two respects, either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius. I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus, and in effect, we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Church­es of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius. But in the second respect, under which I now offer it, we may certainly conclude that 'twas the Senti­ment of Oecumenius himself. For how can we suppose he would call the be­lief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake, That the Holy Com­munion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood, and that the Christians did really do this. Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of [Page 175] the Heathens? Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagi­nation had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance, and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church? How came it to pass, he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms, and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood, or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens, the Churches Belief in this particular, or in fine that she only denied it in one sence, to wit, that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood? How happened it, he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it, or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence? Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations, and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ, nor imagin'd, he af­firm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church, or which might be taken in an ill sence.


The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist, some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible, and others cor­ruptible. The Eighteenth, from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century.

I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose a­mongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century, touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist, from whence I took occasi­on to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the La­tins. Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good, but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of. It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages, the one of Nicetas Choniatus, and th'other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie; and to know whether this difference do's suppose Tran­substantiation or not.

I will begin with Nicetas, who lays down the Question in these Terms. The Question, say's he, was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we Nicet Chon. Annal. lib. 3. receive, be incorruptible, such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection, or corruptible as it was before his Passion. Before we go any further, we should con­sider whether 'tis likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that be­lieves Transubstantiation. This is a Point easily decided if we consider, that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state; such as it was before his Passi­on, or an incorruptible one, wherein it has been since his Resurrection. They have invented a Third, which holds the middle between the two others, and [Page 176] which equally agrees with the two times, before and after his Resurrection, which is that they call the Sacramental State, in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread, being invisible and insensi­ble in it self, without Extension, Action, or Motion, having all its Parts in one Point, and existing after the manner of Spirits. In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection, nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World, but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him, and incorruptible by reason of that Spiri­tuality which Transubstantiation gives him. How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State, there may be formed the Que­stion, whether he is incorruptible, such as he has been since his Resurrection, or corruptible as before his Passion? How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view, and are agreed amongst themselves, can fall into a debate touching the two others? For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion, as it is taught by the Latins. No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body, such as is that of our Saviour; being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread, is neither the same that was on the Cross, nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily sup­pose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death, nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre, but another incorruptibility, which comes to him from his existence after the manner of a Spirit. They could not be so ignorant as not to know that our Saviour celebrated his Sacrament before his death, and that we celebrate it likewise since his Ascension into Heaven, and that consequently according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation we cannot regulate the State of his Body in the Mystery, neither by one nor th'other of these two times, that is to say, neither by the time which preceded his death nor that which followed his Resurrection, but we must take a middle time which may agree both with the one and the other, whence it plainly appears these People believed not Transubstantiation, for had they believed it, this difference had never arose among them; and so much concerning the Question in general. Let us see now in what manner the two Parties maintained their Opinions.

SOME, say's Nicetas, asserted that it was incorruptible, because that the Participation of the Divine Mysteries is an acknowledgment, and commemoration that our Lord died and rose again for us, (as teaches the great Divine Cyrillus) so that whatsoever part we receive, we receive intirely that which Thomas handled, and that he is as it were eaten after his Resurrection, according to these following words of Saint Chrysostom. O wonderful! he that sits at the right hand of the Fa­ther, is found in the hands of sinners; and in another place, Jesus Christ is a fruit which budded in the Law, ripened in the Prophets, and was eaten after its Resurre­ction, and he tells us afterwards, this is no other Body than that which was too strong for death, and which began our Life. For as a little Leaven leavens the whole Lump according to the saying of the Apostle, so likewise this Body which God has made immortal, being in our Body changes and converts it wholly into it self; some likewise alledged these words of Eutychius that great light of the Church, we receive the Sacred Body of the Lord intirely and his precious Blood after the same manner, although we receive but one part of it, for it is divided indivisibly into all by reason of the mixture.

MR. Arnaud pretends this Party supposed Transubstantiation, because, [Page 177] say's he, they asserted after St. Chrysostom, that our Saviour was in Heaven Lib. 2. cap. 14. pag 242. and on Earth, and after Eutychus that he was distributed wholly and intirely to all, that is to say, they taught the real Presence. But I hope he will correct his, that is to say, when he has considered that the Design of these Disputants was only to shew in what respect Jesus Christ communicates himself to us in the Eucharist, to wit, not as being mortal and corruptible, such as he was before his Passion, but as being risen. So that when they say we receive him whom Thomas handled, him who sitteth at the right hand of the Fa­ther, the same that vanquish'd death, the Body which God made immortal, they do not design thereby to signifie his Substance, but only the State which followed his Resurrection, as if they had said, we do not so much receive that Body, which the Souldiers misused, as that which Thomas handled, not so much in respect that it was on Earth, but at the right hand of the Father, not so much for that it has suffered death, but vanquished it, and that God has made it immortal, which is to say, in a word, that we receive him as risen, because that in this Quality he is the Principle of our Life. It is clear that this was their drift, whence there can be nothing concluded in reference to the Substance, for when we receive the Body of Jesus Christ, not in Substance, but in Mystery, yet do we receive it in respect of its being risen; and receive him also intire, and so that passage of Eutychus will not decide our difference.

THERE need other considerations for this.

AND first it must be remembred that those that will argue from the Hy­pothesis of Transubstantiation, that the Body of Jesus Christ is incorrupti­ble in the Eucharist, must not attribute to it the incorruptibleness which comes to it from the State of his Glory, for besides that it could not have it, as I already said, at the time of the first Supper, seeing that our Saviour was not then glorifi'd, it is moreover apparent that even at this day, it is not in this State of Glory and Majesty which it has in Heaven. They must then at­tribute to it this other incorruption, which is the effect of its Sacramental State. And 'tis unto this that the Doctrine of the substantial Presence does naturally and necessarily drive them. It is therein incorruptible, because 'tis indivisible and insensible after the manner of Spirits.

YET do not the Greeks mention one word tending to this sacramental in­corruption, they speak absolutely only concerning the incorruption which follows his Resurrection and Glorification, which is an evident token they argued not from the Principle of Transubstantiation. Secondly, had these Greeks intended to propose our Saviour's Resurrection; wherefore say they, that the Mysteries are a commemoration of it as well as of his death? for they might with greater strength and clearness of reason affirm, that seeing 'tis the proper Substance of the Body that is risen, it can be no more either passible or corruptible, as it was before the Resurrection. How comes it then to pass they mention not a word of that which reason would suggest to them, supposing they believed the Conversion of Substances?

YET Mr. Arnaud tells us their reasoning was good, and that it overthrew the whole Foundation of those Hereticks, which was, that the Eucharist only re­presented Lib. 3. cap. 14. pag. 241. our Saviour Christ in a State of Death, whence they concluded he was in it only in a State of Death, in taking for their Principle that he was therein such, as he is represented. But Mr. Arnaud does not consider, that besides it is not true that the Adversaries of these Greeks did take for their Principle that the [Page 178] Body was in it, such as 'tis therein represented, in supposing it was really in it; I say this would be moreover to impute to these Greeks, not a reason, but an overthrowing of all reason and common sence. If we believe Mr. Arnaud their Adversaries must have reasoned in this manner. Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist, such as he is therein represen­ted; now he is therein represented, in a State of Death, he is then therein effectually dead. Supposing they believed Transubstantiation, were they not very imprudent to let slip this first Proposition, which is altogether contrary to Transubstantiation in the sence Mr. Arnaud would have them hold it, to apply themselves to the second, which is undeniably evident. For no body ever denied, that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death, seeing this Sacrament is a commemoration of his Death. But those that hold the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the living and glorifi'd Body of Jesus Christ, may not grant that he is really in it such as he is re­presented, because he must be effectually dead, being represented therein as dead, which is punctually what the Adversaries of these Greeks would con­clude. They had been then very imprudent to pass by the first Proposition of their Adversaries Argument, on which they might defend themselves and apply themselves to the second, against which there could be nothing said. For as I already observed, it cannot be denied but that our Saviour is repre­sented in the Eucharist in a State of Death. But would they not likewise have been very impertinent to apply themselves to the second Proposition (in asserting as they have done) that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death and Resurrection both together? What is this but to conclude, that he is then in it at the same time actually dead, and actually risen by this Principle acknowledged by both Parties, that he is really in it such as he is therein represented. The Catholicks, say's Mr. Arnaud, overthrew the Foundation of the Hereticks, by a Passage of Saint Cyril's, in which this holy man affirms that the Eucharist is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead and risen for us. Whence they rightly concluded that he was then in it in a State of Resurre­ction, and consequently in an incorruptible State. If this Conclusion be good, as Mr. Arnaud say's it is, this is so too; he is then in it in a State of Death, and consequently in a State of Corruption, for Cyrillus does as well assert that 'tis the Confession of Jesus Christ dead, as risen; whence it follows that according to these People our Saviour dies and rises again effectually in the Eucharist. And thus do they argue according to Mr. Arnaud, Our Savio [...] is in the Eucharist, such as he is therein represented, now he is represented therein, not only in a State of Death but Resurrection. He is then really in it not only dead, but likewise risen again, and consequently corruptible and incorruptible both together. This would be the most sottish reasoning ima­ginable, for after this manner they would as well argue for their Adversaries as themselves. And yet this is the arguing which Mr. Arnaud so commends. And into these absurdities and extravagancies does he lead those Persons he would have favourable to him.

YET he adds, That 'tis an easie matter to conclude that according to these Catholicks, Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist, but 'tis a hard mat­ter to divine by what means Mr. Claude has concluded he was not in it. It is no such difficult matter to know this. For if these People said not what com­mon sence immediately dictated to them, supposing they believed Transub­stantiation, but on the contrary that which even common sence would hinder them from saying, it follows they had not this Hypothesis in their Minds. Now this is what my Proof contains, for it shews that what they said would [Page 179] be an extravagancy, and likewise what they ought to say, and have not said. For they ought to say that our Saviour since his Resurrection can be no long­er in a State of Death, or passibility, and consequently that being really in the Eucharist, he cannot be therein corruptible, and this they have not said.

BUT how, (say's Mr. Arnaud,) can Mr. Claude know what they have said, or not said? Will he pretend that all the reasonings of these Persons are contain'd in the short account this Historian gives us of this Debate. But I do not pre­tend to this, for I only say, that if the Greeks whose Dispute is set down by Nicetas, believed Transubstantiation, he would have made them reason after another manner than they do, he would have made them say what sence and reason do readily suggest to People that hold this Doctrine, and not Imperti­nencies, which could never enter into the mind of a man prepossessed with Transubstantiation.

BUT, adds he, these Greeks have expresly said, what Mr. Claude blames them for not saying. For have they not expressed this clearly in these Words, Ibid. that whatsoever part we receive of the Eucharist, we receive intirely Jesus Christ himself whom Thomas handled, because we eat him after his Resurrection, which they confirmed by divers Passages of the Fathers, and amongst the rest by that of St. Chrysostom; O wonderful! He that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners. I answer that Mr. Arnaud comprehends not the force of an Objection but only when he pleases. I do not deny but that these Greeks said, That Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist as risen, and that we receive him wholly and intire. This is the State of their Question, and they prove it by Passages taken out of the Fathers. But I say that had they reasoned on the Hypothesis of the substantial Conversion, they would have said that Jesus Christ since his Resurrection can be no longer either mortal or passible in himself, that he exists on the Altar after the manner of a Spirit, and is consequently incorruptible; that the substantial Conversion cannot be made in the dead and inanimate Body of Jesus Christ, forasmuch as this is a State which has ceased since so many Ages, and that it would be blasphemy and horrid cruelty against the Majesty of the Son of God to make him die every day really and personally. And this is what I said in plain Terms, but Mr. Arnaud would not understand me. I tell him therefore again, that com­mon sence led the Greeks to this, had their belief been the same as the La­tins. Yet you cannot find this in what Nicetas makes them speak. You read indeed that whatsoever part we receive, we partake of him whom Tho­mas handled, that is to say, of Jesus Christ; the word Same which Mr. Arnaud has added, is of his own invention. You find there that he is eaten after his Resurrection, and instead of Mr. Arnaud's Because, there is in the Greek a Diminutive Particle [...], he is as it were eaten, but you find not that Jesus Christ can be any more passible, nor that he is in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit, nor what a great outrage it would be to the Son of God to make him die and suffer personally again. And yet this is what ought to be said according to sence and reason, supposing they believed the real Pre­sence, and design'd to refute their Adversaries.

NICETAS continuing to relate as from the part of these Greeks the Passage of Euthychius, adds these words, It is as a Seal which imprints its form on the matters which receive it, and which yet remain one, after this Com­munication, without being diminished or changed into those things which receive the Impression, altho several in number. Even as one voice alone uttered by a [Page 180] Person, and cast forth into the Air, remains wholly intire in him that utters it, and yet is carried wholly intire in the Air to the ears of them which hear it, with­out any of the hearers receiving more or less, but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all, when they should be several thousands in number, altho it be but one Body, for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord, and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration, but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue, as the things I offered by way of example do, and that he fully and intirely exists in them. I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words, but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done. He mentions what precedes, and follows them, but leaves out those that are in the middle. 'Tis probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things, nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air, without losing its Unity, for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression, nor in the Air which receives the voice, and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its I­mage, or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves, and with the Seal, or the first Air, in respect of the Characters, or Articulation, but not at all in respect of the Substance; whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament, which is to say, that the Bread altho it receives the impres­sion of the virtue of Christ's Body, yet does it keep its Substance, after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his, the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread. 'Tis probable he did not like, that in pro­posing the comparison of the Seal, Eutychius has observ'd, that 'tis not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters, whence it follows, that they are not likewise changed substantially into him. 'Tis likely he could not well rellish this expression, that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types, and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues [...], than the Seal does in things, and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ, in virtue and efficacy a­gainst which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion. I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion or the real Presence. For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration, and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues, if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood, and become the same numerical Substance? But be it as it will, Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest, or if he design'd to do it, not to reproach me, for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity, I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zo­narus. I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself, for it will appear at the end of this Chapter, that 'twould have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length, and the rea­son why I did it not, was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long, and the sum of which may be represented in few words; besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Mar­gent of the last Edition of my Book. We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me, to his humour and not to his Judgment, for had he taken time to consider, he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter. But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse, this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment [Page 181] and not of his humour, for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums.

IN fine Nicetas, having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence, he introduces the other, and adds these following words; Which things being alledged by these, and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church, the others replied on the contrary, That the Mystery is not an acknowledg­ment of the Resurrection, but only a Sacrifice, and consequently is corruptible, being without Soul or Understanding, and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire, but in part. For were it, say they, incorruptible, it would be in­dued with Spirit, it would be alive, it could neither be touched, seen, nor chewed with the Teeth, and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain.

TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, we need only inquire whether they had common sence, for unless they were deprived of it, they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord, which is seen, handled, cut, and chewed with the teeth, and which altho inanimate, yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used. If Mr. Arnaud can make us be­lieve this he may make us believe any thing. How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain; to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth, and cut his flesh in pieces, that every one may partake thereof; to believe he is without Life and Soul [...], and yet that he is pained and grieved, [...].

BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence, seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us, That all this would be ridiculous, if we understand it as meant of Bread, which is only the Figure of our Saviour, and which con­tains only his virtue. I answer, 'tis no hard matter to give their words a na­tional sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue, for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as dead and sa­crific'd for us, and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding, from amongst those things (I say) which we see, handle and chew with our teeth, and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ, when he lived on Earth, and was subject to pain and misery; whereas were he re­presented in it in his incorruptible State, wherein he is no more visible to our eyes, nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies, our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols, wherein these dolours are not so lively repre­sented. And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire, but in part, this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body of the Bread receiving the impression of our Saviour's virtue becomes his whole Body, and that each Particle is in effect but one part of it. 'Tis probable likewise they had regard to the moral Body of our Saviour which is the Church, and is represented by Bread, of which every one takes a part, to signifie that every particular Believer is not the whole Body, but one part thereof in communion with the rest, according to that of Saint Paul, For we being many are one Bread and one Body; for we are all partakers of 1 Cor. 10: that one Bread.

SO that here's the Passage of Nicetas examin'd, and to the end it may not be thought the sence I give it is only grounded on meer conjectures, we [Page 182] shall see immediately that Zonarus expresses himself to the same effect, and that these two Authors explain one another. And this is the reason Why I differ'd in this particular from Mr. Aubertin, when he thought Nicetas did not faithfully relate the Question, and that in effect the Dispute was grounded on Transubstantiation, and the real Presence. This was his conjecture, and we all know that the meer conjectures of Authors, altho otherwise never so judicious, lay not any necessity upon us of following them. Every man is at liberty in these kinds of matters, and Mr. Arnaud who scruples not to devi­ate sometimes from the Opinions of his own Doctors in Points of greater importance, had little reason to say, That here I am at variance with my Ma­ster Pag. 237. Aubertin. I do in truth profess my self a Disciple to those that pre­ceded me, for I am not of an aspiring humour, neither have I as yet been ac­cused of affecting Singularity, but when Masters offer their conjectures un­der the title of videtur, touching an Historical Passage, as Mr. Aubertin has done, the Disciples have right to judge of it and reject it, if their conjectures be not well grounded. Which is what I have done in this particular, and Mr. Arnaud must not pretend to refute me by opposing Mr. Aubertin against me, much less in quoting some pretended Marginal Notes of Wolphius, which appear not in his Nicetas, Printed at Basil, 1557.

I come now to the other Passage which I said belong'd to Zonarus, and which Allatius attributes to Glycas, We know, say's he, dear Brother, that some Tom. 6. Cyrill. Alex. in notis Valcan ad lib. advers. antrop. Allat. advers. Chr [...]ict. suffering themselves to be too much led away by their own reasonings, do raise doubts concerning the nature of the immaculate Mysteries, sometimes maintaining the Eucharist to be incorruptible, seeing it communicates to us the life immortal, and othertimes affirming it is corruptible, because we chew it with the teeth and eat it. They assert likewise several other things according to their own fancy, and as it were, making a sport and jest of these serious things. But as for your part, dear Brother, follow not their example, trouble not your self with examining the Mysteries, lest that curiously enquiring whether the Holy Communion be above cor­ruption, or whether it lasts but for a time, in trusting too much to your self you exceed the bounds of Truth. For these kind of things are to be believed, not que­stioned. And let not your reason make you so much a Sceptick as not to reject one of these Opinions as impious, and hold the other. For in examining them you will find they may be both maintain'd in a Catholick sence. The Bread of the Prothesis, is that very Flesh of our Saviour that was crucifi'd at the time of his Pas­sion, and laid in the Sepulchre. Which manifestly appears by what our Lord said to his Apostles when he instituted the Mysteries of the New Testament; for in giving 'em to them, he said, take eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the remission of sins. Consider, that if the Flesh of our Lord had not been cor­ruptible it would not have been subject to the corruption of Death. For that which is incorruptible, is above all corruption. The Bread then of the Prothesis is subject to corruption, as being the real Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is cut, and chewed with the teeth, for were it incorruptible it could be neither cut nor eaten; moreover be not troubled at this saying, nor think it hard and insupportable, for although we speak to you of corruption in this divine and dreadful Cummunion, yet is it in fine attended with incorruption. For the Flesh of our Lord after it had yielded to death, and was laid in the Sepulchre, was not corrupted according to the saying of the Prophet, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption, for being preserved by the Divinity it remain'd incorruptible. So likewise the Bread of the Prothesis after it has been chewed with the teeth, and descended into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre, returns to the state of incorruption according to John Damascene, being united to the Substance of the Soul. And therefore those [Page 183] that depart this life, if they have participated of the Holy Mysteries of our Lord with a pure conscience, are taken up by Angels by means of what they have received, as say's Saint Chrysostom.

MR. Arnaud that always offers his Arguments as Decrees, say's, That a man need but only read these words, that the Bread which is offered on the Altar is that very Flesh of Christ which was crucifi'd and buried, to explode the vain Arguments of Mr. Claude, and that a man who undertakes to argue against such an Evidence deserves not to be heard. And I passing by the vanity of his Discourse, which shews how greatly 'tis his interest that I be not heard, do demand Publick Audience to discover the Nullity of his Proof. There is nothing more usual in Eccelsiastical Writers then to say of a Subject to which the Scripture gives the name of Jesus Christ, that 'tis Jesus Christ himself. Saint Chrysostom speaking of a poor man, say's, That he is Jesus Christ himself, Chrysost. Hom. 15. in Rom. lib. 4. de Sace [...] ­dot. who suffer'd death for us. Discoursing in another place of the Church, he say's, That it is the Body it self of Jesus Christ. Saint Austin expresses himself af­ter the same manner in several places, and were it requisite, we could easily August. in Psalm. 87 & Scrm 49. & 53. de verb. Dom. shew that this same, or he himself, is applied sometimes to the Poor, and some­times to the Church, and sometimes again to every particular Believer in Sedulius, Cesarius, Fulgentius, Ephraim, Valerian, in Alcuinus amongst the Ancients, and Cabasilas and Jeremias amongst the Modern. Moreover how can Mr. Arnaud (who so triumphantly charges me with differing from Mr. Aubertin in an Historical Passage) maintain that the Evidence of these words of Zonarus, (the Bread is the very Flesh it self of Jesus Christ which has been sacrific'd for us) leaves no place for my arguings, he I say, who knows very well that the most famous Doctors of the Roman Church do teach that this Proposition, the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence? Every Proposition, say's Occam, in which the Body of Je­sus Occham quod 4. quaest. 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu. cap 1. Christ is said to be Bread, is impossible. This Proposition, say's Bellarmin, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence, that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ, is wholly absurd and impossible, for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ.

SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing, and were not these three last Jesuits, I might likewise say in my turn, that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters. In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of, the same, relates not so much to that of Flesh, as that of sacrific'd, as Mr. Arnaud renders it, and of buried, to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance, but that it is this dead and bu­ried Flesh; which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is, for this can neither be the same death nor burial, it must then of necessity be another. In fine, 'tis but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse, and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ, for he compares the one with the other, saying, that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried, so the Bread is subject to corruption; being chewed with the teeth, eaten, and sent down into the Stomach, as in a Sepulchre; and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption, so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible, and passes into the Substance of the Soul; which shews that his sence is, that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ, not Substantially, but Mystically, and consequently this pretended E­vidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies.

IN effect, suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation, and that [Page 184] what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corrup­tible, and afterwards becomes incorruptible; that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth, and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul? Mr. Arnaud say's, 'tis probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this Ibid. pag [...]44. Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ, not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it. But this evasion will not serve his turn, for Zonarus say's, that the Bread is subject to corruption, as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ. Now 'tis not in respect of its Accidents, or Vayl, that 'tis the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transub­stantiation. It is so by the change of Substance. Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth (that is to say, Figures and Colours stript from their Substance) is a singular Fancy.

THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors, who was a Grecian, and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century, which shall be my Eigh­teenth Proof. The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Can­nons of the Apostles and Councils. See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo; The Divine Mysteries, I mean the Bread and Wine, do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord, for in giving the Bread to his Disciples, he said to them, take eat this is my Body, and in delive­ring the Cup, he said, drink ye all of it, this is my Blood. Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion, after he had poured out his Blood, caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear, not only Blood, but likewise Water, the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Myste­ries.

THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage; First, he say's, the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks, as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread; and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self. Secondly, that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ, This is my Body, this is my Blood, it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation, and believed that 'twas as much as if our Saviour had said, This Bread represents my Body, this Cup my Blood; for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition, that the Bread and Cup re­present the Body and Blood of our Lord, on this reason, that our Saviour said, This is my Body, this is my Blood.

THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour, it will not be amiss therefore to consider, what may be opposed against it; to avoid its force, Zonarus makes use of the Term of [...], which may be sayd to be better rend'red, not represent, but present, give, communicate; and that the sence of this Author is not, that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as Signs and Pictures represent their Original, but that they present and communicate them to us in effect, inas­much as they contain the Substance of them, and that 'tis to confirm this Pro­position he alledges the words of our Saviour, This is my Body, this is my Blood. But this evasion will not serve turn, if the sence and sequel of Zo­narus his Discourse be never so little consider'd. His Design was to confute [Page 185] the Armenians, in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice. To prove this, he asserts, we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Sa­viour when on the Cross, and to confirm this Proposition, he has recourse to this general Maxim, that the Mysteries, which is to say, the Bread and Wine, do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb [...], present, or give, for why, say's he, the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ; but because Jesus Christ has said, This is my Body, this is my Blood. We must then put Water into the Cup, because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side. The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in, because the Lord only made mention of his Blood; that 'tis very uncertain, whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side; and that supposing they do give it us, yet does it not hence follow we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup, the Wine alone being suffici­ent to be transubstantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood. We must then necessarily (if we suppose Zonarus speaks sence) un­derstand the Term of [...], in the sence of Representation, and then his Discourse will appear rational; The Mysteries represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as they were upon the Cross. Now in this State there issued from the pierced Side of Jesus Christ Blood and Water, we must then express in the Mystery this Circumstance, and to express it we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Sacred Chalice, to the end that as the Wine re­presents the Blood, so the Water may represent this Divine Water which gushed out together with [...]e Blood from our Saviour's Side. And this being thus cleared up, it is hence evident that Zonarus understood these words of our Lord, This is my Body, this is my Blood, in a sence of a Mystical Represen­tation.


The Nineteenth Proof, that, we do not find the Greeks do teach the Do­ctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation. The Twen­tieth, is, the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion. The One and Twentieth, from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins.

I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances, whence I concluded, there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins. This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud, and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing, so he has not scrupled to affirm, That Reason re­jects this as a silly extravagancy. But forasmuch as we have often experienced Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59 that in matters of Reason, Folly and Extravagancy, it is no sure course abso­lutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words, therefore will we again lay aside the [Page 186] Authority of his Oracles, and examine the thing as it is in it self.

FIRST, The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject, or Substance which sustains them. Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiati­on, that those which believe this last, cannot avoid the teaching and acknow­ledging of the other, supposing they are indued with common sence. In ef­fect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly, to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects, as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be, that is to say, white, round, divisible into little pieces, &c. and that the same things which, (as they speak) did qualifie and affect the Bread before, do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ. We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdi­ty. Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transub­stantiation; for did she make profession of believing and teaching it, she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject; these two Doctrines being so closely linked together, that 'tis impossible to sepa­rate them unless they fall upon this fancy, that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ, or this other, namely, that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread, but false appearances, and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences, which is no less absurd, nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks.

SECONDLY, Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy, which is to say, that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species; but we find on the contrary, that they esta­blish the necessity of communicating of both kinds, and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter; which is directly opposite to this Concomitan­cy. Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Con­version of Substances, do at the same time establish this other Doctrine. For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does, that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies, this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which he had when on Earth, and has still in Heaven, it is not possible to se­parate in such a manner his Blood from his Body, and his Body from his Blood, as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread, and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine, seeing 'tis true that this Se­paration cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ.

THIRDLY, Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied them­selves to shew, how 'tis possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist, stript of its proper and natural Figure, deprived of its dimensions, impalpa­ble, indivisible, without motion and action, which is moreover another Con­sequence of Transubstantiation.

FOURTHLY, We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves, touching the nourishment, our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist, and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Tran­substantiation 'tis impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter. For should they deny this nourishment, they may be convinced of [Page 187] it by experience, and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties. If it be said the Accidents nourish, besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish, they that affirm this do expose them­selves to the derision of all the World, who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours. To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance, or that he immediately creates another, this is to make him work Miracles when we please, and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God. And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed, that some of 'em have taken one side, and some another. Some have boldly denied this nourishment, whatsoever ex­perience there is of the contrary, as Guitmond, and Algerus, others, chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish, as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin. Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread, as Vasquez; and others the Creation of a new Substance, as Suarez and others. Mr. Ar­naud has chosen rather to affirm, That we are nourished, not with the Body of Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155. Jesus Christ, but after another manner known only to God, which shews his per­plexity to be so great in this particular, that he knew not on which side to turn himself. Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point, that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it. They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies; but they see none of those inconvenien­cies which disturb the Latins; which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances. For did they believe it, they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others; and seeing it, how is it possible they should express no astonishment, nor any difficulty therein, or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken, which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God?

NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration, or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist, as the Latins do, altho the former of these have more reason for it, than the latter. For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting; but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all. And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine, the space of a whole year, for the use of the sick, it often happens that 'tis corrupted and full of Maggots, as it is observ'd by Sacranus, and the Archbishop of Gnesne, and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins. Yet do they not seem to be concerned, nor inform themselves whence come these Worms, which being as they are Substances, it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents. Neither can it be said without blas­phemy, that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ.

THIS Proof may be extended farther; for 'tis certain we do not find a­mongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transub­stantiation. I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon. They are in this respect in a most profound silence. But it's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud. It is indeed, say's he, a real truth, that the Greeks take lit­tle Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59. notice of these Philosophical Consequences. Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places, and of Accidents without a Subject, the Archbishop of Gaza does the same, but both one and the other of these do this by constraint. What signifies this tergiversating, for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof, seeing they speak not at all of it. This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted, seeing we shall make it appear in its [Page 188] place, that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deserved­ly suspected to be counterfeit, and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wed­ded to the Interests of the Court of Rome. It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence, Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs. But that we may do him right, we will not conceal what he adds afterwards. I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstanti­ation, and its Consequences, an Argument to conclude they believed it not. He answers, that instead of Fathers, I should substitute the Greeks, Armeni­ans, Ibid. pag. 63. and Copticks of those times, for, say's he, 'tis certain that all these Christi­ans believed Transubstantiation, as we do, and yet take no notice of all these diffi­culties which Mr. Claude's head is full of. This acknowledgment is sincere, and we need desire no more. The Greeks take no more notice of the diffi­culties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks, and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth, that he makes it the ground of an Answer.

OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good. Which he contests me, and first he say's, that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin, and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine. He adds, that they observe Ibid. pag 58, 59. the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the satisfaction of Christ, altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence.

BUT 'tis his prejudice, and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer. For first, there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity, which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission, and the Doctrine of Transubstantiati­ation. The nature of the Sacraments is well known, and the matter and signs thereof are better known, which are Bread and Wine. Even the thing signifi'd, to wit, the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason, but likewise of Sence, and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it, nay, they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion, even when we would not our selves. Secondly, besides this infinite difference, which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison, the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them, and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves. There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars. The difficulties which are raised against a Truth, are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence; and I confess it would not be to reason aright, absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine, because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it. To al­low these kinds of Arguments, there are distinctions to be made, and parti­cular circumstances to be observed, without which there can be nothing con­cluded. But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine, of Conse­quences, I say, which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capaci­ty, without any great Meditation and Study. Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians, against Original Sin, against the Mystery of the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and Satisfaction of Christ, being perhaps not acquainted with them, yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines. They baptise [Page 189] little Children, and baptise them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial; they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit, they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ, and such like things. Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation? Is it possible to hold this Doctrine, without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences, on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places, the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions, the concomitancy of the Body and Blood, and on the Accidents of 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 'twas 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 'tis 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 [Page 190] 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 'tis 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 [Page 191] Disputer. It seems to me I should make it appear, either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud proposes are not true, or that he takes them in a contrary sence, and draws from them false Conclusions; but bare­ly to say I deny the Consequence, because it opposes my Thesis, which I hold for a certain Truth, this would be to make my self ridiculous. I know that a man that answers, supposes always his Thesis to be true, and that he has li­berty to draw thence, if he can, where withal to solve the Arguments of his Adversary, but he must do it in another manner, than by saying, I deny the Consequence, because my Thesis is true. For otherwise his Adversary will tell him, and I prove that your Thesis is false by the very Argument I offer; so that this would be always to begin again. Mr. Arnaud will re­ply, he does not barely propose his Thesis for an Answer, but proposes it, as having already solidly established it by a great number of Proofs, and pre­tends that his Proofs surmount mine. I confess, that if this be his sence, he has right to oppose Proof against Proof, and require a comparison to be made of them, before the Reader passes his final Sentence. But I demand likewise for my part that there be comprehended in this comparison, not on­ly one o [...] my Proofs, but all of them together, with the Answers which I shall return his to shew their weakness and insufficiency. Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Dispute, in the mean time each Proof in particular should have his force, neither must he imagine to elude them, one after another, by barely opposing against them those which seem to establish the contrary. If I pretended by the only force of my Ar­gument drawn from the silence of the Greeks on the Consequences of Tran­substantiation to acquit my self of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs, and end the Dispute by this means alone, he might reasonably bring me back to this Discussion. For this would be to err in the same manner as the Au­thor of the Perpetuity has done, who would decide the whole Controversie of the Eucharist, by an Argument drawn from the pretended Consequences of a change, without any regard to our Proofs of Fact, which conclude di­rectly the contrary. It would signifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Prescription, and not of Discussion; for this would be meer wrangling. But this is not my design. I proposed to my self, (having first established by divers most solid Reason, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation,) to answer in its due order whatsoever Mr. Ar­naud has offered to shew that the Greeks do believe it. And yet this Proof, which I here treat of, comes with the rest into the order of the Dispute. It hath then, as I said, its particular force and weight, and Mr. Arnaud must not imagine to overthrow it by barely opposing his Proofs against it, for be­fore the Dispute be ended, I hope to shew, that what he terms Proofs, are but meer Paralogisms and Delusions.

TO the end the Reader may better judge of the solidity of my Proof, Answer to the Sccond Treatise of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit. 7. he must observe, that I offered it in my Answer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground, that there is no Law amongst the Greeks, or general determina­tion, that establishes Transubstantiation, that none of their Councils have decided it, none of their Confessions of Faith comprehended it, nor any of their publick Catechisms asserted it. Now when men differ touching a mat­ter of Fact, they usually have recourse to the place where they may most reasonably expect satisfaction, and if it does not appear there in it self, sence obliges 'em to address themselves to its Consequences, and if the Consequen­ces do not manifest themselves any more than the Fact it self, they draw thence a negative Argument, which in its place, has all the force that can be [Page 192] desired. This method have I followed in this Answer to Mr. Arnaud, for I produce not this Argument drawn from Consequences, till I manifested that the Fact it self here in question, that is to say, Transubstantiation, does not appear any where amongst the Greeks, neither in respect of the Terms, nor thing which the Terms signifie, and to justifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary.

IN effect, if you set aside the Latiniz'd Greeks, such as Bessarion, Emanuel Calecas, Plusiadenus, the counterfeit Greeks, such as the Baron of Spartaris, and the Archbishop of Gaza, whom I can prove to be a Pensioner of the Court of Rome, and others that are notoriously suspected, such as the pretended Samonas, the Monk Agapius, the six Priests of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with some Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us, all the rest consists only in Ar­guings and Consequences, which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty, as will appear hereafter. For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting, that he has shewed Transubstantiation, hath been defined by Councils, that it is expressly contain'd in the profession of Faith sign'd by the Sarrasins, and in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks, is what he ought not to affirm on such slight Grounds, seeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of these pretended Councils of Cyrillus, Berrhea, and Partenius, and Passages he produces as well of the profession of Faith of these Sarrasin Pro­selytes, as Ecclesiastical Writings; for 'tis certain we find Transubstantiation neither defined, nor expresly taught therein.

THIS Belief then appearing not of it self in the Greek Church, and the expressions she makes use of being lyable to sundry Interpretations, a prudent man will consider the Doctrines which depend thereon, and which are the inseperable Consequences of it; for if these Doctrines do no more appear than the Substantial Conversion, this must be granted a new Proof which confirms the first, and very much helps us to make our final Judg­ment. For as I said, it is not possible that the Greeks can be in this Point a­greed with the Latins, without believing at the same time with them, that the Accidents of Bread which remain, subsist without being upheld by the Substance of Bread, that the Body of Jesus Christ is substantially present in several places at one time, that it exists in the Eucharist void of these natural dimensions, and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Spe­cies by vertue of the concomitancy, &c. These are the necessary dependan­ces on Transubstantiation, and the Greeks are so much the more obliged to explain themselves, in as much as the Terms by which they are said to ex­press their Belief touching this last particular are equivocal, and capable of several sences, for they ought at least to shew hereupon what is their mean­ing. So that having not done it, it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome on the principal Point of the Conversion. And yet not­withstanding all this, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one. He may say what he pleases, but it seems to me by this, that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason. But to proceed.

I shall add to what I have already represented, the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks, who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion, and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation, altho their design and occasions which set them on writing, obliged them not to be silent on so important an Arti­cle. [Page 193] I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople; for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittem­berg, yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion, un­less he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations, but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book, where­in, the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it.

WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter, given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic; which Angelus was a Greek, a man both pious and learned. He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion, and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness. His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins, that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine. The Priest, say's he, carrying in his hands Status & ri­tus Ecclesiae Graecae à Chri­stoph Angel [...]. cap. 23. the Holy Things, draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary, where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is to say, Bread and Wine mixed, saying, this Servant of God receives, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the Remission of his Sins, Amen.

WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at Confession Cath. & A­post. in Orient. Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum. Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alex­andria. There is a whole Chapter in this Confession, the Title whereof is, [...], of the Lord's Supper. In which having established the use of leavened Bread, the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ, and one another, he adds. That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ, and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood, but the manner, say's he, of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us. For the Under­standing of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity. Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge, according to the Observation of Theophrastus, seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 'tis therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius, a remedy against Mortality, a Medicine that purifies us, and an Anti­dote which preserves us from Death, and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ.

HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ, and that it suffers a change, but we find not that the Substance of the one is re­ally changed into that of another, which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins. But on the contrary that the manner of this change is un­known to us whilst on Earth, which is to say, in a word he would have us in­deed to believe a change, (for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ) but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it, which what is it, but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation, seeing that it is it self the Determi­nation of this manner. It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome, do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change, that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 'tis possible, and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence, the Passage of Metropha­nus, which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom, which is to turn to his advantage, even those things that are most against him. But there is a great deal of difference between saying, there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ, altho we know not the manner there­of, and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance [Page 194] of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, altho we know not how this comes to pass. By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination. By the second we deter­mine what this change is, to wit, a change of one Substance into another. In the first, the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains, to wit, That the Bread is the Body of Christ; but in the second, this expressi­on is willingly laid aside, because it cannot be admitted but under the bene­fit of Figures and Distinctions. The first is the Language of the Greeks, the second that of the Latins.

BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus, it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon, the one, that when he establishes the necessi­ty of the Communion, in both kinds, he grounds it on the necessity of par­taking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ, and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John, If you eat not the Flesh of the Son Ibid. cap. 91. of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you. Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins, and Transub­stantiation it self; for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ, such as it is at present, that is to say, living and animate, those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body, and it cannot be said, there is any necessity of receiving the Cup, by this reason that we must partake of the Blood, without falling into a manifest contradiction, which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind.

THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus, is, that this Author discoursing, towards the end of his Chapter, of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick, say's, That they believe, according to the Doctrine of the first Ibid. Oecumenical Council, that the Mystery being reserved, remains still a Holy Mystery, and never loses the vertue it once received. For as Wool, say's he, being once dyed, keeps its colour; so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible, and as the remains which are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last, altho kept several years, so it cannot be but that the re­mains of this Holy Mystery, are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation, and whether he himself would call that which is re­served of the Sacrament, the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ, and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed. Whether he would say, that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries, and is indelible. For 'tis certain this gives us the Idea of Bread, which, so remaining, yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holi­ness, which resides in it as in its Subject, and makes it to be the Body of Christ, but no wise transubstantiated Bread. If we were to understand by the vertue, not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread, but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ, it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action, or Conversion, remains, that is to say, that 'tis ever the Substance of the Body of Christ. But it could not be said, as Metrophanus does, that the Action it self, that is to say, the Sanctification, always remain'd, because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action, which ceases to be, assoon as the Conversion is made. Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives, seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance. In fine, if Metrophanus means no more but that the My­stery [Page 195] remains still what it has been made, to wit, the Body of Christ, in Sub­stance, there can be no reason given, why, being able without doubt to ex­plain himself easily, and clearly, he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms, which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind, and need a Com­mentary and Distinctions, than to use clear and natural expressions; for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible, that this indelible San­ctification which the Bread receives, and is like to the dye which Wool takes, signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour?

I will finish this Chapter with another Proof, taken from the Form of Ab­juration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman. One of the Articles they are made to confess is this, That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity, are really, tru­ly, Apud Posse­vin Bibl. se­lect. lib. 6. and substantially, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body, and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood, which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation. The Greek runs thus, [...].

HERE's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion, [...], and Transubstantiation [...], for thus do the Greeks speak when they be­come Latins, and 'tis thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine. But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion, if they held the same Language before? Is it usual, when Proselytes are re­ceived to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake, and that which they embrace? Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them, and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome? For 'tis to be ob­serv'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque, which the Greeks do not receive. Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council, which the Greeks reject, and in fine the Articles de­termin'd in the Council of Trent, and in respect of this last part, 'tis the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome.

IT will be perhaps replied, that amongst these Articles there are two, to wit, that of the Invocation of Saints, and worshipping of Images, which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess, seeing they practised them already in their Religion, whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation, altho found expressed in this Form of Confession, for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this, as of the other two Articles. But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud, I will tell him 'tis of no weight. For as to the Invocation, the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome, which they do not acknowledge. When I enter into a Church of the Latins, say's Gregory the Confessor Hist. Conc. Fl [...]. sect. 4. cap. 31, Relig. Ruthen, art. 6. in the History of Syropulus, I adore not the Image of any Saint, because I know not any one of them that I see. They blaspheme, say's Sacranus (speak­ing of the Russians) against the Churches Saints, who lived in the Communi­on, and Obedience of the Roman Church. In the Invocation of Saints, say's the Error Mos. ex Scarga art. [...] Jesuit Scarga, they are guilty of several absurdities. This Article then was not [Page 196] needless, but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary. And as to that of Images, we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins, and therefore call their Worship in this re­spect Idolatry.

THE Greeks, say's William Postel, call the Western People that are subject De Repub. Turcor. pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bé­nard. lib. cap. 24. to the Church of Rome, grand Idolaters, because we have Statues erected. They have no other Images in their Churches, say's the Sieur Benard, than the Cruci­fix, the Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist, and Saint George which are Painted in Tables. They teach, say's the Jesuit Richard; that carved Images are Idols, and that 'tis unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours. That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches. And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing, viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls, their reason being, that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law; which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms, telling us, They suffer no carved Images in their Churches, only Table-Pieces.

IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Ar­ticle of Images. But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation. There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes, unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left, and therefore they must change their Faith as well as their Communion. In effect the Terms of the Greeks, are for the most part of 'em general, and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes, to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conver­sion, yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute, they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of Possevin Bib­liot. select. lib. 1. this Conversion, seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent. This is so true, that when they send into the East, those that have been educated in their Semina­ries, they make 'em sign this same Formulary, to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine. It is no longer [...], nor [...], nor [...], Change, Mutation, Conversion, there is not e­nough in this to make a good Catholick, it is [...], a Change of Substance, Transubstantiation. Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks. But that he may avoid this trouble hence for­ward, let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled.


The Two and Twentieth Proof, taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus, to some Questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck. The Three and Twentieth, is, another Answer in Ma­nuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus, and Hieroteus, Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia. The Four and Twentieth, is, the Testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church. The Five and Twentieth, is the Testimony of Zacharias Gerganus.

WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth against the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud, I hear, that several pious, and learned men, who cannot indure the World should be thus imposed on, do interess themselves in this Dispute, and having read this Famous Book I examine, they have wonder'd its Author should with such confidence affirm, that the Greeks believe the Transubstan­tiation of the Latins. Some of 'em have sent me some Manuscripts, which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Question. I will produce them then here, naming the Persons from whom I receiv'd them, to the end if any doubt arise, they may address themselves to them, from whom I had them for their satisfaction.

MONSIEUR Spanheim, a Reverend Minister, and Divinity Profes­sor, in the University of Heydelberg, sent me an extract of a Manuscript he has by him, containing Seven and Twenty Answers, made by the same Me­trophanus Critopulus, whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter, to so ma­ny Questions that were put to him by Monsieur Oosterwieck, who was then in the East, and was so curious as to inform himself, not concerning the par­ticular sence of Metrophanus touching these Articles, but of the whole Greek Church, in which he then held a very considerable rank, being Patriarch of Alexandria. One of these Questions was thus expressed in Greek, [...], I desire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching these Articles of the Christian Faith. The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title, [...]. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass, to wit, whether Christ be corporally present in the Sacra­ment. The Answer is this; We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice that is spiritual and commemorative; spiritual as having nothing of carnal in it, according to that of our Saviour, the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life. Commemorative, as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Cross, according to that other expression of our Saviour, do this in re­membrance of me. Which is what is taught by Saint Chrysostom, and the whole Church, saying, this is done in remembrance of what was done then, do this say's our Saviour in remembrance of me. We offer not any other Sacrifice, as did heretofore the High Priest, under the Old Testament; but we offer every day the same, or to speak better we commemorate this Sacrifice. But we never believed Christ was bodily present in the Mystery. Had the Greek Church believed Transub­stantiation, it was here a fit place to declare it, and to reply yes, we do believe [Page 198] that Jesus Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, inasmuch as that the proper Substance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread, or some such like equivalent thing. It will be to no purpose to alledge that Metrophanus means Christ is not corporally in it, that is to say, after the man­ner of visible and sensible Bodies with all their Dimensions; for this would be to make him return a captious Answer, and such a one as is unbecoming an honest man, seeing he well saw this was not the Question askt him, and that the Term of corporally in the Question propounded, respected the proper Substance of his Body. So that the force of this Testimony cannot be eva­ded. This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642.

THE said Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Answer of Meletius Metropo­litan of Ephesus made some twenty years since to the Divines at Leyden; touch­ing some Questions they proposed to him. They askt him amongst other things, [...]. Whether we may pray to Angels, or the Virgin Mary, and religiously worship them; and whether we must believe the Bread to be tran­substantiated in the Sacrament. Observe here what he answers, [...]. I declare, say's he, there are none of these things to be believed, for I may not believe the Doctrines of men, before those of Christ and his Apostles. The Superscr [...]tion is, [...]. Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus, in these words, [...]. And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania, am of the same mind in all things here above contained with the most holy and prudent Metropolitain of Ephesus, and all Asia, according to what he has decla­red.

DR. Benjamin Woodroff, an Eminent Divine in the Church of England, and Chaplain to the Duke of York, has favour'd me with an Extract, whose Original he has by him, and which was given him by its Author, being then at Oxford. It is a Declaration of the sence of the Greek Church, drawn up by a Greek Doctour, named Jeremias. Observe here its Contents. The dif­ferent use of the Mystery of the Eucharist having produced different Senti­ments, some celebrating it with unleavened Bread, others with that which is lea­vened and kneaded, some believing it to be only a Sign, others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word. Those that believe the change are the Western People, which administer this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and all the rest hold the Sign except the Eastern People; For the Eastern Church differs from both these, and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie, full of pi­ety, and free from contradiction. She affirms then that the Bishop, or Priest, in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ, making the Propitiation for the sins of the People, and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name, and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour, the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine, and changes them, not into the sensible, but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ. And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ, if they understand hereby a super­natural change after a spiritual manner, those that do thus speak, concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church. But seeing they will have this to be sensibly [Page 199] effected, our Church does therein disagree with them, altho they have recourse to another way of speaking, in telling us of Accidents and Species, and such like things, which none of the Ancients ever thought of, much less mention'd. For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Con­tentions, which tend to the ruine of Souls, not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical, and divide the Church, but which, in disturbing its Peace, e­clipse its Glory. The Superscription is, [...], Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church.

ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author, yet does it confirm, and illustrate several matters. First, that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome, but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the La­tins and Protestants. Secondly, That although the Greeks do use the Term [...], change, yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another, which the Latins have invented, but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine. Thirdly, That when 'tis said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ, this must be understood in a sp [...]ri­tual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church. Fourthly, That those of the Church of Rome understanding it (as they do) in a sensible manner, the Greeks reject them and their Communion. Fifthly, To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly, in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visi­ble and palpable in its natural form, in the Sacrament, he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions, namely, of Accidents and Species; meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's pro­per Substance is in this Mystery, although covered with the Species and Ac­cidents of Bread. And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected, and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention. If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it, in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof.

MATTHEW Caryophilus, titular Archbishop of Iconia, a Latinised Greek, and almost of the same stamp and temper, as Arcudius and Leo Alla­tius, has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Cate­chism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus; Alla­tius say's he was a Bishop. But be he what he will, Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner, terming his Propositions Blasphemies, and calling him Serpent, Basilisk, Wolf, the Devil's Instrument, worse than the Devil him­self, a Lutheran. But 'tis a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries, when their Doctrines agree not with theirs. They thus begin, continue, and end their Refutations. It cannot then be taken ill, if laying aside their Injuries, I only affirm, that Caryophilus very imperti­nently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran; for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites, and what he say's in his Preface, that he was a true Greek, and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church; and moreover a real lover of his Country. He opposes (amongst other things) the addition of the filioque, in the Symbol, and attacks the Azuma of the La­tins. He affirms there is but one Holy Church, which is the Catholick, A­postolical, and Eastern; which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran; and 'tis plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen, and hinder us from any ad­vantage by his Testimony.

SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus, being not sufficient to hin­der us from considering this Author's Testimony, notwithstanding his pre­tended Lutheranism. I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositi­ons, which he himself has taken out of his Catechism. The LXI is this. R [...]futatio pfeud [...]-Christi­anae Catechesis editae à Zacha­ria Gergano Graeco Aucto­re Matthae [...] Caryophil. Romae 1631. Blasph. 61. The Holy Communion consists of two Substances, the one visible, and th'other invi­sible, the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine, the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ, This is my Body, this is my Blood. The Question in this Dis­pute being only, Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation, it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony, that the visible Sub­stance of Bread and Wine remain, so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament. Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough; for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances, it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification; but in respect of the Words of Christ, which in effect are not Substances, it is likewise appa­rent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence, seeing by it is meant no more, but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacra­ment is contain'd in these words, This is my Body, because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, of which they are the Mystery. Which is what he under­stands by this invisible Substance, that is to say, the force and efficacy of the Sacrament; for had not our Saviour said of the Bread, This is my Body, it would be no more than Bread, proper to nourish our Bodies, whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance, which nourishes our Souls.

THE LXV. Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion; Ibid. Blas. phem. 65. for it contains these words, That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind, receive an imperfect Communion, which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation; which is the Concomitan­cy. And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition, as if he would say only, that this Communion is imperfect in respect of the In­stitution of Christ, who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds, and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self; which we fully receive under one, he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition. This is an Ibid. Blas­phem. 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist, say's he, and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author, that where the Body of Christ is, there is likewise his Blood, and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds. So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown, and con­sequently Transubstantiation, inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the o­ther. This Author lived about the Year 1630.


The Twenty Sixth Proof, taken from the Confession of Faith of Cy­rillus Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, and what followed thereupon.

HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself, (to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus) in saying this Patri­arch studied John Calvin, and was a great admirer of his Do­ctrine. That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Arti­cles of the Belief of the Greeks; that 'twas condemned by two Councils held since his death, and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church (touching the Eucharist) should be determined by his opinion; had he I say only thus expressed himself, we should not have complained against him, but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars. But in­stead of containing himself within these bounds, he has faln foul on the Per­son Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382,, 83. of Cyrillus himself, whom he treats as a hireling, charging him with re­ceiving five hundred Crowns in Germany, for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks, as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper, who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius, to the pur­chasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another, that was elected by common consent, as an insatiable ambitious. Wretch, who not con­tent with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, would have that of Constantinople; and which is yet worse, as a Villain and Murtherer, who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned, got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him, who assisted him in this detestable Action. Tho I resolved not to be con­cerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion, which cannot but be displeasing to good Peo­ple of either Communion, yet I may tell him, that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead, he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true, but having no better an Author than Allati­us for this, he cannot take it ill, if I affirm, his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery.

HE confesses, he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius, who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself, and being a Greek, ought sooner to be be­lieved than Dutch or Switzers Ministers, and especially than Hottinger, who is one of the most passionate Ministers, and least sincere Writers he ever read. Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers, and especially Hottinger be what he pleases, what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations, and the sincerity of Allatius? When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus, which they cannot prove; then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony, and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit. If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers, he may say he is sooner to be believed than they, and see what answer we will make him; but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes, and to authorize his Impostures, we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author, and that Allatius is more worthy of credit, this is mere mockery; For to decide the Question, whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous, Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned, we are only to inquire whether Allatius [Page 202] cites any Witnesses, or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit. Allatius, say's Mr. Arnaud, has taken special care to inform himself. He must tell us then what his Informations contain, and not affirm such important matters, without good Grounds. He was a Greek by Nation, very true, but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith; a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper, a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome, a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries, and especially against Cyrillus, and those called Schismatical Greeks, a man full of words but little sence. His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him. His Zeal for the Inte­rest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book, De per­petua consensione, for observe here how he expresses himself, in the Pope's Fa­vour: The Roman Prelate, say's he, is independent, he judges all the World, and Allat. de Per­pet. Cons. lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none, we must obey him altho he governs unjustly, he gives Laws, but receives none, and changes them when he pleases, he makes Magistrates, deter­mins Points of Faith, and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church. If he would err, he cannot; for he cannot be deceived himself, nei­ther can he deceive others, and when an Angel should affirm the contrary, being guarded, as he is with the Authority of Christ, he cannot change. The sharpness, wherewith he treats those against whom he writes, such as Chytreus, Creygton, the Archbishop of Corfou, and some others, appears by the bare reading of his Writings; every period honouring them with these kind of Titles, Sots, Vide Allat. de Perpet. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 15, 16, 17, 18. &c. advers. Ch [...]eygt. pas­sim. Lyers, Blockheads, Hellish, and impudent Persons, and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit. To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials, he takes for his Principle to ac­knowledge none for the true Church, but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See, and in respect of the other Greeks, whom he calls Hereticks, and Schismaticks, he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em, when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword; That Hereticks must be exter­minated Allat. de Per­pet. Cons. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished, and if obstinate, put to death and burnt, these are his Ex­pressions; and as to what concerns Cyrillus, we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice. Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith.

CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living, and after his death; but, he has had likewise Defenders of his Innocency, and Admirers of his Vir­tues. It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted, and those that are ac­quainted with the Eastern Affairs, must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests, than the Patriar­chate of Constantinople. Besides the Traverses, which Envy, and particu­lar Interests stirred up against Cyrillus, he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him, who looked upon him as an Obstacle that with­stood their old Design, to bring over that Church to Roman See. He Ibid. was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings, as Allatius himself acknow­ledges, but they found him unmovable; and this is the real cause of their after hatred.

IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion, and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side. Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks, and laboured with all his power to reform them, according to the directions of his Con­science [Page 203] and Authority of his Charge. But to make him pass under pretence of this, for a half Calvinist, that was false to his own Principles, this is very disingenuously done. It is true he relates himself, that in a conference he held with Fuxius, a Transylvanian Doctour, touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic [...] dissert. 8. Saints, He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule, and following the Fancies and Opinions of men, the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ, and on Hay or Stubble.

BUT besides that, Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular; sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius, and that we must not suppose without good Proof, this hap'ned be­fore his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria; besides this, I say, it cannot be hence concluded, he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocati­on of Saints, nor that he respected it as an Impiety. Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition, but from himself, and not from Cyrillus; so that it is not fairly done, to confound one man's Opinion with another. Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference, that this Invocation, as­ter the manner some teach and practise it, is a meer Fancy and humane In­vention; that 'tis this Word, Hay, and Stubble, Saint Paul speaks of, and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main. Metrophanus Crito­pulus Confess. Ec [...] Orient. cap. 17. whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocati­on directed to Saints, as Mediatours, and that which respects them as Em­bassadours, whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in be­half of their Brethren. He rejects the first, upon this Reason, that there is but one only Mediatour, who is Christ Jesus; but he receives the second; and Cyrillus himself, in the eighth Article of his Confession, insinuates this distinction, saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour. It concerns me not now to examine, whether the distincti­on be good, or not, it is sufficient to say, that a man which holds it, may con­demn the Invocation of Saints in one respect, and retain it in another, and remain in the Greek Church which practises it, without acting against his Conscience, and being a damnable Hypocrite, as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus.

WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession, in which, and some Answers which accompany it, he clearly declared his Belief. It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine; as for Cyril Conf. fi [...] dei, art. 1. & art. 16. instance, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, and that Bap­tism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ, which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist. We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell, nor the Hierarchical Order, nor regulated Fasts, Lents, Arbitrary use of Confession, Religious Orders, Monastick Vows, Celebration of Feasts, nor the use of the Greek Liturgy, nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church, altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them. He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ, and the Saints, it's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria, or any Religious Worship, [...] Resp. ad In [...] terr. 4. [...], and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular; he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestinati­on, and Justification, according to the Word of God, more clearly than the Eastern People knew it. But it must not therefore be concluded, he was a Person that betrayed his Trust, in performing the Functions of the Patriar­chate; nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church, nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud, That Piety could not subsist with so damna­ble Hypocrisie.

OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men. Judge not, say's our Lord, that ye be not judged, for Matt. 7. with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again; And the Apostle cries out to us, Who Rom. 14. art thou that judgest another man's servant? Certainly a man cannot be guil­ty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience, when having never seen nor heard them, it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them, such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus. For besides that, a man may be easily mista­ken, in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in consci­ence to the doing of this or th'other thing, if a man proceeds not to a parti­cular consideration of Circumstances, besides this I say, it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable, has not so appeared to the Person concerned, which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of act­ing against his Conscience. Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable, un­less he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent, or unprofita­ble, but absolutely evil, and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so. Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will, he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed, we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions, but the word of God, that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour, and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images. He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins, and Superstitions amongst the Greeks, and detested both. He may shew that Cyrillus has approved, con­formably to his Confession, divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin, but he cannot prove Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Senti­ments, nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks, and forsake the Patriarchal Functions. His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 'twas his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church, in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned, and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge, and of which he was to render an Account. All which he did to the last breath. He held not the truth in unrighteousness, nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience. He published his Confession, and put it in the hands of all the Greeks, and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs, so that 'twas only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud, That he was a damnable Hypocrite, and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest.

'TIS the same Passion caus'd him to say, That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews, that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion. That the Spirit which animates us, is rather a Spirit of Faction, and a Cabal a­gainst the Catholick Church, than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety. God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it. Our Interests are in his hands, and as we pray him to de­fend them, so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us. We appear extream odious in his sight, but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments, he will judge wholly other­wise. In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles, and of our Saviour himself, who were accused, say's Saint Chrysostom, [Page 205] to be seditious Persons and Innovators, that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom. Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace. We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment, without forgetting our Duty, is, to bless them that curse us, and pray for them that despitefully use us.

ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie (were there occasion) the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus, with­out my interposing. And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience, so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do; so that 'tis very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars. They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch, than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there, their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity, when they found him at Constantinople. But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services, Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one ano­ther, notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion. They helpt him to Books, and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men. If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce, and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity, Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it, who need be troubled thereat? Strangers at Con­stantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities. I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Pa­triarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Pro­testants believe to be of great Importance, and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome. Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious, and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power, and what is there unlawful in all this? Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Crea­tures, or govern himself according to their Directions? Had they said, Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud, that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine. Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth? Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective? Had they said, they had in fine obliged him. But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession, but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge? Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm, seeing 'tis the real truth. As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr (as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm) he knows we have no such power. 'Tis certain (as I already mentio­ned) his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks, as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ, as I shall make appear hereafter, but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs.

SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men, perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs, on the same Maxims, on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged, and the Ambassadors of England and Holland. For not to go farther, how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome (which were wholly their Creatures, sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See) should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops, and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs; that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thurs­day by the Patriarch of Jerusalem; where their Sacrifice is abhorred, and [Page 206] this Sentence read every Year in their Churches, confounded be all they that In Triod. offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice, wherein Purgatory is rejected, and 'tis held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held, carved Images condemned, and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins. How in Conscience can these said Scholars be ad­vanced to Patriarchates, elected, and consecrated by Schismatical Metropoli­tains, and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperati­on from the Church of Rome, and live in Communion with that of Jerusa­lem, in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated? What I say, is grounded on matter of Fact, which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny, for should he do it, he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu; who expresly tells us, That it has been ever thought fitting, to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran. Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders, when in Greece, from the hands of Schismatical Bishops, it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation; to the end the Patriarchs may not scruple to promote them to Bishopricks; and likewise, that, they being Bishops, may provide the Churches in their Diocesses with Catholick Curats. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases, how they could in conscience advance Cyrillus of Béroë, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being a Disciple of the Jesuits, whom Allatius calls, vir probus & Catholicus, Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11. and who after his death was like to be canoniz'd, say's Allatius. The same Question may be put to him touching others, namely, Timotheus, Anthimus, Gregory, Athenasius, Patelar, who being all of 'em Latins in their hearts, yet for all that exercised the Patriarchal Functions in a Schismatical Church, wherein, as I said, the Pope and all the Latins are every year excommunica­ted. Moreover this Excommunication is not to be called in Question, for­asmuch as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it. The Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, say's he, excommunicates once a year on Holy Thursday, all other Lib. 2. cap. 3. Sects, not excepting the Roman Church.

HAVING satisfi'd the unjust Accusations of Mr. Arnaud against Cy­rillus it now remains to see what advantage may accrue to us by this Patri­arch's Confession, and whether the rejection he makes in express Terms of Transubstantiation, may be esteemed as that of the Body of the whole Greek Church. Mr. Arnaud tells us three things, on the discussion of which de­pends Lib. 3. cap. 6, & 7. the Solution of this Question. The first, is, that, the Greeks continu­ally endeavoured to deliver themselves from the Tyranny of Cyrillus, and that in effect he was four or five times expelled the Church. The second, that this Confession is wholly contrary in its principal Articles to the Do­ctrine of the Greeks. And the third, that it has been condemned by two Councils held by Cyrillus his Successours. Which is what we are now to examine.

AS to the first of these particulars, I confess this Patriarch has endured several cruel Traverses during his life, which never ended till they had pro­cured his death, but I deny 'twas his Church occasioned him all these evils; It was the Latine Party and false Greeks which followed him with incessant Persecutions. How dexterous soever Allatius has been in disguising the Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11. Truth, yet could he not refrain here from discovering it: He tells us then, that the Greeks whom he calls pii homines, zealous and pious People, not being able to defend their Faith themselves, nor carry on the necessary expences for this, addressed themselves to other Christians, and especially to the Roman Prelate, by whose means they avoid the like Tempests, and secure their Church. He adds, [Page 207] there were Persons deputed towards Cyrillus, with an express charge, to ob­lige Ibid. him either by Promises, or Threatnings, to send to Rome his Confession of Faith, in which he was to admit the Council of Florence, and condemn the Errors of the Calvinists, and in so doing he might assure himself of the assistance and favour of the Apostolical See. That Cyrillus answered, he liked well their offers, and was ready to accept their conditions, provided he might have money and be upheld in his Patriarchate. But that at length find­ing he kept a correspondence both with Calvinists and Catholicks too, these last, be­ing troubled thereat, proceeded to threatnings, saying, they would never suffer that Chair to be defiled with the Blasphemies of the Calvinists. What he say's touch­ing this Deputation is true, for the Congregation, de fide propoganda, sent two Jesuits to Constantinople with one, named Canachio Rossi, charged with Instru­ctions to gain Cyrillus by Promises or Threatnings, being required only to receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council. But what he adds concern­ing Cyrillus his Answer, is a meer Calumny, for Cyrillus remained immove­able, notwithstanding all these Sollicitations. Neither, have we any reason to believe any thing upon Allatius's bare word. Mr. Arnaud may judge as he pleases, yet cannot he deny but Cyrillus his Enemies, were the Latins and La­tinised Greeks, and that the Tempests and Storms he suffered, and which at length overwhelmed him, came from that side, seeing, that Allatius himself (his own Witness and great Author) affirms it. Cyrillus was ever beloved and honoured by his own true Church, as appears from the care and charge she was at to support him, and to say as Mr. Arnaud does, that the Dutch lent him money upon use, and that he extorted it afterwards from the Churches, which were made to obey him by the Turks, is a Story for which he brings no proof. Neither is there any likelihood particular Persons, who put their money out to use, should choose a man in his Circumstances, that is to say, one that was bereaved of his Dignities, and stript of all he had, were he (as it is supposed) th [...] Object of his Peoples hatred. The Dutch Merc [...]nts at Con­stantinople are not wont to part with their money upon such Security. Hottin­ger, Hottinger. in Append Dis­sert. 8. tells us, (from the Testimony of the deceased Mr. Leger, Minister of Ge­neva, who was at Constantinople, and had a particular Knowledge of this Hi­story) That one Isaac, Metropolitain of Chalcedon, a Disciple of the Jesuits, having bought of the Turks Cyrillus his Seat, and the report of it being spread throughout Constantinople, there was such an Universal Lamentation amongst all the Greeks, that it came to the Grand Senior's Ears, who broke off this In­trigue, and would not suffer 'em to obey any longer this Usurper. He like­wise Which Letter may be seen in its Original. produces a Letter from Cyrillus his Proto-Syncellus, that is to say, from one of the Chief Officers in his Chamber, named, Nathanael Conopius, da­ted from Constantinople the Fourth of July, 1638, Immediately after the death of Cyrillus. Wherein he takes particular notice that the Executioners which strangled him, having parted his Garments among them, and after­wards carried them into one of the Markets of Constantinople to sell them, as being the Clothes of the late Patriarch, the People were universally seized with Grief, and uttered a thousand imprecations against Cyrillus of Berea, calling him Villain, and Murtherer, who had dishonoured God's Church, and not only usurped the Throne of the Holy and Lawful Patriarch, but likewise put him to death. He adds that some of 'em, entred the House of the Usurper, call­ing him Pilate, and bidding him give them the Body that they might bury it; and how they afterwards went to the Caimacans, and offered him a great deal of money to obtain of him the Body of their true Patriarch, but the wicked Usurper who caused him to be put to death, understanding it, sent to the Caimaican to tell him, that, if he gave these People Cyrillus his Body, [Page 208] the City would certainly be in an uproar, which hindered him from granting them their request. In fine, he says, this Usurper sent Slaves to take his Body, and cast it into the Sea, but that some Christians having taken it thence, carried it into a Monastery (called St. Andrews) where they privately buried it.

MR. Arnaud, will not fail to fay, that Hottinger is a Minister, and one of the most passionate, and least sincere Writers, he ever read. But why must we rather believe Allatius, than Hottinger? The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man, who is ever upon disguishing things, where­as this last on the contrary (let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases) has all the Characters of a faithful Writer, relating things according to the best of his Knowledge. The former of these is I confess more polite, but th'other has more simplicity. Allatius relates from his own head, what he pleases, Hot­tinger alledges his Witnesses, and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Co­nopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me, invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them, if it were moreover true, that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick, and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him. It was on the contrary the Latins and their Dis­ciples who so strenuously endeavoured, to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises, nor Threatnings, and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union. It was in reference to them, that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession, We plainly foresee, this short Confession, will be as a mark of contradiction to them, who are pleased to calumniate and per­secute us. His Presentiment was not vain.

AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection. As to the se­cond, which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession, are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks. I confess, there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books, as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles, for instance, which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ, of Free Will and Divine Grace, but 'tis cer­tain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church, and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg. The Fifteenth Article, acknowledges but two Sacraments, and Jeremias, say's Mr. Arnaud, openly professes to hold seven. But I say the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Con­fes. cap. 9. Greeks have no rule in this matter, Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution, to wit, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance, and as to the other four he affirms, They are called Mysteries improperly [...]. Jere­mias acknowledges seven, 'tis true, but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution, namely, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper; and as to the five others, he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the num­ber of Sacraments. Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus (who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour, and not of hu­mane Ceremonies, which are improperly called Mysteries, because they have something that is mysterious in them, as speaks Metrophanus) to have con­tradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks? Why (seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus) does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias? Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he, for he acknowledges, That Jeremias does Arcud. lib. 2. cap. 2. not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition; but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest, Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted, contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer.

AS to the Eighteenth Article, in which Cyrillus asserts, That the Souls of the deceased, are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery. Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388. say's, he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks, touching the State of Souls after death. Hornbeck, and Chytreus, say's he, And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks, affirm, they admit besides Paradise, and Hell, a certain dark, and doleful place, in which the Souls are purged after this life. I answer, the Greeks are not determinately positive, touching the State of the Soul after death. As to the Souls of the Faithful, there are some, who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision, till after the last Judgment, and in the mean time, are in pleasant and delightful places, places, exempt from all kind of sorrows, or else in dark and dismal shades, where they con­tinually ruminate, on the sins they have committed, and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons, namely, the Unfaithful or Wicked, the Faithful, that dye in a State of Repentance, and perfect Holyness, and o­thers, who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety, yet have committed several sins, for which they have not so truely repented, as they ought. Hell is designed for the first of these. The second, say they, go into places of rest and refreshment, and the last, into those doleful places, where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination.

BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church, for there are not a few, that hold there are only two conditions of men after death, namely, that of the virtuous, and wicked, and two places, to wit, Heaven and Hell. Syropulus, relates in his History of the Council of Florence, that, the Greeks being urged by the Latins, to express themselves Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16. plainly touching the State of departed Souls; Bessarion declared, That the Souls of the Saints, receive the Bliss prepared for them, and those of sinners, their punishments, and that it only remains, that each of these reassume their Bodies, af­ter which, the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies, and that sinners likewise with their Bodies, &c. shall suffer everlasting punishments. We see here but two States after death. We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks, which likewise asserts but two places. We must know, say's it, that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places, and Allat. de lib. Eccl. disp. 2. those of sinners in like manner separate from them. Those rejoyce upon the ac­count of the hope of Bliss, These lament in expectation of their torments. There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius, which asserts, That, there are two Ibid. places, designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls, Heaven for the Saints, and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners. That the Saints are at liberty, that they have all the World, and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode. That those who are condemned to Hell, will not come out from their abode, till the day of Judgment, and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation. For, adds he, the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness, nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments, before the last Judgement. But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons, under the custody of cruel Devils. Sigismond, speaking of the Moscovits say's, They believe not there is any Purgatory, but Sigism. Com. ver. Moscov. hold, that every one after death goes to the place he deserves, good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels, and the wicked into dismal and dark shades, a­mongst terrible Devils, where they expect the last Judgment; that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in, and by the presence of Angels which accompany them, and so the others on the contra­ry. Goar testifies that Ligaridius (a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios) ex­pounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic. Exeq. the meaning of those frequent Allelujas, sung at the Funeral of [Page 210] the deceased, say's, They are sung as sign of joy, that those who remain alive, may rejoyce, in that the defunct, has happily left this miserable life, and is now in pos­session of Everlasting Bliss.

IT appears then by this diversity, that there is nothing so regulated, on this Subject, amongst the Greeks, but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us, without contradicting the general Belief of his Church. Besides, his Terms are not so strict, but that they may be well accommodated, with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls En­joy not the Beatifical Vision, or a perfect Felicity, till the last Judgment, and that hold, there are three States of deceased Persons, for he say's only, That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery, and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies, are either in Heaven, or Hell, which will bear this sence, that Judg­ment is already passed upon them, and that God has already shown them their condition, which hinders not, but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect, and the felicity of the others not yet compleated. And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards, That every one is judged, according to the condition he is in at the hour of death, which seems to intimate, that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment, and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment. There are two things, most certain in reference to the Greeks, the one, that they pray for the dead, and th'other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church. Now Cyrillus, touches not on the first