CHAP. I.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 may not be conſumed after Death, neither in this World nor in that which is to come, but that he may be ſwelled like a Drum. They verily believe this is perfectly accompliſhed: And Leo Allatius tells us ſeveral Stories of thoſe Phantaſms which they call Burcolaques, which are ſaith he, Excommunicated Perſons, who being deceaſed torment the living, and of whom the Greeks are as much afraid, as our Children, when we tell them of Fryar Bourru's Ghoſt. Nay ſo greatly are they Prepoſſeſſed with falſe Opinions, as to imagine an Excommunication pronounced by a Chriſtian that afterwards turns Turk, produces the ſame Effect, that is to ſay, keeps the Body from Conſuming, and cauſes it to grow hard and ſwell, till ſuch time as this Excommunication be taken off by him who pronounced it, altho never ſo great an Infidel. Which is confirmed by Leo Allatius concerning the Patriarch Raphael, who to diſſolve Chriſtoph. Angel. C. 42. the Body of an excommunicated Perſon, was forced to apply himſelf to a Renegado for his Abſolution.

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

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

CHAP. II.

That the temporal State of the Eaſtern People ſince the eleventh Century, and the Efforts the Latins have • 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: 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, 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 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 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 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.

CHAP. III.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

CHAP. IV.

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 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 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, 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, 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 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, 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 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.

CHAP. V.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

CHAP. I.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has not been found all this while in uſe amongſt their Authors, and ſo much the more becauſe we find that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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.

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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recipiunt quas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Allat perp. conſ. lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . '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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tranſmutatur and not Tranſubſtantiatur, he will anſwer that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inſtead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they would gladly have done it, but not being able to effect it, they have made what advantage they could of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 Latin alter the Greek. Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek? For thus was it ſet down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

CHAP. IV.

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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) 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 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.

CHAP. V.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Sanctifie, which the Greeks commonly make uſe of to expreſs the Act of Conſecration, and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Sanctifications, by which they expreſs their Myſteries, as appears by the Liturgies, and thoſe of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſay's he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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.

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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.

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.

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. —Aurae 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 conſecrated Bread which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now a man muſt be very Cap. 37. little converſant amongſt Greek Authors not to know, that when the queſtion is concerning the Symbols, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 concerning the Peoples proſtrating themſelves on the ground, as ſoon as they hear the Prieſt ſay, Sancta Sanctis is not true, for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis, at the ſame time as the Prieſt and Deacon adore, immediately after this Prayer, Look upon us O Lord Jeſus Chriſt our God, &c. But granting it were ſo that the People proſtrated themſelves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was ſaid, it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it ſelf in the Sacrament. They would worſhip God, as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd, O God be propitious, &c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer, which I likewiſe now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis, Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling. They proſtrate themſelves before the Images of the Saints, before the Book of the Goſpels, before the Bread when as yet unconſecrated, and yet no Body concludes hence, they adore theſe things with an abſolute Adoration. Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Euchariſt with an Adoration terminating it ſelf in it?

BUT if Arcudius's Teſtimony be of no validity in reference to this laſt Article, wherefore muſt it be otherwiſe in reſpect of this other Article on which I ground my Concluſion? I anſwer, for two Reaſons, the one, for that being interreſſed as he is againſt us, it is not to be imagin'd he would ſpeak any thing in our favour, unleſs the thing were ſo well known and undeniably true, that he could not diſguiſe it; or paſs it over in ſilence; and th'other becauſe that in effect his Teſtimony in this reſpect, agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks, which expreſſes no kind of Adoration directed to the Euchariſt immediately after its Conſecration. And there being no mention likewiſe of any ſuch thing afterwards to the end of the Office, the Concluſion I draw hence is undeniable. Had the Greeks the ſame Sentiments as the Latins, and made profeſſion of rendring the ſame Divine honours to the Subſtance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Perſon of the Son of God, what time could they chooſe better for the acquitting themſelves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be preſent on the Altar? When a Prince comes into a place, People are not wont to delay the ſhewing him the reſpect due to him, every one ſtands immediately uncovered in his Preſence, and thoſe Perſons that did otherwiſe would be eſteemed fooliſh and ſtupid. What likelyhood is there then, did the Greek Church believe, that immediately after the Conſecration, the Bread becomes the very Subſtance of the Body of our Lord, ſhe would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be ſo, by a Solemn Adoration? Mr. Arnaud muſt not tell us, that the Prieſt's mind is ſo taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice, that it is all this while fixed in Heaven. Theſe are Reaſonings invented, expreſly to excuſe a thing which cannot be alter'd, but in truth, it is ſo natural, to Perſons that believe Tranſubſtantiation to ſhew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes, that notwithſtanding all theſe fine Reaſons, thoſe who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine. So that this very conſideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any ſolemn kind of Reverence or Worſhip to the Sacrament after its Conſecration is alone ſufficient to make us conclude what we contend for.

MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reaſon to reſt ſatisfi'd with his firſt Proofs, has recourſe to his Baron of Spartaris and Payſius Ligaridius, that is to ſay, to two falſe Greeks, brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church; and won to its intereſt, as will appear hereafter. I only wonder he is not aſham'd to bring for witneſſes ſuch kind of People as theſe are.

AS to Oderborne the Lutheran (who diſcourſing of the Ruſſians, tells us, That the Prieſt leaving the Altar to ſhew the People the Euchariſt, the People kneel down, and the Prieſt ſay's in the Moſcovit's Language, Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt whom the Jews put to death altho innocent,) it is eaſie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Euchariſt, a Devotion which they practiſe before its Conſecration, when the Bread is carri'd, from the Protheſis to the great Altar. There can be rais'd no ſcruple concerning the truth of this, ſeeing we have the Teſtimony of all Authors who by unanimous conſent obſerve, that this Ceremony is performed before the Conſecration of the Symbols.

ALEXANDER. Gagnin, ſay's, That one of them carries the Bread Moſcovit. deſcript. cap. 2. which is prepared for the Sacrifice, and another the Cup full of Wine, that they iſſue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Prieſts that carry the Images of St. Peter, St. Nicholas, and Michael the Archangel, whilſt in the mean time the •• 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. 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 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 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. 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 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, 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.