The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. III.

The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation.

ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question, and needs not to be confirmed by others, yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Tran∣substantiation nor the real presence.

THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms, The * 1.1 Twenty second Error, says he, of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pro∣nounced on the Bread, and Wine, the Body of Jesus Christ is truly, and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine, but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure, saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood, but established them only as a re∣semblance and figure. And in another place Arguing against their Opinion, The Armenians, says he, have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass, to wit, and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They thus expound them, the true Body, that is to say, the true resemblance of the Body, but this exposition will not pass, because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ, as the Image of a Man is not a real Man. Man is the true Image and resemblance of God, but he is not true God by Nature; if then this be only the resemblance, and not the truth, or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say, it cannot be called the true Body. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony, ask e'm why, they can give you no other reason but this, That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken. 'Tis indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves. But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a

Religious, who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church, and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions, as a most trusty Servant, and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days, being Prior General also of his order, Inquisitor General of the faith, and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles, and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies, what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence, were he not well assured of it? What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error, and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment, and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks? It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22, that is to say, in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys, and especially Armenia * 1.2 whose King Ossinius, embraced the Roman Religion, receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People, and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins. It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians.

THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony be∣thought * 1.3 himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstan∣tiation. Despensus, & Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him, and 'tis likely he grounded himself on their testimony. But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up, and the Autho∣rity of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true. Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity. I will not dissemble, says he, that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence, Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error. Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words. We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes. It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable, and therefore has chose rather of his own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys. I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy, but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so, for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect, yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular. But to go on with our Proofs.

THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church, but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin. That he received them in the name of the Roman Church. That the Pope thereupon congratulated them, and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood

of Jesus Christ, and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated. He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha. We have receiv'd, says Pope John, great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace, and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds, which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches, and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church, in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha. And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies, especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments, which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar. For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace, yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine, which remain, the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood. Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice, because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death, and of the Blood and Water which gush∣ed out from his side. 'Tis evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles, because the Armenians held neither of them, and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed. For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion? Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside, as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the two Natures of our Saviour Christ, Purgatory, Confirmation, and se∣veral others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation, and the mixture of Water? The thing declares it self.

MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs, makes one of this. The Pope, says he, so little distrusted the Armenians believ∣ed not Transubstantiation, that altho he proposes it to them expresly, yet he * 1.4 does it only occasionally, and by way of principle, to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water. And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself, and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter; whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation, he would without doubt have set about proving it, and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice.

MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him, 'tis not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water. Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he, ipsos instruxit, says he, ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus, cum Christi corpore et sanguine commu∣taretur, et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset. I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion, a truth attested by an Histo∣rian that faithfully relates the matter, without the least regard to our dis∣pute. Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup? What Relation is there between these two things, it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice, nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine. These are two distinct points

which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual depen∣dence, and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less be∣seeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner. The Bread and Wine are Transubstan∣tiated, therefore you must put Water into the Chalice. Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate, and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion, (this would be Ridiculous) but a Doctrine, and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians, to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar, and thus Raynaldus understood it, who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud. As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imag∣ins, but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significa∣tions of this mixture, which required some Discourse, and which Raynaldus has well observed, whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter, Transubstantiation, the Mixture of Water, and the mystical significations. Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis & vini integris speciebus, cum Christi corpore & sanguine commutaretur, & vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset, acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit, that is to say, he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the mixture of Water, and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture.

MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians, not at Rome (as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake, of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me?) but at Avignon, where he kept his seat, and whence his Bull is dated. The 67 Ar∣ticle * 1.5 is exprest in these Terms, The Armenians do not say that after the words of Consecration, the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again. But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation, a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted, to wit, that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist, but that it is a representation, and a resemblance of them. They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament, he did not Tran∣substantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body, but only instituted a representa∣tion or a resemblance of his Body and Blood, and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar, the Body and Blood of our Lord, but the Host, the Sa∣crifice, or the Communion. One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words, this is my Body, then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead, but when he adds, by which Holy Spirit, &c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive; yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resem∣blance of it. The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass, by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence, that by the real Body of Jesus Christ, we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments, and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles, nor Greek or Latin Church, but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy.

MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimo∣ny

yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it, for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths, and to turn them to his own advantage. He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up. He adds, that if this Original has been known to the Ministers, yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony * 1.6 of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source.

BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement. For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right, it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void, and the Ministers had no right to alledge him, nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not. There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule, for besides that he say's nothing of it, he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians, whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen. But supposing it were so, all that can be concluded thence is, that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned, but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books. And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark.

BUT howsoever, what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's, which was not grounded on uncertain Reports, but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit, Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia, and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth?

TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is, we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject, to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia. * 1.7 We have long since, says he, been informed by several Persons of good credit, that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors, and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches, which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful. And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports, yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries. Yet before we gave full credit, we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information, both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys, and taking in Writing these their Depositions, and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors. He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia, and in his information 'tis expresly said, that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him, and gave * 1.8 them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians, that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia, but Armenians themselves, and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue, and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia's? I think here are as many formalities as can be desired, and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act.

YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein. He says, that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless, extravagant and Socinian Opinions. * 1.9 That therein Original Sin, the Immortality of the Soul, the Vision of God, the Existence of Hell, and almost all the points of Religion are denyed. That therein are also contrary Errors, so that 'tis plain this is not the Religion of a People, or Nation, but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations. I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions, and some that differ little from Socinianism, but this hinders not but they may be the Opi∣nions of a particular People. The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information, some that are held in both one and the other Armenia, others which are held only in one Armenia, and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons. And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves, in which the Par∣ticular Opinions are Described in these terms, quidam, or aliqui tenent, as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit & scripsit, quod in ge∣nerali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis, sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio. And in the CVIII Article, Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant, & sic moriuntur, ita & Homines; & sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt, nunquam resurgent, ita nec homines. The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words. In majori Armenia, In minori Armenia, or, Catholicon majoris Armeniae, Catholicon minoris Armeniae. The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms, Armeni dicunt, Armeni tenent. And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words. Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt, videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum & Sanguis, sed exemplar, & similitudo ejus; yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians, for the Article begins thus, Item quod Armeni, non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis & Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis & Vini in verum Corpus Christi & San∣guinem. And towards the end of the same Article there is, Quod etiam Ar∣meni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae, per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi, exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo, & exemplar Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehen∣dens eos dixit, quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta, &c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons, but to the whole Body of the Armenians, seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors, common to the Armenians; and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before, that they had lost all the Sacraments. Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases, he cannot hinder us from per∣ceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons; witnesses of the Fourteenth Century, that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century, that is to say, Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed, and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general, and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accu∣sed another Armenian Doctor named Narces, for saying when the Priest * 1.10 pronounces these Words, Hoc est Corpus meum, the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death, and when he adds, perquem, the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive. It is true, says he, the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ, or of the Figure.

But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change, sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ. If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure, much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ, which is no more Subject to Death, nor the Necessity of rising again. Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is, that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ, especially his Death, and Resurrection, according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks, from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary?

IN the Seventyeth Error, says he moreover, the same Armenians are * 1.11 charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body, and is converted therein as other aliments, which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius. But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread, which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ; so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner, as this Article makes the Armenians do, That the Body of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Bread which is the figure of it, Descends into our Bodies, and is changed into our Bodies. So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins, has no Ground. But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food, and the Opinion of Transubstantiation; for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies, that an incorruptible substance should be digested, and changed, that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits, should nourish us and become food to us? It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body, which in respect of its substance is real Bread.

NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark, as Mr. Arnaud do's, * 1.12 that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it, as appears by their Liturgies. For 'tis evident the sence of this Article is, not that abso∣lutely the Armenians rejected this expression, seeing it immediately after∣wards attributes it to them; but that it was not usual amongst them, espe∣cially since they saw the Latins abused it, and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host, Sacrifice and Communion.

IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary * 1.13 to this Opinion, seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ; for they expounded it in this sence, that the Bread is made the true resemblance, or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ. This explication, says Mr. Arnaud, is so absurd and ridiculous, that it could not be very common, it being impossible the generality should entertain it. But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained, as it is in it self, and consequences and dependencies, can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy?

AS to what he adds, that it is say'd, in the Seventyeth Article, that * 1.14

according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins, nor confer Grace, and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis, and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien, which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World. All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is, That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland, and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them; but it cannot hence follow that the things which these Articles contain are only the Opinions of some particular Persons.

BUT, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, the Armenians justified themselves * 1.15 by acts, decrees, and formal declarations; the King of Armenia, caused a Reli∣gious named Daniel to draw up a Memorial, in which he protested against these Errors, and complains they were unjustly charged on his Nation. The Patriarch and Bishops being assembled condemned them. The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia declared to Clement the Sixth his faith touching the Eucharist in these terms; That the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, Dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven after the Words of the Consecration of the Bread which are, This is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and appearances of Bread.

THERE is a strange Illusion in all this Discourse. 'Tis true the King of Armenia who needed the Popes protection drew up this Memorial men∣tioned by Mr. Arnaud. But seeing he had this Remark from Raynaldus he ought not to have suppressed what the same Raynaldus adds, Caeterum non * 1.16 falso subornata erant haec crimina in Armenos, nec temerè credita à Benedicto, fassosenim Clementi VI. Armeniae Regis Oratoresplures errores in Armenia pullu∣lasse, & Clementem studia sua ut abolerentur applicuisse visurisumus. Moreoverthe Armenians were not falsly accused of these crimes, nor did Benedict believe them without sufficient grounds. For the Ambassadors of the King of Armenia con∣fessed to Clement the Sixth, that several Errors had sprung up in Armenia, and Clement used his utmost endeavours to crush them, as we shall see by what follows. This dis-acknowledgment then of the King, and complaint which Daniel made concerning the imputation of Doctrines to the Armenians which they never own'd, was only a Politick intrigue, which yet does not hinder the information of Benedict from being true. I do not doubt but the King in the extremity of his affairs, threatned by the Saracens, and having no hope but in the protection of the Latins, assembled his Bishops that they might satisfie the Pope in what he desired, and condemn the Errors contained in his Bull. But if Mr. Arnaud will conclude, that then they had them not before, Raynaldus will draw a contrary Consequence, that then they had them. For after having say'd, as I now recited, that these Errors were not falsly charged upon the Armenians, he immediately adds as a rea∣son which confirms his Proposition. Quin etiam commoti pontificiis monitis Armeni praesules coacta solemni Synodo numeratos superiùs Errores Ecclesiastica execratione damnaverunt, ac decreta insigni ad sedem Apostolicam legatione imperiis se pontificiis adhaesuros professi sunt. But moreover the Armenians moved by the Popes remonstrances called a Synod, wherein they Condemned with an Anathema the Errors contained in this information, and sent Embassa∣dours to the Pope to make profession of their Obedience to his Commands. He proves that the Errors contained in the Popes information were really the Armenians, because the Bishops met together to Condemn them. What a

great deal of difference there is between a Person that is prejudiced and one that is not. Raynaldus is naturally no more favourable to us than Mr. Arnaud, the one is a Priest of the Oratory, and the other a Doctor of the Sorbonne, yet they draw from the same matter of fact contrary Conclusions; one hence shews the Armenians were innocent of the things they were accused, and th'other from the same Principle proves they were Culpable. And this because one has the dispute in his Eye, and th'other not, the one Reasons without passion and th'other is in a heat.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's touching the Patriarch of the lesser Ar∣menia who so Authentickly declared his faith concerning the Eucharist to Pope Clement VI. I cannot but desire the Readers attention to this sub∣ject; for here he will perceive one of Mr. Arnaud's notorious Sophisms. It is to be observed then that after Benedict the XII. had sent into Ar∣menia the Catalogue of this Peoples Errors, the affairs of the Armenians growing every day worse, they resolved (that they might render the Latins favourable to 'em) to make in a Synod a pretended Decree wherein they feigned to renounce these Errors, and abjure them; which made Pope Clement VI. (who was Benedict's Successor) to send them Anthony Bishop of Gayette, and John Arch-Bishop of Pisa, in quality of Apostolical Legats to finish (if Possible) the Work of their reduction. Raynaldus speaks of this act as of a Piece, not by which they cleared themselves of a false accusation, but whereby they renounced their Opinions, Post habitam, says he, Synodum at que in ea repudiatos Errores. And Clement speaks after * 1.17 the same manner in the Letter he sent them. Vestra Synodo prout per vos commode fieri potuit convocata, Errores abjecistis et condemnastis prae∣dictos, sicut in libello quem nobis transmiststis continetur. Observe these terms repudiatos Eerores, & Errores abjecistis, for they expresly signifie a change of Opinion, a renunciation of their former Errors, and not a bare Condemnation of Errors for which they had been in refe∣rence to their Church in General impertinently accused, as Mr. Arnaud would make us believe. But the King of Armenia urged the Pope to assist him against the Soldan of Babylon, who fell upon his Kingdom; and the Pope pressed him on the other hand, to assist his Legats in the extirpating of those Errors which were so rife in Armenia. He wrote also to the Legats to inform him of their Success, who gave him to understand they lost their Labour, and that whatsoever declarations the Armenians had made, they still persevered in their Opinions. Which appears by a Letter of Clement to the Bishop of Nicosia, ab eorum Erroribus, say's he, iidem * 1.18 Rex, Catholicus, et Populus minime resipuisse dicuntnr, sicut per quasdam litter as missas & Scripturam exhibitam nobisluculenter apparet. They persevered therein, they repented not of them, say's the Pope, and Mr. Arnaud would needs perswade us they were falsly accused.

THE Pope had charged his Legat with some opposite Articles to the Errors of the Armenians to make 'um receive them, and that which re∣spected the Eucharist contain'd these words, That the same Numerical Body * 1.19 of Jesus Christ, idem numero, which was born of the Virgin and nayled to the Cross is contain'd in the Eucharist. One of the Legats, Anthony by name, dyed in the way, and John having performed his Voyage fail'd not to pro∣pose these Articles to the Catholick of Armenia Minor and his Bishops. But the Catholick refused to approve them; he absolutely rejected some of them, and made captious and doubtful answers to others; he never would admit of the Article touching the Eucharist which contained, That after

Consecration it was the same Numerical Body of Jesus Christ which was born of a Virgin and suffered on the Cross. He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected sixteen of them, amongst which was that of the Eucharist; and in the Answers he made to the Popes instructions, he would never admit of Transubstantiation, but barely says, he believed and held that the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven, after the words of the Consecration of the Bread which are, this is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species, and resemblance of Bread, sub specie & similitudine panis. Now 'tis on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himself concealing all the rest of this History and producing only these last words, and drawing from them his Conclusion after his usual Manner in these terms, I see no * 1.20 reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch considering this his declaration, that is to say, it plainly appeared hence that he believed Transubstantiation, and the Substantial presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Consequences. For I. he ought not to have dissembled that in all this affair the question is not whe∣ther the Armenians held, or did not hold the things contain'd in the infor∣mation of Benedict, but whether they sincerely renounced them; and whether the act of their renunciation sent to the Pope was feigned or real. II. He ought not to have dissembled likewise that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this respect but a mere cheat, invented only to remedy the disorders of their State, and procure assistance from the Western Princes. That the Pope laid hold on this Occasion to make them receive the Roman Religion, and they on their side endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they desired, in eluding his pursuits. Which is justified by the Letter sent by Clement himself to the Catholick of Armenia. Moreover, says he, we have bin several times informed by divers * 1.21 Persons worthy of credit, and even by Armenians, that you and your Predecessors the Catholicks of Armenia, and the Armenians under your jurisdiction do not in any manner observe, what you promised us and our Predecessors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith. And that which is yet worse and more deplorable, is, that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholesome Instructions of our Apostolical Legats sent you in regard to your Souls, but have after a Damna∣ble manner despised the Faith of the Roman Church, out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation. The same thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia, in which having exhorted him earnestly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine sincerely and purely * 1.22 without duplicity of heart, to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the La∣tin Church, he adds, that by this means the mouths of several Catholicks and Armenians too will be stopt who stick not to affirm, That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulness and simplicity, but with dissimulation; and that which is yet worse and more deplorable, they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into derision and contempt the saving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them.

III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia, who would save himself by ambiguous Answers, rejected the Article of the Eucharist which contain'd, that it was the same Numerical Body which * 1.23 was Born of the Virgin and crucified; and that he neither would admit of the Article of Transubstantiation, because both one and the other so mani∣festly contradicted his faith, and left no room for his Equivocations.

In fine, he ought not to have concluded so briskly as he has done from the terms of his Answer, that after this declaration, there could be no Reason to doubt whether this Patriarch had the same faith as the Church of Rome. For notwithstanding this declaration Clement VI. still doubted of it, as also the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Doctors with whom the Pope consulted about it. Observe here the Contents of * 1.24 Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia. We have kindly re∣ceiv'd your answers, and those of the Church of Armenia minor, reduced to certain heads; and having deliberately considered them, together with my Reve∣rend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church, some Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Prelates, we could not, nor cannot now gather from these answers, till such time as you give us a more clear Discovery, what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and sincerely hold and believe. He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article, and desired plain and direct answers. In effect he proposes 'em to him, and coming to the Article of the Eucharist having set down the first answer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited, he adds, upon this we demand * 1.25 first of all whether you believe the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. Then coming to speak of a certain Letter which the Pa∣triarch wrote wherein he rejected sixteen Articles, of the fifty three which were offered him, and amongst the sixteen this. Quod Corpus Christi post * 1.26 verba Consecrationis sit idem numero, quod Corpus natum de virgine & immolatum in cruce, he says to him, the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Bishop and Bishops are confused and obscure, as also the particular answers you returned by Writing. Therefore we desire to know of you plainly, and truely, whether you have rejected these sixteen Articles because you do not believe 'em to be true and sound, or for what other reason you have retrenched them from the rest. But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Car∣dinals, Prelates and Doctors, and better instructed in the intentions of the Ar∣menian Patriarch than all the People then in the World, comes and confident∣ly tells us, that he sees no reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch, and thinks Mr. Claude himself will acknowledge as much. And suppressing all these matters of fact related by the very Historian he makes use of, he proclaims his Victories; and confidently affirms, the Armenians have ever believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion, for having related the whole story of what passed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information, he adds, That we may thence plainly see into how many filthy Errors thy fall who separate from the * 1.27 Church of Rome. That innovators howsoever have no reason to glory in the An∣tiquity of their Heresies, nor bragg, (for the seducing of the weak) that the Armenians and other Eastern People have the same sentiments with them. For altho they hold some of these Errors, yet do they not admit them all, but differ from the Armenians in very considerable matters. That the Divine justice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with these Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians. This is not a proper place to Answer Raynaldus in, 'tis sufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold, all these Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict, in the instructions of Clement, and consequently that they de∣ny'd Transubstantiation and the real Presence.

WE may then reckon as a IV Proof, the testimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's, and the Catholick of Armenia's. The 5th. shall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the instructions he gave to the Armenians, in the Council of Florence, forgot not the Article of Tran∣substantiation, the form, says he, of this Sacrament consists in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament. The Priest speaking in the * 1.28 Person of our Saviour Christ do's the same. For by the virtue of these words the substance of Bread is changed into his Body, and the substance of Wine into his Blood, so that Jesus Christ is intirely contain'd under the species of Bread, and Wine, and is intire under each part whether of the Consecrated Host or Con∣secrated Wine, even when the species are separate. Mr. Arnaud say's, 'tis not usual to propose Capital Points of Controversie in this manner. That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles, nor are so lightly passed over, but considered established and strengthened. But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope esta∣blished and strengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol; which he injoyn'd them to receive, altho a controverted Point. How did he con∣firm the Article of the two Natures in Jesus Christ but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo? Upon what Reasons did he ground the Article of the Remission of Original sin in Baptism when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error, as appears by the information of Benedict XII? What Proofs did he bring to shew 'em that the Consecration of the Eucharist is made by the words of our Saviour, when the Armenians believ'd the contrary, as we may see in the same information? These kind of Remarks which are usual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them. Eugenius is excusable let Mr. Arnaud say what he will; he thought it no wise necessary, to insert common Places in his Decretal, nor to be so scrupulous in observing Heads or Tails, like such as view the Dragon in the Firmament. He design'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought hencefor∣ward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Bishop of Pamiez in the Passage I have related. Now the Article of Transubstantiation being expresly mention'd therein, 'tis a sign the Armenians did not believe it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Guido Carmel. suma de Heres. de Her. Arm. Cap. 12.
• * 1.2

  Raynald. ad ann. 13. 18.
• * 1.3

  Perp. of the faith part. 3. Ch. 8.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469.
• * 1.5

  Raynauld. ad Ann. 1341.
• * 1.6

  C 9. 348. & 485.
• * 1.7

  Raynald. Ibid.
• * 1.8

  Ra••nald. Ibid.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4••4.
• * 1.10

  C. 9. P. 48.
• * 1.11

  Ibid
• * 1.12

  Ibid.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  Ibid.
• * 1.15

  Ibid.
• * 1.16

  Raynald. ubi supra.
• * 1.17

  Raynald. ad ann. 1346. Num. 67. 68. &c.
• * 1.18

  Raynald. ad ann. 1310. Num. 37.
• * 1.19

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1351. Num. 31
• * 1.20

  Lib. 5: C. 9. pag. 488.
• * 1.21

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17.
• * 1.22

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 18.
• * 1.23

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 15.
• * 1.24

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb. 2.
• * 1.25

  ibid. Numcr. 11.
• * 1.26

  ibid. Num. 15.
• * 1.27

  Raynaldus ibid Numer. 18.
• * 1.28

  Eugen. ad Calcem Concil. Flore••