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. V.

Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Armenians examin'd.

BUT here are, say's Mr. Arnaud, certain and positive Proofs which shew that the Armenians have ever effectually believed both one * 1.1 and the other Point, and that there is no reason to accuse them of denying the real Presence or Transubstantiation. Which we shall now Examine in this Chapter.

HIS first Proof is taken from the Testimony of Lanfranc, who disputing against Berengarius say's, that the Greeks and Armenians, and generally all Christians hold the same faith as the Roman Church. But Mr. * 1.2 Arnaud has not considered that Lanfranc do's not directly impute Tran∣substantiation either to the Armenians, or Greeks, he imputes it to 'um only by a Consequence drawn from their glorying all of 'um that they receive in the Sacrament, the real Body and real Blood of Jesus Christ taken from the Virgin. Now we have seen as well by the Relation of Carmes, as from the Information of Benedict, that the Armenians gave this expression a sence wholly contrary to Lanfranc's Consequence, so that this Proof has bin already invalidated by the Testimony of the Armenians themselves.

THE Second is taken from the Berengarians never alledging they were of the sentiment of the Armenians, or any other Eastern Church. Yet was it impossible but they must know what was their Opinion, seeing that Persons Voyaged from all parts of Europe into the East, and this would have bin a specious pretence to the Henricians and Albingen∣ses to avoid the rigour of those punishments they underwent. But to discover the weakness of this reasoning we need only remember that in the 14 Century under John XXII. Benedict XII. and Clement VI. it was held in the West for an undoubted truth that the Armenians denyed Transubstantiation, and the real Presence, as we have already seen in the foregoing Chapter. That 'twas the unanimous Report of the Armenians themselves who were in the Court of Rome, and of the Latins which had bin in Armenia. Yet altho the Disciples of Berengarius were rigo∣rously persecuted in that age, we do not find they ever justifyed themselves by the example of the Armenians, nor that the Court of Rome handled them less severely upon the account of this conformity. We find on the contrary, their adversaries have reproached them with following the Heresie of these Eastern People, as appears by what I have already related concerning the disputes of Thomas Waldensis against Wicliff, so that that was objected against them as a Crime which Mr. Arnaud would have them make use of for an Apology.

THE III. and IV. Proof are no more conclusive than the two first. * 1.3 They contain that Gregory VII marking in particular the Errors which

the Armenians ought to condemn to the end they might be received into the Communion of the Church, makes no mention of any Error against the real Presence and Transubstantiation. That in the year 1145. The Patriarch and Bishops of Armenia sent Embassadors to Pope Eugenius II. to render him all kind of Submission, and make him judge of the di∣fferences which they had with the Greeks. That if this Pope had believed they were in the Error of Berengarius, he would not have bin contented to instruct them in the Ceremonies of the Church and manner of Celebra∣ting the Sacrifice. That Othon of Frisinga who relate this History would never have concealed so important a circumstance. I answer that Gregory VII. * 1.4 particularizes only four Errors, for which he Censures the Armenians. I. That they mix no water with their Wine in the Chalice. II. That they compound the Chream with Butter, and not with Balm. III. That they reverence Dioscorus as a Saint, altho he was condemned. In fine, that they added the (sign) of the Cross to the Triasagios after the manner of Hereticks. How many other Doctrines and Customs have the Armeuians besides these four Articles, which the Roman Church do's not approve of? They hold the Opinions of Eutyches. They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original sin. They deny Purgatory. They still offer Sa∣crifices after the manner of the Jews. They condemn third Marriages, for as bad as Fornication. They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation. They do not hold the Consecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jesus Christ. They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and several other Points which seperate 'um from the Latins, and of which neither Gregory VII. Eugenius III. nor Othon of Trisinga make any mention. Which shews there can be drawn no Conclusion from their silence, and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting these kind of Proofs.

THE V. is taken from some expressions of a Catholick of Armenia, * 1.5 who say's, in the conference of Theorien, that the Wine becomes by Con∣secration the Blood of Jesus Christ, and that the Son of God is Sacrificed with∣in the Church for the Salvation of the World. But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends. For first we have already shewed him that this Catholick spake of his own head, and not from his Church. And moreover, what he say's do's neither conclude the real Presence, nor Transubstantiation. The Wine becomes by its Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ in representation and mystery, according to the exposition which the Armenians themselves give to these ways of speaking, as we have seen in the foregoing Chapter, and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion, inasmuch as the action of the Eucharist is a Mystery which represents his death. Let Mr. Arnaud consult (if he pleases) the Marginal Note which is on the side of this last passage, and he will find the solution of his Difficulty. The Greek Text has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latin, Mactatur intus * 1.6 Dei filius pro totius mundi salute, and the Marginal Note, hoc est, representa∣tur in sacra caena mactatio Christi.

THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croisado's the Popes * 1.7 held a lasting and strict Union with the Church of Armenia. That the Catholick of Armenia, yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who sent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia, and that as well this King, as Gregory the Patriarch

of Armenia, sent an Ambassador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church. That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and those of Armenia. That Pope Innocent excommuni∣cated the King of Armenia at the request of the Templars, and some time after gave him Absolution. That this Union lasted during Gregory IX. his time, and Clement VI.

BUT what is this but a telling of Stories, and copying out of Raynadus at any rate. If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be sufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, 'twill be sufficient to conclude likewise that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themselves to correct them, or make the least inquiries a∣bout them. They were satisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Ar∣menia's acknowledging their Authority, hoping by this means to intro∣duce hereafter quietly amongst them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins, and in the mean time made use of 'em in other occasions. The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the o∣beysance of the Roman See, and in the mean time procured the assistance and protection of the Latins, whose power was then Formidable through∣out the whole East. But this did not hinder the Armenians from keep∣ing still their Doctrines and Customs, as appears by what we have seen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII, Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expresly mentions, That the Priests and Bishops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during some years to those that had bin Baptized by the Latins, and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament. And the 86 Article. That the Armenians say, and hold, that since the Council of Chalcedon, the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Nestorians over the Nestorians, or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks, that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewise theirs. And the 99^th Article; that the Armenians persecute those amongst them who have been Baptised according to the form of the Latins, and hold the Faith of the Roman Church, and that they say the Roman Church Errs, and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith. And the 117^th. Article. That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds, nor its Sacraments, and Blasphemes against the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals, saying they are Hereticks. That the Ca∣tholick of Armenia minor say'd, the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads. And altho they preach against Simony, yet do they grant no favour without committing it; that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themselves undefiled in Armenia minor, except the King and some Persons of Quality who held the Roman Faith. 'Tis then to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held so strict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians, seeing they did at the same time stir up all France against the Albingenses, and caused 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword. These excellent Reasons do not hinder, but that the Armenians held still all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII. And II. that amongst those Opinions, that which denys Transubstantiation

and the real Presence is plainly remarked. III. That altho the Kings and some Persons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion, yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion, even to the blasphem∣ing the Roman Church, the Pope, and his Cardinals, according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd. IV. In fine it will not be found, that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Arme∣nians any particular Renunciation of their Errors, be they what they will. It seems either these Popes supposed the Armenians had absolutely the same Faith as the Roman Church, or dissembled these Errors, in hopes, as I already say'd, that in establishing their Authority in Armenia, they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins, by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured, and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach, as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict. The Catholick of Armenia minor, say's this Article, Conse∣crating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act, in which they solemnly promise, to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue, and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers, who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess, or Province. Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates, to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks, and obey the Roman Church. He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church, and calls himself Pope, acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry, and Bro∣card's * 1.8 silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstan∣tiation, we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in compe∣tition with the Testimony of so many Authors, who expresly affirm they deny it. Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions, and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion, without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines. But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's, ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject; altho the Armenians, say's he, promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate * 1.9 and Roman Church, when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Em∣perour Henry, and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence, yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Cere∣monies or Customs. And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church.

'TIS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton, who marvellously favoured the Latins, and perhaps 'twas he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks, who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis. But be it as it will, this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia, but in vain. Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art. 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church, and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent; But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side, and that the Armenians were in an Error, and therefore ever since, the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church. Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this, and

after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat, and against the Roman Church, in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy. He says that Pharaoh's Embassadour, meaning the Legat, return∣ed home with shame. &c. 'Tis to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church, yet was receiv'd in Armenia, as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles.

WHICH considered, I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissi∣ons which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors, as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII. by a Bishop who in the name of the King, and his Kingdom, made such a profession of faith as they desired. To make this a proof, as Mr. Arnaud do's, is either to be ignorant, or dissemble the Genius of this Nation. The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs, made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons, that promised him whatsoever he desired, but as soon as ever the danger was over, and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired, they made a mock at their promises, as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King, and Catho∣lick of Armenia, as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter.

WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa. The Religion, say's he, * 1.10 of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha, who are Armenians by birth, is the Christian, together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain. But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence, or acknowledge the Pope; almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion. For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe, (moved thereunto by their extream poverty, their expences in travelling, and intollerable persecutions of the Turks, during the continual Wars between them and the Persians,) have often offered to obey the Roman Church, yet when this was to be concluded, they have still fallen off, and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch, obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys. This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us.

THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touch∣ing a certain Person named Gerlac, who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople, about an hundred years since. This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople, and amongst other things he tells us, They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance (He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession) In caena Domini verum & Substantiale Corpus & Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt, sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare. But upon the reading of this Letter, it will soon appear that, this Patriarch with whom he discoursed, gave him his own private sentiments, and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion. For he tells him, that he believ∣ed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, contrary to what the Greeks hold. Yet do's it appear from the constant

testimony of Authors, who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians, that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins. So say's Guy Carmes, the information of Benedict XII. Prateolus, Breerewood and several others, and therefore the first thing Eugenius IV. did in the Council of Florence, when he gave his instructions to the Armenians, was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque. Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity, that is to say, of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, wheresoever the Divinity is, which is not the real belief of the Armenians, as we have already sufficiently proved. Gerlac adds, That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church, which is not true, as appears as well by the information of Benedict, as by the Testimony of several other Authors. 'Tis moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doc∣trine of the Ubiquity, which grants this Body to be every where, and by Con∣sequence in the Sacrament. And as to Transubstantiation, he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em, but say's they seem to admit of it, videntur, say's he, Transubstantiationem probare. Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful. It appears, is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident, whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems, gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour, but which is not absolutely out of doubt, of a thing which we may think to be true, but of which we have no certainty. 'Tis likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change, which the Armenian Patriarch made use of, but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstan∣tiation, and 'twas only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did.

THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words, I was informed, say's he, by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media, that the Armenians, held Transubstantiation. Now believing Transubstantiation, that is to say, the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 'tis not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence. His Au∣thority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say, as it was in respect of the Moscovites: If you deny his explanation, his Testimony signifies nothing.

AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church, and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted, and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam, we know very well there's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony; who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest; and never fail to Answer as you would have them. The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd, and if I may not be believed, let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted, who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us, that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence,

the Armenians reunited themselves, and the greatest part of the Greek Church * 1.11 likewise, yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance; on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it, thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats, that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction, nor any thing which this Council decreed, nor Obedience thereunto recommended. There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions. And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say, that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council, seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch, nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad, for this many Ages. But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe, or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade, who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um, and that they may not fail therein, do very often speak contrary to truth, which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope, promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him, but at their return home, they soon forget their engagements. Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are, and whe∣ther the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet, are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 5. C. 6. p. 457.
• * 1.2

  Ibid.
• * 1.3

  Ibid. p. 459.
• * 1.4

  Baron ad. con. 114.
• * 1.5

  Ibid. p. 460.
• * 1.6

  Theorien. Dial. adver. Armen.
• * 1.7

  Ibid. pag. 462.
• * 1.8

  Ibid. p. 46•• 466.
• * 1.9

  Jacob a Vitriuco histor. Orient. cap. 79.
• * 1.10

  The Am∣bassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicq∣fort. p. 193.
• * 1.11

  Anthony de Goureau's Relation, Book 3. Ch. 3.