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.

BOOK V.

Wherein is treated of the belief of the Moscovites, Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, and other Churches, called Schismaticks, of the belief of the Latins in the seventh and eighth Centuries, and of the Conse∣quences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretend∣ed Consent of these Churches, in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

CHAP I.

Of the Moscovites.

That the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation.

HAVING thus cleared up the Point in reference to the Greeks, I come now in order to the Examination of Mr. Arnaud's fifth Book, wherein he treats of the other Churches called Schismaticks, which are separated as well from the Greek Church, as the Roman. The first of those Churches which he Offers us is that of the Moscovites, and he immediately acknowledges that she makes up a part of the Greek one, and that the same

Proofs which serve for the one, suffice for the other. But this acknowledg∣ment ill agreeing with the Design, he had to make this the Subject of four Chapters; he say's afterwards, he thought himself obliged to treat of this at * 1.1 large, as well for that the Fallacious arguings which Mr. Claude makes thereup∣on, deserve to be represented; as that also, the Opinion of the Moscovites appeared to him very Considerable in this matter. To speak plainly, these are meer frivolous Pretences, as it will appear in the sequel, and unless he ima∣gined this Multiplication of Objects would contribute something to his Glo∣ry, and make it more Illustrious; there can be no reason alledged for the mentioning of the Moscovites apart, for if it be true these People profess to follow the Greek Religion, (as he say's;) assoon as ever we are satisfied of the Doctrine of these last, we need not trouble our selves any longer, con∣cerning the Belief of the others. Yet we must accommodate our selves to Mr. Arnaud's method, and treat of the Moscovites seeing he will have it so.

TO begin with the state of these People, Moscovia is a great Nation pro∣fessing the Christian Religion, but otherwise extream Barbarous and Igno∣rant of the Doctrines of Christianity. Some have questioned whether they may reasonably be called Christians; whereupon Mr. Olearius has Plea∣santly * 1.2 say'd: That it may as well be questioned whether they are Men, seeing their Religion does not so greatly differ from that of other Christians, as their Morals, and way of Living does from that of other Men; but as they shew themselves Men by speech, and Laughter, so in like manner they appear to be Christians by * 1.3 Baptism, and the outward Profession of the Christian Religion. They refer them∣selves upon all Accounts to their Prince as to their Oracle, saying when they be asked touching any Point, That God and their Great Czar know it, and that 'tis by the especial Grace of their Czar, they are in Health, and can sit on Horse∣back. One of their Chief Maxims is to suffer no Preachers amongst them, and in Effect they have none, but content themselves with the reading of the Psalms, some Chapters of the Scripture, and S. Athanasius's Creed; to which they sometimes add an Homely of S. Chrysostom, or the Life of some of their Saints. Mr. Olearius adds, That one of their Priests setting himself to Preach, and exhort the People out of the word of God to the duty of Prayer, the Patriarch deposed him together with some other Priests who followed his Example; that he excommunicated them and sent them into Siberia,

THERE are neither Accademy's nor Colledges amongst them, and it would be a Crime punishable by the Laws of that Kingdom, for a man to * 1.4 apply himself to the study of Sciences. They have only some small Schools wherein they teach Children to Write and Read, and perhaps a little Greek and Latine in one Corner of the Kingdom.

HENCE it is their Ecclesiasticks are so Prodigiously ignorant that * 1.5 Mr. Olearius tells us; There is scarcely any amongst their very Monks and Priests that can give an Account of his Faith, because they have none to Preach the word of * 1.6 God to them. And therefore the Patriarch will not permit 'em to Dispute about Religion, nor inform themselves by means of Strangers. Possevin likewise tells us, that demanding of their Monks who was the founder of their Order; * 1.7 not one of 'em could return him an Answer. And thus are we informed in the Ambassage of the Earl of Carlile: The Religion of the Moscovites is the * 1.8 same which the Greeks profess, for they follow their Faith, Rights, and Cere∣monies; but they are so Ignorant, that they scarce know themselves what Religion they are of.

THEIR Superstition is no less than their Ignorance, witness their calling * 1.9 their Images their Gods; saying when they enter into any House, I est le Boch, where is the God? Witness likewise their re-baptizing themselves every year, and not only their own Persons, but in like manner their Ima∣ges * 1.10 and Horses. And their giving a Testimonial or Pass port in due form and manner to their Dead, attesting, they have lived good Christians and observed the Greek Religion, to the end that S. Peter in seeing their Testimonial may ad∣mit them into Heaven. Witness moreover that fabulous and impious Book, mentioned by Olearius, wherein they have corrupted the Historical passages of the Gospel, adding thereto filthy and abominable Circumstances, such as is this amongst others: That Mary Magdalen prostituting her self one day * 1.11 out of Charity, her Action was so Meritorious in the sight of God, that it expiated all her past sins, and caused her to be Canonized in the Register of Saints.

I could willingly forbear mentioning things of this Nature, did not I find that Mr. Arnaud in his Discourses concerning these People, seems to repre∣sent us with an Idea of the most happy and flourishing People in the World.

THIS is, say's he, a great Kingdom almost intirely separate from all others. * 1.12 This is a Nation which has ever had but little Commerce with the rest of the Na∣tions of the World, few Persons Voyaging into those parts, and few Moscovites into Asia and Europe. There was never in this Country a mixture of Persons of divers Communions. It cannot be say'd the Latins have brought over their O∣pinions here by Croisados; and 'tis observed by all Authors that these People are exceeding careful to preserve their ancient Customs, and Doctrines. In fine, there is no Country in the World more tenacious of their Opinions, and which less easily admits a new one. The Church of this Kingdom is a Church purely Greek, and owes it's Conversion to the Greek Church, having received from her the Doctrine she Pro∣fesses. There are scarcely any other Books read amongst them, than some Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Tongue. The writings of these Fathers are expounded amongst them; they have no other Sentiments than those which Nature imprints in their Minds. Will not a man be apt to say in reading this De∣scription, that this Land is a kind of spiritual Canaan?

BUT what signifies disguising of things at this rate? Besides what I now related touching the Ignorance, and Superstitions reigning in this Church; we need only observe what judgment Possevin who lived several years in Mos∣covia makes of them. In respect of Schism, say's he, it cannot be imagin'd how deep∣ly * 1.13 they are ingaged in it, holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims, or rather, adding still somthing to them, than abating any of them. It is the same with the Mosco∣vites as with those who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle, the forward∣er they go, the more they multiply their Errors, just as may be observed in the Inno∣vators of our times. The Moscovites having receiv'd their Schism from the Greeks have departed from 'em, and having no Books, nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies. And yet according to Mr. Arnaud, this is the only Country in the World for conserving a Doctrine already established, and the least like∣ly to embrace a new Opinion. The same Possevin tells us that the Great Duke * 1.14 Basil having caused a Greek Priest to come into his Country, whom the Patri∣arch of Constantinople sent him, he threw him into Prison, and would not release him altho requested by the Turkish Emperor, because the Priest told

him, he found the Moscovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church; and from that time, they had no more Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople, for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moscovia. In another place, he observes expressly that they differ in seve∣ral * 1.15 things from the Latins: Which caused Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia, * 1.16 to say, that they abuse in several things the Rights of the Greeks, and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks, which have departed from them. This proposition of Sacranus may be excessive, but it may be well concluded thence, that the Moscovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion, but, have not so carefully preserved it, but that 'tis alter'd in several things.

THIS pretended firmness which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them, has not hindred the Greek Religion, from being corrupted amongst them, nei∣ther has it hindred the Latins from using their utmost Endeavors, to introduce their Doctrines amongst them; nor Possevin from laying his Designs in Order thereunto. It has not hindred the Popes from sending their Emissaries a∣mongst * 1.17 them, as I have already show'd in the second Book, nor from making use of Merchants, who under pretence of Commerce obtain an easier access into these Countries, as appears by the History of Paul Jovius, nor Arcu∣dius * 1.18 a Latiniz'd Greek, from spending twenty years in Lituania, Russia, and Moscovia, in the propogating of the Romish Religion, as he himself testifies * 1.19 in his Letter, to Sigismond King of Poland, nor Seminaries from being set up in Lituania and other places, for the instructing of the Moscovites Children in the Romish Religion, as Possevin tells us. This firmness does not hinder, * 1.20 but that they have made use not only of Polanders for the Reduction of these People, who hold a particular Commerce with them, but especially, of the re-united Russians who appear less suspected to the Moscovites; because they * 1.21 observe still the Greek Rites. In fine this does not hinder the false Greeks, who having finished their studies in the Seminary at Rome, do return into Greece, from promoting the interest of the Roman Church, under the habit and dis∣guise of Schismatical Greeks, and from passing over from Greece into Mosco∣via when occasion Offers, as appears by the Example of Paysius Ligaridius, who wrote in Mosco it self, his Treatise of the Eucharist in favour of Mr. Ar∣naud, and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone.

IS not this then a delusory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made, That it cannot be alledged, the Latins have brought their Opinions into these parts by Croisado's? This is true, but if they have not brought them thither by Croi∣sado's, they have done whatsoever they have been able in order to the intro∣ducing them by Missions and Seminaries, by Commerce of Merchants, by Poland, Russia, and Greece it self which is their Mother-Church. Now can it seem strange to us if with all these Machins, and by abusing the Ignorance and stupidity of these People, they have been made to believe that Transub∣stantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion, and consequently one of theirs? And can it be imagined, we are such Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People? What Mr. Arnaud adds: That there is scarcely any other Books * 1.22 read amongst them, than the Writings of some of the Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Language, does not well agree with what Possevin tells us, that they understand not any more of the Sclavonian Language, than what nearly re∣lates to theirs, or that of Poland. What signifies the reading of Greek Fathers Translated into a Language which the People understand not?

BUT let us see what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us,

that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation. The first he Offers is the si∣lence of all Authors, that have written on the Religion of this Church, who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane: To en∣hance the Value of this Proof, he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Positive, whereby to maintain my Thesis. It is strange, say's he, that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter, should choose rather to devine the Opinion of these People on weak Conjectures, than to inform himself whether he might not meet in so many Books, that mention the Religion * 1.23 of the Moscovites, real Proofs of what he would willingly find. He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading those Books, and Pro∣tests he has not been guilty of the like, having read whatsoever he could find written on this Subject, eight Authors on one side, several Treatises on the other, such as Possevin, Baronius, Raynoldus, Botter, Breerwood, Hornbeck, and several others.

THERE is no need of this Account. There being no body as I know of that questions Mr. Arnaud's industry; we on the contrary blame him for taking so much Pains for nothing. As to my own part believing as I do, that the World do's not much concern it self, whether I am Diligent or Lazy, I shall not make this a matter of Debate, only say, that Mr. Arnaud with all his Reading will be no less perplexed than my self, how negligent soever I am, should ei∣ther of us be put upon the producing of the Testimony of one single Mosco∣vite Author, that expresly mentions Transubstantiation, either one way or other. If then by real Proofs, he means passages of the Moscovites them∣selves, I beg of him to shew me who are the Authors of this Nation, that have treated of the Mysteries of Christian Religion, for excepting the Let∣ter of John the Metropolitain of Moscou, which Sigismond d' Herberstein has * 1.24 published together with the Canons of another John, and the Answer of Niphon Bishop of Novograd, I know none that have written about Religion, or any thing else, and these three Pieces aforementioned, are but five pages of Paper in all. But if by these real Proofs Mr. Arnaud means the Testimo∣nies of those who have described the Religion of these People, his Com∣plaint has no grounds. We have already told him that Travellers, and those that make Discourses of distant Nations, give us seldom any other than a general Relation of their Opinions, without descending to Particularize what they hold or reject. So that there can be nothing certainly concluded from the silence of these Authors.

IT is to no purpose to say, that in the Comparisons they make of Religions, it is always with the Roman Catholick Religion, that they Compare all others, and that * 1.25 in this Comparison, the Principal differences are designed to be marked out. For supposing they all of 'em took this Course, it is certain they must reduce all these Principal differences, to those which spring from an express and actu∣al Opposition, wherein on one hand the Roman Church professes to believe such a Point, and the Church which is compared with it, professes on the contrary to oppose and reject it. So that we must not wonder if those that have discoursed of the Religion of the Moscovites have observed, that they hold as fabulous the fire of Purgatory, acknowledge not the Authority of the Pope, Communicate under both kinds, and give the Communion to Children, and yet have not observed that they do not hold Transubstantiati∣on. These Points are openly controverted between the Greek Church of which the Moscovite makes a part, and the Latine, but that of Transubstan∣tiation is not so. They do not teach it, neither yet do they make thereof a point of Controversie.

IF there can be any advantage drawn from the silence of these Authors it falls to me. For being most of them Roman Catholicks, and knowing well the Importance of this Article, and how greatly controverted in our Western parts, there is no Likely-hood if they had found it held, established, and taught amongst the Moscovites, but they would remark as much, on purpose to gratifie in this the Roman Church, and indeavour to clear it from the reproach of Innovation; neither must Mr. Arnaud imagine, that he is the only Person that had in his Eye the Schismatical Churches for the defence of the controverted Points in our Europe. These aforementioned Authors are not wanting to tell us of the Devotion which these People have for I∣mages, the worship they give their Saints, their Prayers for the Dead, their fastings, Monks, Confession, extream Unction, and in a word of all particulars wherein they are agreed with the Roman Church, and are contrary to the Protestants. How then comes it to pass they have forgotten that of Tran∣substantiation? It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say, that they do not particularly Remark the Articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, touch∣ing the Death of Christ, nor the others in the Creed, for besides that this is not absolutely true, there being some of these Authors, who declare the Moscovites hold Athanasius's Creed, and the seven first Councils, and con∣sequently the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. Besides this I say, these Articles are not debated between the Romanists and Protestants, as the others are, and especially that of the Conversion of Substances.

BUT say's Mr. Arnaud, we will shew Mr. Claude that they are not all of 'em silent on this Point, there being some that clearly affirm the Moscovites * 1.26 hold Transubstantiation. Which we are to Examine. He tells us then, that Paulus Jovius having observed they reject Purgatory, and disown the Popes Supremacy, and follow the Greeks Ceremonies, makes a general Conclusion concerning all the other Articles, that they hold the same as we do: In caeteris Eadem, quae a nobis de Religione sentiuntur constan••••ssime credunt. I think, adds Mr. Arnaud, that the Real presence and Transubstantiation are Articles * 1.27 important enough to be comprehended under this general Proposition. Were this a right consequence it would likewise follow hence, that the Moscovite Priests do not marry no more than those of the Latins, for Paulus Jovius say's nothing of that. It would follow they baptized not with three Im∣mersions, and hold all other Baptism to be of none Effect, for Paulus Jovi∣us does not remark this. Neither does he any more take Notice, that they reject the Confirmation of a Bishop, hold fasting on Saturday to be a great Crime, abhor the eating of Creatures strangled, and yet these Arti∣cles are as important in respect of the Moscovites as any others, seeing they make them principal Controversies, not being able to bear with them that are of contrary Opinions. Mr. Arnaud must not be so quick at drawing Consequences, or imagine that Paulus Jovius has been so exact in all that * 1.28 he has written concerning the Moscovites. For he tells us, they have St. Ambrose's works, St. Austin's, St. Jerom's, where St. Gregory's translated in∣to the Sclavonian Tongue, and highly respect them; and Possevin the Je∣suite tells us, that having made an exact inquiry into this particular, he could find no such thing, neither believes the Name of these Authors is known to * 1.29 these People, altho those of St. Ambrose and Gregory, may be seen in their Kalender, and that at the Princes Court, he could hear nothing of this.

SACRANUS a Chanon of Cracovia, adds Mr. Arnaud, who gives us

the largest Catalogue he could of the Errors of the Moscovites, say's touch∣ing the eigth Error. That according to the Moscovites, the Body of our Savi∣our * 1.30 Christ cannot be Consecrated with Azymes, and on the sixteenth Error. That they cut a Morsel of the Bread prepar'd for the Sacrifice into the form of a Triangle, and Consecrate it to make thereof the Body of our Saviour Christ, in Corpus Christi consecrant, and in the eighteenth Error, Consecrant panem in Corpus Christi.

'TIS certain Mr. Arnaud makes a small matter serve for a Proof. The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread, in Corpus Christi, into the Body of Jesus Christ, or to be the Body of Jesus Christ. They believe then Transubstantiati∣on; 'Tis evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion, there is need of * 1.31 something more precise than this. But, say's he, this is a Catholick that speaks thus, and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ, that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites. When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself, and the question concerns his own Faith, we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist, by the Body of Christ, he means the proper substance of this Body, for we know that this is the Sence, and Style of the Roman Church. But when he Discourses of the Moscovites, and the question concerns their Faith, we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi, he pretends no more, than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use, without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words. They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give 'em. What Sense is that? This Sacranus does not determine, and to go about to decide it, by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion.

AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand re∣lates, * 1.32 that the Consecration is performed amongst them, by pronouncing our Savi∣our's words, and that they attribute to them so great Vertue, that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest, they believe the Creature gives place to the Crea∣tor; we must tell Mr. Arnaud, that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fa∣bulous relation, such as is this le Ferre's. This Author assures us, that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation, that they do it by the laying on of Hands, in making the sign of the Cross, and anointing the Par∣ty Confirmed on the Forehead. That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People, which they do not only every Sunday, but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles. That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion. That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory. Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate, as being Christ's Vicar, and St. Peters Successor. That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins. This is all false, as appears by other Relations of these People. * 1.33 And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors, which are counted fabulous, because, say's he, they have been mis-informed, or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom, to apply thereunto a Remedy. What signifies then such peoples Testimony.

NOT to take notice that these Terms, The Creature gives place to the Creator, are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation. It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses. For when we should say with Theodoret, that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature, or with St. Au∣stin, that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament, or with the Greeks, that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body, the Creature will still

give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance. So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 'tis invalid; and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause. But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors, John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest.

I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony, has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation, and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre, was to make the World believe that the Mosco∣vites hold this Doctrine, so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority, as Lasicius has done, do take it no o∣therwise. Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's, he would have found it full of false Reports, and easily find his Authors main De∣sign was to render the Moscovite Religion, as Conformable as he could to the Roman; and by this means to deceive his Readers, and especially, the Pro∣testants whom he had at that time in his Eye. He would then have absolute∣ly rejected the Authority of such a Man, who has palpably disguised the Truth: He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question, Ferre's Sence, from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves, supposing they were their own Words. But this he has not done, altho he ought to have done it, and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof, Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation. Whence it follows, we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us, concerning the Religion of Strangers, but it does not follow 'tis true in the main, that the Moscovites be∣lieve the Conversion of Substances.

WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg, and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper; Persons of greater Reputation. Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation: They put, say's Dannaverus, into the Wine contained in the Chalice, the Bread broken into pieces; they Bless it, and believe 'tis Transubstantiated. They hold Tran∣substantiation say's Mr. Olearius. So that here we have two express Testi∣monies, and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged. As to Dannaverus, he has only followed Olearius's Authority, knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites, than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors, as appears by his Treatise. But as to Mr. Olearius, he is a Per∣son of great Learning, and has lived in those Countries, and made it his Busi∣ness to be informed of this Point, and who not only gives us this Account in his Book, but has likewise Confirm'd it, in a Letter written to one of Mr. Ar∣naud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute, and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph.

IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony, and clear it from all Perplexity. And this will be done by considering his own * 1.34 Words, as well in his Book as Letter. Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them, from the Original High-Dutch are, They believe Transubstantiation, that is to say, that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. Those of his Letter * 1.35 related by Mr. Arnaud: I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage, that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation, that is to say, they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony, from his private Judgment, and you'l clear the Difficulty. His Testimony is, that the Moscovites believe the Bread and

Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has deno∣ted by these Terms, which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. His private Judg∣ment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation, which he signifies by these following words. They hold Transubstantiation.

SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood, and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own per∣sawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance. He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say, They hold Transubstan∣tiation, says he, that is to say, the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood.

THIS that is to say explains what he means, and punct∣ually determines what the Moscovites hold. If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing, his Proposition must be received in its full ex∣tent, if they are not, the Change belongs to the Moscovites, the Transubstan∣tier to the private sence of M. Olearius. We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity; but as to his particu∣lar Judgement, we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it. For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry. Neither had he any reason to be offended * 1.36 at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity. That 'tis very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures, and that having heard of the change of Bread, he imagined this was the change of Substance. which is the same thing I say now. The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms, and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what com∣mon Justice will allow me. I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions, which agree not well with the Character he bears, and which I suppose he has learned of the bar∣barous People he has so long conversed with. Why would he have us believe, the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins, seeing we find on the contrary that this is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence; The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant, the Greeks say the Bread is changed, the Moscovites affirm the same, the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate. Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks; we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites. It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness. For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation, he adds, that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus. Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ, but even in this he is mistaken, for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecra∣ted and called the Body of Jesus Christ, and not the Remains of the consecra∣ted Bread.

BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise, I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation

of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject. 'Tis the Te∣stimony of an Honorable Person, who lived a considerable time in those parts, and since M. Olearius, who wanted neither Judgment, Sincerity, nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people, in reference to Transubstantiation, without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self, as having no other design then that of * 1.37 discovering the Truth. Moreover, says he, I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions, namely, that they hold Transubstantiation: and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion. For first, when we discourse with them, touching the Consequences of this Doctrine, they testifie their dislike of it: and to maintain it, fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do. 2. 'Tis more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation, they would respect this Mystery more than they do, and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is, they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion, especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear, as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome. In fine, had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them, they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines. But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion. Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whe∣ther he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Ex∣plication.

WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius, but having already considered it in the foregoing Book, we shall trouble our selves no farther with him. 'Tis not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece, that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose. 'Tis certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons (who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome, and sworn to ob∣serve it's Confession of Faith, but sent on purpose to communicate it to others, prevailing by means of their Ignorance) whether soever they be, whether in Muscovia or Greece, their Testimony shall not be wanting. But every body knows the Value of them. Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest, that accompanied, not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France, who after Dinner, as 'tis say'd, at the Arch-Bishop of Sens, was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucha∣rist. There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation; but not to enter into particulars, I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question. We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith, or knows the Religion professed in other Countries. These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use which Mr. Arnaud would make of this Priest. For to determine whether Transubstantiation be an Article of the Moscovite Religion, it ought to be known on one hand what it is the Latins call Transubstantiation, what they say and believe of it, and on the other, what the Moscovite Religion asserts touching the Eucharist. 'Tis no hard matter to make an ignorant Priest that speaks of a change of Bread into the Body of Christ believe tha•• he acknowledges a Transubstantiation. But not to wander from the point in hand, there is all the likelyhood in the World that that which passed at the Arch-Bishop of Sens is a meer Illusion. To judge of it we need only attentively consider the Expressions of the Relation which * 1.38 Mr. Arnaud has produced. After Dinner they withdrew into the Arch-Bishops

Chamber, where we began to Discourse them touching the different Customs of their Church, touching their Patriarchs Communion with the other Grcek Patri∣archs, concerning Fastings, Caelibacy, Prayer, their Liturgy, &c. But in fine the Arch-Bishop desirous to come to the main Point of which he was most desirous to be informed, prayed the Interpreter to tell him word for word what he was go∣ing to demand; having laid this strict charge on the Interpreter, he desired them to tell him their Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Mosco∣vite Priest answers without the least haesitation (which a little surprized us, for he had hither to stood as it were upon his Guard, as if he had feared the engaging too far in some point of Controversie, lest he might thereby endanger his Reputation) That it was the real Body and Blood of Christ, and that after the Priest had ut∣tered these words of our Saviour, this is my Body; the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and having said the same in respect of the Cup, the Wine is changed into his Blood. When the Interpreter had said this, the Arch-Bishop bad him tell him exactly word for word what the Priest had told him. The Inter∣preter told the Moscovite Priest what the Prelate desired, whereupon he repeated the same words the second time by the Interpreter. And for as much as he expres∣sed that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, he was asked whether the Moscovite Priest used a word which in his Language had the force of that of Transubstantiated in ours. He replyed, yes, and repeated the Moscovite word which signifies this, in looking on the Priest and Secretary, who both of them made Signs that this word was proper in their tongue and signified a change of Substance.

THE result of this Discourse is 1. That the Priest said 'twas the real Body and Blood of Christ, and that the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. 2. That he repeated only the same words the second time. 3. That the Interpreter added, that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated. 4. That it was the Interpreter that profest the Moscovite word had the force of that of Transubstantiation. 5. That for a farther Confirmation, touching the force of the Word, he required the Priest's and Secretary's consent by a bare look, without speaking to them. 6. That the Priest and Secretary answered him by a sign without speaking. 7. That this sign signified this word was proper in their Tongue and signified a change of Substance.

IT is to be observed that this Interpreter was a Monk, not of the Moscovite Religion, but the Roman; and of the order of Jacobins, and that he explain∣ed in French what the Moscovites said in his Language, and in Moscovit what M. the Arch-Bishop of Sens said in French, for the Moscovites understood no more the French, than the French the Moscovit. Upon this remark which is beyond controul, for 'tis a matter of Fact well known throughout all Paris, I desire Mr. Arnaud to tell me why this Interpreter having returned the Answer of the Moscovite Priest, which he twice repeated in the same Terms without any Alteration, when he had I say given it in these words, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, wherefore did he add that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated? Wherefore when he was asked whether the Priest used a Word which in his Tongue had the force of Transubstantiation, did he demand by a bare look the con∣sent of the Priest and Secretary to the Yes, which he answered, seeing the Priest and Secretary who understood not French, neither understood the Transubstantiated which he added, nor the Question put to the Interpreter, nor the Yes, he answered? Do they in Muscovia speak by sings or were

they agreed before hand that this look should signifie transubstantiated? How could the Priest and Secretary answer to that which they did not un∣derstand, why by signs, and why must this sign which answered a very obscure Question, signifie Transubstantiation? Certainly we are but sorry people here in the West in comparison of these Moscovites, that can treat of one of the most important Articles of Religion by signs and nodds, without know∣ing the point in question; had Mr. Arnaud and I learnt this Secret our Dispute would not be so tedious. Now if this be not delusory I know not any thing that I can call by that name.

'TIS certain the Moscovites profess to follow the Greek Religion although they have in some sort altered it. Which I told the Author of the Perpetuity, and this I did not assert upon light grounds, although Mr. Arnaud is pleased to say I did; seeing I said no more than what he himself acknowledges. This is a common Principle to us both, 'tis true, we draw hence different conse∣quences, but as matters are now stated and cleared, any man may easily judge which of us two has best grounded his Sentiment.

I said likewise that Lasicius affirms the Armenians although they deny Transubstantiation, yet do reverence the Sacrament more religiously than the Russians; whence I drew this Conclusion, that 'twas not likely the * 1.39 latter of these who are more cold in their Devotion should extend their Belief farther than the others, and that the others should have more respect for a Substance of Bread than these should have for what they esteemed the proper Substance of the Son of God. I know not what could oblige Mr. * 1.40 Arnaud to say, That it is scarcely to be imagined how many Disguisements and Falsities there are in this Argument. I designed no more by all this than the drawing of a just Consequence from a True Principle. 'Tis certain that Lasicius say's two things, the one that the Armenians of Leopolis deny the Bread and Wine lose their Nature, In Sacramento Eucharistae elementa Naturas suas amittere negant. These are his words, the other * 1.41 that they reverence the Sarcament more religiously than the Russians, Sacra∣mentum religiosius Russis venerantur, these are also his words. Whence I conclude 'tis not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation, the reason is sufficiently evident, to wit, that those that believe the Sacra∣ment to be the proper Substance of the Son of God, cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread.

IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say, that my Argument supposes * 1.42 according to this Author, the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence, nor Transubstantiation, and that if I do not suppose this, nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse. For if the Armenians, adds he, together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ, it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread. The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ: and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto.

I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas. Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his, Contrariatur, say's this Author, venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua

Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari. 'Twould be * 1.43 contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament, were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria. Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says: Mr. Ar∣naud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ, and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto, and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present, it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament, whence it follows according to him, that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be, ought more to reverence the Sacra∣ment than those that believe it remains. So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument. 'Tis clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation, and consequently 'tis clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament, yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites. How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites, for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacra∣ment than the others. This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud, or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas, that is to say, the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master.

MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation, 'tis evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence. It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular. The Question now concerns only the Moscovites; and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacra∣ment than the Armenians is uncontroulable, considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book, of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia, John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne, and Scarga the Jesuite; who expressly de∣pose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part, do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration, but afterwards shew it no respect nor ve∣neration, scattering the Crums thereof on the ground. It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucha∣rist after consecration an external honour is, that the Consecration is perfor∣med in a place separate from the people, and that 'tis out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'Tis evident these are mere Subter fuges. Did they worship the Sacra∣ment with an internal adoration, they would declare as much themselves, and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts. They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence, and for this effect ex∣pose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People, the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it, and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it. Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration. This, says Mr. Arnaud, * 1.44 is not so, for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret: that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language, Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the

Jews unjustly put to death. But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mista∣ken, having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread, as if it were used after this Consecration. The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine, taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration, which they call the great Entrance. If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others, and if he does know it, he shews little sincerity, in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake.

CHAP. II.

Of the ARMENIANS.

That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation: First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity.

WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians, * 1.45 as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion; as that likewise what he al∣ledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop, de∣serves not our consideration. The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit, and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow, a Lyer and Impostor. These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Semi∣nary of the Maronites, both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest, but falling out about the Edition of the Bible in Syriack, Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects, he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls, Commonitorium Apologeticum, wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner. He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome, for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites; imposing on Prince Fachraddin, for cheating the Duke of Florence, and with his being banished his own Country, his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes, and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban, Rome, and Florence which give an Account of his Life. But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks, such as we have shewed it to be in the two fore∣going Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book, and apply to them the Answers I made to several

other such like passages, which are needless here to be re∣peated.

WEE must come then to the Armenians, I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them, as for that they are a great people, and an entire Church by themselves. They are long since separated from the Greek Church, and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion. Yet are they both extream ig∣norant of the design of Christianity, and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book. I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave, say's he, a Visit to the Patriarch of the * 1.46 Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant. I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine, I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus, but he cunningly avoided it. I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious, who show little Piety, although they profess much, and live austerely. So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople, describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians, with which * 1.47 the Greeks held no communion, to wit, the Armenians, Coptics, Maronites, and Jacobites, say's amongst other things, that they live like Beasts, and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe them∣selves.

THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um, and submit them to the See of Rome. They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed, or augmented as Occasion required. They have taken the course of Seminaries, and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia, and that not seldom with Success. So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks, the one called the reunited ones, and the other Schismaticks; so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians, for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks; the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, or Catholicks as they term them, and are called only Armenians.

OUR Question only then concerns these last, and to know whether they do, or do not believe Transubstantiation. The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm, is, that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession. They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ, which is the Divine, that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity. How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ? For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body, if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist accor∣ding to them, this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity, that is to say, a manifest contradiction, to imagine they believe the change in Question; seeing to believe it, it must be necessarily supposed, not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body, but likewise that his Body is di∣stinct from the Divinity.

MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it * 1.48 by two Answers, which we must distinctly examine one after another. The first amounts to this, That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens, yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstan∣tiation, or that they do not admit it after their Fashion. For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union, and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine, yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men; that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man, that the Jews took him for a man, that they crucified him as a man. Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens, in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature, than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being. That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens, and by the Euty∣chiens themselves. For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick, yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and who was incarnate, and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God.

APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist, he say's, that they believe with all other Christians, that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, seen in the World, crucified, and risen, is really present in the Eucharist, that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do, that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity, so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity, that is to say, a deified Body, a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance. Mr. Arnaud do's likewise pro∣mise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Na∣ture according to the Eutychiens.

I know not what elucidations he may one day give us, but if they be no better then what he now tells us, they will be of no great use, for 'tis certain there was never a more crude discourse than that which he now gives us: First, What signifies the telling us that the Eutychiens acknowledged the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men, that the Apostles conversed with him, as with a man, and that the Jews took him for a man? what signifies this to the proving that they did not deny the inward substance of the Humanity remained in Jesus Christ, but said only that all the natural Proprieties which they call Nature was changed? There would be more likelyhood in concluding from hence the contrary, viz. that according to the Eutychiens the inward Substance was changed, and the natural Proprieties remained; for if we really di∣stinguish these Proprieties, from the Substance, it is immediately on them and not on the inward Substance, whereon depends ones being a man, and being taken for such. So that Mr. Arnaud in saying the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man, and that the Jews took him for a man, establishes a principle which not only concludes nothing of what he pretends but rather the contrary, which does shew in my opinion that he was in great perplexity when he wrote this Chapter. 2. Do's he not know that the Eutychiens, and

especially the Armenians when they are urged by passages of Scripture which attribute to our Saviour Christ all the out-ward Characters of a real Man, that he was born, conversed with his Apostles, eat and drank, was dead and risen again, that his Soul was oppressed with sadness, &c. whence we conclude he had a real humane Nature, answered, that all these things happened only in appearance, and that it was the Divinity it self that assumed all these External Forms, which yet had in themselves no reality. Pope John the second speaking of the Doctrine of the Eutychiens, We * 1.49 confess, say's he, that the Holy Vigin is properly and truly the Mother of God incarnate and born of her. I say properly and truly to the end it may not be imagined that he took of the Virgin a Phantasme or not real Flesh according to the Doctrine of the impious Eutychiens. The followers of Eutyches and * 1.50 Dioscorus, say's Harmenopulus, affirmed the Son of God was made man in appearance, having only one Nature, Nicephorus Callistus confirms the same thing. The wretched Eutyches, say's he, did indeed acknowledge God to be born of the Virgin Mary, and that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and so far his Doctrine is sound and true. But he likewise held that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was feigned, that the Word was changed and made Flesh after an immutable manner, that he feigned in appearance the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation, and that whatsoever of corporeal appeared in him was only a Phan∣tasme and Fiction. The same thing appears in respect of the Armenians from the Information which Pope Benedict the twelfth gives us of their Errors. For the twenty eighth Article has these words. The Armenians know∣ing not what answer to give the passages of the Gospel which assert our Saviour had a real humane Body after his Resurrection, forasmuch as they affirm that at the moment of the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divinity, answer that the will of God as it pleased wrought all these things, by which it seemed he had a Humane Body, altho in effect he had none. And in the following Article. Altho the Armenians hold that after the Union there was only in our Saviour Christ the Divine Nature into which the Humane Nature was converted, yet they say, and hold that the Divine Nature so depended on the will of Christ, that he did with it what he pleased. Cyrillus in his Letter to Witembogard relates he held a conference with one of the chief of the Armenian Doctors named Barsabas, in the Temple of Jerusalem, before all the people, and that the Subject of their Dispute was, Whether our Saviour * 1.51 Christ conversed with men, and died in appearance only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because adds he, The Armenians believe he suffered death 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in ap∣pearance and not really. The Jacobites who are Eutychiens as well as the Armenians say likewise the same thing on this Subject according to the Relation of John Cotovic. They affirm, say's he, that the Flesh which * 1.52 Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what seeming and phantastick Flesh, and that he rather seemed to be a man, and born and dye than really to do so. So that they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, his Ascention into Heaven, and his second coming are bare Semblances and Appearances, and by this means make all these Mysteries meer Illusions. This is the true Opinion of the Euty∣chiens. So far are they from giving Mr. Arnaud Reason to conclude that they conserve in Jesus Christ the inward Substance of the Humanity, that on the contrary it appears they have only recourse to these vain appearances to defend themselves against the passages of Scripture by which is proved against them the Reality of the Humane Substance in this Divine Saviour.

III. WERE their Sentiment such as Mr. Arnaud supposes it to be, how comes it to pass they have never declared as much? Whence is it they have ever say'd the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine, that it was changed into the Divinity, mixt and confused with the Divinity, without ever minding to clear up this difficulty in saying that by Nature they understood not the inward Substance, but only all the inward Proprieties, and that they confessed this Substance remained intire? How comes it that those who disputed against them, or that have related their Errors never made this pretended Distinction of Mr. Arnaud, nor declared this new Sence in which the word Nature is to be taken, to wit, for all the natural Proprieties, distinct and really separate from the inward Substance? Whence is it that Mr. Arnaud having so sharply inveighed hereto∣fore against the Equivocations of the Greeks and Latins, now thinks fit to admit a perpetual one between the Orthodox and Eutychiens, the one taking the Term of Nature in one Sence, and the other in another, and disputing so many Ages against one another without explaining themselves and understanding one another? For it does not appear from Authors that wrote against the Eutychiens, that they took in this occasion the term of Nature for the Natural propriety in opposition to the inward Substance, as it pleases Mr. Arnaud to suppose without proof. It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties. * 1.53 If the humane Substance, say's Gelasius, has ceased to be, the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine, it follows that the humane form having no longer it's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise. And in another place of the same Treatise. If they do not deny, say's he, that Jesus Christ was real man, it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance, for otherwise he would not be real man. * 1.54 When you say, say's Vigilius, that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ. And a little farther, If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion, there would be two Persons, one of the Word, and the other of the Flesh, who would have one and the same common Nature. Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity, and he concludes his Argument taken * 1.55 from the Eucharist in these words, The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form, Figure, Circumscription, and, in a word, it has the Substance of a Bo∣dy. * 1.56 Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. M••ximus which expresly as∣serts, that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures, but denyed they differed * 1.57 in Essence, introducing a confusion of Natures. Even Cardinal Perron him∣self altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation, acknowledged this truth, that the Eutychiens held, the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ. For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained, because the Form, Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him. Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity, whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties. And it must be moreover ac∣knowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not

discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians, and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little. But to speak better, It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations, for when he has need of them, he can well dispence with them, how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions, wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks.

IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation * 1.58 of Anastasius Sinaite, that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion, the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God, there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which repre∣sented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity, than to say they meant his very Substance. For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity. Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say, by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens, rather than to give the lye to these Authors, and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius, whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him, as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book?

THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer. Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second. It consists in maintain∣ing * 1.59 that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens; that is to say, they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures, that they condemned Eutyches, and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures, asserting our Saviour had but one.

THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors. We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour. We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk, and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians; So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons, seeing he is pleased to except against them, and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference. Here are others then which are not to be contemned, whether we regard their number or quality. The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century. There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a * 1.60 Treatise of his under the Title, De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione. He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation, and amongst others mentions this, that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ, in the Union. Itidem, say's he, & in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt. He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible, that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered; and altho they durst not openly explain themselves, yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do, for they take three Crosses, and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity. Now here is (according to Mr. Arnaud) a third Impostor, that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures. He must be excluded as well as Eutychus

and Isaac; but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors.

TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian a∣mongst the Greeks; who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites; and adds, sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body, uncreated, heavenly, impassible, subtile, which is not of the same Sub∣stance with ours, yet has all the Accidents of Flesh, in appearance and after * 1.61 the manner of a spectrum. Sometimes likewise they affirm the Flesh of the Word was converted into the Nature of the Divinity, and became consubstantial with it. They do for the most part deny the Word assumed a humane Body of the Virgin, and say that having been changed without a Change, and made Flesh he has only passed through the Virgin, and fastned his Divinity to the Cross; and altho it be neither finite nor circumscribed yet he has deposited it in the Sepulchre. They deny the Birth of Christ according to the Flesh, affirming it hapned in appearance only. In the Celebration of the Eucharist they use the Azyme and not Bread. They put no Water in the Chalice, design∣ing to represent thereby that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ; where∣as we by the mixture of Water with Wine, represent the Union of the two Natures. It cannot be more clearly affirmed that the Armenians are real Eutychiens, seeing he not only attributes to them the believing that the humane Nature was converted into the Nature of the Divini∣ty, but made consubstantial with it: But he is too a terrible Calumniator, if we believe Mr. Arnaud. Howsoever let us pro∣ceed.

GUY Carmus who lived about the year 1340. and has exactly reckon∣ed up the Errors of the Armenians in his Book of Heresies; expresly tell us * 1.62 they follow the Opinions of Dioscorus, denying with him the two Natures of Jesus Christ, to wit the Divine and Humane, in the Unity of Person. That they admit only one Nature in Jesus Christ, that is the Divine; one Will, and one Operation. And in the twelfth Error he remarks They held that after the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine; so that as there is but one Person in Jesus Christ, so there is but one Nature in him, to wit the Divine, and that they cruelly persecute those that hold there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and Humane.

IN the year 1341, the then Pope caused this Information to be drawn up, touching the Errors of the Armenians which we have already mentioned, and shall have farther occasion to discourse of hereafter. The second Article has these words, That there was held heretofore a Council in Armenia, wherein assisted the Catholick, that is to say, the Patriarch of the Armenians, with their Bishops, Doctors, and the Patriarch of the Suriens. * 1.63 That in this Council was rejected the Council of Chalcedon, especially because it had determined we must believe there are two Natures in Jesus Christ; to wit the Humane and the Divine, and one only Person subsisting in two Natures. That the Council of the Armenians had on their side determined, that as in our Saviour Christ there is but one only Person, so likewise is there in him but one Nature, to wit the Divine, one only Will, and one Operation; that they anathematised those that affirmed the contrary, and persecuted them not only by imprisonments, and loading them with Chains, but even to the putting them to death. That in this Council they had condemned Pope Leo and his

Letters to the Fathers of Chalcedon, and Flavian the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople, because he asserted therein two Natures and one Person, two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ. That in fine they Canonized Dioscorus whom the Council of Chalcedon had condemned, and the Armenians celebrated his Festival three times in a year as a Saint; and cursed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon which had condemned Dioscorus. The twentieth Article bears, That the Armenians believe and hold, that the Eternal Son of God begotten of the Substance of the Father, has united to himself the Humane Nature, and was made man, yet in such a manner that, in the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature; and as there was after the Union but one Person in Jesus Christ, so is there but one Nature in it, to wit the Divine and not the Humane, That they curse all those who say the contrary; so great∣ly detesting those that hold the two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union, to wit, the Divine and humane, that if any Baptised Armenian amongst them sayd this, they would not communicate with him; but esteem him as a Heathen; and upon his Return to the faith of the Armenians, rebaptise him neither more nor less then if he came from Paganism; and after this second Baptism lay twenty years Pennance on him. And in the twenty first Article. The Armenians believe and hold that because after the Union of Natures in Jesus Christ, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine, in such a manner that from that very moment there was only the Divine Nature in him,) the Divinity has been passible and impassible, mortal and immortal, according as our Saviour himself pleased, and that thus he has suffered and is dead in the Divine Nature because he would, having no humane Nature when he suffered and dyed. Do's Mr. Arnaud imagine we shall rest contented when he shall tell us, that all these things are meer impo∣stures?

EUGENUS IV. instructing the Armenians in Council of Florence * 1.64 sufficiently shews he takes them for real and perfect Eutychiens; for he chiefly apply's himself to shew them the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and teach them that our Saviour Christ is consubstantial with us, and having took on him a real humane Nature, this Nature has subsisted, and do's still subsist, in the hypostatical Union, without confusion or con∣version. We need but read this Discourse to find that it's drift is to oppose against the Errors of the Armenians, the contrary Doctrines which must be held to be conformable with the Church of Rome; and that one of the principal points he designed to insist on, was that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, against the Heresie of Eutyches. And this is the opinion of * 1.65 Mr. Sponde Bishop of Pamiez. He do's not give them, say's he, in his Decretals, all the Articles of the Christian Faith, but contents himself (as I take it) with those wherein they erred, or of which they doubted. And first he gave them the Symbol of the Councel of Constantinople, with the Addition of the Filioque, to have it sung in Churches, then the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, touching the two Natures of Jesus Christ in Unity of Person. Thirdly, the Definition of the sixth Council touching the two Wills, and two Operations in our Saviour Christ. Fourthly, because the Armenians had acknowledged hitherto only the three first Councils that of Nice, Constantino∣ple, and Ephesus, rejecting those that were held afterwards, he shews them that the Council of Chalcedon which they believed favoured the Nestorian Heresie, did as well condemn Nestorius, as Eutyches, and that they must receive it.

PRATEOLUS who made a Catalogue of all the Sects, say's, * 1.66 that 'tis easie to conjecture by reading of History why the Armenians have separated themselves from the Church. That 'tis because of the Council of Chalcedon, for this Council condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus whose Opini∣ons they followed.

JOHN Cottovic a Famous Traveller that relates what he learnt from * 1.67 the Armenians themselves, tells us, That the Armenians as well as the Jacobites, acknowledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ, one Will and one Operation, and say the Humanity was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity, in such a manner that the Divinity and Flesh became but one and the same thing.

IT is in the same Sense that Pietro Della Valle comparing the Arme∣nians * 1.68 with the Georgians, say's, That 'tis not to be doubted but the Georgians are better Christians then the Armenians, who hold the Errors of Dioscorus whose Opinions are far more Pernicious, gross and numerous, than those of all the other Christian Nations in the East.

IT seems to me likewise that Person must be extreme obstinate that will * 1.69 not acquiesce in the Testimony of Cyrillus the Patriarch of Alexandria, (alrea∣dy mentioned) who lived in the midst of those people, who assures one of their Doctrines is, that all these humane Accidents, which the Gospel denotes in our Saviour Christ, as for Instance, to be born, to have conversed with men, to be dead, &c. did not happen to him really but only in appearance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. How great aversion soever Mr. Arnaud may have to Cyrillus his Person, I do not believe he imagins, that this Patriarch had our Dispute in his mind, nor wrote upon my Account his Conference with the Armenian Doctor Barsabas; we may therefore gather from his Testi∣mony, that the Armenians are perfect Eutychiens; for if they believed there was in our Saviour a real humane Nature, which is to say, that he was real man, and the whole Difficulty consisted only in the Term of Nature, which they would not receive, why should they affirm that his Con∣versation here on Earth, his Death and Resurrection were only in appearance? 'Tis evident they admit these false and deceitful Ap∣pearances, only because they deny the reality of the Substance, or Humane Nature.

HOW willing soever Thomas a Jesu has been to mollify the extrava∣gant * 1.70 Opinions of the Eastern Sects, yet he tells us of the Armenians, That they believe but one Nature, one Will and one Operation of our Lord Jesus Christ. And Barbereau the Jesuit, an Emissary of Constantinople writing to one of the Society testifies the same thing. What shall I say, say's he, of the Armenians that are here (at Constantinople) to the Number of above sixty thousand in a more deplorable condition than the Greeks? For besides that they are as ignorant as them, they have a particular Heresie which distinguishes them from others; for they hold there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ, and keep so firm to this Opinion, that 'tis a crime amongst them, so much as to mention the contrary. He do's not say 'tis a bare Equivocation in the Word Nature, as Mr. Arand would perswade us, but a Heresie, a false Opinion, and an Opinion of which they are so greatly conceited, that they hold the contra∣dicting of it a Crime. But how can this be if they condemn Eutyches and

Dioscorus, and affirm not the Humane Nature was confounded and swal∣lowed up in the Divine: if they grant the Humane Nature as well as the Catholicks, and their Error consists only in refusing to use the expression of the two Natures, as Mr. Arnaud assures us.

BUT after all these Testimonys I think I may re-stablish the Authority of Euthymius Zigabenus the Greek Monk, and that of Isaac an Armenian Catholick, who have both of 'em Written against the Schismatical Arme∣nians, and say the same thing as the rest. Mr Arnaud says, they prevari∣cate and impose on their Readers, but what I now come from relating sufficiently justifies them from this Accusation. After the Councel of Chal∣cedon, says Euthymius, the Armenians at the Instigation of one Hilarius Mandacanus, and other Prophane Priests that were with him, separated them∣selves * 1.71 from the Catholick Church: and having embraced the impious Opinion of Eutyches, Dioscorus and other Monophysical Hereticks that hold only one Nature in our Saviour Christ, they added thereunto several other impious Doctrines, to make their Heresie as it were more Compleat and Famous. For they say our Saviour Christ took on him a Body which was not of the same substance as ours, that his is Incorruptible, Impassible, Subtil, Uncreated, and Heavenly, which seemed to exercise the Humane functions, as to See, Eat, and Drink, and yet did none of all these things. They say moreover that the Flesh of Christ was changed into the Divinity, and made of the same Essence with the Divinity it self. That as a Drop of Honey or Vinegar cast into the Sea is not seen, do's no longer subsist; so the Body of Christ being ingulphed and swallowed up in the Ocean of the Divinity, keeps no longer its own Nature and propriety; and thus there are not two Natures in Christ, but one alone, which is wholly Divine. And there fore they deny the Sacrifice of Bread, which is the flesh of Christ, to be the Body of Christ, but call it the Body of the Divinity. That when they are convinced and constrained by strength of Argument, to acknowledge our Saviour Christ to be both God and Man, they do it by dissimulation, for how can they seriously acknowledge him to be Man, seeing as I already mentioned they affirm his substance to be different from ours. They change, says Isaac, the traditions of the Catholick Church, and the mysteries of Christ according to their blasphemous fancy; they do not call the Communion, or the Sacrifice of Bread which is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Body of Christ as he himself has called it, but the Divinity.

MR. Arnaud may say as long as he pleases that these two Authors misrepre∣sent the Armenians in charging them with believing the Humane Nature to * 1.72 have been ingulphed by the Divine, and to be pure Eutychiens. What reason has he to think the World will be satisfied with this answer, as if it were sufficient for the rejecting of Authors to bring against them bold accusations, without any ground or proof; and humorously maintain that what they affirm is false?

BREEREWOOD, says he, and other modern Authors say as much. * 1.73 As to Breerewood tis true he says, that it seems by their confession touching the Trinity, sent by the Mandate of the Catholick of Armenia to the Patriarck of Armenia about fifty years since, that they have wholly renounced this Fancy. But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia, and not that of this Church. If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head, without any Proof, his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors, whom we have already alledged: that which we have

seen of Cyril, and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People, and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confessi∣on he mentions. And so is that also which Cottovic relates. The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says (as we have already seen,) That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan, in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant, and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches, he cunningly shunned the occasion. This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us, that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error, and have in no wise changed their belief.

BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins, yet would what Euthymius, Isaac, and other Authors say be no less true, on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony. For if it be true as Breere∣wood says, that they have now renounced that Fancy, they had it then here∣tofore, for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held: so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Tran∣substantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past; and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence, is, that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite, without any noise or disturbance; whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless. As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of, when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em, but there's no body but sees, after what I have related, that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done, That other Modern Authors are agreed therein, seeing, John Cottovic, Pietro Della Vallé, Cyrillus, Thomas a Jesu, Barbereau, the Bishop of Heliopolis, are late Authors, and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms.

NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia, and sent to the Emperour Emanuel; nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch; altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions, we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ, not in confounding it, as * 1.74 Eutyches does; nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus, but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius, in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate. But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church. It was the Patriarchs in particular, as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien. For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that, our Saviour had two Natures, two Wills, and two Operations; the Pa∣triarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings. Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour, that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ; The Patriarch answered, that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul, and yet is said to have but one Nature, altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion, and change; and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same. In fine he told him he

would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People? That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John, who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits; which is to say, to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ; and that he had the writings of this John, together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory; who added thereunto these words, I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written, and Anathematise those that do not believe it. It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one, was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church, but the private Opinion of the Patriarch, who disputed with Theorien, and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory.

BUT it will be perhaps here demanded, how this person could in con∣science continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment. To answer this Objection, I need only give the Character of this person, such as it appears to be in this same conference, and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said. This, says he, do I intend to do, I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council. And when met, I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians, and which in effect do seem to favour them. Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me, and at first will take the Armenians part, and dispute against you. But insen∣sibly and by degrees, and with great caution, will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians, which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them. I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book, and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with. In fine, I will declare my self openly for the Greeks (or to speak better) I will contend for the truth against the Armenians. I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me, so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd. If all the Bishops shall be for me, nothing will be more welcome to me: But if not, I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine to∣gether with those on my side; and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops, containing the Orthodox Faith. Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same, That we receive the Holy, and universal Council of Chalcedon, and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd. That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council; espcially, Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus, and Timotheus Aylu∣rus, and in general all those that have opposed this Council. This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical, and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council; much less in his Church. But 'tis likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour, and which occa∣sioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church, but his own particular, for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did, there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design. It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation, a mis-understanding, or at most but a question concerning words, which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity. Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches, and Dioscorus, if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions.

IT appears then from what I have said, that Eutymius and Isaac were nei∣ther Impostors, nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches; and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature; but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature. After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned, there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so cer∣tain: now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins, that is to say, the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body; and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose.

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 * 1.75 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 * 1.76 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 * 1.77 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 * 1.78 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 * 1.79 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 * 1.80 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. * 1.81 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 * 1.82 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. * 1.83 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 * 1.84 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 * 1.85 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, * 1.86 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 * 1.87 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 * 1.88

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 * 1.89 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 * 1.90 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 * 1.91 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 * 1.92 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 * 1.93 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 * 1.94 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 * 1.95 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 * 1.96 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 * 1.97 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 * 1.98 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 * 1.99 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 * 1.100 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 * 1.101 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 * 1.102 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.

CHAP. IV.

Testimony of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation, and the real Presence.

THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Proposi∣tion I defend, is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion, who have bin so far from questioning Guy Carmes's Testimony, that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their suffrages. We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldensis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century, and a zealous Defender of Transubstan∣tiation, who writing against Wicliff, calls the Armenians, Nepotes Beren∣garii, Berengarius his Children or Disciples. I mention 'em, says he, to the end we may have a care of 'em. And therefore also Guy Carmes speaking of them, says, that the Twenty Second of their Errors is, that after the Conse∣cration, * 1.103 the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread, and Wine, but only in Representation and Figure. That Jesus Christ did not really Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood, but only in Resemblance and Figure.

PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred * 1.104 years since, testifies the same thing, They deny, says he, (speaking of the Armenians) the true Body of Jesus Christ to be contain'd really in the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and Wine.

BZOVIUS an Historian of our time and a continuer of Baronius, has * 1.105 not scrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point. He observes as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Heresies, That the true Body of Jesus Christ is not under the species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist.

IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers, in that confused heap of * 1.106 Collections he has made of passages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points, follows Guy Carmes; and relying on his Testimony assures us, That the Armenians deny the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ, affirming it to be only a sign thereof.

THOMAS à Jesu who has made strict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schismatical Eastern Churches, has thought (as well as others) he * 1.107 ought not to deviate from the sentiment of Guy Carmes, nor that any man has Reason to doubt of the Truth of his Testimony. He relates and approves it, and says, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ, to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine. * 1.108

DR. Avily in his computation of Heresies both Modern and Ancient, has likewise follow'd Guy Carmes, and assured us from his Testimony

That the Armenians teach Christ's Body is not really under the Bread, nor his Blood under the Wine.

HOW comes it that these Authors who appear otherwise so zealous for the Interests of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended mistake of Guy Carmes? Why should they suffer themselves to be so grosly imposed on? or, to speak better, whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation? how comes he to be better informed than o∣ther People?

WE shall in the following Chapter search into the Grounds of his Opinion, and the Proofs he brings, only mentioning here several Protestants, whose Testimony is the less to be suspected, in asmuch as, what they wrote was not all design'd for our controversie. We have already seen in the Discourse about the Moscovites, that Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's, they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature. They deny, say's he, that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist * 1.109 the Elements lose their Nature. They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine. They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians, believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin, and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction, and affinity, between the Divine and Humane Nature, that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be. They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross, because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction. And when I demanded of them how this could be, seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration, they answered me, This was effected by the Divine virtue, to which we ought to give credit. And these are Lasicius his words, according to the Original, but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version. It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend, for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation; Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence. But as to my pretention I think 'tis well grounded and beyond all Question, seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Na∣ture.

HE has had his informations, say's Mr. Arnaud, only from some Ignorant * 1.110 Persons in Leopolis. If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testi∣mony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation, why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence? Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point, and knowing ones for the other? perhaps, say's he, he did not comprehend that by the word Nature, they meant only the Mass of external Acci∣dents. But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable. Where will * 1.111 he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature, for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance? The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which (he himself tells us in another place) the Greeks, the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no men∣tion. Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the * 1.112 word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em, or of which at least they make no mention? Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles

according as his occasions require, Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis. Which shews his Answers mere Evasions, and in effect there's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius, but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation. Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me. Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence.

BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it, I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine, that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence; whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms, of which he has not comprehended the sence. For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Vir∣gin Mary. Now we have already seen that according to them, Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature, which had only a Body in appear∣ance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not really. Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be, that the Divinity being every where, it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist. And with this agrees what they add, that after the Incarnation, there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures, that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ. For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Na∣tures distinct, for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence, but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine, a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divi∣nity, as we have already seen they commonly held. So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament, is no other than the presence of the Divinity, which is every where, but more especially in the Eucharist. 'Tis very probable 'twas under this Equivocation the Pa∣triarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter. The Body of Jesus Christ, say's he, Born of the Virgin, dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread. The Body Born of the Vir∣gin and Dead on the Cross, which was to say, according to them, the Divinity, which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross. But when he was urged to acknowledge 'twas the same Numerical Body, he would not grant it, because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies, and consequently made it a real Body. Mr. Arnaud will reply, this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so's. But he has no other Grounds for his may be's than his own Imagination, whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothe∣sis of the Armenians, having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I de∣scribe it.

WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood, in his * 1.113 Treatise of Religions. For he say's expresly, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine. I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes, but this shews he takes it for an unquestiona∣ble truth.

MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us, that the

Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form * 1.114 of Bread and Wine.

MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe, for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications, has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages, in which are found these words, The Armenians administer the Sacrament * 1.115 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine, and deny the real presence of the Body of Christ, acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper. There has hapned upon the Account of this Translation a very Remarkable circumstance. You must know then that Mr. Arnaud in the first edition of his Book having made an Ob∣jection to himself concerning this Passage of Herbert, and heightened it as∣much as he could to the saying, he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it, being so considerable as to startle most People, that he thought there could * 1.116 be nothing replyed to such an express passage, and that this Author seemed to speak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themselves. Having I say proposed this Objection, he Answers, that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calvinistical Translator. That having desired some of his Friends to Translate from the Original English, whatsoever related to the Armenians in that Book, he found by their Translation that not only he does in no wise speak of the real Presence, but that almost all the discourses contained in the 249^th. and 250^th. page were foysted in by the Translator, who made his Dreams and Fancies pass for the Relations of a Traveller. That 'tis likely he has done the same in several other places, so that this whole Book is rather the Translators Romance than the true account of a Voyage. This Discourse being very disingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman, who has ever manifested in his Writings and Conversation an exemplary sincerity, it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having seen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly justifyed himself from it. And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embassadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew, Herbert's Book in English Printed at London. 1638. by Rich. Bishop, wherein is precisely these words, They administer the Lords Supper in both kinds, Bread and Wine, and deny a real Presence. They allow but our two Sacraments. Having produced this Ori∣ginal, he caused a Letter to be Printed and directed to me, in which he complains of the injustice Mr. Arnaud has done him, and protests, he is not of that Temper to make use of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofesses, as knowing it abhors them, and makes no difference between the cheats which the Mo∣dern Divinity of some call pious, and the falshood that destroys the Soul of him that utters it. He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expressions, and refutes his Calumnies, and offers for his justification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related 'um. Afterwards he says he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now justify, that in the Original English there is no mention of the real Pre∣sence, nor affirm 'tis a mere imposture of the Calvinistical Translator. That he also affirms whatsoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250, concerning the Baptism of the Armenians, their Proselytes, Fasts, Images, Priests, their Belief touching Purgatory, their Superstitions, and Efforts which the Jesuits have made to subject them to the See of Rome, is really contained in the Original English, there being nothing of his Invention in all this. And to justifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Lan∣guage.

THIS so well grounded defence, has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accusation Printed in the First. He has retrenched all those Injurious Discourses against the Reputation, and sincerity of Mr. Vicqfort, and acknowledged his Translation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original. He has at the same time discovered to us the cause of his mistake, to wit, that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634, th'other in 1635. in which the Author contained himself within the Relation of his Voyage; and the Second in 1638, wherein he had added several particulars relating to Reli∣gion and History, those whom he consulted had seen only the first Edition, but that Mr. Vicqfort Translated from the Second in which was found the Passage in question.

I am far from being of that Humour to insult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occasion, nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors, who mean not the least hurt to him. I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own rashness in grounding a charge of this importance on a supposition, he has found to be false, without considering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one. But he must suffer me to tell him that what he has inserted in his Marginal Notes is not a sufficient excuse for him, the French Translation, says he, making no mention of two different Editions of this English Book, we could not Divine it. Much less could * 1.117 the Translator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impostour, for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book. These kind of Accusations pronounced with such confidence do suppose a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them, whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the least pains in this respect he might have easily discovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book, and found what he has bin since shewed. He needed not divine but certainly inform himself, for this Book being Printed at London in 1638, and being moreover famous in that kind, he might have been soon satisfyed concerning it. But supposing he could not, he ought not presently to call a Person a Deceiver: But rather to have proposed his doubts, and require a solution of Mr. Vicqfort himself, and not thus rashly charge a Gentleman that never offended him. I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular, Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology, did not the interest of my cause oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Discourses, if they be not upheld by solid and convincing Proofs, which they never are, as appears from this whole dispute.

BUT laying aside this contest see we what Mr. Arnaud offers against the Authority of Herbert, who expresly affirms the Armenians deny the real Presence. We matter not, says he, the advantage which the Calvinists * 1.118 would make of this Testimony of Herbert, who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book, has added what he pleased, touching the Religion of those People through whose Countrys he travelled, without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them, for he only says what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect, who have treated of them, as Breerewood has done. Those Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Arme∣nians do fully solve this Point. And not to mention others, there is no comparison between a Calvinist who speaks in his own cause, and accord∣ing to his interests, without Authority and proofs, and a Lutheran, such a

one as Mr. Olearius is, who speaks against himself and his own interest, and cites the Persons from whom he learnt what he tells us.

MR. Arnaud has soon forgotten what he wrote on this same subject * 1.119 in his first Edition, We may well admire, say's he, that Mr. Claude, who is wont to propose slight Objections, should omit one, which is very considerable in appearance, and enough to startle People, because the solution of it is so hard to be found, that we cannot justly reproach him, if he be ignorant of it. The Objection is, that we meet with this passage in a Translation of Herbert's Voyages, That the Armenians deny the real presence of the Body of Christ. It seems there can be nothing replyed to so clear a passage, and that this Author who tells us what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves of those Countrys, as well as Mr. Olearius, may at least weaken his Au∣thority.

WHENCE I pray comes this so manifest a contrariety of judgment? As long as the pretended Imposture of the Translator continues in Mr. Arnaud's thoughts, Herbert's Authority is weighty and sufficient to startle People, the solution of it is difficult, and it seems there can be nothing replyed to so plain a passage. But so soon as this pretended Imposture vanishes, then 'tis, we matter not the Testimony of Herbert, and judicious Persons ought not to credit it. Before he was an Author who speaks what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves thro whose Countrys he passed. Now he is a Person that to enlarge his Book has in his Second Edition added what he pleases. Before he was an Author, who may well weaken the Authority of Mr. Olearius, now he is a Calvinist in no wise comparable with a Lutheran, such as Mr. Olearius. What is this but a sporting with Authors, extolling 'um, depressing them, and making 'um good or bad according as Mr. Arnaud's Occasions require. 'Tis plain he wants an object to exercise his w••ath on; if it be not the Translator, it must then be the Author; and when the living escapes him, then the Dead must pay for't. Who told Mr. Arnaud that what Mr. Herbert relates in his Second Edition is not what he Learnt from the Inha∣bitants themselves thro whose Countrys he travelled, but Excerptions from Breerewood? He dared not mention, say's he, from whom he learnt what he relates. If this be sufficient to invalidate the Testimony of Travellers, we can be certain in nothing they tell us touching the manners of People, and their Religions; for it seldom happens that Travellers denote the Persons from whom they have bin inform'd, and if they be unfaithful in respect of the things they tell us, they may be as well so in reference to the naming of Persons.

MR. Herbert was a Person of Quality, deservedly Honourable both for his Learning and Integrity. He has viewed whatsoever was worth his Observation both in Asia and Affrica, and carefully denoted the manners and Religions of People, writing nothing till such time as he was well informed of the Truth of it. What means Mr. Arnaud then thus to attack his Memory, and tells us that a Person thus qualifyed has copyed out from Breerewood, that is to say, from a Scholar who perhaps never travelled farther than his own Country?

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 * 1.120 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. * 1.121 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. * 1.122 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. * 1.123 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, * 1.124 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 * 1.125 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 * 1.126 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 * 1.127 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 * 1.128 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, * 1.129 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 * 1.130 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.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Nestorians, Maronites, Jacobites, Copticks, and Aethiopians. That they hold not Transubstantiation.

WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion. Mr. Arnaud * 1.131 pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors, who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular. He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See, never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist. He say's in fine, that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome, they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist.

BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors, we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits, that they do only chiefly observe

those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman, descending not so far as to particularize all other matters, which these Churches do or do not hold.

THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries. The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians, without mentioning the new Do∣ctrines which they have taught 'um; and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute, being a Point, against which the Nestorians were pre∣judic'd; but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction, as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion, and which they ought now to receive, to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church.

WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves, who have sent the Emissaries, for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd, and which expresly contains the Article of Transubstantiation in these terms, Sacra∣mentum Eucharistiae ex azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia, tenens et docens, quod in ipso Sacramento, Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament 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.

THE Popes have ever earnestly recommended to the Missionaries the instructing of the Nestorians, and other Eastern Christians according to this Formulary. They have sent it to the Nestorian Proselyte Bishops, enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds, and to teach it their People, as we may see in Raynaldus. In the profession of Faith which * 1.132 Timotheus a Nestorian Arch-Bishop of the Isle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence, he was made to say that he confessed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church, and * 1.133 of the manner after which she holds, teaches, and Preaches them. And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Nestorian Christians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaises found in the Kingdoms of Cochin, Coulan, and Cranganor, Du Jarric observes their Arch-Bishop was * 1.134 caused to profess what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which must be held concerning the Sacraments. He means without doubt that which was set down in the Instruction given to the Armenians, in which we see the Article of Transubstantiation. All which shews us they well knew the Necessity there was of introducing Transubstantiation into the Nestorian Church, to make it conformable to the Roman; whence 'tis not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not establisht in it before.

IN effect had the Emissaries and other travellers into these Countrys found the belief of the Substantial Conversion established in them, 'tis not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World, and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article. Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Necessity of drawing a Proof from their si∣lence, seeing they would have positively declared they found these People

imbued with this sentiment, that the substance of Bread is changed into the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ. The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it, and certainly there would have bin some Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Protestants in Europe: but instead of this neither the Popes nor Emissaries make mention of this pretended conformity, and Mr. Arnaud Philosophises upon their not charging the Nestorians with their being Calvinists, and upon some passages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain, and which at bottom are of no consideration in respect of our difference.

LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Discourse concerning these Nestorians from whence we may easily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Eucharist. They were very earnest (according to his Relation) * 1.135 with an Orthodox Christian to communicate with them, and this Person telling them he could not have Communion at the same time with the Catholick Church and theirs, they answered him, that this need not trouble him because the Bread which is proposed as a Type of the Body of Jesus Christ contains a greater blessing than that sold in the market, or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary. 'Tis appa∣rently seen these are not the expressions of Persons that believe the real Presence which the Roman Church holds. This shews they acknowledged no other effect from the Consecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction, or Grace, and 'tis also very Remarkable that in this Discourse they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jesus Christ, in which they follow the expression of * 1.136 Nestorius himself the Author of their Sect, who speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist say's, that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Original of it, which is as much as to say that the Bread is a figure which represents this Body. And thus far concerning the Nestorians.

AS to the Maronites their profession of Obedience, since so long a time, to the See of Rome, receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope, do's evidently exclude them from this dispute. Yet we cannot but observe how little exact Mr. Arnaud is, when designing to shew that the Maronites believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church, say's, that Thomas a Jesu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propositions they found in the Books of the Maronites, amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys, such as Comunicating of both kinds, giving the Communion to Children. Yet in this Catalogue of suspected Propositions, there's not one relating to the Eucharist. 'Tis certain Mr. Arnaud is mistaken, having perused this extract a little carelesly, for otherwise he would have observed three Propositions which evidently shew that these People did not believe Transubstantiation, nor yet the Substantial Presence. The first is, That our Saviour Christ dipt the Bread he gave to Judas, to 'the end he might thereby take off the Conse∣cration. Christus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Conse∣crationem tollendam. We have already observed that this Errour must be grounded on this Principle, that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality, which imprints its self in its Substance, and which may be effaced in washing the Bread. For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Consecration was to change the Sub∣stance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, that in dipping the Bread the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ would be washed off?

THE II. Proposition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was, That when we receive the Eucharist, it Descends not into the Stomach, but immediately disperses it self to every member of our Body. This Proposition was deem'd Heretical, and in effect, we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament disperses its self to all the Members of our Body without supposing it to be the Substance of Bread, there being too many absurdities to make the proper Substance of Christs Body pass into the Substance of our Flesh. Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damascene who expresly asserts, That the Sacrament passes * 1.137 into the Substance of our Souls and Bodys, that 'tis neither Consumed or Corrupted, nor passes into excrements, but into our Substance and for our Conservation. We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread, seeing it passes into that of our Bodies. Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence. Do's Mr. Claude, say's he, pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical * 1.138 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them? Surely he will not proceed so far. How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance? And why do's he not conclude on the contrary, that as these words, in Consistentiam animae vadit, do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul, but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul, to conserve, fortify and operate in it his Graces; so this expression, in Consistentiam Corporis vadit, do's signify nothing else, but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality.

BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself, not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks, there are two things in the Eucharist, the Substance, and the Spiritual and divine vertue, which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration, so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things, attributes one of 'um to the Soul, to wit the Divine Vertue, and th'other to the Body, to wit the Substance, and 'tis in respect of this latter that he say's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not consuming nor Corrupt∣ing it self, nor passing into Excrements, God forbid, but passing into our Substance and preservation. He say's expresly it passes into our Substance. Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself? Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers, he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists, one of which respects immediately the Body and th'other immediately the Soul. Under the new Law, say's Cyrill of Jerusalem, the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salva∣tion Sanctify the Soul and Body, for as the Bread respects the Body, so the word (that * 1.139 is to say the Consecration performed by the word) relates to the Soul. The Bread, say's Epiphanius, is an aliment, but there is in it a quickning Vertue. And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist, in respect of what it has material, and in reference of the Prayer say'd over * 1.140 it.

THE III. Proposition, censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract, which has for its title, Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta, some places of Scripture misunderstood, and is thus described, Asserunt Legendum esse, hoc est Sacramentum Corporis, &c. They affirm we must read, this is the Sacrament of my Body, &c. Would

Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition. For whether these People pretended we must read the Text, not, this is my Body, but, this is the Sacrament of my Body, or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ, as the title of the Article insinuates. Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church, should either make this correction, or seek this ex∣plication? Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind, that we must not read, this is my Body, but this is the Sacrament of my Body? Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence? Let Mr. Arnaud consult him∣self hereupon, and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it.

YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made, say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites, or received by the Publick Consent, and by Tradition, and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical, or Erroneous, or Superstitious, were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations, so that what we now Rehearsed con∣cerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schisma∣tical Churches.

AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite, who was of the Seminary at Rome, Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him, (that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person, whom he perfectly knew, being both of the same Country, and having passed over a great part of their Lifes together) he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testi∣monies, and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down.

COME we now to the Jacobites, Copticks and Ethiopians, Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries, which he used in reference to the Moscovites, and Nestorians; so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made, and tell him that, if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touch∣ing the Substance of the Sacrament, several Authors and Emissaries, would without doubt, have informed the World thereof; and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the La∣tins and them.

I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that, when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them, they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation; that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops; and that when Eugenius IV. * 1.141 reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites, he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites, Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, holding as they do, that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine, according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus. We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body, there being only the Divine Nature in him. Now that they hold this last Error, may be proved by infinite Testimonies.

NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert, * 1.142 that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ.

BROTHER Bieul, of the Order of Preachers, affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels, The Jacobites, say's he, are Hereticks and Schismaticks. They say there is in Christ but one Substance, one Ope∣ration, and one Will, which is the Divine. This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith. For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance, Operation and Humane Will. For the true Faith is, that God was real God, and real Man. And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them. We shewed them, say's he, wherein they erred, when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man, and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance, one Operation, one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine.

POPE John XXII. writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem * 1.143 complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus, and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared main∣tain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ.

GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors, * 1.144 that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature, no more than one Person, and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger.

THE same may be seen in Barthol. Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land. They hold, say's he, (speaking of the Jacobites) that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine.

THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ, say's Prateolus.

THEY are corrupted by several Errors, say's Cottovic, and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ. For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature, and make thereof but one Will and one Operation. They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person. Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh, but into I

know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh, and that he rather seemed to be a Man, to be born and dye than really to do and be so. Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of our Saviour, his Ascension into Heaven, and his Second Coming, are only things feigned and appearances, and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries. And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony, * 1.145 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ.

HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks. They follow, say's he, the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches, which is common to them with the Jacobites.

THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians, say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux, and hold the same Errors as the Armenians, Jacobites, and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eu∣tyches.

THE Copticks, say's Mr. Thevenot, are Christians but Jacobites, * 1.146 that is to say, followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus.

IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but ac∣knowledge it: neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks, and receive from them their Abuna, that is to say, their Patriarch, as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges. Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu. Being askt, say's he, how many na∣tures, * 1.147 wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ, He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union, one Will, and one Operation, yet without confusion, and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians, Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth. Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two. He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so, but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or con∣fusion, which they affirm to be the Divine. Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. He an∣swered they condemned this Council, because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing.

IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations, to wit, the Jacobits, Copticks, and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation, that is to say, the question is whether they be People indued with common sence. For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body, that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature, that his whole converse in the World, his Birth, Death and Resurrection, were only bare Appearances without any Reality. And to believe on the other, that the Substance of Bread is really changed

into the proper Substance of his Body, into the same Substance he took of the Virgin, and which he retains still in Heaven. Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner. But let him shew us then what this manner is. Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self? Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing, and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy; will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear? for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread, that is to say, they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances.

WILL Mr. Arnaud, say they, hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity, which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence? But if it be true that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion, whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it; never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion; have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 'tis impossible, and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity? How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret, never disputed against them on this point, nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome? Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them, since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Tran∣substantiation about which there may be great Volumes written? Mr. Ar∣naud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People, Authors, Travellers, Emissaries, Popes, Greeks, &c. ought to inform us of the rea∣son why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity.

ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judg∣ment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's, that all the Levantine Christians, who are Hereticks, and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church, yet hold as an Article of Faith, the real Presence of Jesus Christ, and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him * 1.148 to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ, and that the Divine one, and yet the Substance of Bread to be really chang∣ed into the Substance of Christ's Body.

BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Con∣sequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People, wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and said to be truely this Body and this Blood. For be∣sides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation, as I have often proved, and shall farther prove in what follows, 'tis to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated, seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces, there may be observed a Remarkable difference. The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum, mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated, Amen, Amen,

Amen, credimus & confidimus, & laudamus te Deus noster, hoc verè Corpus tuum est, We believe it, We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God, this is really thy Body; but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words, Amen, Amen, Amen, credimus, & confidimus, & laudamus te, * 1.149 O Domine Deus noster, hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua. We believe thee, we trust in thee, we praise thee O our God, this, we believe is thy Flesh in truth. In one place the People are made to say they believe, that 'tis truely the Body of Jesus Christ, and here, that they believe 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ in truth. Now there is a difference between these two Propositions, for in one the Adverb truely, refers to the Body, and in th'other to the Faith of the People. This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church, and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original. I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe. But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is * 1.150 a mere Forgery, and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo, one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament, and th'other declares they do not expose it. 'Tis to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia, that they elevate the Sacrament in some places, and not in others, that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in com∣paring it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all, that is, they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen, as is usual amongst the Latins. 'Tis plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures: Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves, and distinguished the Places, or the manner of the Elevation, whereas they speak absolutely. Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors, and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition. We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts, who describing the Mass of the Copticks, who, as every Body knows are of the same Religion, and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins, say's expresly that they use no Elevation.

IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece, and therefore 'tis inserted in it without any mention whence 'twas taken, or who Translated it, as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity. Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets, there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration, commemorating, say's he, thy Death, and Resurrection, we offer thee this Bread and * 1.151 Cup, and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence, and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee. Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup, which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever. Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance, would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death

and Resurrection, and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit? 'Tis not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood; those that believe the Roman reality do not express themselves in such a manner, much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them; for as soon as ever 'tis conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it, 'tis believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them.

I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's, by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause. The Egyptian Liturgy, say's he, attributed to St. Gregory imports, I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM. For * 1.152 there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON, that is to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise, who has an ancient Manuscript of it, and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it, (who being of the Seminary at Rome, designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries,) praecepta libera∣tionis meae.

BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations, it is moreover true that, when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins, the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books, and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; for example, there has bin inserted in the Bi∣bliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar, but un∣der this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nesto∣rians, by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of * 1.153 Goa. Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's, Gregorie's, and Cyril's, say's, that the new Manuscripts have bin cor∣rected by the order of the Holy Roman Church, into whose Bosom, as into that of a real Mother, the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Pope∣dom of Clement VIII.

THERE's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil, and Gregory, of Victor Schialch's Translation, and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage, is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins, in some one of these Reunions; for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 'tis a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknow∣ledge the Divine Nature.

OBSERVE here the terms, It is the sacred and everlasting Body, and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Amen, it is really the Body of the Em∣manuel * 1.154 our God. Amen. I Believe, I Believe, I Believe, and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God, our common Lady, and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion, mixture or confusion. I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate, he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will. He has really assumed this Body for us. I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity, no not a Moment, and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation, Remission of Sins

and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him. There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and that these words, without conversion, mixture or confusion, are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted. Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins, who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy, several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error, that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it.

LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies, for if we had 'um pure and sincere, I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substan∣tial Presence, nor with that of Transubstantiation. Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical, with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World. Upon a thro consi∣deration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks, or other Christian Churches, he must acknowledge he has over∣shot himself, and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject. Which I believe I have evidently discover'd, and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it. I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part. Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it. I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order. I have offered nothing but upon good grounds, from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks. I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words (as I know of) in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them. I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me. I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments, or Proofs, or passing by any thing considerable. In fine, I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true, and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self.

CHAP. VII.

Mr. Arnaud's 8^th. Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time, examined.

THE order of the dispute requires, that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation, I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7^th. Century till Paschasius's time exclusively, that is to say, till towards the beginning of the Ninth. And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8^th. Book; and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine.

BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters, 'tis necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs, which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries, whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have proved. We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches, whether we consider them since their separation, or during their Reunion. The Latins believed the pro∣cession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and they ad∣ded the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius, and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles, as they did afterwards. 'Tis the same in reference to several other points, and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair, 'tis likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these diffe∣rences. 'Tis then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one, or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin, whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them. He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart, and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West, and that of the Eastern in the East. Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question; but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other. And yet supposing the Consequence were good, it cannot but be in my favour, having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day.

LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks, seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them, and come we to the Latins themselves. I will under∣take, * 1.155 say's Mr. Arnaud, positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries, that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence, and Transubstantiation. I confess the under∣taking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains, but we must see how he acquits himself therein. For this purpose he has a long Chapter of pre∣paratives whose title is, supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh, eigth and ninth Century, how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist accord∣ing to Reason and Nature, and the ordinary way of their expressing them∣selves. This Chapter is full of long discourses, whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transub∣stantiation, there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine, the Substance of Bread and Wine, that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense, and that a too great care to avoid it, would not at all agree with the state of those times. Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery, and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally. That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries. That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them, but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner, in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ. That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ. That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to. That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts, th'one visible and th'other invisible, th'one sensible, and th'other intelligible, that is to say, of the outward vail which is the Sacrament, and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail, it may be considered in three manners. The first is to respect it directly, and the Body of Jesus Christ in∣directly. The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament indirectly. And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ. That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions; for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Figure of the Body; and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery, in the Sacrament, under the Figure of Bread and Wine, and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure. That 'tis Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other. In fine, that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations, Customs, Benefits, and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols, it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations, without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 'twas known of all the World.

AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book. 'Tis evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words, to throw himself into a Labyrinth, and draw insensibly his Readers after him. For to what end is this heap of Suppositions, Propositions, Reflections, Distinctions, different Respects, Ways of Ex∣pression &c. with which this Chapter is crammed? Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries, that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings, as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary? Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause; for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances, would she not have clearly explain'd her self? should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors, without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it?

MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man, before he judges of his Reasonings, and the Expressions of Authors in question, to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation, altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touch∣ing these Articles? Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in them∣selves determine the Difference, or which at least must byass a mans Judg∣ment towards those things which are afterwards offered? If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any men∣tion of the Substantial Presence, nor Conversion of Substances; that never believed these Doctrines, and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point, my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's: for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church, we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect. Now we know 'tis contrary to Nature to believe it. I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices, but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides. This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious, far from being sincere, and tending to surprize mens minds, by making 'um take a part beforehand, without any ground or reason, that being thus prejudic'd, they may see what is not, and not see what is. For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions, the one, that a Church believed Transubstantiation, but never disputed about it. Th'other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation, nor ever heard it, a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions. Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say, here's one of these defective Expressions men∣tion'd by Mr. Arnaud, which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer; and on the other, a man will say, here's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery. In effect, hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers, the one, believe they see Transub∣stantiation in 'um, because they read the Passages with this Prejudice, that the ancient Church held it, and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd; the others do not find it in 'um, because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice, that the ancient Church did not believe it, and

these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them. On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances, and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks.

TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance, it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other, and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable. For this effect we must consider the Church, either as a Society of men, or as a Society of Christians. In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation. If she held it, it would be in the second respect, I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith, and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give. Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th. and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives, either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion, which is the Word of God, or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries. If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition, he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures, and Tradition of the first Six Centuries, and shew therein the Doctrines in question; which done, he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages, and make his Discussion on this Principle, that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transub∣stantiation. But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things. He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century, and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute. This is a plain Deviation and Illusion. For till such time as the contrary appears to us, we must always prede∣termine on Natures side. Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence, nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread, so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere, we cannot but suppose the Church, in what time and place soever we consider it, in a State purely Natural in this respect.

WEE can never, reasonably predetermine, without some considerable motive, contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men, nor contrary to Universal Notions, and general Customs. Now 'tis certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question. For our Senses give in their Testimony against them, and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to 'um. Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have, and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters.

WEE ought never to prejudicate, without exceeding great reason, against an example, I mean against the usual manner of proceeding, acting, thinking, or speaking, in such like matters as is this in question. Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews, they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments, without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um, that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent, to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called,

not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things, and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses, but also contrary to their Depo∣sition.

WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion, a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy, that is to say, the Relation, Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines, Maxims, and Customs of the same Religion. For 'tis with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building, or Aedifices of the same City, or Members of the same Body, or if you will, as with Children of the same Family. They are known by one another, because they all do in some sort resemble each other; now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Ex∣pressions; for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days. We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ, and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul, and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful. We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ, to wit, that of his Abasement, and that of his Exaltation, without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental.

WE shall not find 'um applying to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, several Passages of the Old Testament, which might be easily made to point at it, and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation. It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species; for Accidents without a Subject, of Spiri∣tually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit, of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, of Corporeal Presence, for a Presence after the manner of a Body, by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit. It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism, the Church, the Poor, the Gospel, at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist. We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions, Observations or Questions, which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made, without being obliged thereunto by Disputes. Nor, in a word, the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine, but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it. Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another, and against which I say 'tis not Rational to prejudicate.

'TIS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things, but on the contrary predetermine in their favour, seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it. Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh, whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made, whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages, and this Pejudice joyning it

self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more.

TO all which we may add that there is, to speak morally, a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition. He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances, altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein, nor so much as questioned. But 'tis very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years with∣out any Contest touching this Article, supposing she held it. There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion, on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak, and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God. How comes it to pass there has bin none on this? There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, which could not be without some Contest on this Subject. Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians, Marcionites, Manichees, Millenaries, Encratites, Arians, Originists, Eutychiens, Asco∣drupites, and of I know not how many others, which must una∣voidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity. It being then certain as it is, that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries, 'tis a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown, and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice, and confirms ours.

MR. Arnaud will say, without doubt, we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh, which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger. But besides, that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation, it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation, nor the real Presence, as may be justified by several Inductions, there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger, Transubstantiation was established, seeing 'twas established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time, according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament, as we have already observed; 'tis an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this, seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject; and that even this makes the principal Point of ou•• Difference, to wit, whether there has hapned any change therein. Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth, the Question concerning the Change must be first decided, for whilst we be in this Contest, there can be no Consequence drawn hence. It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend, by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation, and at the same time to pre∣judicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries, because 'twas believed in the eleventh, which is to say, to draw the Principle from the Conclusion, and then the Conclusion from the Principle, in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Cen∣tury, because 'twas believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth, and on

the other that 'twas believed in the seventh and in the eighth, because 'twas believed in the Eleventh.

LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System, for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made, and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it. As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith, 'tis a thing we have already confuted. Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine, or mere Bread and Wine, our Faith would not bear this Language. This is not the Language of the Church. But when our Senses only tell us 'tis Bread and Wine, this Language is in truth different from that of Faith, which tells us 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ, but 'tis not contrary to it; for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it, which is to say, 'tis real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence, and without a figure. That which you have seen on the Altar, say's St. Augustin, and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and * 1.156 Wine, and this your Eyes tell you, but the instruction which your Faith requires is, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. So that here, we have the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith, but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense, on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure. For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, which our Eyes likewise shew us, means 'tis real Bread and Wine in Substance, for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense. If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense, which bears 'tis Bread, and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ, the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense, as if we need call its truth in question, but in the Body of Jesus Christ, which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin, which suffered the Death of the Cross, and was exalted up into Heaven, that Bread should be say'd to be this Body. This thought may arise, say's St. Augustin, and Bede after him, in the mind of some Persons, we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh, to wit, of the Virgin Mary, we know he was suckled in his Infancy, educated, grew up in years, suffered the Persecution of the Jews, was nayl'd to the Cross, put to Death, Buried, rose the third Day, and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased, whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead, and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father. How then is the Bread his Body, and the Cup his Blood? They do not say, how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us? Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony? On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain, and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread. The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses, nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language, in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so, or because 'twas Bread before its Consecration. But from the Nature of the Sacraments, wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true, the one of our Senses, and the other of our Understanding. My Brethren, say they, these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing, and understand ano∣ther. That which we see, has a Corporeal Species, that which we understand, has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd, as to what concerns our Eye∣sight 'tis really Bread and Wine, but in respect of our Understanding 'tis

the Body of Jesus Christ. So that if there must be any thing figura∣tive in either of the two Propositions, it must be in the Language of Faith, and not in that of Sense, which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition.

ALL that we can expect from them, say's Mr. Arnaud (that is to say, from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century,) is that, when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth, they should explain themselves * 1.157 according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it, and which im∣print the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally. That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread, whether it has bin disputed on or no, is, that they declare it in precise and formal Terms. Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason, that the Doctrine of the Con∣version of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that it gives them a particular Sense, and forms of it self a distinct, and precise Idea; whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it, and a man has directly this Intention, he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms, which answer the Idea he has of it, and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers. It cannot be denyed but this Conversion, and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed, because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um, and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish 'um. How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um, or designs to Preach 'um to its People, do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions? Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able; for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um, and no Person had ever declared against 'um, yet Nature itself which is common to all men, do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church, he speaks of, to defend them from their Attacks, and fortify them against their Oppositions. But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent; who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements?

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations, they had that also of abridging their * 1.158 Words, and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake. I know several People of a contrary Humour, and yet are men, as appears by other Humours they have. But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. He offers it without any Proof, and I may reject it without farther examining it. Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion, Men are not wont to use these half Sentences, unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally, and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe. What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times, to express themselves only in half Sentences, when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist? This Custom lasted a

great while, seeing it was so for near two hundred years; and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought, or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers, or in fine that none of these Customs were lost? Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him, but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous? For to speak soberly, to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side, and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational. Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner of arguing should his Maxim take place, the Fathers of the seventh and eigth Centuries have say'd such and such a thing with Reticency. Now the People have understood them in such and such a manner by a supplement. Therefore they taught and believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation. How can a man consider this seriously? Mr. Arnaud will tell us there's nothing more common in Humane Speech than to use half Sentences; nor any thing more usual than to supply what is wanting to 'um. We are wont to say, a Man, a House, a City, the Air, the Earth, the Sun, and not the Substance of a Man, the Substance of a House, &c. But here is a great deal of difference. For here we use these Expressions because we suppose those to whom we speak have eyes and the use of their reason, and that these easily supply what is wanting in words. Nay when we use these terms even in a figurative sense, we do not explain them, because we know that sense and reason which are common lights to those that speak, and hear, will sufficiently explain them. But 'tis not the same in reference to the Eucharist, for supposing there's made in it a real Conversion of the inward Substance of the Bread into the inward Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, Sense and Reason lead us not to understand this Change, seeing 'tis imperceptible, and contrary to the order of Nature; and we cannot supply by their means what is imperfect in the Words. Neither can this Suppliment come from the Word of God, for it is pretended these terms which our Saviour used in the institution of the Sacrament have themselves need of being explained and determined by that which is called the sence of the Church. Neither can it come from the Tradition of the preceding Ages, for besides that the People have little knowledge of this Tradition, we shall not find any thing more precise in the in∣structions of the first Six Ages, than in those of the seventh and eighth. Whence then must this Suppliment come? Must we here suppose secret and immediate Inspirations, or imagine there were certain short forms of speech then in use, and which served as a key for the understanding of the Publick teachings? Unless 'twere so I cannot see how Mr. Arnaud's System can hold. For to say that by a Prophetick Spirit they of the seventh and eighth Centuries knew what would be determin'd in the eleventh, and supplyed what was wanting by means of this Prescience, this is something hard to be believed, and I know not whether Mr. Arnaud is willing to go so far; 'tis then clear that this pretended Suppliment is a mere Whimsy, and as ill contrived and maintained as ever any thing was.

AS to those two parts which compose the Mystery of the Eucharist, the one the external Vail which is the Sacrament, and th'other the Body of Jesus Christ which is covered with this Vail, this is not a place for a

thro-examination of this Hypothesis. Yet methinks Mr. Arnaud advances something singular enough when he adds, that 'tis fruitless to enquire into the * 1.159 Nature of this vail, it being sufficient to know that it is Bread and Wine according to Appearance, which is to say, if I be not mistaken, that 'tis needless to enquire whether this Appearance of Bread which covers the Body of Jesus Christ is a mere Phantasm, a pure Illusion which our Senses suffer, or whether they be really the Accidents of Bread which subsist separate from their Substance. Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church determine whether this Doctrine be according to their Councils, especially that of Constance. As to my part I shall only tell Mr. Ar∣naud he will not find this Appearance of Bread and Wine, in what sort * 1.160 soever he Understands it, in the Fathers of the seventh and eighth Centuries, nor that the Body of Jesus Christ is hid under the Vail of this Appearance. The instance he gives us of a Man that is composed of Body and Soul, is vastly different; the Soul is not an invisible and impalpable Body, 'tis a real Spirit; and the Body is not an appearance of a Body, that has nothing of reality in it; it is a Body in Propriety of Nature and Substance. When then we say of a Man that he is an immortal and spiritual Being in respect of his Soul, or that he is a mortal and corpo∣real Being, in respect of his Body; or that he is mortal and immortal, considering him as a Body and Soul joyned together, this Language is Natural and easie to be understood without any Explication; because the Principles on which it is established, are obvious to Reason; and we may well suppose that those to whom we direct our Discourse are not Ignorant of them. But if Mr. Arnaud will have the Expressions of the Fathers of the seventh or eighth Centuries to be grounded on these Principles of the Apperance of Bread, which in truth is not Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ concealed invisibly under this Vail, he must without any more ado shew us that these Principles were known to the People; for it cannot be supposed they knew 'um Naturally. And thus his Instance is not at all to the purpose.

CHAP. VIII.

An Examination of these Expressions of the Fathers, That the Eucha∣rist is the Body of Jesus Christ, the proper Body of Jesus Christ, properly the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ.

IT is now easie to perceive that all these preparations, with which Mr. Arnaud would clog his Readers mind, is only a handsom excuse for the weakness of his proofs; and an authentick declaration that he could not find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries: for had he any thing to alledg that was considerable, 'tis evident he would never have taken so many circuits; and this is a certain sign, that these Doctrines were neither established nor known in the Church, during those ages; and this will appear more clearly if we cast our eyes on the passages he has produc'd, there being never a one of 'em that precisely contains the Conversion of the substance of Bread, or substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, nor from whence they can be necessarily inferred.

FIRST, They cannot be infer'd from all those clauses of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus Christ; and Mr. Arnaud could * 1.161 not busie himself to less purpose than to collect, as he has done, all these passages drawn from the Roman Order, the Liturgy called The Mass of Illy∣ricus, The Book of the Sacraments, which Menard a Benedictin Monk pub∣lished. Not to say the Book of the Roman Order, as we have it at this day is a Treatise made by an Author of the 11th. Century, as appears by the Testimony of Honorius D' Autun, who attributes it to Bernoldus, or Ber∣toldus * 1.162 a Priest of Constance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th. Century. This Bernoldus is he that conti∣nued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote several Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII. which shews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Dispute. So likewise Morin acknowledges 'twas written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author, yet grants he was the Corrector of it; and that he put in and * 1.163 out, what he thought good, to make it more according to the relish of the Church in his time. Neither shall I insist upon the Liturgy published by Illyricus, being a very uncertain piece, either as to its antiquity, or purity, as Menard has observed.

BUT not to enter into this discussion, it suffices me to say that the name of the Body of Jesus Christ attributed to the Eucharist, does no wise con∣clude what Mr. Arnaud pretends, which is, that 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance. Does he think we have forgot so many illustrations which the Fathers, even those of the 7th. and 8th. Century have given us * 1.164 touching this way of speaking: as for instance what S. Isidor says, That by the command of Christ himself, we call Body and Blood that, which being the Fruits of the Earth, are sanctified and become a Sacrament. And elsewhere, The Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it strengthens the Body; and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jesus Christ, because it makes the

Blood in the Veins. Bede holds the same language, The Bread and Wine do mystically represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because the Bread strengthens the Body, and the Wine produces Blood in the Flesh. The same Author, on the 6th. of the Romans, teaches after S. Augustin, That if the Sacraments had no resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments; that 'tis by reason of this resemblance we give them the names of those very things which they signifie; and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacarment of his Blood, his Blood, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. One of these passages is a thousand times more considerable and decisive of our Question, than whatsoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies; be∣cause these passages are formal explications of these other expressions which attribute to the Eucharist the name of the Body of Jesus Christ; and any man of sence will never be prevail'd on by this confused heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament, as soon as he shall hear Isidor, Bede, or some other famous Author of those Ages in question, who explains to him these ways of speaking. We must rather believe those Authors when they ex∣pound themselves, than Mr. Arnaud who heats himself to little purpose, and would prepossess the world with his own notions and fancies.

MOREOVER, Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of so many other expressions so frequent in the Liturgies, and Authors of these same Centuries, mentioned by us, which call the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the mystery of our Lords Body, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacrament of his Humanity, the mystery of his Humi∣liation, the Sacrament of his Passion, the image of his Sacrifice, which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings. It is certain that these passages wherein we find these expressions, are as so many Commentaries that help us to a right understanding of the others, whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage; because 'tis very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament, which is a sign, a memorial, and an image, the name of the thing which it represents, according to the observation of S. Isidor himself, We are wont, says he, to give to Images the names of those things which they * 1.165 represent. Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themselves; and we stick not to attribute to them the proper name. As for instance, We say this is Cicero, that Salust, that Achilles, this Hector, this the River Si∣mois, this Rome; altho these are only the Effigies or Pictures of them: The Cherubins are heavenly powers, and yet these Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Testament to represent such great things were not otherwise called than Cherubins. If a man sees in a dream a person, he does not say I saw the Image of Augustin, but I saw Augustin, altho Augustin in this moment, knows nothing of this Vision; and Pharaoh said he saw ears of Corn, and Kine, and not the images of these things.

'TIS easie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament, and * 1.166 Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, for they signifie, that the Bread and Wine are signs or figures that represent the Body and Blood which Jesus Christ assumed for our sakes; abasing himself so far as to be our Brother, and suffering the Death of the Cross to Redeem us. Thus must we un∣derstand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament, calling it the mystery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation; for he means 'tis an action wherein by mystical Symbols men represent his Incarnation. We

cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times, the Sacra∣ment, or mystery of his Passion; for his passion is only therein figured or repre∣sented. We must then understand by the Sacrament or the mystery of his Body, the figure or representation of his Body. And in effect what S. Austin said on the third Psalm, That Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body. Isidor expresses in this sort, That Jesus Christ gave to * 1.167 his Disciples the mystery of his Body. And Bede in two places of his works expresses himself in the same manner as S. Austin, that he gave the figure of his Body, which shews they took these terms, the Mystery of the Body, the Sacrament of the Body, the Figure of the Body for one and the same thing. Now these expressions give us easily to understand what the Church of those Ages pretended, when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ; for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents: and there's no likelihood, that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin, even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms, as appears from Isidor's Books, Bede's, Alcuinus; I say there's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery, the Lord scrupled not to say, This is my Body, when he gave the * 1.168 sign of his Body.

'TIS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus, Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi, ut qui corpus & sangui∣nem * 1.169 proprium pro nobis datum edimus & bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem, & ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum. Which he thus translates, O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us, that having eaten thy proper Body, and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever un∣worthy, that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation, an eternal re∣medy for the redemption of us from all our crimes. Corpus & sanguinem pro∣prium do only signifie Corpus & sanguinem tuum, thy Body and Blood, not the Body and Blood of another, as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body. For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us, gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament; nor that our mouths receive their proper substance, the Liturgy does not say so, but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um, whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passa∣ges of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence. To prevent, says he, * 1.170 the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ, the proper Body of Jesus Christ, they meant only its figure. This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies, and an Offi∣cer appointed to make it thus understood by the people; for otherwise 'tis impos∣sible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence. And this effect being necessary and inevitable, it ought to have been the chiefest care and bu∣siness of the Fathers to hinder it, had they not themselves been of this opinion.

ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered. We have already sufficiently replyed to it. 'Tis true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the na∣tural Body of Jesus Christ, but this same term applyed to the Eucharist,

(which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread, which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour) does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacra∣ment of the Body of Jesus Christ. There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people, nor sound of Trumpet to publish it, (as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place.) Sense, Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea, and pub∣lish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist. When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun, the day Star from on High, the light of the World, the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world, I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice, that it meant not a corporal Light, or Sun, but a Mystical one. I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give no∣tice to the people, that that Lamb commonly called the Passover, that is to say, the passage, was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage. S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote, that we are bu∣ried with Christ by Baptism, that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection, that we are new Creatures, that there is a new man formed in us; and I know not how many other expressi∣ons which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed. The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ himself, the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us, who was delivered and put to death for us, not his Prophets but he himself. Neither have they employed one when they cal∣led the Church, the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, the real Body of Jesus Christ, properly the Body of Jesus Christ, the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ himself, not his Vestment, but himself; nor when they said, that we are one and the same person with him, the same Body, the same substance by Faith, that we are transformed into him, changed into his Flesh, changed into his Body. Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Offi∣cers; for there's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms, but even the exaggeration of them.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question, but likewise from amongst the Greeks, Copticks, Ethiopians, Armenians, Nestorians, which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ, his proper Body, or properly his Body, his real Body, his true Body. I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners, first in general, and secondly in particular.

IN general, I say, there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them be∣lieved the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches, either be∣cause there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evident∣ly there's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, because they are all capable of another sense, and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them.

To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ, we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor, God, says Chrysostom, * 1.171 has given his Son, and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF

who was given for you, who was slain for you; the Father has not spared him for your sakes, altho he was his only Son, and you neglect him altho he dies with hunger. And in another place, When we give Alms let us give it as to * 1.172 Jesus Christ himself, for his Word is more sure than our sight. When then you see a poor body, remember what he has said, that 'tis HIMSELF whom you feed. For altho that which appears be not Christ, yet is it HE HIMSELF that receives and asks under this shape. And moreover in another place, Somebody perhaps will say to me, bring me a Prophet and I will willingly entertain him; promise me then this and I will bring you a Prophet: what say I a Prophet? I will bring you the Master HIMSELF * 1.173 of the Prophets Jesus Christ our God, our common Lord. Know, says Vale∣rian, that he whom you see naked, blind, and crooked is Jesus Christ HIM∣SELF. We have already likewise shewed that this expression is used by the Fathers in the subject of the Church. We are not enjoyned, says * 1.174 Chrysostom, to distribute our Corn, or Oats, nor to take care of Sheep or Oxen, or such like things, but to take care of the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ; for the Church of Jesus Christ, according to the words of S. Paul, is the Body of Jesus Christ. S. Austin speaks often to the same effect, The Body IT * 1.175 SELF of Jesus Christ, says he, cries out in a Psalm, They have assaulted me even from my youth. And in another place, Behold the charity of our Lord, He is now in Heaven, and yet is in labour here below when the Church is in affliction. Jesus Christ is an hungred and a thirst, he is naked, a stranger, sick, a prisoner; for he has said, he suffers whatsoever his Body suffers, and at the end of the world when he shall gather together his Body IT SELF at his right hand, &c. And again in another place, You hold an eminent * 1.176 rank in the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ, not by your Merits, but by his Grace. Jesus Christ HIMSELF, says he in another place, that is * 1.177 to say, his Body dispersed through the whole world preaches Christ. They cease not, says Sedulius, to rend by their Schisms the Lord Jesus Christ HIM∣SELF. Let us worship, says Damascen, the sign of the Cross, for HE HIM∣SELF * 1.178 is there where the sign is. His Body IT SELF, says Alcuinus, in the midst of the afflictions of this world glories and says, now my head is ex∣alted above mine enemies. The Son is man, says Etherius and Beatus, he is the Head of his Church which is joyned to this Head, and so becomes whole Christ, that is to say, the Head and the Body one only person.

AS to the terms of proper and properly, we shall find them likewise ap∣plied to several subjects wherein we cannot literally understand them. Ori∣gen expounding those words of our Saviour concerning the Eucharist, This is my Body, Jesus Christ, says he, receiving always of his Father this Bread, * 1.179 and breaking it gives it to his Disciples, according to what every one of them is able to receive, saying to 'um, Take, eat; and when he fed them with this Bread, he shewed that 'twas his PROPER BODY. SO Hesychius ex∣pounding these words of Moses, If any one has vowed and consecrated to * 1.180 God the Field of his possession, it shall be valued according to the measure of the seed: No body doubts, says he, but the Field is the holy Scripture. Jesus Christ is PROPERLY the Vine of this Field, and the Father is the Vine dresser. Despise not the poor whom you behold on the ground, says * 1.181 Gregory of Nysse, as if they were vile and abject persons; consider rather who they are to know their worth. They are cloathed with the person of Jesus Christ. For this gracious Lord hath given them his PROPER person. Good people, says S, Austin, are properly the Body of Jesus Christ. We might produce * 1.182 a thousand such like instances, for there's nothing more common in the

Fathers than the use of these expressions in passages wherein there is no li∣teral sense.

THE term proper has several significations. 'Tis true that sometimes it is opposed against metaphorical or figurative, an improper or abusive sense; as when we say of an expression that it must be understood, in a proper sense, that is to say, in a literal; but it is opposed sometimes to that which is foreign to us, which is not ours, which belongs not to us; as when we say, every man takes care of his proper business, proper house, proper fami∣ly, proper person, in opposition to the affairs, house, and family of others. And then we scruple not to joyn this term to other metaphorical ones. We say for example of a man that misuses his Children, that he tears his own * 1.183 proper bowels; of a Husband that hates his Wife, that he hates his own proper flesh. It is in this sense Clement Alexander said, The Church was the pro∣per Spouse of Jesus Christ. And Gregory of Nysse, That God formed our bodies with his proper hand. And S. Isidor, That the Law baptized with simple wa∣ter, but our Saviour Christ iniates or consecrates us by his proper Blood. Sometimes this term is opposed to that of common; as when we say to a man that 'tis of him we properly speak, that 'tis properly to him to do such a thing: or when we say that 'twas properly in such a place, or in such a time wherein such a thing hap'ned. And then moreover we do not scruple to joyn this term to other figurative terms, as when Origen said, That God * 1.184 the Father is called properly the fountain of life. And Gregory of Nysse, That those who at this day take upon 'um the office of Prophets in the body of the Church are properly called the eyes. It is certain then Mr. Arnaud can con∣clude nothing from these expressions, unless he shews that these two last significations cannot take place in the passages which he alledges, and that we must unavoidably take them in the first sense; that is to say, for that which is literal and not figurative.

THE terms of true and truly are likewise often used in occasions where∣in they cannot signifie either a literal verity, or a reality of substance; and Mr. Arnaud does himself acknowledg that we find in the Fathers, That Je∣sus * 1.185 Christ is truly the gate and house of Refuge, that he is truly the Rock and the Fire, that he is truly Bread, truly a Shepherd, truly an Altar; that his Incar∣nation is truly a flame, that he which imitates the works of Abraham, is truly the Son of Abraham, that the knowledg of God is truly a fountain; that he that meditates on the Law of God is truly a tree planted by the waters side, that Jesus Christ is properly and truly the light, that he is Noah in truth.

TO hinder us from making advantage of these examples, Mr, Arnaud says, That when of two things, the one stands for a figurative truth, and the * 1.186 other serves only for a figure, men commonly use the word true and proper when even the term to which 'tis joyned is metaphorical. Thus, adds he, We say the Christians be the true Israelites, that Jesus Christ is the true Melchise∣dec, that the Church is the true Spouse of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the true Sun, the true light, the true Vine, because that the carnal Israelites were but the figure in respect of the Christians, that Melchisedec was the figure of Jesus Christ, that the visible Sun is only the image of the invisible Sun, which is Jesus Christ, that the terrestial Vines represent to us the coelestial one, that humane Marriages are the figure of the union of Jesus Christ with the Church. And the reason of these expressions is moreover the same as that of others. For 'tis clear the thing figured contains more truly the quality denoted by the figure,

which has it only in representation. Let a man but read, says he moreover, the other examples, and he'l find that 'tis always the figure which is affirm'd of the thing figured, and that the word verè, which is thereunto added, signifies that this thing figurated does really contain the quality which the figure possesses only in representation: and therefore it is that these expressions cannot be chan∣ged. 'Tis said that Jesus Christ is truly a stone, that he is truly a door, truly the light, the true Noah. But we do not say the stones, the doors, the light, &c. are truly Jesus Christ. We say the Apostles are the true Israelites, but we do not say the Israelites are truly Apostles. 'Tis said that a good man is truly a Tree planted by the Rivers side; but not that a Tree planted by the River side is a good man. We may say then according to this sense, that Jesus Christ is truly Bread, truly Wine, because he possesses by way of exeellency the qua∣lities figured by the Bread and Wine; but we cannot say in this sense that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; because the Bread and Wine do not stand here for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure.

THE first reflection to be made on this discourse is, that he refutes and overthrows the Argument which the Doctors of the Roman Church do commonly draw from our Saviours words in the 6th. of S. John, My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink: For if the term of truly may be applied to the thing figured, to signifie that it contains by way of excel∣lency the qualities of the figure, the meat and drink standing for a figure, and the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ standing for the thing figured, there's no longer any reason to conclude from these words that the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are meat and drink properly in a literal sense, than there would be to conclude from thence that Jesus Christ is literally a Door and a Sun, Noah, and Melchisedec; that a good man is really a Tree, and that the Christians are literally Israelites under pretence there's used in 'um the term of truly. When then we shall be offered this expression of our Saviour, My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, we need only desire that Mr. Arnaud may be the judg of this difference; for what he now said decides clearly the question in our favour.

IN the second place, supposing what he offers were absolutely true, yet the consequence which we draw from these examples would for all that be good and solid; for 'tis sufficient for us to shew that the terms of true and truly comprehend not always a reality of substance, and that very often they only signifie a reality of virtue or quality. Now this is what apears clearly by these examples. 'Tis said of Jesus Christ that he is truly a Sun, a Stone, a Door, because the qualities of the Sun, of a Stone and a Door are in Jesus Christ, and that he has in our respect the vittue of all these things. Mr. Arnaud confesses it, why may we not then as well say, that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, by supposing that this Bread hath the virtue and efficacy of it? I grant it cannot be said of a figure that 'tis truly the original; this cannot be unless when we consi∣der it as a meer figure under the respect of a representation only; but what hinders us from applying this term to a thing which has all the virtue of another, and which will make us feel all the effects of it, whether it be otherwise the figure of it or not? The Gospel does not contain the sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only its virtue; and yet Etherius and Beatus assert, that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ. What is this * 1.187 Bread, say they, which we every day pray for, which is ours, and which yet

we do not receive, unless we ask it? 'Tis truly the Body, know ye, 'tis he himself that is our daily bread. Ask it, receive it, eat it every day. Read we the holy Scriptures, and we shall find therein this Bread. I believe that the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, are the Body of Je∣sus Christ. For when our Lord says, He that eateth not my Flesh, nor drinketh my Blood, &c. Altho these words may be understood spiritually and mystically, yet the daily bread which we ask corporally, and which is TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Blood, is the word of the Scriptures, the Di∣vine Doctrine; and when we read it, we eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and drink his Blood. The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attribu∣ted to S. Jerom, has so little believed that, the term of truly applyed to the Eucharist, when 'tis said that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ, ought to be understood of a truth of substance, that he has not scrupled, compa∣ring the Eucharist with the words of the Gospel, to affirm that its words are more truly this Body. I believe, says he, that the Gospel is the Body of * 1.188 Jesus Christ, his holy Scriptures I say and his Doctrine. And when he says, he that eateth not my Flesh, nor driuketh my Blood; altho this may be un∣derstood of the mystery, yet the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ.

THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another, and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it ap∣plies it self likewise to a thing which is not another, but only by imputati∣on. Chrysostom speaking of a poor body, and calling him a man, corrects * 1.189 immediately his expression, as if it were not just. A man, says he, or to speak better Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which his interpre∣ter Brixius has thus rendred, Hominem autem, seu verius dicam Christum ipsum. In effect this correction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, denotes the sence of Chrysostom is, that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man, and yet it can∣not be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance. He is only so by imputation; inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself. S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epi∣stle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church, altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and mo∣rally. The Church, says he, is taken in two respects, either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jesus Christ, or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfe∣ction of vertues, which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus, or rather of Turin, who was an Author of the 8th. Century, has inserted word for word in his ex∣position of the same Epistle, The Church, says he, which has neither spot nor * 1.190 wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jesus Christ. The same ex∣pression may be met with in Bede, As our Lord, says he, is the Head of his Church, and the Church is TRƲLY his Body, so the Devil is the head of all the wicked, and the wicked are his body and members.

IN all these examples I now alledged, concerning the Gospel, the Poor, and the Church, Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ, or his Body stand for a figure; nor that these things, stand for figured truths. For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel, nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man; and the Church, to speak properly, is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel, and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Poor

are truly Jesus Christ. Whence it follows, there's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark, That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure. On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel truly this Body; nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself; and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body. Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure, as a figure, is really the thing it self which it represents, he can hence conclude no more but this, that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist, viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure; but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts, either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body, or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls.

THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ, without any regard to its substance, that 'tis matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so ve∣hemently urge those terms, and pretend 'um to be such a great argument. For example, those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites, and Ma∣nichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body, and allowed only a phantasm, might not they say of the Eucharist that 'tis our Lords true Body, to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body, and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one, such as these Hereticks attributed to him, in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix, or another image of our Saviour, that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world, in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers.

THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour, who called the Bread his Body, might not they likewise say, 'tis truly his Body, not to determine the sense of these words, but to establish only the certainty of them, and represent 'um true beyond all question, in the same sense in refe∣rence to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul, who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism, and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection, I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death, our Burial and Resurre∣ction with Jesus Christ, to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true, being rightly understood.

SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly, which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it, and communicated only faintly the virtue of it, might not they say, in comparing them with our Eucharist, that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ, to signifie that it gives us a true, lively, distinct and perfect Idea of it, that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful, and makes it fell all the virtues of it, in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism, did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure. Pass we, says he, from * 1.191 old things to new, and from the figure to the TRƲTH. There Moses was sent from God into Egypt, here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Fa∣ther,

is come into the world. There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt; here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin. There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel, here the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot or wrinkle, protects us against the Devils. There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea, here the Devil pursues us as far as the salutiferous waters. There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea, here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation.

THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really, and not by a simple imagination, the mystery of our Lord's Body, might they not say that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ in truth, not to insinuate it to be so in proper sub∣stance, but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination, but that which is grounded on the things themselves, either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church, or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution, or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it. An adopted Son con∣sidering his adoption was real, and not illusory or conceited, may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one; and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance, he is truly the Son of God. 'Tis in this same sense that S. Basil tells us, That if our flesh be worthy of God, it be∣comes * 1.192 truly his Tabernacle. And Theophylact, That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul. And Cyril of Jerusalem. That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae, and we the mass or lump, And S. Hierom, That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ. For they would say, not that these titles of Tabernacle, and Blind, this Unction, these Primitioe, this Mass, and this Bread, ought to be understood in a literal sense; but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves, and may be found entirely true.

THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks, that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body; and by way of growth and augmentation, may not they likewise say that 'tis truly this body, and yet not establish 'tis the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven; but to signifie that this substance here, and that there, are not two different Bodies, but one and the same Body; as we have already more than once explained; in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House, or this ground, or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom be∣come truly his Kingdom, by virtue of their union.

ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly, the one when they affirm the figure of the Original; as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec, the true Son, the true Vine; and the other when we would prevent any kind * 1.193 of doubt or contest; as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 'tis true Gold, or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival, that he is the true Pope. This enumeration is defective, and the conclusion which he pre∣tends to draw hence is void, and refuted by what I now offer'd. The Fa∣thers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt.

BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt; can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist, but what relates to Transubstan∣tiation, or the substantial Presence? May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self, and in reference to the Incar∣nation? All those ancient Hereticks, Marcionites, Manichees, have not on∣ly doubted of it, but boldly affirmed that 'twas only a Phantasm. The Eutychiens have affirm'd, and do still affirm, that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity. Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Je∣sus Christ his words? The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them, their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um; and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Chri∣stianity that mock at 'um in their hearts? Cannot a man doubt of the effi∣cacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread? We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Re∣ligious. And how many weak persons are there, who seeing only Bread and Wine, cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy. There is nothing, says Tertullian, that more perplexes mens minds, * 1.194 than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated, and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them.

THIS doubt, says Mr. Arnaud, must have two qualities. For first, As this expression has been generally received by all people; this must therefore be a general doubt, and must naurally arise in the minds of all men. Secondly, As no body ever made use of this expression, but only on the subject of the Eu∣charist, this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist, and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments. How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects. He has gathered here and there, from several Au∣thors that lived in sundry Churches, and at divers times some thirty passa∣ges taken in a counter sense that speak differently, one in one manner, others in another, in different significations, and this he makes to be the language * 1.195 of all people, In another place, he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages. A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people, and in all ages, unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages, and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um; for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient. Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages, and not one in some of 'em, and another in others. Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense. But we find no such thing here. We have only about some thirty passages, in one of which there's the term of same, in another that of proper, or properly, in another that of true, or truly, and they are used in different senses too, as will appear from the par∣ticular examination we shall make of them. How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people, the language of all Nations, and that of all ages? For my part I call it an illusion.

BUT supposing the expression of true, or truly to have been generally received by all people, as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was, why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men? May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects, and yet have been used for different ends, and on different occasions. 'Tis not good reasoning to con∣clude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst

all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used. For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use, altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists? The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough, and sufficiently subject to change, either in regard of divers People, or Ages, and the occasions, the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccount∣able too.

SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a ge∣neral reason, why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men? Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ, and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation, I mean in the Eucha∣rist, for so the Fathers have called it? Is it not sufficient 'twas a general in∣terest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a pro∣found respect the words of Jesus Christ, who has said of the Bread, This is my Body, and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them? These two in∣terests are general, belong to all times, and all Nations, and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question, were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was.

BUT in fine, supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly, I say 'tis sufficient 'twas a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons, and not necessarily in those of all men. For there have been weak Christians at all times, and in all places, the Church having never been without 'um, and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken. Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucha∣rist, that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ, that it procures us the remission of our Sins, the Grace of Sanctification, the hope of Everlasting life, that by it we obtain the Communion of our Sa∣viour; this doubt, I say, easily arises in the minds of weak persons, who, as I have already said, are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sa∣crament, wherein there only appears Bread and Wine. Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ, or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ, were only used to prevent this doubt, to strength∣en the weak in this regard, and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament, what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable, and conformable to the sense of the Church.

WERE there any body now, says he, tempted with this doubt, and * 1.196 needed to be strengthened against it, does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood, and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it. He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucha∣rist, and whether he fills it with his efficacy. He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ; but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms, I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ, nor of rejecting it in these here, I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ.

LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters (whom he introduces without any occasion, or reason) would not consult

common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms, suppo∣sing they doubted of Transubstantiation, or the substantial presence. Why should they not say, We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, or we doubt whether the sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appea∣rances of Bread. Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts, do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them, We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ? Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found, had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ, and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite ex∣pressions. Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repel∣led in formal terms, by saying, We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body. Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it, and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous sta∣ted according to my sense in Palladius, How are the gifts, said a Religious * 1.197 person, able to sanctifie me? I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented, as appears by Cyril of Alex∣andria; God, says he, changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh, * 1.198 AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE: and by Elias of Crete, God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh, * 1.199 AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE. Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ, in reference to the question of the Conversion, and the sub∣stantial Presence, and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue. For Walafridus Strabo, an Author of the 9th. Century, having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book, De Virtute Sacramentorum, says afterwards in the Text of the same Cha∣pter, * 1.200 by way of confirmation, That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert, altho he lived in the 12th. Century, that is to say, in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church, yet said, That the Bread is rightly called and is TRƲLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ, because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Crucified, Dead and Buried. Moreover Mr. Ar∣naud has no reason to be so positive in affirming that the doubt was rejected in these terms, I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ, nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort. The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges, and that of proper in others, and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them; but he must not un∣der this pretence form this proposition, That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ, for there's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate, (which offer themselves in divers passages, and in divers Authors) and these same terms joyned together by way of exage∣ration. I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly; but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages, nor all Nations; we have already shew'd that he speaks on∣ly thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation, or the substantial Presence; and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any ad∣vantage of what he says.

AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages. Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages, we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait, of Damascen, of the second Coun∣cil of Nice, of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th. Century, and that of the Horologium of the Greeks; for they have been all of 'em al∣ready sufficiently answer'd: 'tis only needful to remember what I have al∣ready established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church. There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians, seeing we have already answered them. We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armeni∣ans, or to speak better, the Armenians themselves have answer'd it.

IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians, who formally declare, as we have already seen, that they mean nothing else by these terms, than a true mystery of this Body and Blood, and in ef∣fect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quota∣tion, that the Priest says in Communicating, I eat by Faith, O Lord Jesus * 1.201 Christ thy holy living and saving Body. I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood.

THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians, mention'd by Strozza, is impertinently alledg'd, for two reasons: First, That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome, who in embracing its Religion, wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church. Secondly, That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God, but of God Incarnate; that we drink truly the Blood of a Man, but of a Man that is God, relates not to our question, nor is not said in this respect, but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians, who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man, and not the true Body of God Incarnate. What's this to the question, to wit, Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ?

WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words, In veritate, saying, Hoc est in veritate corpus, hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubt∣ful. 'Tis not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have re∣trenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate, had he in truth found them in it. Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop, say, this ad∣dition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon. Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate. This is a mere Chaos wherein a * 1.202 man can comprehend nothing. The Deacon, says he, sings still in their Mass, Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia. But what consequence can be drawn from these words. 'Tis certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei, is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Ne∣storians, who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man; for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians. There remains

still in this Liturgy (as correct as 'tis) several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church, as what the Priest says, Jesus * 1.203 Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation, and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion, Death, Burial, and Resurrection, receive this Sacrifice from our hands. Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance, there's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself. Having read the passage of S. Paul, That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord, that we desire to be out of the body, to have his presence, that we desire to please him whether present or absent, &c. rehearsed the Creed, the Priest says, This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Then praying for the Consecration, O Lord God, says he, look not upon the multitude of my sins', and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes, but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sa∣crifice, AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS, to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee, we may find acceptance with thee. On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins; and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, in which he will appear ar the last day. Immediately after he calls the gifts, the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And then beseeches God, they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith. Again, he says, That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion, Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and prays to God, That his Holy Spirit may come down, and rest on this Oblation, and sanctifie it, to the end it may procure them the remission of their sins. He says not to the end it may change the substance of it, and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, which yet must have been said, or something equivalent thereunto, were this the formal effect of the Consecration. Having recited our Lords words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he adds, This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world. And a little further, Esay touched a live coal, his lips were not burnt with it, but his iniquity pardon'd. Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self; and this fire preserves their bodies, and consumes only their sins. 'Tis easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self, he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation. Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is, Approach we all of us, says he, with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour, and with a pure heart, and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection; and let us clearly comprehend them. For, for our sakes the only Son of God has assu∣med a mortal Body, a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul, and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth, and at the end of his Oeconomy, offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature, he is risen from the Dead, ascended up into Heaven, and has left us his Holy Sa∣craments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us. Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist; and having said that he is ascended up into Hea∣ven, does it not seem, that instead of adding, he has left us his Holy Sa∣craments, he should have said, he yet presents himself on the Altars, in the substance of his Body. Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him.

AS to the ancient Liturgy of France, which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body, I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body, signifie only his Body; and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus, Juvencus, Gaudencius, and of S. Chrysostom, who likewise use the same term of proper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proprium corpus, signifies suum corpus, his Body, not that of another, but his own; for this is often the sense of this term, as we have already shew'd.

S. Hilary says, There's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh, and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 'tis communicated to us in the Sacrament; but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion: and that Hilary's sense is, we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us, inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it.

EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man, when he says, that we eat the Lamb himself entire.

WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique, Hesychius, and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew.

GELAZIƲS of Cizique says very well, That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ; not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood, but like∣wise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion, is the only true one.

HESTCHIƲS says, That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist, secundum veritatem, according to truth, because that in ef∣fect the mystical object represented, and communicated to our Souls, in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord; and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery, as we have already ob∣served elsewhere.

The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew, makes this Saint say, not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him, That he Sacrific'd every * 1.204 day to God the immaculate Lamb, but, that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS, the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words, on the Altar of the Cross, to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist; whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross, to wit, in meditating on this Cross, and preaching it to the people. He adds, That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb, and drink his Blood, and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive; and altho he be truly sacrific'd, and his Flesh truly eaten and drank, yet he remains whole and alive. This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews, which was first sacrific'd, and afterwards eaten by the people, which was a figure of our Saviour, the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross; and whose Flesh was eaten, and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in

him by Faith. The Lamb being divided, and not rising again after he was slain, our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten, without suffering any division. But whe∣ther we consider this manducation absolutely in it self, or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb, it is true. For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory, and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews.

THE passage of S. Leo, which says, We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table, as not to doubt, in any wise, of the truth of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Jesus Christ, is very impertinently alledged. Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens, who denied our Saviour had a real Body; and his sense to be, that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself, in his proper person, a real Body and Blood, and is real man.

'TIS now plainly seen, that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages, is but a meer illusion, and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject, was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries now in debate. He had so little to say concerning these Centu∣ries, that he thought it necessary to take the field, and circuit about to amuse his Readers, and fill up his Chapters. But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns himself, and howsoever he uses it, that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains.

WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients, the way to be informed, is not to take passages in a counter sense, and captiously heapt up one upon another: but to apply our selves to the testi∣mony of the Ancients themselve••, produced sincerely, and faithfully, some of which are these.

TERTULLIAN. Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours * 1.205 discourse hard and insupportable, as if he design'd to give them TRƲLY his Flesh to eat. To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salva∣tion were spiritual, he tells them, 'tis the Spirit that quickens.

ORIGEN. There is in the New Testament, a letter which kills him that * 1.206 does not understand spiritually the meaning of it: For if we take these words in a literal sense, if you eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, THIS LETTER KILLS.

S. ATHANASIUS. The words of our Saviour Christ were not car∣nal, * 1.207 but spiritual. For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient, and how could he be the food of the whole world? Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven, to take them off from all carnal thoughts, and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above, heavenly food, a spiritual nou∣rishment.

EUSEBIUS of Cesarea. Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITƲALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh * 1.208 and Blood. Think not, says he to 'em, that I speak of this Flesh which I now

have on, as if ye were to eat it, nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sen∣sible and corporeal Blood, know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life.

THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew, under the name of * 1.209 S. Chrysostom, If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not con∣tained, but the MYSTERY of his Body, how much more the vessels of our body, which God has prepared as an habitation for himself?

S. AMBROSE. The shadow was in the Law, the IMAGE is in the * 1.210 Gospel, THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN. The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb, an Heifer; now Jesus Christ is offer'd, he is offer'd as a man, as capa∣ble of suffering, and he offers himself as a Priest. HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE; but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate, THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH.

S. AUSTIN. Before the coming of Christ, the Flesh of this Sacrifice * 1.211 was promised by Victims of Resemblance. In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF. After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION.

IN another place, You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU * 1.212 SEE, nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed. I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT, if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you.

AGAIN elsewhere, The Body and Blood will be the life of every one * 1.213 of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT, si quod in Sa∣cramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, Spi∣ritualiter bibatur.

THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Je∣rom. * 1.214 Altho what Jesus Christ says, (He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood) may be understood in reference to the Mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ.

FACUNDUS. The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus * 1.215 Christ, nor the Cup his Blood; but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them.

RABAN. Of late some (that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTI∣MENT) * 1.216 have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, that 'TIS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary.

OECUMENIUS. The servants of the Christians had heard their * 1.217 Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and they imagin'd that 'twas INDEED flesh and blood.

CHAP. IX.

That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Tran∣substantiation, nor the Substantial Presence.

WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged, as from a sampler, what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General. That of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation.

WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence, or conversion of substance, nor existence of a Body in several places at once, nor accidents without a subject, nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit, nor concomitancy, nor adoration of the Eucharist, nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these.

WE shall find, on the contrary, as I have already observed, that the * 1.218 Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist, The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the figure of Christ's Body, which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion. Who in another place assures us, That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples, the figure of his Body and Blood. And Charlemain to the same effect, That he broke the Bread, and delivered the Cup, as a figure of his Body and Blood.

WE shall therein find that this Sacrament, or figure, is Bread and Wine properly so called, without any equivocation. The Sacrament, says Isidor, of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world. Elsewhere, Melchi∣sedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel; inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine. Again in another place, Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck, by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate; to wit, the Oblation of Bread and Wine: that is to say the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. The multitude of Corn and Wine, says he in another place, is the multitude which Jesus Christ gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood.

BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with * 1.219 her, says, 'Tis because she has the Mysteries of his Flesh and Blood in the Wine and Bread: elsewhere applying to the Church what Solomon says of the virtuous woman, that she eats not her bread in idleness. She eats not, says he, her bread in idleness, because receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body, she carefully imitates in her actions what she celebrates in his Ministry; taking care lest she eat our Lords Bread, and drink of his Cup unworthily. The ancients, says he moreover, celebrated our Lords Passion, by which, both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and flesh of Sacrifices; and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine. Elsewhere he assures us, That our Saviour has established under the New Testament the same kind of Sacri∣fice,

idem sacrificii genus; as that of Melchisedeck, to be the Mystery of his Body and Blood. In his Homily on the Epiphany, he says, that our Savi∣our * 1.220 having abolished the Paschal Lamb, has changed the Mystery of his Pas∣sion into the creatures of Bread and Wine. In his Commentary on the 33d. Psalm he applies what is said of David, that he changed his countenance, * 1.221 and he expresses himself in this sort, He changed his countenance before the Jews, because he converted the Sacrifices of the Law, which were according to the Order of Aaron, into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, according to the Order of Melchisedeck. In the same place he says, That our Saviour car∣ried himself (in some sort) in his own hands, at his last Supper, when he gave to his Disciples the Bread, which he blessed, and which his mouth recommen∣ded to them. In his Commentary on S. Luke, explaining the words of * 1.222 our Saviour, This is my Body, this my Blood. Instead of the flesh and blood of the Lamb, says he, he has substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood, IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE. And to shew wherein consists this mystical figuration, he adds, That our Saviour did himself break the Bread, to signifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body. And a little further, The Bread strengthens the Flesh, and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies; and therefore the Bread mystically alludes to the Body, and the Wine to the Blood.

WE find in truth, says Mr. Arnaud, the language of sense in the Au∣thors * 1.223 of these Ages, as well as in those of the following. They could not ex∣empt themselves from using it, whatsoever their opinion was otherwise. But to judg of that which they had in effect, we must consider what they tell us of the Eucharist, when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and essence, when they do not design it, but teach what it is, when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has chosen, but tell us what God does in this matter, when they do not speak of it according to the impressions of sense, but ac∣cording to the sentiments of Faith.

To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition be∣tween the language of sense, and that of Faith, it ought to be made appear, that according to them, these two languages justle one another; that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main, and that that of sense is deceitful and illusory, if taken according to the letter. But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonstrate. We know our senses tell us, that 'tis bread, we know their deposition is literal, for 'tis literally and without a figure that our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine. As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries speaking according to sense, reason will guide us to the understanding of their language according to the letter, unless we are shew'd that according to these same Fathers, our Faith must correct this language; that she declares it to be false, being taken according to the letter, and does not allow of it unless under the favour of an interpretation and a figure. Were this shew'd us, I confess then we ought to lay aside this language of sense, as being very improper for the discover∣ing to us the true opinion of Authors. But till then, we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the senses themselves, which is to declare to us that the Eucharist is real Bread and Wine. For unless it be shew'd us that those who have used it, had an intention contrary to that of their sen∣ses, we ought to suppose they have had even no other than that, for we must ever suppose in favour of nature and the general rule. That if after∣wards there be met with in the expressions of Faith something that seems

contrary to those of sense, 'tis more reasonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it, than to that of sense which natu∣rally cannot suffer it. So that comparing these two kinds of expressions, Bread, and Wine, Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, one with the other, we must ever take the first in a literal sense, and the second in a figurative one, unless as I said, we are shew'd the contrary by some express declaration.

TO make likewise an exact opposition, between the matter of the Eu∣charist, and its essence or nature, it must first be shew'd that this matter does no longer subsist, but ceases to be in the very moment wherein the Eucharist is made. For if it subsists, it makes one part of the essence, or nature of the Sacrament; to wit, the material part, and we shall always have right to use for our advantage the passages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine, altho they design the marter of it, seeing this matter subsists. Now of these two suppositions, either that the matter subsists, or does not subsist, that which affirms it subsits, is natural, in favour of which by consequence we must always prejudicate, till such time as the contrary is establisht by good proofs. I say, that the supposition that the matter subsists is the natural one. First, Because that in all the changes which happen in the world, there is ever a common subject which subsists, it be∣ing never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into an∣other, where the whole substance of this first thing has absolutely ceased to be. Philosophy can give us no instance of this, and even miracles wrought by the Almighty Power of God furnish us not with any. Secondly, All the changes wrought by Grace leave the matter still subsisting. There's made according to the Scriptures and Fathers, a new Heaven, and a new Earth, a new Creature, and a new Man. A Temple is made of a House, an ordinary Man is made a Bishop, a Stone an Altar, Wood or Metal a Cross, Water, and common Oyl Sacraments, without the matters ceasing to be.

IT subsists on the contrary in all these instances. If then we may not draw advantage from the expressions of the Fathers which call the Eucharist Bread and Wine, under pretence they design thereby the matter of it, we must be shewed that according to these Fathers themselves this matter sub∣sists not after the Consecration; for otherwise we shall still naturally sup∣pose that the Fathers delivering themselves with an honest plainness, and far from the prospect of our Controversie have regarded this matter as sub∣sisting.

BUT supposing what I now said signifies nothing, 'tis certain the passa∣ges which I produced which design the matter of the Sacrament, do of themselves establish the subsistence of it, for they all consider it after the Consecration, and speak of it as being still the same as it was before, to wit, Bread and Wine. They say that 'tis an Oblation of Bread and Wine, an Oblation of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck, Bread and Wine, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Bread which the Church eats, Bread with which is celebrated our Lords Passion, as the Ancients Celebrated it by the flesh of Victims, Bread that came in the room of the Pas∣chal Lamb to be the mystery of Christ's Passion, Bread which has succeeded Aarons Sacrifices, Bread which our Lord held in his hands after he had blessed it, and by means of which he did in some sort carry himself; to wit, inasmuch as he held in his hands his own Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud's Re∣mark

might take place, did they only say that the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread, or that the Bread becomes, and is made this Body; for then one might dispute whether the Bread be made this Body, either in ceasing to be Bread, or in remaining so. But speaking in the manner I now men∣tion'd, calling it Bread after the Consecration, according to the language of sense, which naturally admits not a figure, and without correcting or ex∣plaining themselves, is a sufficient evidence they meant 'twas real Bread in substance.

YET let us see what they say of the Eucharist, when according to Mr. Arnaud they design not the matter, but expound the nature and essence of it. Besides what I already said, that they commonly call it the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of this Body, the Figure of this Bo∣dy, the Image of his Sacrifice, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacra∣ment of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Hu∣miliation. Besides this I say, 'tis certain they often explain themselves in such a manner that they establish a formal distinction between the Sacrament, and Jesus Christ himself represented by it, and leave it to be plainly con∣cluded they held not this substantial Presence which the Church of Rome teaches.

IT is in this sense that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome, who lived to∣wards the end of the 6th. Century, and about the beginning of the 7th. wrote, That this Mystery reiterates the Death of Christ, and altho since his * 1.224 Resurrection he dies no more, Death having no more dominion over him, yet being IN HIMSELF alive, immortal, and incorruptible, he is still Sacrifi∣ced for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation.

ISIDOR recites a prayer inserted in the Liturgy of his time, which de∣sires of God, That the OBLATION being sanctified, may be made CON∣FORMABLE * 1.225 to the Body and Blood of Christ. Brevil's Edition has these words, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum cor∣pori Christi & sanguini confirmetur; but this has no sense: and 'tis evident we must read conformetur, as Cassander rightly observes, who thus recites it, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi & sanguini conformetur.

NOW howsoever we understand this conformity, 'tis certain it sup∣poses a formal distinction between the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Oblation of the Eucharist; whence it appears, that the sense of the then Church was, not to desire of God that the substance of Bread might be∣come the proper substance of the Body; for this would be, not a confor∣mity, but an intire and perfect identity.

IT is in the same sense that Bede expounding these words of the 21th. Psalm, The poor shall eat and be satisfied, makes a difference between the * 1.226 Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, and the true Body or Blood of Christ; for he introduces our Saviour Christ speaking thus, The poor, that is to say, those who despise the world shall eat of my Vows. They shall really eat of them, in reference to the SACRAMENT; and shall be eternally satis∣fied: for by this BREAD AND WINE which are visibly offer'd to 'em, they will understand ANOTHER INVISIBLE THING, to wit the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of our Lord, which are really meat and drink, not

such as fill the belly, but which nourishes the mind. And in his allegorical expressions on Esdras, speaking of the Passover which the Israelites cele∣brated * 1.227 after their return from the Babylonish Captivity, The immolation, says he, of this Passover represents the glory of our Resurrection, when we shall eat altogether the Flesh of the immaculate Lamb, I mean of him who is our God and our Lord, no more IN A SACRAMENT, as Believers, but IN THE THING IT SELF AND IN THE TRUTH, as Spectators.

SHOULD we proceed further, we shall find, that these same Authors acknowledg but one true manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ; to wit, that which is particular to the Faithful, and which necessarily and only communicates Life and Salvation: whence it follows they knew not of this oral manducation of the substance of this Body, which is common as well to the wicked as the good, and will not be necessarily attended with Salvation. It is on this ground Isidor says, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the food of the Saints, of which if any one eats he shall never die. And in another place, It is the Living and Celestial Bread, the food of Angels with which the Word nourishes corruptible men after an incorruptible manner. He was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, to the end men might eat him, * 1.228 and that such as do it may live spiritually.

WE read the same words in Bede, who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor; for 'twas the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another. He says moreover in another place expresly, That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ, and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice, and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ. And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples, so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man, which confirm the same thing. Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences, collected by Prosper, He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ, neither eats his Flesh, nor drinks his Blood; altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing. And he and Al∣cuinus * 1.229 have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words, Jesus said to them, this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent. This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not, but re∣mains to life everlasting. Why prepare ye your teeth and belly, believe, and ye have eaten it: this is the Bread which came down from Heaven, to the end that he which eats of it may not die. This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament. He that eateth internally, not externally, that eateth with the heart, not with the teeth. And a little further, our Saviour explains what 'tis to eat his Body and drink his Blood; He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him. To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ, and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us. So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him, does not eat spiritually his Flesh, altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sa∣crament of so great a thing. And again, The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank, is, that he dwells in Jesus Christ, and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him. We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body, and he dwells in us when we are his Temple. And a little lower, The words which I tell ye are spirit and life. What is the meaning of that, They

are spirit and life? That is, they must be understood spiritually. If ye un∣derstand them spiritually, they are spirit and life, if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life, but not to you.

IN short, we find these Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries acknow∣ledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity, of his Grace, or Providence, and in no wise that of the substance of his Body. Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven, says Isidor, has absented him∣self * 1.230 as to the flesh, but is ever present in respect of his Majesty, according to what he has said, I am with you to the end of the world.

THE passages of Bede on this subject, are too many to be mentioned * 1.231 here. I shall only relate some of 'em. The Lord, says he, having perfor∣med the duties of his Oeconomy, returned into Heaven, where he is ascended in respect of his Body, but visits us every day by his Divine Presence, by which he is always every where, and quietly governs all things. There is his Flesh, which he has assumed, and glorified for our sakes. Because he is God and man, says he again, he was raised up into Heaven, where he sits (as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth.) Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity, by which he fills both Heaven and Earth. Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel, who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country, is our Saviour Christ, who after his Re∣surrection * 1.232 ascended up to his Father, having left (as to his bodily Presence) his Church, altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Pre∣sence. Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel, who was a Widow and aged 84. years. This Ann, * 1.233 says he, signifies the Church which is (as it were) a Widow, since the Death of her Lord and Spouse. The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church, which is still burthened with this body, is absent from the Lord, expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said, We will come to him, and make our abode with him. 'Twas to the same effect that expounding these words of Job, I have comforted the heart * 1.234 of the Widow, he says, that this Widow is the Church our Mother, which our Saviour comforts, and that she is called a Widow, because her Spouse has absented himself from her; as to his corporeal Presence, according to what himself tells his Disciples, The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.

IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity, and Grace. For ha∣ving exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection. He designed, says he, to shew by these frequent ap∣pearances * 1.235 that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful. He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre, he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence. He appeared (whilst they broke bread) to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment, he will be likewise with us, when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers. He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread, when we receive the Sacraments of his Body, (which is the living Bread) with a pure and chast heart. We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament, but that of the Divinity.

ALCƲINƲS teaches the same Doctrine, for expounding these words

of our Saviour, The poor ye have ever with you, but me not always. He shews, says he, we must not blame those that communicated to him their good * 1.236 things, whilst he conversed amongst 'em, seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily. He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus, saying to his Church, If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh, I will * 1.237 come by the presence of my Divinity, by which I shall be with you to the end of the world, He retired from them, says he again, as to his manhood: * 1.238 but as God, he did not leave them. For the same Christ who is man, is like∣wise God. He left them then as to his manhood, but remained with 'em as to his Godhead. He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place, yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where.

LET Mr. Arnaud reflect, if he pleases, on these passages, and, on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him, and tell us faithfully (seeing on one hand there's not to be found in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, either Transubstantiation, or a presence of substance, or any natural consequences of these Doctrines; and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto, as those I now mention'd) whether he believes 'tis likely we shall by the force of his preparations, suppositions, reticencies, and supplements, acquiesce in his Assertion, that the then Church held constantly and universally, as he speaks, the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. 'Tis certain we must of∣fer great violence to our minds, and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us, we shall never be able to ac∣complish it. We must imagin, says he, Christians persuaded that by the * 1.239 words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful. I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people, that are able to persuade themselves what they list. As to our parts, we are not such masters of our imaginations; and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true, when it appears so plainly to us to be false.

BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible, we'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist. S. Isidor, says he, calls * 1.240 the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and if we desire to know in what manner 'tis the Sacrament of it, he'l tell us, That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says, I am the living Bread. He further adds, That the Wine is his Blood, and is the same meant by these words, I am the true Vine. But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds, But the * 1.241 Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it strengthens the body, and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ, because it produces blood in our flesh. These two things are visible, yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body. Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance.

HE expresly asserts, says moreover M. Arnaud, that this Body of Christ * 1.242 which we receive in the Eucharist, and of which we are deprived when 'tis ta∣ken from us is the Flesh of Christ, concerning which 'tis said, If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; and that this is the Body, the truth, the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament. I answer, that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of

Christ in the Eucharist, which is true. He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation, and this is moreover true. From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament, because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood, will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them, for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood, there is no hope of salvation. This is Isidor's sense, whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends. For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament; and 'tis this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of, as appears from what he there says. Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attin∣gunt. And as to what he asserts, that this is the Body, the Truth, the Ori∣ginal, represented by the ancient Figures, we grant it; but deny it ought to be hence concluded, that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance. I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments, and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet, will find there, if I be not mistaken, enough to satisfie 'em in that particular.

BEDE, adds Mr. Arnaud, says, that the creatures of Bread and Wine * 1.243 are changed through an ineffable virtue, into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood. This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sa∣crament. But what does it signifie in this Author? He tells us in these fol∣lowing words. And thus, says he, the Blood of Christ is no more shed, by the hands of Infidels for their ruine, but received into the mouths of the faith∣ful for their salvation. But this is a very weak objection. The sense of Bede is, that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful, because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it. Which is the meaning of this term. And thus sicque, for he shews in what man∣ner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood, to wit, inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it. Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense, That we drink the Blood of the Lamb, not only with the mouths of our bodies, but with the mouths of our hearts. Quando sacramentum pas∣sionis * 1.244 illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur, ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur, When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Pas∣sion, and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour.

I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius, Florus, Drutmar, and some other Authors of the 9th. Century, Contemporaries with Paschasus. It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th. and 8th. to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images, which goes under the name of Charlemain's, The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image, but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament, we must under∣stand the Body it self in substance: his reasons are, First, That 'tis the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament. Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question, that which was represented by these ancient figures. Secondly, That 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images. Now ac∣cording to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it, but the truth in opposition to the image. Thirdly, That the reason why he will not have

it to be an image is, that our Saviour did not say, This is the image of my Body, but this is my Body. Fourthly, That 'tis of the Eucharist we must understand what he says, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself.

BUT 'tis no hard matter to answer these objections. The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects, either in opposition to the thing it self, of which 'tis the Sacrament, or in conjunction with this same thing. In the first respect, 'tis a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcui∣nus, as we have already seen, and Bede gives it several times this title. But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure, because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body, or reality of that which they represented; whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross, and represented by the ancient figures. He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body, and the reason which he al∣ledges for it is, that 'tis not a bare representation of a thing to come, as were those of the ancient Law, 'tis the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ, of a Death I say that was really consummated; and moreover, 'tis not a bare re∣presentation of this Death, but a Mystery which communicates it to us. This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images, from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance, as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude. For, for to consider the Sacrament, in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament, 'tis not neces∣sary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained. It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a my∣stical and moral manner. Now 'tis certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful; and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical, yet is it real and true. This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does, That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now, not an image, but the truth, not a shadow but a body, not a figure of things to come, but the thing represented by the figures. Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows. For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament; because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types. This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark, That our Saviour did not say, this is the image of my Body, but this is my Body that is given for you. Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration, but his Body. In fine, this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense, and with respect too to the Eucharist, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image, but himself in sacrifice; because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross, he offers, and gives it us in the Eucharist. In a word, Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is, in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us, unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them. I say, this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers, who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself, eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel, in Baptism, as well as in the Eucharist.

CHAP. X.

An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws, from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches, in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence.

Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences.

WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book, seeing it con∣sists only of Consequences, which he draws from the consent of all Churches, in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th. Century to this present. For having overthrown as we have done his Principle, we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences. Yet that we may not neglect any thing, I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book, and that as briefly as I am able.

The first Consequence.

THE first Consequence bears, That the consent of all Churches in the * 1.245 Faith of the Real Presence, explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words. To establish this Proposition, he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words, This is my Body, to their sense, by an infinite num∣ber of metaphysical Arguments, which have only obscure and abstracted principles. That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this, the word is, and the word Body. That by this means that which yields no trouble (when a man follows simply the course of na∣ture and common sense) becomes obscure, and unintelligible. That sup∣posing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth, it's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em; for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately, nor the Soul and Body together, but a mere nothing. Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave. That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians, seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people, women and children, persons ignorant of humane learning. That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these per∣sons receiv'd without so many reflections. That to find this simple and na∣tural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectu∣ally taken for the space of a thousand years, by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes. That our Saviours intention was rather to express by these words the sense in which they have been ef∣fectually taken by all Christians in the world, which was not unknown to him; than that in which they have been understood in these latter days by a few Berengarian & Calvinistical Philosophers. That he has right to sup∣pose as a thing certain, that since the 7th. Century, all Christians through∣out the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Tran∣substantiation, and that this consent of all people for a thousand years is suf∣ficient to shew what the simple impression is, and consequently the real sense of Christs words. This is the summary of his first Chapter.

The first Reflection.

THE design of this whole discourse tends to cast men into horri∣ble confusions. I grant our Saviour intended not to speak so as to be un∣derstood only by Philosophers, but on the contrary, that his Religion should be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people, women, and children, and persons uncapable of deep reasoning. But if the sense of these words must be sought in the consent of all Churches, these women and children, and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it. How few persons are there capable of themselves to make this inquisition, for which they must have skill in Languages, read two hundred Volumes, or more, attentively examine 'em, distinguish the times, places and occasions, consider the cir∣cumstances of passages and drift of Authors, compare the various interpre∣tations, and do in a word a thousand things necessary to prevent their ta∣king one thing for another? And as for those that shall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another, how many cheats are they to beware of? How shall they be certain that they shall have no false Authors imposed up∣on 'em for true ones, forged Writings attributed to Authors, or false Passa∣ges, corrupt Translations, and false Explications to give them another sense than the natural one, that they shall not be imposed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Answers, yet well coloured; that they shall not be ti∣red with fruitless discourses to wear out their patience, and attention, and by this means make 'em fall into the Net. All this has been hitherto done, and I do not find such as be guilty of this do amend whatsoever complaints have been made. I grant one may find the true sense of our Saviour's words in the consent of all Churches: But is it not a more short, sure, and easie way to seek it by considering the words themselves, by comparing them with other Sacramental Expressions, by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour instituted, by the circumstances that accompanied it, the design he proposed in it, by his ordinary ways of expressing himself, by the other words he added, by the sense wherein, according to all probability his Dis∣ciples understood him, by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it, and in short by the genius and universal Spirit of the Christian Religion. Whe∣ther a man makes this inquisition by himself, or under the direction of an∣other, 'tis certain that the way which we offer is far less troublesome and dangerous, easier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people, than that of the consent of all Churches. Mr. Arnaud supposes this consent from the 7th. Century to this present, because he believes he has proved it. But were this supposition as certain and true in the main, as 'tis false and imaginary, it can reside no where but in the imagination of those that have read his Book. And how many are there in the rank of the sim∣ple people that never read it? Of those amongst 'em that have read it, how few have been capable to understand and Judg of it? Are they able to discern whether his citations be true or no, whether his Passages be faithfully tran∣slated, his Arguments conclusive, his Attestations allowable; and whether he has not concealed several things which ought to be known on this subject, for a man to be throughly informed in it? After all, reason requires 'em to suspend their judgments till such time as they have seen my Answer. And supposing my Answer does not satisfie 'em, how know they but that my weakness or ignorance has prejudiced the Cause I defend? In the mean time what will become of the Faith of these simple persons, if they will make it depend on the consent of all Churches, touching the sense of our Saviours

words. Mr. Arnaud under pretence of searching short ways, throws men into such labyrinths out of which 'tis impossible to get out.

Second Reflection.

I grant that the true sense of our Saviours words must be the simple and natural one. We dispute touching this simple and natural sense. Mr. Ar∣naud will needs have it to be that of Transubstantiation, and the Real Pre∣sence, we affirm 'tis the Sacramental or figurative one. Supposing we could not on either side find out this simple and natural impression which these words do of themselves make in the minds of men, by reason of our Di∣spute, and that we must go search it amongst those that be free from these prejudices, it is not reasonable we should stop at those that lived since the 7th. Century till now, to the prejudice of the first six ages. We must on the contrary begin from the six first. Tradition, said one, not long since, * 1.246 whose word ought to be regarded, must begin from the Apostles, and pass on till this present by an uninterrupted succession. The first then that are to be consulted, for the finding this simple impression, must be the Apostles that heard immediately these words from our Lords own mouth. We must search the History of the Gospel to see whether there be any thing that dis∣covers they took 'em in the sense of Transubstantiation, whether they have been surpriz'd by any astonishment, or ravished with admiration, or trou∣bled with some doubt, whether 'tis likely they were imbued with principles on which this sense is established; as that a body should be in several places at once, and accidents subsist without their substance, &c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with some maxims very opposite to this sense: as for instance, that to drink Blood was a crime strictly forbidden by Moses's Law, that the signs were called after the name of the things which they signifi'd, and whether it appears from any of their words or acti∣ons, that they adored the Eucharist. And 'tis here I think we ought to be∣gin, and afterwards come to S. Paul, and examine whether in what he has said on this subject, or any others, there be any thing that shews he belie∣ved Transubstantiation. We must afterwards discuss age after age, what the Fathers of the six first Centuries have written on it, consult the Com∣mentaries which they have expresly made on these words, and in short en∣deavour by an attentive meditation throughly to discover their sense. But to lay aside the Apostles, and the first six Centuries, to begin this enqui∣ry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th. and 8th. following ones. 'Tis as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France, in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom. But 'twill be reply'd, these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes: I grant it. But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek. What likelihood is there of finding it pure, according as we desire it, in Greece, since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue, whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas, according to Mr. Arnaud; but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we, whether Damascen believed the assum∣ption of the Bread, or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained? How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Egyptians, since these people have fallen into ignorance, gross Errors and Superstiti∣ons wherein they still remain. A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th.

Century till this time without intermission, may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression? Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the fol∣lowing ones, and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time.

The third Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words, This is my Body: But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it, who have made I know not how many glosses, and formed I know not how ma∣ny opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it, Let the Reader consider, says he, the labour and anguish which * 1.247 almost all Writers have undergone, when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun, This; for they write such a multitude of things, and those so contrary to one another, that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers 'em. The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural, which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Princi∣ples, nor metaphysical notions. If they argue either to establish their sense, or shew that these words can suffer no other, their arguings lie in ob∣servations which are clear and intelligible: as for instance, the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread, and that the whole propositi∣on must be taken as if our Saviour had said, this Bread is my Body; and to make this proposition intelligible, we must necessarily give it a figurative sense, for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body. I grant we must not Philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth. Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em; we under∣stand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him, as God made light at that very instant wherein he said, Let there be light. The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties. But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones, not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments, but because never man said, this is such a thing, to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another, hu∣mane language will not suffer it.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons, and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning, to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men, without study and reflection. This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely un∣known and undiscernable to us for two reasons; the first, that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression, they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them, for we know very well that in mat∣ters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em, and not what their first sense dictates to 'em. The other reason is, that whatso∣ever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years de∣pends on the Writings which are come to our hands. Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers, who may have given us their Spe∣culations,

and those of the same opinion with them, what they have learn'd in the Schools, or what they themselves have imagin'd, rather than the sim∣ple and natural impression of people.

The fifth Reflection.

'TIS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th. Century, be it what it will, (for I examine not at present what that is) must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour, under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words, in this Century, and in the following ones. The mysteries of his prescience, and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suf∣fers men to fall are unknown to us. Neither is it permitted us to pry into them. He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years, in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom. He has permitted men in the 4th. and 5th. Centuries to understand commonly these words, If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye will have no life in you, of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved. The ways of God are beyond our reach, and we must never judg of the true sense of his word, by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men.

Second Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's second Consequence is, That the consent of all the * 1.248 Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages be∣ing proved, determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages. His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd. That 'Tis against nature, sense, and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches, and that in all the other ensuing Centuries, they have been used in another sense, without any bodies perceiving this equivo∣cation. That 'tis contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opi∣nion, and all the Disciples to be of another, and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters.

The first Reflection.

THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th. Century (when the contests of Berengarius hapned) to deter∣mine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time. Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th. Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first. We have likewise seen in the 7th. Cha∣pter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words. What can we think of all these circuits, but that they are illusions, which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages. Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them, what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins, and mount up to them from the later Ages. It is then certain that these ways of reasoning, these suppositions and arguments from the bottom

to the top, are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires, that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion, which is, that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church.

The second Reflection.

'TIS consonant to reason to imagin, that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body, or not, having been agitated with great heat, those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers, and endeavoured to turn them to their sense. This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests, in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and con∣firm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation. It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances. We see but too many examples of this. It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences. The Divisions of Chri∣stians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner, the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em, and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity. When Scholars are become Masters, they no longer look upon themselves as Scho∣lars, but Doctors, and in this quality 'tis no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions, which they endeavour to establish on the te∣stimony of those that preeeded them; and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense: The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em; and as to the Doctors, there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty. One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly, and engage them into his opinions, which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church.

The third Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's third proposition is conceived in these terms, * 1.249 That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catho∣licks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike. To establish this proposition, he says, there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect dif∣ferent. The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions, and to shew they are not alike. The second is to discern them by opinion, by a simple view of the mind, and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed. Applying afterwards this remark to his subject, he says, that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Tran∣substantiation and reality, and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense, there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions, and that opinion has so well distinguished them. This is the summary of his third Chapter.

The first Reflection.

WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions, and the things themselves, by opinion, as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them. But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions, he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices, nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences, where there are no real ones. I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation, whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a meta∣phorical sense; this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as diffe∣rent expressions; but it does not follow that they be different in effect, un∣less it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible. It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing, and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever con∣formity there may be between them. A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding, as if they were alike such expressions as are not so, and then again take for different expressions such as be alike. As we never pre∣tended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things, so Mr. Ar∣naud must not pretend they are right in every thing.

The second Reflection.

THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the diffe∣rent expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike, is deceitful. For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of rea∣son, 'twill be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages where∣in the Fathers lived, and that of persons to whom they spake, and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions. Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation, and the others which we produce as being alike, in a metaphorical sense, and we will see what use we must make of his Rule. But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed, will be an apparent de∣ceiving of our selves, seeing 'tis not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine.

The fourth Consequence.

THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth, which is, * 1.250 That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Pre∣sence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine. The equi∣ty, says Mr. Arnaud, of this Consequence is apparently visible. For why must these terms subsisting, in Authors that lived since the seventh Century, with the persuasion of the Real Presence, be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages? And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages? And in fine, what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages, in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine, provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages.

Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made, and which he himself has sometimes used, con∣cerning a natural language, and one that is forced, will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it, and use it against his pretended Consequence. There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist, and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages. The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence; the former have done nothing like this. The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused. The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions, and such as are contrary to their natural sense, as well knowing they may be used against themselves. The first have used them indifferently in all occasions, because they contained their real opini∣on, but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required. The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use, for, dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said, that the Bread lo∣ses not its nature or substance: dared they say what Facundus said, that, the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ, but is so called because it contains the mystery of it? whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions, 'tis by constraint, because they must endeavour to accommodate, as much as in them lies, their stile to the stile of the Ancients, whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner. We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers, than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established. There they explain the real Be∣lief of the Church, here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief, which is expounded in another manner. There they must be taken in their natural signification, here in a forced and forein one.

THE natural sense of these words of Justin, Ireneus, Cyril of Jerusalem and some others, that the Eucharist, is not mere Bread, common Bread, is, that it is in truth Bread, but Bread that is Consecrated. The strained sense of these words is, that 'tis only Bread in appearance, and in respect of its accidents.

THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers, that our Lord called the Bread his Body, that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body, that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body. That our Saviour made an exchange of names, giving to the Bread the name of his Body, and to his Body that of the Bread. Their natural sense is, I say, that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread, has assumed the name of Christ's Body; the forced sense is, that the Bread takes the name of it, because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body.

THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols, signs, figures, images of our Lords Body and Blood, is, that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of be∣ing

the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, without losing their own nature. The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self, or that the accidents, that is to say, the appearances of Bread and Wine, are signs.

IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile, in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients. To take from us the liberty of making use of them, we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraor∣dinary and distorted sense. Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one.

CHAP. XI.

Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences.

The fifth Consequence.

HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable, but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining, and which is contained in his fifth Consequence, is less reasonable than the rest. He proposes it in these terms, That the Ca∣tholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em, and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident de∣monstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable.

THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford; Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority, and with which he has enriched his 5th. and 6th. Chapters. The result of all which amounts only to this, That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense, and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another, the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions, that they take the Body of Jesus Christ, for the Body of Jesus Christ, and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ. But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions, or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them. That in this contest 'tis evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks. The other thing is, that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world. That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence, that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them, and hin∣der our reason from acquiescing in them.

The first Reflection.

THE first of these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pre∣tension is invalid, and the second resides only in his own imagination. I say the first is invalid; for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms, as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, and some few others that say the Bread is changed: we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others, wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms, such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration, Bread and Wine, and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs, the sym∣bols, the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So far matters are equal, and the prejudice cannot favour either side.

MOREOVER, who told Mr. Arnaud, we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms? We oft prejudicate on the con∣trary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 'tis likely they are used figuratively; as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle, or in refe∣rence to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher. It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms. This is not enough to establish a prejudice, nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof; it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice. Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther, and shew that there's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice. But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter in∣to this discussion, because of its difficulty; and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile.

THE second reason has less strength than the first. For first 'tis not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world. Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say. Now that things are cleared up in this respect, every man may judg of 'em, and I hope they will make a just judgment of them. Secondly, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centu∣ries, and those of the later Ages, who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts. They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Bo∣dy, and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents; but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers. Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice, for had the Fathers meant by their ge∣neral expressions the same thing which these last do, they would have spoke like them, but this they have not done. 'Tis not then likely they had the same sense; and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point; for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form, without the help of any contest, the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood. This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and de∣terminate

sense, where the term of substance enters. There's no need of a disputation for this. Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it, they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last. It does not appear to us they have done it. It is not then reasonable to pre∣judicate they held this Doctrine.

THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pre∣tensions, who will suppose at any rate; oppose we against him a contrary pretension, which is, that we have right to suppose without any other proof, that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us, must not be under∣stood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence; and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative, he is obliged to do it by evident de∣monstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication. This here is our pretension; it remains only now to be observed how we prove it: and ha∣ving seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his, it will be easie to compare proof with proof, and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable.

FIRST, there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th. Cha∣pter of this Book touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense, which regulate the judgments of men, till the contrary does evidently appear. Now the state of nature is, not to believe the Doctrines we speak of, and it must be gran∣ted me that common sense does not teach 'em. We have then right to sup∣pose without proof, that the Fathers did not believe them, and consequent∣ly that their expressions must not be taken in this sense: And 'tis Mr. Ar∣naud's part to shew so clearly the contrary, that his proof may surmount the prejudication. Which if he does not do, reason obliges us to let the Fa∣thers alone in the state of nature and common sense.

SECONDLY, The matter in debate does of it self form our preju∣dice. The point in hand is touching a Sacrament, and in Sacramental ex∣pressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent; as may be verified by numberless instances. We then have right to suppose without any other proof, that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others, till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise under∣stood them.

IN the third place, our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self, about which we dispute. For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense, it answers to a very distinct question, which is, whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not; it says, that 'tis a change of substance. It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determi∣nation, that is to say, in applying their conceptions precisely to the sub∣stance; and 'tis not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opini∣on. It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof, that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations, not from general expressions, but by expressions which are formal and particular, or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them.

MOREOVER, It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed, and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it. What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are, capable of several senses? Had they no rea∣son to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side, and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words.

IN fine, we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed, to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence. For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed, whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible. What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation? For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine? Is it real Bread, and real Wine? They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine? How can these appearances be this Body and Blood? Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so? But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread? Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread? Is it that which was before Bread and Wine? But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood, seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say, that it was before Bread and Wine, but now Body and Blood. After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself, whereas if you under∣stand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body, you'l meet with no difficulty; for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments: and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind. Now when we contend about two senses, our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie, and less intricate, and make us suppose it without proof, till such time as it evidently appears that the other, (altho more difficult) yet is the truest.

COMPARE now (I pray) our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud, and judg which of the two is the most just and natural. He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question, and have already over∣thrown; and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties, and which are apparently conclusive. For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature, of common lights which regulate the judgments of men, the manner of the Sacramental expressions, and the most easie and least perplexed sense. Neither can it be denied that the na∣ture of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms, and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds, does not entirely favour this preju∣dication. It is then a thousand times more rational than the other.

Mr. ARNAƲD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he. For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged, in a literal sense; we say the same in respect of those which we alledg: but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend. Now 'tis far more reasonable to establish a par∣ticular right on particular advantages, than to establish it on a common

thing. For from that which is common to both parties, there can arise no particular privilege.

The third Reflection.

ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense, and not in a sense of Transub∣stantiation or Real Presence; yet in the answers we make, we do not ab∣solutely make use of this right. For before we return our answers we esta∣blish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books, so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us. Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them, and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity. There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding, when he produces some of my Answers, and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs; whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs, from which they draw their light and strength.

FOR example, when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections, which bears, That Hereticks receive not the Eu∣charist * 1.251 and the Oblations, because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins, I said that Ignatius's sense was, That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body, as if he had no real Body, which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks; as appears by Tertullian's Disputes against Marcion, but that the Bread is the Sacra∣ment of this true Body, which died and rose again. This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers, which I had already produced, and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh, or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist, not the substance of this Flesh, but the Sacrament or Symbol of it, which is in it self Bread. To take this Answer alone sepa∣rate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards, that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs, is a thing that is neither ho∣nest nor ingenuous. Moreover, what I said touching these Hereticks be∣lieving our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body, as having no true Body of his own, is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opini∣on to Marcion, who (as every one knows) follow'd in this the ancient He∣reticks; and 'tis to no purpose to say, That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist, and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it. For 'tis certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist, celebrating it in their manner, but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution, which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ, who suffered death and is risen again, because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh, affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm. If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon, besides that I can tell him my Answer will be no less good, in the main, when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist, I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin, who expresly says touching this passage, That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the * 1.252 Sacrament of the Eucharist, as the mystery of the Incarnation; for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh, was, because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh; Mr. Arnaud

will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellar∣min.

THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a pas∣sage * 1.253 of Justin, which says, That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink, but that this meat being made the Eucharist, with which our flesh and blood are nourished, by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate. I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer, That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ, but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink, but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, which is celebra∣ted in remembrance of his taking on him our nature, it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions. I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words, and 'tis moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers, when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say, That my sence is without proof and Authority, contrary to the Letter and Ex∣perience, * 1.254 and consequently not worth considering. And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters.

HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus, Cyzique, and Cyril of Jerusalem; for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves, and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book. Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases, and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle. Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise, and the second Part, and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part, and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us, that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book, I am certain, will not like his proceedings, finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter. Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim. He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express de∣claration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture, and that they are not distinctly asserted therein. He says every * 1.255 body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the insti∣tution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks, that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther, that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope, he could never resist the perspicuity of them. That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Savi∣our, and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them, of whom he himself writes, that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one, which has, says he, all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation, whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression. He adds, That these words, This is my Body, do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ,

than that 'tis the figure of it; and this the consent of all Nations, who have taken them in this sense, shews us in a convincing manner. He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John, wherein there's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood, and what S. Paul says in the 11th. Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood. Whence he con∣cludes, That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks, that it appertains to them to say their Do∣ctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture, in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel, in the three Evangelists, and in S. Paul's Epistles. But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point.

SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him, without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular. Yet must I tell him, I have reason to suppose without any other proof, that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence; nor are they distinctly asserted in them. Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived, and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest. If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject, let him communicate it to us. But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto, we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them.

IT cannot be denied but these words, This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them. Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dis∣pute; 'tis sufficient the words will bear it, to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes. 'Tis to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident; for besides that he found no evi∣dence in them for Transubstantiation, but only for the Real Presence, with which he was much prepossessed. One may oppose against Luther's preju∣dice, the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no * 1.256 evidence in them, neither for the one nor th'other of these Doctrines, but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church. Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation can∣not be inferred thence, and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to be∣lieve it but the Churches determination.

AS to the words of the 6th. Chapter of S. John, so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist. Bellarmin reckons up six besides others, namely, Biel, Cusanus, Caje∣tan, * 1.257 Tapper, Hesselius, and Jansemius, but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three, which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Ar∣naud comprehend, that this Chapter is not so formal, nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines. I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul, That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily, are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood.

If he takes these words for an evident declaration, it is yet more evident that he is mistaken. To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies ac∣cording to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour, to be of consent with the Jews, that crucifi'd him. This is not very formal for Transubstan∣tiation.

WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose, Zuin∣glius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words, but he was igno∣rant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture. Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit, of which we have already discoursed, not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus, but also out of Apuleus, and S. Jerom himself; so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome. Mr. Arnaud's passion here∣in appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him, visus est monitor adesse, he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit. Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue, ater fuerit an albus nihil memini, which signifies that we know not a man, we never saw his face, rhis proposition, That he knew not whether 'twas a white Spirit or a black one. Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles?

BUT says he, The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks. It is favourable by an effect of preju∣dice, I grant. But let a man take off this vail from his mind, and repre∣sent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side, and the Eucha∣ristical Bread on the other, two visible objects really distinct and locally se∣parate from one another, and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other, or to a Sacramental sense. The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them, but from the mat∣ter in question, and circumstances of a discourse. And this is that which forms the first idea, as may be justified by infinite instances, should Mr. Ar∣naud question it. Now 'tis certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figu∣rative sense.

ALL Nations, says he, have taken them in this sense. All Nations, that is to say, the Latins since Gregory VII. and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither. This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it. But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe, that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense, it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words, nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof, that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture. For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words, be engaged in it through surprizal, and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest. And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed.

IN fine, supposing 'twere true the first idea of these words was very fa∣vourable to the Church of Rome, and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea, Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantia∣tion

and the Real Presence. And this he well knew himself. But that he might take his full carier, he imagin'd 'twas his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer, on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it, by some formal declaration of his word, because 'twould appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and sub∣stantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture, nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences, which is most true. Who * 1.258 will believe, said I, if they be of God, that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declara∣tion of his word. Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them, Who will believe that if they be of God, he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection? Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases, but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him, to alledg that which precedes, and that which follows, and suppress betwixt both, whole clauses, because they take from him all pretence of declaiming. 'Tis by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added to∣wards the end of this passage. Say what you will of it, I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you, especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Tran∣substantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY AS∣SERTED. This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud, he has ended his citation in these words, Say what you will of it, I cannot be∣lieve but this silence sufficiently perplexes you. This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another. But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud, especially considering how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus, and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstan∣tiation? Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book, I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick, speaking in this manner. All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained * 1.259 in the words of the Evangelists, and those of S. Paul. But I Claud declare 'tis not contained in them, and confirm my assertion by my own authority. This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity.

The fifth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories, he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him, and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable. I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God. These, says he, are only suppositi∣ons without proof. This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs, and such * 1.260 proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof. They would be, says he again, very rational in the mouth of a Catholick, because be accompanies these proofs, with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition; but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvi∣nist, without authority and possession, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. This proposition surprizes me. The proofs of Scri∣pture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity, but weak

proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition, and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church; Hoc magno mercentur Atridae. The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud. But this was not S. Austins sentiment, when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop, he told him, I must not alledg to you the Council * 1.261 of Nice, nor you to me that of Ariminis. For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last, so neither are you bound to be guided by the au∣thority of the first. But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both, oppose we Cause to Cause, and Reason to Rea∣son. Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place, S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradi∣tion, and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture, seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity, are weak, yea even infinitely weak, se∣parated from Tradition and the Churches Authority. What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this pub∣lick sense, and Tradition, which is in it self grounded on weak proofs. For after all, why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense, if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves. 'Tis nei∣ther rashly nor enthusiastically, nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side. But what are the reasons of it, if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture, to ground this sense on, are in themselves ex∣treme weak? Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the So∣ciniens an unjust advantage, but likewise ruines himself his own Princi∣ple, as fast as he thinks he establishes it.

HE says, that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswer∣able. When a Socinien shall reply thereunto, we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain, and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come. He adds, That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage. Which is what I do not suppose, but I suppose they cannot object any, that can prevail over those I offer'd. I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their an∣swers or objections. If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule, why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th. Book, which is only grounded on a supposition. He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Do∣ctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, imagining he has well proved them. But I need only mind him of his own remarks, and tell him he supposes. 1. That his proofs are unanswerable. 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them, and consequently his supposition is faulty. If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies, and produce my obje∣ctions, and that till then his supposition holds good, let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question.

HE says in fine, That I suppose reason remains neuter, contenting it self without teaching the Trinity, and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one, that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties, wherewith reason furnishes those against this Ar∣ticle, who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith. A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a ter∣rible one as this is, without grounding it at least on some proofs, That rea∣son furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity. The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason, rather than from reason it self; and I

confess there are of this kind, not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud ex∣aggerates it, but some, that may perplex a mans mind. So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em; I have on the con∣trary formally acknowledged them. But to say no more, there needs on∣ly be read what I wrote on this subject to find, that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer, having left it untoucht in its full strength. Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons, and especially that of our Lord and Saviour, and judg whether 'tis wisely said, That I ruin the Soci∣niens without redemption, but 'tis by such a way, as will rather make them laugh, than change their minds. This discourse is not very edifying, and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage. But 'tis better to pass on to his sixth Consequence.

The sixth Consequence.

THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, helps us to distinguish the necessary con∣sequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so, and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments.

The first Reflection.

WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity, which are not of absolute necessity. But to make a good use of this distinction, it must be attended by these following observations. 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity, have more or less force, ac∣cording as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question. 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural, and is confirmed moreover by experience, it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 'tis only a conse∣quence of congruity, which has not an absolute necessity. We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger, and which cannot be con∣futed by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences, how natural soever they may appear to be, or oppose against them a contrary experience, or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place, and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them. 3. That the Ar∣gument becomes very strong when 'tis drawn from a great number of these consequences, it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of 'em. 4. That when the natural consequences of a Do∣ctrine do not appear at certain times, or in certain places, there must there∣in at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those, it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect.

TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing, I I say that 'tis a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds, and produce Disputes and Contro∣versies amongst them, experience confirms it since the 11th. Century to this present. We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine, in that she remained in peace concerning this sub∣ject, till Paschasius's time, altho there were otherwise, Controversies touch∣ing almost all the Articles of the Creed. 'Tis not sufficient for the relating

of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does, that this is only a conse∣quence of congruity, and that 'tis natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into do∣cility towards this mystery. I will answer him that 'tis not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that 'tis on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all, and that that which he calls the custom of Faith, does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till af∣ter several contradictions and repugnancies, as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty. He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs, by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine, or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation, that were never controverted; or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natu∣ral one, yet has had no place during eight hundred years.

'TIS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, that 'tis endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles; for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions. Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present. We may then very well argue in this manner, and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th. Century, 'tis most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world. And 'tis not sufficient for the confuting of this Argu∣ment to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary; for altho this be true, yet that is a consequence natural enough, being grounded on expe∣rience.

IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds, and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the par∣ticipation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Cen∣turies, and it appearing in the latter, we may make hence a probable conje∣cture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Do∣ctrine. For 'tis not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary, and resolved at length to remedy them. To say, hereupon, that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood, is as much as amounts to nothing; for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason: as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance.

A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church, by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria, hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it, seeing she has none of these customs. For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Ado∣ration, yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em, or at least others equivalent to 'em, that are as significant to testi∣fie openly the acts of Adoration. This then is no satisfactory answer, but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity.

The second Reflection.

AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from con∣sequences, it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion. We make use of these proofs on the question, Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation, to shew she did not believe it; or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches, to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither, nor adore the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud has shun∣ned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions, he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th. Book, wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th. Century to this present. Whereas we say for instance, That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud perverts this order, and says, That our Argu∣ments drawn from these consequences are invalid, because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences. I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one, but by how much the greater art there is in it, by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments, seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner.

The seventh Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's seventh Consequence is, That the Doctrine of the * 1.262 Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the dis∣coursing of Philosophical Consequences, nor upon explaining the difficulties of this Mystery; and therefore 'tis no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of 'em.

Reflection.

WE have already refuted this opposition, and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion, who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones, such as are the existence of accidents without a subject, the existence of a body in divers places at once, the concomitance, &c. which were unknown to the ancient Church, as well as to the Schismatical Churches, supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation, and concludes afterwards that our proof mus•• needs be invalid, seeing here are the Greeks, Armeni∣ans and Copticks, &c. who make no mention of these difficulties. So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer.

WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the ado∣ration of the Eucharist in his 9th. Chapter. And as to what he alledges in the 10th. touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain, we will treat thereof in this following Book.

Notes

• * 1.1

  lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.
• * 1.2

  Voyage into Moscovia, lib. 3. p. 234.
• * 1.3

  Possevin Bibl. sel. lib. 6. C. 5. and lib. de reb. Moscov. Thom. a Jesu. Lib. 6. C. 5. Olearius voyage Mosc. Lib. 3 p. 237. 234.
• * 1.4

  Possev. ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.5

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 234.
• * 1.6

  Olear. Lib. 3 p. 237.
• * 1.7

  Possev. ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.8

  Relation of the Ambassag. of the Earl of Carlile.
• * 1.9

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.
• * 1.10

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.
• * 1.11

  Olear. p. 249.
• * 1.12

  Lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.
• * 1.13

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. p. 24.
• * 1.14

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. p. 1.
• * 1.15

  Ibid. p. 38.
• * 1.16

  Elucid. error. ritus. Ruth. Joan. Sacra.
• * 1.17

  Possev. de reb. Mosc Com. 1. & 2 Chap. 4.
• * 1.18

  Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Mosc.
• * 1.19

  Arcud. Epist. dedicat. ad Sigism.
• * 1.20

  Possev. Bibl. select. Lib. 6. C. 1.
• * 1.21

  Possev. Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1.
• * 1.22

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. Comm. 1.
• * 1.23

  Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425.
• * 1.24

  Sigism. Com. rer. Mosc.
• * 1.25

  Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 427.
• * 1.26

  Ibid. p. 426.
• * 1.27

  P. 428.
• * 1.28

  Paul Jovius Com. de legat. Mosc.
• * 1.29

  Possevin Com. 1. de reb. Mosc.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 5. c. 1. p. 431.
• * 1.31

  Ibid.
• * 1.32

  Moscovit. Re∣ligion.
• * 1.33

  Possevin Com. 2. de reb. Mosc.
• * 1.34

  Perpe. of the Faith Part 3. C. 8.
• * 1.35

  Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438.
• * 1.36

  Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8.
• * 1.37

  Relat. of the Ambas. of M. Carlile.
• * 1.38

  Lib 12. P. 75.
• * 1.39

  Answer to the P. 3. C. 8.
• * 1.40

  Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448s
• * 1.41

  Joan. Lazic. Relig. Arm.
• * 1.42

  Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448.
• * 1.43

  Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest. 75. Art. 2.
• * 1.44

  Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432.
• * 1.45

  Lib. 5. C. 5.
• * 1.46

  Relat. of Mis∣sionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu. Bish. of Heliopolis.
• * 1.47

  Epist. Viror. Eruditor. Epist. 2. Cy∣rill. ad Wy∣tenbog.
• * 1.48

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454.
• * 1.49

  Epist. John. 2. Episcop. Rom. ad Arien. &c. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. edit 4.
• * 1.50

  Harmenop. de Sect. Ar•• 5. Nicephor. Callist hist. Eccles. L••b. 18 C. 48. Raynald. ad an. 1341.
• * 1.51

  Cyril. Epist. 2. ad Witem. in Epist. viror, eruditor.
• * 1.52

  Itinerar. Hier. & Syria Auct. Joanne Cotto∣vico. Lib. 2. C. 6. P. 202.
• * 1.53

  Gelas. Episc. Rom. advers. Eutych. & Nest. ibid.
• * 1.54

  Vigil. Lib. 5. contra Eutych.
• * 1.55

  Theodoret Dial. 2.
• * 1.56

  Euthym. Parop. Tit. 20.
• * 1.57

  Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12.
• * 1.58

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455.
• * 1.59

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456.
• * 1.60

  St. Nicon Epist. ad Eu∣chistium. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit. 4.
• * 1.61

  Nicephor. Cal. hist. Eccles. Lib. 18. C. 53.
• * 1.62

  Guido Car∣mel summam de haeres. de haer. Arm. C. 22.
• * 1.63

  Raynald. ad an. 1341.
• * 1.64

  Ad Calcem Concil. Florent.
• * 1.65

  Spondan. an∣nal. Eccles Tom. 2. ad Ann. 1434.
• * 1.66

  Prateol. E∣lench. Haeret. de Armen.
• * 1.67

  Cottovic-Itiner Hieros. et Syri. Lib. 2. de Armen.
• * 1.68

  The Voyages of Pietro Del∣la Vallé. Tom. 3. P. 107.
• * 1.69

  Epist. 2. ad Wy. temb.
• * 1.70

  Thom. a Jesu. de procuranda salute omn. Gent. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17. Letters from forrein Countries to the Procur. of the Missions.
• * 1.71

  Euthym. pan. tit. 20.
• * 1.72

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 3. 455.
• * 1.73

  Ibid. P. 456. Breerewoods. inquirys. C. 24.
• * 1.74

  Theorien. Dial. advers. Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco. lat. tom. 1.
• * 1.75

  Guido Carmel. suma de Heres. de Her. Arm. Cap. 12.
• * 1.76

  Raynald. ad ann. 13. 18.
• * 1.77

  Perp. of the faith part. 3. Ch. 8.
• * 1.78

  Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469.
• * 1.79

  Raynauld. ad Ann. 1341.
• * 1.80

  C 9. 348. & 485.
• * 1.81

  Raynald. Ibid.
• * 1.82

  Ra••nald. Ibid.
• * 1.83

  Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4••4.
• * 1.84

  C. 9. P. 48.
• * 1.85

  Ibid
• * 1.86

  Ibid.
• * 1.87

  Ibid.
• * 1.88

  Ibid.
• * 1.89

  Ibid.
• * 1.90

  Raynald. ubi supra.
• * 1.91

  Raynald. ad ann. 1346. Num. 67. 68. &c.
• * 1.92

  Raynald. ad ann. 1310. Num. 37.
• * 1.93

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1351. Num. 31
• * 1.94

  Lib. 5: C. 9. pag. 488.
• * 1.95

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17.
• * 1.96

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 18.
• * 1.97

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 15.
• * 1.98

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb. 2.
• * 1.99

  ibid. Numcr. 11.
• * 1.100

  ibid. Num. 15.
• * 1.101

  Raynaldus ibid Numer. 18.
• * 1.102

  Eugen. ad Calcem Concil. Flore••
• * 1.103

  Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30.
• * 1.104

  Prateolus Elench. haeret. pag. 63. in Armen. art. 12.
• * 1.105

  Bzoviusad. an. 1318. Num 16.
• * 1.106

  Coccius. Thes. Cathol. tom. 2. pag. 601.
• * 1.107

  Thomas à Jesu. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17.
• * 1.108

  Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Heresies p. 349.
• * 1.109

  Joann Lazi∣cius de Rel. Armeni.
• * 1.110

  Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449.
• * 1.111

  Ibid.
• * 1.112

  Lib. 10. C. 8.
• * 1.113

  Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24.
• * 1.114

  View of Reli∣gions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666.
• * 1.115

  Herberts Voy∣ages Lib. 2. q. 244
• * 1.116

  Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. First Edition.
• * 1.117

  Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition.
• * 1.118

  C. 8. 2. Edition.
• * 1.119

  Chap. 8. first Edition.
• * 1.120

  Lib. 5. C. 6. p. 457.
• * 1.121

  Ibid.
• * 1.122

  Ibid. p. 459.
• * 1.123

  Baron ad. con. 114.
• * 1.124

  Ibid. p. 460.
• * 1.125

  Theorien. Dial. adver. Armen.
• * 1.126

  Ibid. pag. 462.
• * 1.127

  Ibid. p. 46•• 466.
• * 1.128

  Jacob a Vitriuco histor. Orient. cap. 79.
• * 1.129

  The Am∣bassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicq∣fort. p. 193.
• * 1.130

  Anthony de Goureau's Relation, Book 3. Ch. 3.
• * 1.131

  Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491.
• * 1.132

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.
• * 1.133

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.
• * 1.134

  Du Jarric's History of the East Indias.
• * 1.135

  Leontius Biz. advers. Nest. & Eutych. Lib. 3. Bibl. patr. tom. 4.
• * 1.136

  Apud. Cyrill. alex. contra Nest. Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are several pas∣sages of the Liturgy of the Nestorians, and Indians. Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508.
• * 1.137

  Damascen. Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox. C. 14
• * 1.138

  Lib. 7. C. 4
• * 1.139

  Cyril Hie Cal. myst. 4. Epiphan. in Anapc••hal.
• * 1.140

  Origen. Comm. in Matt. 1••.
• * 1.141

  Raynald. ad. ann. 1442.
• * 1.142

  Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist. Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonder∣full H••••t. of the Great Cham of Tartar.
• * 1.143

  Raynald ad ann. 1••26. num. 28.
• * 1.144

  Guid. Car. sum. de bae••••s tit. de Jacob. Barth. a Salignaico itiner. terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis. Pratcol. E∣lench. haret. Lib. 7. de Jacob. art. 3. Joann. Cotov. Itiner Hieros. & Syriac. Lib. 2. Cap. 6.
• * 1.145

  Cottovic. Ibid. Voyages and Observ. of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part. ch. 12. pag. 371
• * 1.146

  Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501.
• * 1.147

  Thomas à Jesu. Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13.
• * 1.148

  The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Ar∣naud in his 12 Book.
• * 1.149

  Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518.
• * 1.150

  Answer to the Perp. part. 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516.
• * 1.151

  Missa sive Canon uni∣vers. Aethiop. Bibl. patr. tom 6.
• * 1.152

  Faucheur on the Lords Supper. Book 3. C. 6.
• * 1.153

  Missa Christi∣an apud. Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl. patr. tom. 6.
• * 1.154

  Ibid.
• * 1.155

  Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag, 736.
• * 1.156

  Augus. serm. ad Infunt.
• * 1.157

  Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739.
• * 1.158

  Ch. 2. p. 742.
• * 1.159

  Chap. 2. pag. 743.
• * 1.160

  p. 743.
• * 1.161

  Lib. 8. Ch. 3.
• * 1.162

  Honor. August. de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin. Exercit. 9. de Diacon. cap. 1. pag. 169. col. 2. s. 5.
• * 1.163

  Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor.
• * 1.164

  Isid. hisp. Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment. in Marc. 14. & in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom.
• * 1.165

  Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20.
• * 1.166

  Bela hom. estiu. de temp. Dom. 13. & Dom. 17. & Dom. 24. & alibi passim id Expos. Alleg. in Cantic. Cantic. cap. 3. & de tab. lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal. 3.
• * 1.167

  Isidor. in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed. quest in 2 Reg & in Ps. 3.
• * 1.168

  Aug. contr. Adimant. c. 12.
• * 1.169

  Ch. 3. p. 749, 750.
• * 1.170

  Ch. 3. p. 751, 752.
• * 1.171

  Hom. 15. in Rom.
• * 1.172

  Hom. 89. in Matt.
• * 1.173

  Hom. in Eli. & vid. Valerian. Hom. 7.
• * 1.174

  De Sacerd. l. 4.
• * 1.175

  Augustin in Ps. 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.176

  Serm. 53. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.177

  Sedul. lib. 5. oper. Pas. 6. 13.
• * 1.178

  Damas. l. 4. de fid. Orthod. c. 12. Alcuin. lib. 2. in Joan. Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.179

  Orig. in Mat. hom. 35.
• * 1.180

  Hesych. in Lev. lib. 7.
• * 1.181

  Greg. Nyss. Or. 1. 〈…〉〈…〉r. am.
• * 1.182

  Aug. con. Faust. lib. 13. cap. 16.
• * 1.183

  Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 2. in illud faciamus homi∣nem, &c. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. lib. 1. Epist. 397.
• * 1.184

  Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyss. hom. 7. in Cant.
• * 1.185

  Ch. 5. p. 781.
• * 1.186

  p. 780.
• * 1.187

  Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.188

  Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.189

  Chrysost. hom. 11. in Rom.
• * 1.190

  Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl. all••∣gor. in Tobiam.
• * 1.191

  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. myst. 1.
• * 1.192

  Basil. in Ps. 14. Theophyl. in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal. myst. 3. Hierom in Epist. ad Gal. c. 4.
• * 1.193

  Ch. 5. p. 780.
• * 1.194

  Tertul. de Ba∣ptismo. Ch. 5. p. 783.
• * 1.195

  P. 774.
• * 1.196

  Page 783.
• * 1.197

  Pallad. Hist. Laus. cap. 75.
• * 1.198

  Apud, Vict. Ant. Miss.
• * 1.199

  Elias Cret. in Greg.
• * 1.200

  Valafridus Strabo, de rec. Eccles. cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10.
• * 1.201

  Apud Cassand. i•• Liturgicis.
• * 1.202

  Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500.
• * 1.203

  Missae Christ. apud Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6.
• * 1.204

  See Ethe. and Beatus, who relate this passage, Bibl. patr. tom. 4.
• * 1.205

  Tertull. de re∣sur. car. c. 37.
• * 1.206

  Origen. hom. 7. in Levit.
• * 1.207

  Athanas. in il∣lud si quis di∣xerit, &c.
• * 1.208

  Euseb. lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles. cap. 12.
• * 1.209

  Author. oper. imperf. in Mat. hom. 11.
• * 1.210

  Ambros. lib. 1. de officiis, c. 48.
• * 1.211

  Aug. contr. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21.
• * 1.212

  Aug. in Ps. 98.
• * 1.213

  Aug. Serm. 2. de ver. Apost.
• * 1.214

  Hieronym. Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.215

  Facundus def. trium capit. l. 9.
• * 1.216

  Raban in paeni∣tent.
• * 1.217

  Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 2.
• * 1.218

  Greg. Mag. Isidorus. Beda Haymo & alii passim. Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps. 3. & in quest. in 2 Reg. cap. 3. & in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin. de Se∣ptuagint. Isidor. in alleg. Vet. Test. Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment. in Genes. cap. 12. Idem Comment. in Genes. c. 23.
• * 1.219

  Beda Expos. al∣leg. in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos. al∣leg. in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber. lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt.
• * 1.220

  Idem hom. de sanctis in Epi∣phan.
• * 1.221

  Idem Comm. in Psal. 33.
• * 1.222

  Idem Comm. in Luc. 22.
• * 1.223

  Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5.
• * 1.224

  Gregor. Mag. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58.
• * 1.225

  Isidor. de Offici. Eccles. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.226

  Beda Comm. in Psal. 21.
• * 1.227

  In Esdr. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.228

  Isidor. in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Genes. & Exod. Exposit. in Exod. c. 12.
• * 1.229

  Beda in Cor. 11. Beda & Alcu. in Joan. 6.
• * 1.230

  Isidor. lib. 1. sentent. cap. 14.
• * 1.231

  Beda Expos. al∣legor. ipsam, lib. 1. cap. 12.
• * 1.232

  Idem Comm. in Mare. c. 13.
• * 1.233

  Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.234

  Idem Exposit. alleg. in Job, lib. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.235

  Idem Hom. ast. de temp. feria 6 Paschal.
• * 1.236

  Alcuin. in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28.
• * 1.237

  Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34.
• * 1.238

  Ibid. cap. 35.
• * 1.239

  Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737.
• * 1.240

  Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755, 756.
• * 1.241

  Isid: lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles. cap. 18.
• * 1.242

  Ibid.
• * 1.243

  Ibid.
• * 1.244

  Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel.
• * 1.245

  Book 10. ch. 1.
• * 1.246

  In the Re∣marks on the request of M. D' Ambrun, 9th. Remark.
• * 1.247

  Ambros. Cat••••r, Tract. de verb. quibus confici∣tur, &c.
• * 1.248

  Book 10. Ch. 2.
• * 1.249

  Lib. 10. cap. 3.
• * 1.250

  Book 10. Ch. 4.
• * 1.251

  Answer to the Perpetuity. part 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.252

  Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.253

  Answer to the Perpetuity, p. 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.254

  Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34.
• * 1.255

  Book 10. ch. 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38, 39.
• * 1.256

  Cajetan. in 3. Thoma quest. 75. art. 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem, 1588.
• * 1.257

  Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30.
• * 1.258

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Per∣pituity, part 1. ch. 3.
• * 1.259

  Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43.
• * 1.260

  Ch 6. p. 44, 45.
• * 1.261

  Aug. lib. 3. cont. Maxim. cap. 14.
• * 1.262

  Chap. 8.