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

CHAP. VII.

Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of Forgetful∣ness, Examin'd. The Examples of the insensible Changes alledg'd in answer to the Perpetuity, Defended.

I SAID in my Answer to the Perpetuity, That if we had this Dispute * 1.1 with Greeks or Egyptians we should not perhaps take it ill for them to ask us how this change was wrought; but we cannot bear without some kind of regret and vexation these same Transubstantiators, this very party that made the change, who have used a thousand tricks insensibly to effect it, that have made use of Fraud and Violence, to hinder its being wrought with noise, that have taken infinite care to deprive posterity of the knowledg of the man∣ner how 'twas done, to come now to us and demand how this could be.

WHEREUPON Mr. Arnaud tells us first, That we have in effect to * 1.2 do with not only Egyptians and Greeks, but likewise Moscovites, Ethiopians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians and Indians; that all these people make the

same questions as the Author of the Perpetuity, and require the same satis∣faction. But that Mr. Claude cannot answer 'em, seeing they had no Pascha∣sus, nor Popes, nor Monks, nor Councils, nor Croisado's, nor Inquisitors to work this Establishment. In the second place he says that I am unjust in ac∣cusing * 1.3 the Catholicks of this Age for making the change in question, and em∣ploying Croisado's and Inquisitors against us. That these are not the same per∣sons that were in the 10th. Century, and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change's being made with noise.

THE first of these Answers is already refuted. We have nothing to do either with Greeks, or Egyptians, Moscovites, Ethiopians, Nestorians, Jaco∣bites, Armenians, nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation. Mr. Ar∣naud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order. The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em, which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation.

THE second Answer is frivolous. We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the know∣ledg of the manner in which the change hapned: whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations, and Sophisms in their Books, but of these we will not here complain. We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side, whose Successors and Defenders they are, to de∣prive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question, and I believe there's a great deal of Justice in this complaint. A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd, there are none to be had of 'em at this day. We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre, the Letter of Raban to Egilon, Eriger's Book against Paschasus, Berenger's Works, their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th. Century. We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin. Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books: their real Works have been alter'd, and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin. I say * 1.4 nothing but what may be easily justified, and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere. If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes ad∣vantage of these frauds put upon us, and which he knows to be such, in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East, whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me.

I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hap∣ned in the Latin Church, whence I concluded 'twas not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantia∣tion and the Real Presence. Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him, has devised some distinctions, some of 'em imaginary, and others unnecessary, by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question, and they are these diffe∣rences which we must now examine.

IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds, that of giving the Communion to little Children, and that of Fast∣ing till the Evening, and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church. Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it, but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches, so that the change has not been vniver∣sal, whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true, we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world, and all Christian Churches. This is his first difference which he amplifies and ex∣aggerates after his manner. But the answer is not difficult, to wit, that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence, such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches, or if there be, 'tis brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries: besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it, for its being less universal.

THE second difference is, that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom, whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd, which is, says he, extremely different, a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom; but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies. And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist. For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments, respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches, which being divided in such small matters, cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 'tis strange it has found any followers, neither could it, had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent.

I confess there's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd, and a new Doctrin that is establish'd. But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good. For ignorant people are more ear∣nest to conserve their customs which they know, than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly, and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg. When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abo∣lish'd, th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is intro∣duc'd, for the novelty of it is conceal'd, 'tis offer'd as being the ancient Faith; and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressi∣ons, turning 'em into another sense. Customs are of themselves popular, and when they are changed, people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em: but as to Doctrinals, the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please, and obediently receive it without any examination. As to the rest, 'tis certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist, which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes, that when we leave an ancient cu∣stom every man takes a different course, and follows his own particular judgment. For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and ge∣nuine explication of the Ancients, which was, that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, have faln upon different sentiments, the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity, and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Latins that of Transubstantiation. But we must

not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses, that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 'tis strange it has found any followers, had it not been authorised by an universal consent. This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent, and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive. But as the discussion of this question touching the universal consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people, this very thing should shew, that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation, wherein there's no deceit to be feared, the best which one can do, is to keep to the Word of God.

THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline, whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin. Now, says he, Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change, and the benefit of it depends on circumstan∣ces which are mutable; but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature: that which is true at one time being so always. Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd, and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change. So, adds he, to introduce a new Discipline, 'tis not necessary to deceive the world, nor shew 'tis ancient, but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de dis∣guised, which is oftentimes impossible. In fine, the belief of a Doctrin neces∣sarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion, whereas one may em∣brace a Discipline different from another, yet without condemning that which one leaves.

THERE are several things to be said to this discourse. For first, It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable. The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual, immutable, and necessary, at least as to necessity of precept, and such is the Communion of both kinds. Secondly, There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed, the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice, and Doctrins. The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin, because of two parts whereof a Religion consists, to wit, the Doctrins, and Practices, these last are most popular. Thirdly, There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins, and are in such a manner the dependan∣ces and consequences of 'em, that 'tis impossible to change them, with∣out also changing the Doctrins, and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins. Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds; for it was anciently grounded on this belief, that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People; as appears by Paschasus his own testimony, Drink ye all of it, says he, to wit, as well the Ministers as other * 1.5 Believers: and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary pra∣ctise. It is not well done, says the same Paschasus, to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood: This Mystery, says Pope Gelasius, cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege. It is a mere abusing the world, says Mr. Arnaud, to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings, recited by Gratien, and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world, who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions. But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn bet∣ter

the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius him∣self, who was at the head of the Church of Rome, who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition? Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the pro∣ducing of a Testimony of a Pope? It is Gratien, says he, that relates it. Is it the less authentick for that? Gratien did not invent it to serve us, we did not inspire him with it; and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it. This passage, adds he, may receive several rational explicati∣ons. I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications, but we should know whether these explications be just: Mr. Arnaud should pro∣pose 'em, and then we might examin 'em. This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved. Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer, to what's alledg'd touching that subject.

THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appen∣dant to a Doctrin, for the ancient Church had this custom, because she be∣liev'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants. S. Austin says so in express terms. Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum * 1.6 & participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem & vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire. Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church, To the end, says he, its authority may be (with plausible pretences) trampled * 1.7 under foot, and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected. But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat (who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud) did before me? Missam facio, says he, Augustini & Inno∣centii * 1.8 primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eu∣charistam etiam, infantibus necessariam. What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Mi∣levé. It appears, says he, that Innocent's opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years, and which was followed by S, Austin was, that the Eucha∣rist is necessary to little Children. But seeing the command to receive the Eu∣charist does not oblige those that cannot receive it, and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it, the Church, instructed by the use of several Ages, and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd, not only that the reception of the Eu∣charist is not necessary to Children, but that it ought not to be given 'em.

I know, adds Mr. Arnaud, that there are on this subject some passages of * 1.9 S. Austin and Innocent the First, which are difficult. But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages. He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them. To the passages of S. Austin, and Innocent, Mr. Arnaud might add others, which will admit of no explication, as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles, of the Author of the Hypognosticks, of Gregory the Second, of the second Council of Toul, and some others. And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius, they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now presented, as also the An∣swers of Cardinal Perron, which are for the most part but mere illusions.

WE may reckon amongst the practices depending on a Doctrin that of the relative adoration of Images which has insinuated it self into France, and Germany since the 8th. and 9th. Century. For it is certain that in all

the foregoing Ages and long after, France and Germany rejected this Adora∣tion as unlawful and contrary to true Piety. Which appears by the Coun∣cil of Francfort held under Charlemain, and consisting of above three hun∣dred Bishops, of France, Italy, Germany, and England, wherein the second Council of Nice was condemned. This moreover appears by the Book of Images of Charlemain, by the Testimonies of Agobard Bishop of Lyons, Jonas Bishop of Orleans, and Walafridus Strabo, by the Council of Paris, under Lewis the Debonnair, and by the Continuer of Climoinus. We find likewise in Nicetas Choniatus that the Germans in the 12th. Century persi∣sted in this opinion. The Germans, says he, and the Armenians agree in this, * 1.10 that they reject the worshiping of Images. Mr. Arnaud, who cannot deny so plain a matter of fact, says, that the Bishops of Francfort admitted the ado∣ration of the Cross, which is only an image of the true Cross, that they admit∣ted likewise the historical use of images; and that without doing violence to nature, the historical use of Images cannot be separated from the relative ado∣rations of the same images. But this is an impertinent disputing against the Fathers of Francfort, and the Churches that have follow'd them. The que∣stion is not whether they were contrary to themselves, or whether they did violence to nature. But whether it be true that the contrary belief and practice have insensibly crept into these very Churches, without noise, op∣position, and disputations. Now this is what cannot be denied.

IT is not at all strange, says Mr. Arnaud, that the particular opinion of these Bishops which is contrary to nature, reason, and the general consent of the whole Church should be laid aside, and that the Popes who used this condescen∣tion towards 'em did not openly oppose 'em, but tarried till time wore out this Error, whereby they have had the success which they expected from so chari∣table a conduct. So far is it from being strange that this should happen, that 'twould be a greater wonder if this has not hapned. This methinks is a dis∣posing too freely of the judgments and consent of rational people. It will not then be strange according to Mr. Arnaud that the Popes, and all this party that were in the opinion and practice of the relative adoration of Images should use any condescention towards three hundred Bishops assem∣bled in Council, the Kingdom of France; and all Germany which were in a contrary Belief and practice, that they should be cautious of opposing them in this particular, and patiently expect till time remedied this mistake. But according to the same Mr. Arnaud, this will be the greatest of all follies, and the highest extravagancy imaginable to suppose that some Paschasists, and Bertramists, which is to say, those that believed the Real Presence, and those that believed it not in the 10th. Century, did not dispute one against another: and altho that moreover they were not in a condition to dispute, and had other things to trouble themselves about, other interests to mind, yet must it be a folly to imagin they were of that patient and charitable disposition the Popes were of, who referred these things to be remedied by time. Mr. Arnaud forbids us to be astonish'd at France and Germanies in∣sensibly changing a Doctrin and a Rite; he forbids us to concern our selves about the questions of the birth and progress of this change, the stupidity of the Bishops on both sides, who look'd upon one another as Excommuni∣cated persons, yet without daring to speak to one another about it, being withheld by a holy condescention, and the hope of the good effects of time, and by the marvellous meekness of the Laicks, some of whom were wor∣shipers of Images and others not, and some of 'em consequently Anathema∣tiz'd by the Council of Nice, and others condemned by that of Francfort,

and yet lived in peace, without noise, without mutual oppositions, with∣out disputes. But if we will hear him on the other change touching the Eucharist, he commands us not only to be astonish'd, but to esteem it a fearful prodigy that the Doctrin of the Real Presence which sprang up in the 9th. Century, was taught and maintain'd as being the ancient and per∣petual Doctrin of the Fathers, should make insensible progresses during the darkness of the 10th. Century, and that there should have been per∣sons in the same Church that have believed it, and others that have not, without falling foul upon, and opposing one another. When the question of the adoration of Images was agitated in the East, it vehemently heated mens minds, so that each party proceeded to Anathema's, Banishments, and Blood-shed: and in the West, the contrary party to the Adoration wrote, and held Assemblies, whereas when the question of the Real Presence was handled, in the 9th. Century there were neither Councils called, nor Ana∣thema's pronounced, nor Banishments, nor any extraordinary matter. Yet in respect of the former, Mr. Arnaud will that by virtue of condescention and th' effects of time, the Party for the Adoration has insensibly fortifi'd themselves, and at length got the upper hand; but as to the other he will not grant that the Real Presence could advance and communicate it self to several persons, but the whole Universe must be shaken with it. Let the Rea∣der then Judg of Mr. Arnaud's equity.

NOTHING, says he, is more astonishing than this universal forgetful∣ness * 1.11 in the 11th. Century, whether there was therein any other Doctrin amongst Christians than that of the Real Presence. But who told him that they of the 11th. Century forgot the contest which had been in the 9th. Was not John Scot's Book burnt by a Council? Let him forget it if he will, there will redound no advantage to him by it, seeing 'tis certain that in the 9th. Century the Doctrin contrary to the Real Presence was taught; I mean, that which asserts the Eucharist not to be the Body of Jesus Christ, Christ born of the Virgin, and that 'tis only the Body of Jesus Christ Sacramen∣tally and virtually. Moreover, Mr. Arnaud does not observe that this ve∣ry thing is against him; for if it be true that those of the 11th. Century forgot such a matter of fact as that which is justifi'd by the testimony of Paschasus himself, this is a sufficient mark that the 10th. Century which holds the middle between the 9th. and 11th. was o'respread with thick darkness, seeing the ideas, and memory of a thing so considerable were therein lost.

BUT we must examin his fourth difference. A fourth circumstance, * 1.12 says he, which does further strangely distinguish this pretended change in the Doctrin of the Eucharist, from all these other changes, is the very nature of this Doctrin. (He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.) For it is clear, that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it, which is to say the whole Church. I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucha∣rist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than what∣soever is done in other changes. But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin, is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection; on the contrary, most people love in matters of Religion those things that are sur∣prizing and wonderful, of which we see examples in most Religions. But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this incon∣veniency

three ways, the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almigh∣ty power of God. The second, the publishing of Miracles which really hap∣ned about the Eucharist, to wit, visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood. And the third, the asserting 'twas always the Faith and belief of the Church, ac∣commodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained.

HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th. and 9th. Book. Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud him∣self, I hope, will acknowledg. I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage, taken out of a Book, called, The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont. The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pre∣tends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church, and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night, whilst men slept, which took root, and in time grew up, which is very near the manner after which, according to us, the change was wrought touching the Eucharist, This Author has well comprehended it, as judging it far from being impossible; but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage.

I should likewise been very glad, that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches, he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins, and in which there have hapned of necessity, either amongst the one or the others, insensible changes. For example, how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory, supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion. How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomi∣nation, and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation; and again, that the Church of Rome is not infallible in mat∣ters of Faith, and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection: and in short, how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins? There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles, whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them, which is to say, that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradi∣tion, whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preach∣ing of Christianity, which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles, or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day, but that they supported mutually one another, which supposes that both of 'em held these Opini∣ons as needless ones, and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones. Now in whatsoever sort we take it, there have of necessity hapned insensi∣ble changes without dispute, noise, and opposition, altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em, and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question.

SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions, how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em, and so contradictorily, that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes? Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd, as in that which has hapned ac∣cording to us, in respect of the Real Presence? Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory, or Procession of the Holy Spirit, or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of, or th' administration of Confirmation, or Beatifical Vision of the Saints, nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome; and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points? Whence had they their opinions? Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of? If he did tell 'em of this, 'tis strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church, and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced. If he did not tell 'em this, 'tis then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations, that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em, and that of all that innu∣merable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator. Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scri∣pture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins, and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith, how can one conceive these terrible equivocations, that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church, or generally by the whole Greek Church, and that immediately in another, they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense?

IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points, the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed. Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread, and that which is leaven'd, and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation, how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without di∣visions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence? Has this hapned all at a stroke? Was this done insensibly and by succession of time? If this has hapned all at once, it must be granted this change is exceeding strange, that so many Bishops, Priests, and Religious should so suddenly renounce their former Opinions, and embrace contrary ones without any Divisions amongst 'em. But 'tis yet strange, they should change 'em without perceiving it, without acknowledging they had made great and considerable Innovations in their Church, and comparing their first and ancient Faith with this new one. For 'tis certain that in respect of all these Articles which are in con∣test, the Greeks positively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing. If this change was wrought by succession of time, let us be shew'd the Disputes and Divisions they have had amongst 'em since on these Articles they have separated from the Church of Rome, till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins, which is to say du∣ring above two hundred and fifty years. If it be alledg'd the change was made insensibly, we must return to the four times of the Author of the Per∣petuity, and apply to 'em the same difficulties and objections he has raised.

IN fine, if we suppose a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions, yet mutually bearing with one another without pro∣ceeding to an express condemnation of the contrary Opinions, besides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible, and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful, could suffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith. Besides this, I say, 'twill be demanded how they could change so suddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles, holding 'em before for unnecessary points, and afterwards for necessary ones, respecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors, and afterwards respecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones: where∣upon one may make the same questions, how it could come to pass that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Eucharist of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheless the true Body of Jesus Christ, an object of supreme Adoration, and in another that 'twas only a dead Azym, a Jewish abomination; that she should respect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God, and at another immediately succeeding the first, which is to say from night to morning, regard it with horror, washing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted.

WE may apply the same questions and difficulties to the Armenians, Jacobites, Coptics, Nestorians, in reference to several of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot shew the original, nor tell us after what manner they were dispersed amongst these people, nor how they have left the con∣trary opinions which the Church of Rome still holds as being of Apostoli∣cal Tradition. How has it hapned for instance that the Nestorians have left the use of Confirmation, and that of Extreme Unction, that the Ja∣cobites have left that of Confession, and the belief of Purgatory, that the Coptics have laid aside the Doctrin of Purgatory, and use of Extreme Un∣ction, and so of the rest. For Mr. Arnaud, I think, would have me sup∣pose, that according to him these points have been heretofore held and pra∣ctis'd by all Christians.

THESE examples do clearly discover the vanity of these pretended moral impossibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity, and Mr. Arnaud have urged with such great exaggeration. For they may be all as strongly applied to the changes which have hapned in these Eastern Churches, and yet it must be granted that these changes hapned there. Mr. Arnaud may ar∣gue as long as he pleases, start questions, and raise difficulties, these insensi∣ble changes are more than possible, for they are come to pass either in these Churches, or in the Latin, which has Opinions, and contrary Customs, which shews that these Gentlemens whole Philosophy is but a mere Spe∣culation, proper only for persons that abound with leisure, which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world.

BUT in short the use which is made of the Seminaries, and Missions, and the course which the Emissaries take in the East, as we have observ'd in the second Book, with the project of Thomas à Jesu to make in a short time, all the Greeks, good Roman Catholicks, according as I have related in the fourth Book; all this I say shews clearly that at Rome, and elsewhere amongst the most zealous, it is not at all accounted impossible to introduce

insensibly, and without disturbance the Doctrins of the Romish Church amongst people that have 'em not, and in effect it must be granted that their present labors are not unsuccessful, and that time will probably finish the work.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answer to the second Treat. ch. 1.
• * 1.2

  Book 9. ch. 8. page 9••3.
• * 1.3

  Page 954.
• * 1.4

  Answer to Noüet.
• * 1.5

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Domin. c. 15. &c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon. Compe∣rimus de cons. dist. 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989.
• * 1.6

  Aug. de Peccat rear. & remiss. lib. 1. c 24.
• * 1.7

  Page 990.
• * 1.8

  Maldon. in Joan. 6. Binn. not. in Epist. Innoc.
• * 1.9

  Page 990.
• * 1.10

  Nicet. Choni. l. 2. Page 986.
• * 1.11

  Page 287.
• * 1.12

  Page 960.