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. XII.

The Twenty Sixth Proof, taken from the Confession of Faith of Cy∣rillus Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, and what followed thereupon.

HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself, (to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus) in saying this Patri∣arch studied John Calvin, and was a great admirer of his Do∣ctrine. That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Arti∣cles of the Belief of the Greeks; that 'twas condemned by two Councils held since his death, and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church (touching the Eucharist) should be determined by his opinion; had he I say only thus expressed himself, we should not have complained against him, but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars. But in∣stead of containing himself within these bounds, he has faln foul on the Per∣son * 1.1 of Cyrillus himself, whom he treats as a hireling, charging him with re∣ceiving five hundred Crowns in Germany, for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks, as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper, who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius, to the pur∣chasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another, that was elected by common consent, as an insatiable ambitious. Wretch, who not con∣tent with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, would have that of Constantinople; and which is yet worse, as a Villain and Murtherer, who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned, got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him, who assisted him in this detestable Action. Tho I resolved not to be con∣cerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion, which cannot but be displeasing to good Peo∣ple of either Communion, yet I may tell him, that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead, he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true, but having no better an Author than Allati∣us for this, he cannot take it ill, if I affirm, his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery.

HE confesses, he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius, who * 1.2 made it his business to inform himself, and being a Greek, ought sooner to be be∣lieved than Dutch or Switzers Ministers, and especially than Hottinger, who is one of the most passionate Ministers, and least sincere Writers he ever read. Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers, and especially Hottinger be what he pleases, what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations, and the sincerity of Allatius? When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus, which they cannot prove; then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony, and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit. If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers, he may say he is sooner to be believed than they, and see what answer we will make him; but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes, and to authorize his Impostures, we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author, and that Allatius is more worthy of credit, this is mere mockery; For to decide the Question, whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous, Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned, we are only to inquire whether Allatius

cites any Witnesses, or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit. Allatius, say's Mr. Arnaud, has taken special care to inform himself. He must tell us then what his Informations contain, and not affirm such important matters, without good Grounds. He was a Greek by Nation, very true, but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith; a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper, a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome, a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries, and especially against Cyrillus, and those called Schismatical Greeks, a man full of words but little sence. His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him. His Zeal for the Inte∣rest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book, De per∣petua consensione, for observe here how he expresses himself, in the Pope's Fa∣vour: The Roman Prelate, say's he, is independent, he judges all the World, and * 1.3 is judged of none, we must obey him altho he governs unjustly, he gives Laws, but receives none, and changes them when he pleases, he makes Magistrates, deter∣mins Points of Faith, and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church. If he would err, he cannot; for he cannot be deceived himself, nei∣ther can he deceive others, and when an Angel should affirm the contrary, being guarded, as he is with the Authority of Christ, he cannot change. The sharpness, wherewith he treats those against whom he writes, such as Chytreus, Creygton, the Archbishop of Corfou, and some others, appears by the bare reading of his Writings; every period honouring them with these kind of Titles, Sots, * 1.4 Lyers, Blockheads, Hellish, and impudent Persons, and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit. To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials, he takes for his Principle to ac∣knowledge none for the true Church, but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See, and in respect of the other Greeks, whom he calls Hereticks, and Schismaticks, he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em, when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword; That Hereticks must be exter∣minated * 1.5 and punished, and if obstinate, put to death and burnt, these are his Ex∣pressions; and as to what concerns Cyrillus, we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice. Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith.

CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living, and after his death; but, he has had likewise Defenders of his Innocency, and Admirers of his Vir∣tues. It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted, and those that are ac∣quainted with the Eastern Affairs, must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests, than the Patriar∣chate of Constantinople. Besides the Traverses, which Envy, and particu∣lar Interests stirred up against Cyrillus, he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him, who looked upon him as an Obstacle that with∣stood their old Design, to bring over that Church to Roman See. He * 1.6 was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings, as Allatius himself acknow∣ledges, but they found him unmovable; and this is the real cause of their after hatred.

IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion, and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side. Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks, and laboured with all his power to reform them, according to the directions of his Con∣science

and Authority of his Charge. But to make him pass under pretence of this, for a half Calvinist, that was false to his own Principles, this is very disingenuously done. It is true he relates himself, that in a conference he held with Fuxius, a Transylvanian Doctour, touching the Invocation of * 1.7 Saints, He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule, and following the Fancies and Opinions of men, the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ, and on Hay or Stubble.

BUT besides that, Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular; sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius, and that we must not suppose without good Proof, this hap'ned be∣fore his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria; besides this, I say, it cannot be hence concluded, he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocati∣on of Saints, nor that he respected it as an Impiety. Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition, but from himself, and not from Cyrillus; so that it is not fairly done, to confound one man's Opinion with another. Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference, that this Invocation, as∣ter the manner some teach and practise it, is a meer Fancy and humane In∣vention; that 'tis this Word, Hay, and Stubble, Saint Paul speaks of, and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main. Metrophanus Crito∣pulus * 1.8 whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocati∣on directed to Saints, as Mediatours, and that which respects them as Em∣bassadours, whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in be∣half of their Brethren. He rejects the first, upon this Reason, that there is but one only Mediatour, who is Christ Jesus; but he receives the second; and Cyrillus himself, in the eighth Article of his Confession, insinuates this distinction, saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour. It concerns me not now to examine, whether the distincti∣on be good, or not, it is sufficient to say, that a man which holds it, may con∣demn the Invocation of Saints in one respect, and retain it in another, and remain in the Greek Church which practises it, without acting against his Conscience, and being a damnable Hypocrite, as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus.

WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession, in which, and some Answers which accompany it, he clearly declared his Belief. It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine; as for * 1.9 instance, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, and that Bap∣tism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ, which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist. We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell, nor the Hierarchical Order, nor regulated Fasts, Lents, Arbitrary use of Confession, Religious Orders, Monastick Vows, Celebration of Feasts, nor the use of the Greek Liturgy, nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church, altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them. He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ, and the Saints, it's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria, or any Religious Worship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular; he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestinati∣on, and Justification, according to the Word of God, more clearly than the Eastern People knew it. But it must not therefore be concluded, he was a Person that betrayed his Trust, in performing the Functions of the Patriar∣chate; nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church, nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud, That Piety could not subsist with so damna∣ble Hypocrisie.

OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men. Judge not, say's our Lord, that ye be not judged, for * 1.11 with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured to you again; And the Apostle cries out to us, Who * 1.12 art thou that judgest another man's servant? Certainly a man cannot be guil∣ty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience, when having never seen nor heard them, it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them, such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus. For besides that, a man may be easily mista∣ken, in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in consci∣ence to the doing of this or th'other thing, if a man proceeds not to a parti∣cular consideration of Circumstances, besides this I say, it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable, has not so appeared to the Person concerned, which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of act∣ing against his Conscience. Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable, un∣less he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent, or unprofita∣ble, but absolutely evil, and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so. Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will, he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed, we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions, but the word of God, that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour, and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images. He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins, and Superstitions amongst the Greeks, and detested both. He may shew that Cyrillus has approved, con∣formably to his Confession, divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin, but he cannot prove Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Senti∣ments, nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks, and forsake the Patriarchal Functions. His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 'twas his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church, in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned, and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge, and of which he was to render an Account. All which he did to the last breath. He held not the truth in unrighteousness, nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience. He published his Confession, and put it in the hands of all the Greeks, and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs, so that 'twas only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud, That he was a damnable Hypocrite, and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest.

'TIS the same Passion caus'd him to say, That the advantagious Judgment * 1.13 we make of this Person shews, that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion. That the Spirit which animates us, is rather a Spirit of Faction, and a Cabal a∣gainst the Catholick Church, than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety. God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it. Our Interests are in his hands, and as we pray him to de∣fend them, so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us. We appear extream odious in his sight, but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments, he will judge wholly other∣wise. In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles, and of our Saviour himself, who were accused, say's Saint Chrysostom,

to be seditious Persons and Innovators, that made it their business to disturb the * 1.14 Publick Peace. We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment, without forgetting our Duty, is, to bless them that curse us, and pray for them that despitefully use us.

ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie (were there occasion) the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus, with∣out my interposing. And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience, so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do; so that 'tis very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars. They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch, than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there, their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity, when they found him at Constantinople. But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services, Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one ano∣ther, notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion. They helpt him to Books, and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men. If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce, and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity, * 1.15 as he is pleased to call it, who need be troubled thereat? Strangers at Con∣stantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities. I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Pa∣triarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Pro∣testants believe to be of great Importance, and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome. Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious, and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power, and what is there unlawful in all this? Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Crea∣tures, or govern himself according to their Directions? Had they said, * 1.16 say's Mr. Arnaud, that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine. Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth? Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective? Had they said, they had in fine obliged him. But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession, but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge? Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm, seeing 'tis the real truth. As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr (as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm) he knows we have no such power. 'Tis certain (as I already mentio∣ned) his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks, as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ, as I shall make appear hereafter, but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs.

SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men, perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs, on the same Maxims, on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged, and the Ambassadors of England and Holland. For not to go farther, how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome (which were wholly their Creatures, sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See) should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops, and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs; that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thurs∣day by the Patriarch of Jerusalem; where their Sacrifice is abhorred, and

this Sentence read every Year in their Churches, confounded be all they that * 1.17 offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice, wherein Purgatory is rejected, and 'tis held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held, carved Images condemned, and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins. How in Conscience can these said Scholars be ad∣vanced to Patriarchates, elected, and consecrated by Schismatical Metropoli∣tains, and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperati∣on from the Church of Rome, and live in Communion with that of Jerusa∣lem, in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated? What I say, is grounded on matter of Fact, which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny, for should he do it, he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu; who expresly tells us, That it has been ever thought fitting, to permit the Schollars * 1.18 of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders, when in Greece, from the hands of Schismatical Bishops, it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation; to the end the Patriarchs may not scruple to promote them to Bishopricks; and likewise, that, they being Bishops, may provide the Churches in their Diocesses with Catholick Curats. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases, how they could in conscience advance Cyrillus of Béroë, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being a Disciple of the Jesuits, whom Allatius calls, vir probus & Catholicus, * 1.19 and who after his death was like to be canoniz'd, say's Allatius. The same Question may be put to him touching others, namely, Timotheus, Anthimus, Gregory, Athenasius, Patelar, who being all of 'em Latins in their hearts, yet for all that exercised the Patriarchal Functions in a Schismatical Church, wherein, as I said, the Pope and all the Latins are every year excommunica∣ted. Moreover this Excommunication is not to be called in Question, for∣asmuch as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it. The Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, say's he, excommunicates once a year on Holy Thursday, all other * 1.20 Sects, not excepting the Roman Church.

HAVING satisfi'd the unjust Accusations of Mr. Arnaud against Cy∣rillus it now remains to see what advantage may accrue to us by this Patri∣arch's Confession, and whether the rejection he makes in express Terms of Transubstantiation, may be esteemed as that of the Body of the whole Greek Church. Mr. Arnaud tells us three things, on the discussion of which de∣pends * 1.21 the Solution of this Question. The first, is, that, the Greeks continu∣ally endeavoured to deliver themselves from the Tyranny of Cyrillus, and that in effect he was four or five times expelled the Church. The second, that this Confession is wholly contrary in its principal Articles to the Do∣ctrine of the Greeks. And the third, that it has been condemned by two Councils held by Cyrillus his Successours. Which is what we are now to examine.

AS to the first of these particulars, I confess this Patriarch has endured several cruel Traverses during his life, which never ended till they had pro∣cured his death, but I deny 'twas his Church occasioned him all these evils; It was the Latine Party and false Greeks which followed him with incessant Persecutions. How dexterous soever Allatius has been in disguising the * 1.22 Truth, yet could he not refrain here from discovering it: He tells us then, that the Greeks whom he calls pii homines, zealous and pious People, not being able to defend their Faith themselves, nor carry on the necessary expences for this, addressed themselves to other Christians, and especially to the Roman Prelate, by whose means they avoid the like Tempests, and secure their Church. He adds,

there were Persons deputed towards Cyrillus, with an express charge, to ob∣lige * 1.23 him either by Promises, or Threatnings, to send to Rome his Confession of Faith, in which he was to admit the Council of Florence, and condemn the Errors of the Calvinists, and in so doing he might assure himself of the assistance and favour of the Apostolical See. That Cyrillus answered, he liked well their offers, and was ready to accept their conditions, provided he might have money and be upheld in his Patriarchate. But that at length find∣ing he kept a correspondence both with Calvinists and Catholicks too, these last, be∣ing troubled thereat, proceeded to threatnings, saying, they would never suffer that Chair to be defiled with the Blasphemies of the Calvinists. What he say's touch∣ing this Deputation is true, for the Congregation, de fide propoganda, sent two Jesuits to Constantinople with one, named Canachio Rossi, charged with Instru∣ctions to gain Cyrillus by Promises or Threatnings, being required only to receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council. But what he adds concern∣ing Cyrillus his Answer, is a meer Calumny, for Cyrillus remained immove∣able, notwithstanding all these Sollicitations. Neither, have we any reason to believe any thing upon Allatius's bare word. Mr. Arnaud may judge as he pleases, yet cannot he deny but Cyrillus his Enemies, were the Latins and La∣tinised Greeks, and that the Tempests and Storms he suffered, and which at length overwhelmed him, came from that side, seeing, that Allatius himself (his own Witness and great Author) affirms it. Cyrillus was ever beloved and honoured by his own true Church, as appears from the care and charge she was at to support him, and to say as Mr. Arnaud does, that the Dutch lent him money upon use, and that he extorted it afterwards from the Churches, which were made to obey him by the Turks, is a Story for which he brings no proof. Neither is there any likelihood particular Persons, who put their money out to use, should choose a man in his Circumstances, that is to say, one that was bereaved of his Dignities, and stript of all he had, were he (as it is supposed) th•• Object of his Peoples hatred. The Dutch Merc••••nts at Con∣stantinople are not wont to part with their money upon such Security. Hottin∣ger, * 1.24 tells us, (from the Testimony of the deceased Mr. Leger, Minister of Ge∣neva, who was at Constantinople, and had a particular Knowledge of this Hi∣story) That one Isaac, Metropolitain of Chalcedon, a Disciple of the Jesuits, having bought of the Turks Cyrillus his Seat, and the report of it being spread throughout Constantinople, there was such an Universal Lamentation amongst all the Greeks, that it came to the Grand Senior's Ears, who broke off this In∣trigue, and would not suffer 'em to obey any longer this Usurper. He like∣wise * 1.25 produces a Letter from Cyrillus his Proto-Syncellus, that is to say, from one of the Chief Officers in his Chamber, named, Nathanael Conopius, da∣ted from Constantinople the Fourth of July, 1638, Immediately after the death of Cyrillus. Wherein he takes particular notice that the Executioners which strangled him, having parted his Garments among them, and after∣wards carried them into one of the Markets of Constantinople to sell them, as being the Clothes of the late Patriarch, the People were universally seized with Grief, and uttered a thousand imprecations against Cyrillus of Berea, calling him Villain, and Murtherer, who had dishonoured God's Church, and not only usurped the Throne of the Holy and Lawful Patriarch, but likewise put him to death. He adds that some of 'em, entred the House of the Usurper, call∣ing him Pilate, and bidding him give them the Body that they might bury it; and how they afterwards went to the Caimacans, and offered him a great deal of money to obtain of him the Body of their true Patriarch, but the wicked Usurper who caused him to be put to death, understanding it, sent to the Caimaican to tell him, that, if he gave these People Cyrillus his Body,

the City would certainly be in an uproar, which hindered him from granting them their request. In fine, he says, this Usurper sent Slaves to take his Body, and cast it into the Sea, but that some Christians having taken it thence, carried it into a Monastery (called St. Andrews) where they privately buried it.

MR. Arnaud, will not fail to fay, that Hottinger is a Minister, and one of the most passionate, and least sincere Writers, he ever read. But why must we rather believe Allatius, than Hottinger? The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man, who is ever upon disguishing things, where∣as this last on the contrary (let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases) has all the Characters of a faithful Writer, relating things according to the best of his Knowledge. The former of these is I confess more polite, but th'other has more simplicity. Allatius relates from his own head, what he pleases, Hot∣tinger alledges his Witnesses, and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Co∣nopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me, invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them, if it were moreover true, that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick, and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him. It was on the contrary the Latins and their Dis∣ciples who so strenuously endeavoured, to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises, nor Threatnings, and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union. It was in reference to them, that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession, We plainly foresee, this short Confession, will be as a mark of contradiction to them, who are pleased to calumniate and per∣secute us. His Presentiment was not vain.

AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection. As to the se∣cond, which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession, are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks. I confess, there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books, as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles, for instance, which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ, of Free Will and Divine Grace, but 'tis cer∣tain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church, and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg. The Fifteenth Article, acknowledges but two Sacraments, and Jeremias, say's Mr. Arnaud, openly professes to hold seven. But I say the * 1.26 Greeks have no rule in this matter, Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution, to wit, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance, and as to the other four he affirms, They are called Mysteries improperly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Jere∣mias acknowledges seven, 'tis true, but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution, namely, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper; and as to the five others, he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the num∣ber of Sacraments. Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus (who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour, and not of hu∣mane Ceremonies, which are improperly called Mysteries, because they have something that is mysterious in them, as speaks Metrophanus) to have con∣tradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks? Why (seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus) does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias? Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he, for he acknowledges, That Jeremias does * 1.27 not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition; but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest, Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted, contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer.

AS to the Eighteenth Article, in which Cyrillus asserts, That the Souls of the deceased, are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery. Mr. Arnaud * 1.28 say's, he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks, touching the State of Souls after death. Hornbeck, and Chytreus, say's he, And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks, affirm, they admit besides Paradise, and Hell, a certain dark, and doleful place, in which the Souls are purged after this life. I answer, the Greeks are not determinately positive, touching the State of the Soul after death. As to the Souls of the Faithful, there are some, who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision, till after the last Judgment, and in the mean time, are in pleasant and delightful places, places, exempt from all kind of sorrows, or else in dark and dismal shades, where they con∣tinually ruminate, on the sins they have committed, and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons, namely, the Unfaithful or Wicked, the Faithful, that dye in a State of Repentance, and perfect Holyness, and o∣thers, who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety, yet have committed several sins, for which they have not so truely repented, as they ought. Hell is designed for the first of these. The second, say they, go into places of rest and refreshment, and the last, into those doleful places, where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination.

BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church, for there are not a few, that hold there are only two conditions of men after death, namely, that of the virtuous, and wicked, and two places, to wit, Heaven and Hell. Syropulus, relates in his History of the Council of Florence, that, the Greeks being urged by the Latins, to express themselves * 1.29 plainly touching the State of departed Souls; Bessarion declared, That the Souls of the Saints, receive the Bliss prepared for them, and those of sinners, their punishments, and that it only remains, that each of these reassume their Bodies, af∣ter which, the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies, and that sinners likewise with their Bodies, &c. shall suffer everlasting punishments. We see here but two States after death. We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks, which likewise asserts but two places. We must know, say's it, that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places, and * 1.30 those of sinners in like manner separate from them. Those rejoyce upon the ac∣count of the hope of Bliss, These lament in expectation of their torments. There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius, which asserts, That, there are two * 1.31 places, designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls, Heaven for the Saints, and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners. That the Saints are at liberty, that they have all the World, and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode. That those who are condemned to Hell, will not come out from their abode, till the day of Judgment, and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation. For, adds he, the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness, nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments, before the last Judgement. But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons, under the custody of cruel Devils. Sigismond, speaking of the Moscovits say's, They believe not there is any Purgatory, but * 1.32 hold, that every one after death goes to the place he deserves, good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels, and the wicked into dismal and dark shades, a∣mongst terrible Devils, where they expect the last Judgment; that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in, and by the presence of Angels which accompany them, and so the others on the contra∣ry. Goar testifies that Ligaridius (a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios) ex∣pounding * 1.33 the meaning of those frequent Allelujas, sung at the Funeral of

the deceased, say's, They are sung as sign of joy, that those who remain alive, may rejoyce, in that the defunct, has happily left this miserable life, and is now in pos∣session of Everlasting Bliss.

IT appears then by this diversity, that there is nothing so regulated, on this Subject, amongst the Greeks, but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us, without contradicting the general Belief of his Church. Besides, his Terms are not so strict, but that they may be well accommodated, with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls En∣joy not the Beatifical Vision, or a perfect Felicity, till the last Judgment, and that hold, there are three States of deceased Persons, for he say's only, That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery, and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies, are either in Heaven, or Hell, which will bear this sence, that Judg∣ment is already passed upon them, and that God has already shown them their condition, which hinders not, but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect, and the felicity of the others not yet compleated. And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards, That every one is judged, according to the condition he is in at the hour of death, which seems to intimate, that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment, and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment. There are two things, most certain in reference to the Greeks, the one, that they pray for the dead, and th'other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church. Now Cyrillus, touches not on the first of these, and as to the se∣cond, he agrees very well therein with his own People, for he calls Purgato∣ry, an imagination not to be admitted. So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently ac∣cuses him of contradicting the Greeks, in the chief Articles of his Con∣fession.

WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection, which consists, of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confession, the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea, and th'other under Parthenius. I have already discoursed of those two Pieces in my Answer to Father Nüet, wherein I have shewn they are suspected to be fictious. But if the Reader will not trouble himself, with consulting what I have elsewhere written, touching the matter, he may here behold a Compendium of my Reasons.

I. ALTHO these Narratives have been often printed, there has been no body yet, that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick. There is one of them printed from a Manuscript, sent from Rome, and th'other from an Edition printed at Jasi in Moldavia published by a certain Monk named Arsenius. It seems to me there ought to be greater assurance given than what we have already, seeing it is not sufficient to au∣thorize so important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils, the one in the year 1639. and th'other in 1642.

II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another, the first of them which is published under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea, is subscribed by several of those whose hands are to the second, and by the same Parthenius, to whom this last is attributed, and yet in the second there is no mention of the first. The first expresly anathematizes Cyrillus, and calls him an impious and wicked Person; The second, say's only, There are certain Articles produced un∣der the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus. The first condemns with an Anathe∣ma these Articles. The second say's, It was proposed in the Synod, whether they

should be received and held for pious and orthodox Points, or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eastern Church, which plainly shews that they that made the second, knew nothing of the first, and yet they are both found subscribed by the same Persons.

III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alex∣andria, who is said to have been an Assessor at the first Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea, nor that Parthenius who is said to have held the second, would have so lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris, seeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber, and th'other his Protector, and inti∣mate Friend.

IV. ARSENIUS the Monk, from whom 'tis said we have the pre∣tended account of the Synod under Parthenius, and who sent it from Constan∣tinople to a nameless Friend at Venice, having stuffed his Letter with Railings against Cyrillus and his Confession, yet mentions not a word touching its first condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea. Which shews us that these are counterfeit Pieces composed at several times, and by different Persons, who not consulting one another, nor furnished with sufficient Instructions, have been guilty of several Contradictions.

I will now add to what has been already said, some other Remarks, which are no less considerable, the first is that when Cyrillus his Confession of Faith appeared in our Western Parts; the first Game that was played, was to de∣ny it, and affirm 'twas a feigned Story; but when this Shift would no longer serve turn, and that the thing was made evident, then an account of these pretended Councils appeared, which shows that they were substituted as a new remedy, instead of the other, which could be of no longer use. Second∣ly, what Parthenius is made to say, That there have been some Articles pro∣duced under Cyrillus his name, is as every man may discover the Style of the Western People, and not that of Parthenius himself, who could not speak after this manner, nor his Synod neither, because 'twas notorious in Constan∣tinople, that this Confession was in effect Cyrillus his own, seeing he offered it in a Council, and openly justified it before the Ministers of the Grand Senior, in the presence of several Ambassadors; and because Parthenius and his Bi∣shops in the preceding Synod had already considered it, as unquestionably his. Moreover what likelihood is there, that Parthenius and his Council would thus grosly and slanderously imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was false as they do? For Cyrillus having said in the first Article of his Confession, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, which is an expression from which the Greeks never vary; The first Article of the Censure bears, That he asserted contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church the Substantial and Eter∣nal Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which is exactly the expression the Greeks abhor.

WE may add to this, that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatise of Paysius Li∣garidius Archbishop of Gaza, in which, Ligaridius discourses of Cyrillus and his Confession, and raises an Objection about it, which he himself answers, saying, That, several boubted of the truth of this Piece, and that should it be true, yet one Swallow does not make a Summer; but he makes no mention of these two pretended Censures, which without doubt he would never have forgot∣ten, being (as he is) a man full of Zeal for the interests of the Roman Reli∣gion, were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek

Church. I might say the same thing of the Barons of Spartaris, did it not elsewhere appear, that he was a Person of small Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks.

HEYDANUS (a Dutch Professour of Divinity) relates, that in the year 1643. The News being come to Constantinople, that, this pretended * 1.34 Council was confidently reported to be true in the West, Parthenius himself was so surprised and offended thereat, that assembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church, he openly professed 'twas false, and that he never intended such an injury to the memory of Cyrillus.

IN fine, Mr. Rivet, Doctor of Divinity, in Holland, writing to Mr. Sarrau, a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris, the 21 of March, 1644. tells him touching this Business, That he saw (at Mr. Hagha's a Letter written in Vulgar Greek, from Pachomius, the Metropolitain of Chalcedon, which disowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Par∣thenius. Farther affirming, that the Subscriptions were counterfeit, and particu∣larly his. That this Piece was contrived by a Rascal, &c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man, yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he signed; and that the Prince of Moldavia banished the Author of this Impres∣sion from his Territories.

BUT, supposing what I now alledged, to be wholly untrue, and that these two pretended Councils, were as really true as I believe 'em to be false, yet is it certain, they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Con∣fession against Transubstantiation, and change it into Demonstration. Which will clearly appear, if we consider, that whosoever composed them, did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a sence odious to the Greeks, even to the imputing to him several Falsities; that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who presi∣ded in the first Council was a false Greek, and one of the Jesuits Scholars, en∣gaged long since in the Party of the Latins, and that Parthenius seemed like∣wise fastned to the Roman Interest, if we take that for one of his Letters, which one Athanasius a Latinising Greek published, in which he makes him thus write to the late King, That he heartily desired the Peace of the two Church∣es, * 1.35 as much as any of his Predecessors, but if the Turk, under whose Empire they lived, knew of this Affair, he would kill 'em all. Yet could the King find out a way whereby to secure them from this danger, he solemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting. So that we see here what kind of men the Authors of these two Censures have been, supposing 'em true, and yet they have not expresly censured what Cyrillus Lucaris asserted touching Transub∣stantiation; the first of these, to wit, Cyrillus of Berrhaea say's, Anathematised be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar, nor the Wine are changed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Priests Consecration, and coming down of the Holy Spirit, into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, seeing 'tis written in the seventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine, that what we see and take is not the Body of Jesus Christ. The second, namely, Parthenius, say's, His Doctrine is so destructive to the Eucharist, that, he attributes only the bare Figure to it, as if we were still under the Old Law of Types and Shadows. For he denies the Bread which is seen and eaten, becomes after Consecration the real Body of Jesus Christ, in any other than a spiritual manner, or rather by imagina∣tion, which is the highest pitch of Impiety. For Jesus Christ did not say, This is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body, this is my Blood, this, to wit, that which was seen, received, eaten, and broken after it was blessed and sanctified.

Not to take here notice, how captiously these People turn the Words of Cy∣rillus, to make them contradictory to the Belief, and common Expressions of the Greeks, it will be sufficient to observe, that howsoever prejudiced these Persons have been, they durst not re-establish the Transubstantiation he ex∣presly condemned, nor take any notice of that part of the Article which re∣jects it in express Terms. But to the end we may better judge of this, it will not be amiss, to recite Cyrillus his own Words. We believe, say's he, that the second Sacrament, which the Lord has instituted, is, that, which we call the Eu∣charist, for in the Night in which he was betrayed, taking Bread and blessing it, he said to his Apostles, take eat this is my Body; and taking the Cup, he gave thanks and said, drink ye all of this, this is my Blood which is shed for you; do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul adds, as often as ye shall eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shew the Lord's death. This is the plain, true, and lawful Tradition, of this admirable Mystery, in the administration and un∣derstanding of which, we confess and believe a real, and certain Presence, of our Lord Jesus Christ, to wit, that which Faith offers and gives us, and not that which Transubstantiation has rashly invented and teaches. For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, not in a sensible chewing of him with the teeth, in the Communion, but in communicating by the sence of the Soul. For our Lord's Body is not in the Mystery, what our eyes behold, and what we take, but that which Faith (which receives after a spiritual manner) presents and gives us. Wherefore, it is certain if we believe, we eat, and participate; but if we believe not, we are deprived of this benefit. If you compare this Arti∣cle with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Censures, you will find they ap∣ply themselves to that which is said concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we see and eat, but that which our Faith does spiritually receive, and that they endeavour to give these Words a construction abominated by the Greeks, and different from their usual expressions. But as to what he says, touching Transubstantiation, (which he calls a rash invention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) we see they meddle not with that. They say that the Bread (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis not a Figure, but the re∣al Body, but that it is so, by a real Conversion of Substance, they do not men∣tion. I dispute not here concerning those Persons sence that drew up these Censures; for I do not question but they were Latins in their hearts, and I further believe had they dared they would have proceeded farther; but any man may perceive they designed to accommodate themselves to the Style of the Greeks, the better to colour over their Forgeries. You see on one hand Cyrillus, who opposes Transubstantiation in plain Terms, boldly naming it, and giving it a Title sufficient to startle a Church that believed it, and on the other, we behold Persons interessed to run down Cyrillus, and that leave no means unattempted whereby to render him odious to the Greeks, that poyson all he says, and yet dare not defend this Transubstantiation, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in express Terms, nor equivalent ones. What means this Mystery, if the Greek Church does in effect believe the conversion of Sub∣stances? Could they light of a better occasion wherein to show their Zeal for Orthodoxy, and to confound at the same time Cyrillus his Accomplices.

MR. Arnaud tells us, That the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not the expression the * 1.36 Greeks commonly use for the explaining of Transubstantiation. But what does he mean by this? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies properly Syllable, after Syllable, Tran∣substantiation, the Latins use it when they express themselves in Greek, the Latinizing Greeks use it, and all the rest know what it signifies; supposing then it were not in common use amongst them, would they suffer a Person

who pretends not to be a Grammarian, but a Divine, who speaks not of the Term, but of the thing meant by it, to reject it as stifly as Cyrillus has done, without so much as saying, that altho we use not the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet we believe the thing meant by it, to wit, the Conversion of Substances? Yet do they take no notice thereof, they forsake the Term and the thing repre∣sented by it, and contain themselves in their general expressions. Is not this then an evident token Cyrillus said nothing in this respect which opposed the Doctrine of his Church?

AND this is what we had to say touching this Patriarch. I am very much mistaken if any comparing this Chapter with the Third, which Mr. Arnaud has made on this Subject, will accuse me of rashness, for saying the real Doctrine of the Greeks appears in Cyrillus his Confession. For 'tis cer∣tain, that man who barely considers what I now mentioned touching Cyrillus his Confession, cannot but conclude the Greek Church believed not Transub∣stantiation. It only remains, for the finishing of this Chapter, that I speak some∣thing touching the State of this Church since the year 1642. the fixt time of the last of these pretented Censures. Parthenius having caused Cyrillus of Berrhaea to be banished, and afterwards strangled after the same manner as he served his Predecessor, he himself remained not long on the Throne. His bad Conduct, brought him down thence, and the Church of Constantinople substituted one, (who had been Cyrillus Lucaris his Disciple,) and named like∣wise Parthenius in his place. Which Allatius acknowledges in a Letter he * 1.37 wrote to Nilhusius dated in the year 1645. from whence we may judge, that this great aversion the Greeks shewed Cyrillus and those Synodical Censures are meer Forgeries: for what likelihood is there a Church, that used so ma∣ny endeavours to deliver it self from such a man as Cyrillus, and which had anathematized his Memory and Doctrine, should four or five years after, put her self into the hands of one of his Disciples, and so run her self again into the same disorder and Heresie. Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that the Turks promote to this See, those that give them most money, and that a * 1.38 Socinian may as well arrive thereunto, as another; for this is not so absolute∣ly true, but that the People have the liberty of hindring the Elections of Per∣sons disagreeable to them, as appears by what Allatius relates concerning one Meletius Bishop of Sophia, who coming to Rome, in order to the reconciling * 1.39 himself with that Church, at his return into his own Country, was designed for the Patriarchate of Constantinople: But, say's he, he was put by, being hin∣dred by the People. We see then this People, have still the liberty to reject the Latinising Greeks, and that they do in effect put them by; but we find not they made the least attempt to hinder the Election of Cyrillus his Disci∣ple, * 1.40 whom the Latins term a Heretick and Calvinist, as well as his Master.

THIS condition wherein we now beheld the Greek Church lasted from the year 1645. till 1653. Observe here what Doctour Basire a Reverend Divine of the Church of England, whom I have already mentioned wrote to me about it. When I was at Constantinople, which was in the year 1653. Paysius was then Patriarch of it, who in token of Communion with the Church of England, laid his hands on me in an Assembly of Bishops, according to custom, as being a Priest of the Church of England, and with this imposition of hands gave me power to preach in Greek in all the Greek Churches within his Ju∣risdiction. Which I afterwards did very often, according as occasion offered, as well at Constantinople as elsewhere, altho the Jesuits seemed to be very much displeased thereat. I preached one Sunday to the English, another in French for

the Genevoises, the next Sunday to the Italians, the following Sunday in Latin to the Hungarian and Transylvanian Ambassadors, and the fifth Sunday in Greek in the Greek Churches. Now what likelihood is there, if Cyrillus his Doctrine were so odious, and his Memory so execrable to the Greeks, (as Mr. Arnaud would perswade us) and their Opinion touching the Eucharist the same with theirs in the Church of Rome; and if they detested our Doctrine as impious and Heretical, they would admit a Minister of the Church of England, to be a preacher amongst them, and not be afraid that in preaching to 'em the Gospel, he should instil amongst them the pretended Errors of his Nation, especially in that important Subject of the Eucharist?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382,, 83.
• * 1.2

  Ibid. pag. 383.
• * 1.3

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.4

  Vide Allat. de Perpet. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 15, 16, 17, 18. &c. advers. Ch••eygt. pas∣sim.
• * 1.5

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.6

  Ibid.
• * 1.7

  Hottinger in Appendic•• dissert. 8.
• * 1.8

  Confess. Ec•• Orient. cap. 17.
• * 1.9

  Cyril Conf. fi•• dei, art. 1. & art. 16.
• * 1.10

  Resp. ad In•• terr. 4.
• * 1.11

  Matt. 7.
• * 1.12

  Rom. 14.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417.
• * 1.14

  Chrysostom. Hem. 23. in Rom.
• * 1.15

  Pag. 422.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 420.
• * 1.17

  In Triod.
• * 1.18

  Thom. à Jesu de procuran. Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.19

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.20

  Lib. 2. cap. 3.
• * 1.21

  Lib. 3. cap. 6, & 7.
• * 1.22

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.23

  Ibid.
• * 1.24

  Hottinger. in Append Dis∣sert. 8.
• * 1.25

  Which Letter may be seen in its Original.
• * 1.26

  Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Con∣fes. cap. 9.
• * 1.27

  Arcud. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.28

  Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388.
• * 1.29

  Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16.
• * 1.30

  Allat. de lib. Eccl. disp. 2.
• * 1.31

  Ibid.
• * 1.32

  Sigism. Com. ver. Moscov.
• * 1.33

  Jacob. Goar in notis in offic. Exeq.
• * 1.34

  Heydanus prae∣fat. ad lib cui titulus est, cau∣sa Dei.
• * 1.35

  Athan. Rhe∣tor. Presbyt. Bisant. anti patellar. Paris 1655.
• * 1.36

  Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 387.
• * 1.37

  Allat. de per. Cons. lib. 3.
• * 1.38

  Lib. 4. cap. 7. pag. 39, 392.
• * 1.39

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.40

  Allat. ubi su∣pra.