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. I.

The Question stated, and M. Arnaud's sixth Deceit manifested.

IT may be remembred, that at the beginning of this Dispute touch∣ing the Schismatical Churches, I undertook to prove the truth of of these three Propositions. First, that when Mr. Arnaud shall prove what he pretends concerning these Churches, since the ele∣venth Century to this present, yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in the Christian Religion, or the change in question impossible, or that it hath not actually hapned. Secondly, That the true Greek Church and o∣thers which the Latins call Schismaticks, never reckoned Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Belief, nor the Adoration of the Eucharist a∣mongst their Rites and Ceremonies. Thirdly, That whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative, is void and ineffectual, and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends. I have already made good the first of these Propositions in the preceding Book, and shall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the ele∣venth Century to this present; that I may thereby accommodate my self to Mr. Arnaud's Method. And as to the other Greek Churches, I shall treat of them in my fifth Book. But it is first necessary to lay down the true State of the Question, to the end, that what we undertake may be the better un∣derstood, and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected. Who continually wanders from the point in dispute, supposing impossibilities, proving imper∣tinencies and confounding what ought to be distinguished.

WE must know then there are two sorts of Greeks, the one reunited to the Church of Rome, who acknowledge the Popes Jurisdiction, and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council, living in Peace with the Latins; The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, having their Communion apart, and separate from the Latins. And this I suppose Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny, seeing that in their Observations on the Request of M. the Archbishop of Ambrun they have themselves made this distinction of the Greek Catholick Church, and the Greek Schismatical one. It is needless to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact so well known. In effect the Endea∣vours of the Latins to subject the Greeks to themselves have not been wholly fruitless, for besides that in Greece it self and other Patriarchates, they have

acquired a great number of Persons and intire Families, besides this I say, there are whole Nations which observe the Decrees of the Council of Flo∣rence, and live under the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome, who yet still ob∣serve the Rites and Customs of the Greeks. We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy, Rome, Venice, Tuscany, the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples, which are called Italian Greeks, we may also bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians. For Allatius testifies, that not only all these do ob∣serve the same Ceremonies as them of the East, but that the Pope likewise obliges them to an Observance of them, and therefore maintains a Greek Bi∣shop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode, to hinder 'em from re∣ceiving them in the East, from the hands of Schismaticks. We must likewise comprehend the Russians which inhabit black Russia, and Podolia, under the Government of the King of Poland; who submitted themselves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the last Century. Arcudius com∣mends Sigismond the Third, for that he did not only sollicite but in a manner * 1.1 constrain them to make this Union, ut ad Romanam, says he, hoc est ver am Dei Ecclesiam se adjungerent excitasti ac pene dixerim impulisti. Our Question does not concern them, their Submission to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Dispute, I expresly excepted them, when I denyed that the Greeks and other Christians held Transubstantiation, and Adored the Sacra∣ment, having said in plain terms, except those that submit themselves to the Pope.

SECONDLY, We must remember that one of the chief Advantages * 1.2 the Church of Rome makes of these forementioned Seminaries, and Emissa∣ries in Greece, is the gaining of Proselytes and instructing young People in its Doctrines, to use them afterwards for the Conversion of others, as I shew∣ed in the preceding Book. Now Mr, Arnaud cannot in reason bring these sort of People into the reckoning, and I think it will not be taken ill, If I se∣parate them from the rest, for in effect the Abuse would be too gross to pre∣tend to determine this Question touching the Greek Church, by the Testi∣mony of Converts, or Persons brought up from their Infancy amongst the Jesuits and other Religious Orders and Latin Doctors, who instructed them in their Doctrines; and I have already shewn, that the number of these is not small, and Allatius himself assures us of it. The Greeks, say's he, that reverence the Pope and receive his Decrees as Oracles are more in number than we * 1.3 imagine, and were they not with held by the fear of a most cruel Tyrant, and that of the Calumnies and Accusations of some wicked People, we should see every day, them who possess the greatest Dignities amongst the Greeks, come and pro∣strate themselves at the Popes Foot-stool. This is the Fruit of the Missions and Seminaries.

IN the third place, the Question is not here, whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us concerning the Sacrament? This is Mr. Arnauds continual device to dispute on this Principle, to wit, that I affirm the Greeks to be of the same Opinion with us. As for example, he takes a great deal * 1.4 of pains to shew that 'tis not likely we would make use of Euthymius his words to instruct a man in our Doctrine, and that Euthymius has not taken the term Est, in our Saviour's words, This is my Body, in the sence of Significat. * 1.5 He likewise takes a great deal of pains to prove that Nicholas Méthoniensis * 1.6 was not a Berengarian and one that believed the Bread was the Figure of our Saviour's Body, that the Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make when they embraced the Christian Religion, was not in such terms as to

make them understand that the Bread and Wine were not really our Saviour's Body, but only the Figure or Representation thereof indued with its Virtue, and that Pope Innocent the Third did not reproach * 1.7 the Greeks with their believing that they eat only the Figure of Christ's Bo∣dy. All this is but a mere Artifice to impose on the World, and blind those that have not continually the point in question in their minds; and suffer themselves to be easily carried off from one Subject to another. I say then it concerns us not to know, whether the belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, is the same in every particular with that of ours, and whether they explain themselves on that Subject in the same manner as we do. This we never yet affirmed to Mr. Arnaud, but the contrary, viz, That several * 1.8 of the Greeks have since the seventh Century rejected the terms of Figure, Image, and Type, which the Ancients made use of and we use after their example. The present Question is, whether the Greeks do believe concerning the Sacra∣ment what the Church of Rome doth, this is the only point of the Dispute, to which Mr. Arnaud ought to have stuck, and not to wander into wide Discourses and fruitless Consequences. In effect the design of the Treatise of the Perpetuity being to make us confess, that the belief of the Church of * 1.9 Rome touching the Eucharist, has been perpetual in all Ages, and that Author having for this purpose made use of the Conformity of the Greeks with her in this Point, and this Conformity having been denyed, it is clear, that the Question does not concern our Sentiment, but that of the Roman Church, to know whether the Greeks hold and teach the same thing.

IN the fourth place, our Dispute hitherto has not been concerning the real Presence, as Mr. Arnaud supposes, but only on the Subject of Transubstan∣tiation, and the Adoration thereon appendant; so that he has dealt very dis-ingeniously, in making the World believe that our debate reached to the Real Presence: Our Question, say's he, is concerning the belief of all these * 1.10 Sects and People touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. 'Tis yet more absurdly he complains that contrary to the intention of the Author of the Perpetuity, I have turned the Question upon Transubstantiation. Not∣withstanding, say's he, that the Author of the Perpetuity has only in his first * 1.11 Treatise discoursed of the Real presence, and contented himself with maintain∣ing that this Doctrine was received by all these Schismatical Churches; yet Mr. Claude has continually turn'd the Question upon Transubstantiation, which was not the point precisely in question. But in fine, 'tis the effect of a most unwarran∣table * 1.12 Liberty to write, that he knows not whether the boldness of a man can proceed to that point where mine must needs be, in maintaining to the end that the Real Pre∣sence and Transubstantiation are Doctrines unknown to the Greek Church. And I dare to affirm that his cannot be greater than it is, for 'tis certain, that here the Question only concerns Transubstantiation and the Adoration, and not the Re∣al Presence, concerning which I have not yet said any thing. 1. Let Mr. Arnaud read the last Section of my first Answer, and he will find precisely these words; I affirm that Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Sacrament, are two things unknown to all the World, the Roman Church excepted; for neither the Greeks, nor the Armenians, Russians, Jacobites, Ethiopians, nor in general any Christians but them who have submitted themselves to the Pope, do believe any thing touching these two Articles. 2. Let the passages of my second An∣swer be perused where I handle again the same Question, and it will be found that they only concern Transubstantiation, there being no mention therein of the Real Presence. 3. I desire the Reader to peruse the last Chapter of the second Treatise of the Perpetuity, and he will find it contains these words

for its Title. That all the Sects separate from the Church of Rome are at accord with her, in the point of Transubstantiation, and especially the Greeks. He will find likewise that in the body of the Chapter there is not a word of the Real Presence.

THERE is no body then but Mr. Arnaud, who has thought of bringing it into our debate, and this without any other reason but that he will have it so, maugre us, imagining he shall be able to save himself by the Ambiguity of the term of Real Presence. For as to what he tells us, that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence, and con∣tents himself with asserting That this Doctrine was received by all the Schis∣matical Churches, I am sorry I must tell him that I know not any man that writes things on such slight grounds as he does; nor so easily exposes his Re∣putation in asserting matters of Fact, of whose untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read. For not to go farther we need but read, to find in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise, that the Author proposes to himself, to make any man confess who is not extreamly obstinate by the evidence of truth it self, that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Mystery is the same with that of all Antiquity. Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Transubstantiation. We need but read moreover for this purpose the eighteenth and nineteenth Pa∣ges of the first Treatise, wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being desi∣rous to shew us the universality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, tells us, that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in these terms; We believe the Terrestial Substances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sancti∣fied on our Lord's Table by the Ministry of the Priests, are CHANGED by

the ineffable Operation, wonderful and incomprehensible Power of God into the Essence of the Body of our Lord, adds farther, Behold here the Faith which the Church dispersed throughout the whole World, which is called Catho∣lick, has held in all Ages and does at this time hold, and that he confidently re∣peats this in the twenty second Chapter, and presses Berengarius to inform himself of the Sentiments of all the Christians in the World in the East and West. Ask the Greeks, Armenians, and generally all Christians of what Nation

soever, and they will all of them tell you they hold the same Faith which we profess. We need but only read to be satisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity pro∣duces afterwards the Testimony of Guitmond in the same Sence, and for the same end he cited that of Lanfranc, to wit, to prove that the Greeks and o∣ther Schismaticks do believe Transubstantiation, and that in the twenty se∣cond Page he makes this remark, That Guitmond does not only apply what he say's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Presence, but likewise to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans, which clearly shews us, that this Testimony of Guitmond respects not only the Real Pre∣sence, but likewise Transubstantiation. In fine, to be ascertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page, after he had alledged that passage of Guit∣mond: All the Books of the Schismatical Greeks, say's he, which have come to our hands since that time, do clearly testifie they held the same Opinions as the Church of Rome, touching the Eucharist. After this Mr. Ar∣naud comes and tells us, that although the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence, and contents himself with assert∣ing that this Doctrine was held by all these Schismatical Churches, Yet Mr. Claude turns aside the Question upon Transubstantion, which Point this Author does not precisely Treat of. What means then I pray these Quotations out of Lanfranc

and Guitmond which he has expresly produc'd to shew that Transubstantiation was believed by the whole World, both by the Greeks and Armenians, and generally by all Christians? Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himself an irrepara∣ble Injury thus to maintain things without consulting and examining them, flattering himself with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word. That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this: That he has ob∣served in the Treatise of the Perpetuity, that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schismatical Churches in the manner already men∣tion'd, that is to say positively, in reference to Transubstantiation, passing afterwards to the proposing of some Arguments; by which he pretends to shew that the Mystery of the Eucharist is distinctly known by all the Faith∣ful, and that an insensible change is a thing impossible, he restrains himself to the Real Presence, but there is a difference betwixt these two points, and Mr. Arnaud ought to have considered this a little better. I say then, that in this Dispute of the Greeks and other Christians separated from the Roman Church, the question concerns Transubstantiation, and not the Real Pre∣sence, as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expresly mentioned Transubstantiation in his first Treatise as I come now from observing, and for as much as I plainly kept my self in my first Answer to this Doctrine a∣lone, and that of the Adoration, whereupon it follows that the Debate has been precisely continued on these two Articles. Yet do I here declare, to avoid all Mistakes, that altho our debate at present is not concerning the Re∣al Presence, yet do I not yield to the drawing of this consequence from hence, that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church, in the same Sence as the Latins understand it. This is not my Opinion, and I shall say no more of it, but that this point is not the Subject of our present debate. It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Discourse, what ought to be believed touching this matter, it not being needful for this to alter the State of our question.

BUT besides the Observations I now made, we must likewise observe, that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expresly reject Tran∣substantiation, or whether they have made it a point of Controversie betwixt them and the Latins, but the question here is whether they do positively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples absolute reject∣ing of a Doctrine, that is to say, the making thereof a point of debate, and the not receiving and reckoning it amongst the Articles of their Faith. Our debate concerns only this last, I mean whether the Greek Church as it stands separate from the Latin professes the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion, or not: This is the true state of the question. Mr. Arnaud maintains the affir∣mative, and I the negative, so that we must see now who has the reason and truth on his side. Yet let me tell him, that designing throly to handle this Subject, he ought to have laid down all these distinctions and leave the Rea∣der at his own liberty to judge of them. But instead of this, there is never a one of these Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifestly per∣verted. 1. He makes advantage of all those Parties which have been made from time to time, either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors, or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches. 2. He makes use of the Testimony of Persons won to the Roman Interest, such as Emanuel Calecas, Bessarion, John Plusiadenus, Gennudius Scholarius, Baro∣nius Spatarius, Paysius, Ligardius, all of 'em Persons manifestly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome, as shall be shewed him in the Sequel of this debate. 3. He sets himself upon proving to no purpose, that the

Greeks do not believe as we do the Sacrament to be a Figure or Representa∣tion, and that they are not Berengarians. 4. He maintains that the Point in question is to know whether they believe the Real Presence, and that the Dispute turns especially on this hinge. 5. He set himself to shew that the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a point of Controversie with the Latins. Now all this is no more than a general Illusion, which alters the state of the Question.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arcud. Epist. ad Sigismond.
• * 1.2

  Answer to the first Treatise towards the end.
• * 1.3

  Allat. de perp. cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 2. C. 12.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 2. C. 13.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 2. C. 15.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 3. C. 1.
• * 1.8

  Answer to the first Treatise.
• * 1.9

  First Treatise of the Perpetu∣ity.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 2. C. 3. P. 128.
• * 1.11

  Ibid.
• * 1.12

  Lib. 2. C. 10. P. 191.