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. III.

The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general, and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion. The Fourth, that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith, the Decrees of the seven first General Councils. The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open. The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions. Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion disco∣vered.

THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist, are these. They call the Symbols, the holy gifts, the holy things, the ineffable myste∣ries, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the sanctified bread, the par∣ticle or parts, the pearl, and the like. They say, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis the real Body of Jesus Christ.

AND to express this change, they use the Terms of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifie, to change. Now 'tis certain these expressions, whether we take 'em severally, or joyntly, cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation. For, besides that being gene∣ral, they are capable of several particular sences, and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined, as may be justified by a thousand Examples, if it were needful; besides this, I say, our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determi∣nate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms, unless it evidently appears from something else, that they had this particular sence in their minds.

I confess that in this case, that is to say, if it appears they have had a par∣ticular sence in their minds, we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence, how general soever they may be, but if they come not up to this, we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning. We know for example, that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is com∣monly believed, when then we are told, that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, or that 'tis changed into the Body of Christ; although these words are general, yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence, that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ. But had she not elsewhere expressed her self touching the change of the Substance,

and had no Council defined it, nor were it to be found in the Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, and other Publick Books, and taught by the Roman Doctours, it is evident we should be unreasonable, in giving these general expressions any other than a general sence, and this generality it self would be an invincible Argument that she never descended so far as the distinct de∣termination of Transubstantiation, and consequently this would not be an Article of her Belief. Now 'tis after this manner we ought to judge of the Greek Church, all its expressions are general, there appearing nothing elsewhere which determins this generality, or which engages us to attribute to her the particular and distinct sence of the Church of Rome, and whatso∣ever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in the behalf of this, is of no weight. It then necessarily follows, that we ought to attribute to her no other than a ge∣neral sence, and in no wise that of Transubstantiation, which is evidently particular and determinate: And even this consideration, that they of the Church of Rome are obliged to use Arguments to explain the common ex∣pressions of this Church into a sence of Transubstantiation, is an infallible mark that she does not believe it.

NOW seeing this Proof is decisive, and that it not only establisheth my Sentiment, but likewise overthrows Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute, it will not be therefore amiss to illustrate it and consider well its Foundations, to the end it may be manifested whether the conclusion I draw from hence is just and true. First, then we must know that Transubstantiation is the precise and distinct determination of the manner in which the Bread is made the Body of Christ, to wit, by a real conversion of the substance of this Bread into the substance of this Body; so that 'tis impossible to believe it without forming a distinct Idea after this manner, seeing it is even this precise and deter∣min'd Idea it self. It is then absurd and contradictory to look for it in a ge∣neral and confused Idea, which determines nothing, for this is to seek for a determination in a thing undetermined, and a distinct sence in a generality, that is to say, light in darkness. And from hence appears what must be the expressions of a Church which believes Transubstantiation, and teaches it, for it is necessary she teach it in plain terms, which answer the distinct Idea she has of it, and which may immediately form the like in the minds of those that hear her. Now this cannot be done but by express and formal Terms, or by Terms so equivalent, that they cannot be turned into a contrary sence. What I say is verifi'd by the example of the Roman Church, whose expressi∣ons are plain and clear, and which immediately shew her meaning.

MOREOVER we should consider that the Notion of Transubstantia∣tion is not one of those which are called Speculative, but Practical Notions, which engages them that have it to several duties and performances, and especially to the soverain adoration of this same substance, which before was the substance of bread, but now the same proper numerical substance of the natural body of Jesus Christ, as speaks the Church of Rome, whence it necessarily follows, that a Church which thus believes it, teacheth it in such a manner, that the act of adoration follows freely and naturally of it self..

IT is likewise to be observed, that the matter here in hand concerns the Greek Church from the Eleventh Century, which is to say, that since the contests with Berengarius, the Roman Church has expresly determined the substantial conversion, which drove the Greeks into a greater necessity of

speaking clearly on this point, either to shew their conformity of belief with the Latins, or to avoid the falling into the same inconveniencies which the Latins endeavour'd to avoid by this formal declaration. And this ob∣servation is the more considerable against Mr. Arnaud, in that he grants the Greeks not to have been ignorant of this circumstance touching Berengarius.

TO know then certainly whether the Greek Church believes Transub∣stantiation or not, we need but see after what manner she explains her self concerning the Eucharist; for if her expressions bear not a substantial con∣version, either expresly or equivalently, in such a sort, that they may easily and immediately form the notion thereof, if they be I say general, and determine nothing of themselves, it is a certain proof she does not believe it, for that Church which believes it, and would have its Children do the like, cannot but explain it self clearly and fully on that subject. If we examine Mr. Arnaud's dispute on this Principle, which I esteem as the light of com∣mon sence, we shall immediately deprive him of all his negative Arguments, taken from the silence of the Greeks, and that of the Latins; for altho these kind of Arguments are very good in other occasions, yet it is apparent that to end a question, such a one as this is, which is, Whether the Eastern Church believes and teaches Transubstantiation, Mr. Arnaud should have taken a course more decisive than that of considering what the Greeks have done in relation to the Transubstantiation of the Latins, or what the Latins have done in respect of the belief of the Greeks. It were better for us, directly to consider, after what manner, they themselves do positively explain their be∣lief, touching the Eucharist. If we find Transubstantiation plainly declared in it; these Arguments of silence are no longer necessary, and if we don't find it clearly expressed, there will follow a Conclusion so greatly to my ad∣vantage, that all Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments will not be able to subsist before it, for there is a thousand times more solidity in reasoning after this sort. A Church doth not clearly teach Transubstantiation, therefore she holds it not, than to argue thus; A Church does not oppose Transubstanti∣ation held by the Latins, therefore she believes it. Besides that the first Argument concludes directly and immediately what the other does not, there is a greater coherence between believing Transubstantiation, and clearly teaching it, than there is repugnance between not believing it, and yet not opposing it in persons who do believe it. There is no reason can hinder the Greeks from distinctly teaching Transubstantiation, supposing they be∣lieved it, but there may be several reasons which may oblige them from making this Point a matter of dispute with the Latins, altho they do not be∣lieve it.

NEITHER must the Profession of Faith, which the Emperour Mi∣chael Paleologus sent (as from the Greeks) to Pope John the XXI. to finish the work of the Re-union of the two Churches be made use of against us; for besides that this was an act extorted by force, which is not of any account a∣mongst the Greeks, we do not find that the Latin expressions which bear that the Bread is really transubstantiated, do exactly answer the Greek expressions of the same act, which according to all likelyhood contained only, that the Bread is really changed, as we shall make it appear hereafter.

NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us, for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries, and that

the quality of the Persons who make these attestations, does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question, which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church, all these pieces are too new where∣on to build alone, a Tradition from the ••••••venth Century, that is to say, since six hundred years.

WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences, which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them, which shall be done in its place; but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument, which is drawn, from that the usual expressions of the Greeks, I mean the clearest of them, and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist, only consist in general terms. Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation; for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions, seeing the belief of the substantial conversion, as I have already established it, is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and that 'tis not possi∣ble but that a Church which believes it, and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly: And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments, I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's.

BUT this Argument I now produced, ought to be attended by this fol∣lowing consideration, which will farther evidence its strength and solidity. Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith, the seven first general Councils, to wit, that of Nice, against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great, that at Constantinople a∣gainst Macedonius under Theodosius, that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior, that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion, that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian, the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus, and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine, and his Mother Iréna. Now 'tis certain, there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transub∣stantiation, for what is produced concerning the first at Nice; That we must conceive by Faith, that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World, lies ou this holy Table, that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests, and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood: This I say, as any man may see, is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice, as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book, wherein he relates it. And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances, as that of Gregory the Seventh, held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second, that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject, that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine, and in fine that of Trent, which esta∣blished the preeeding decisions, the Greek Church receives none of these, nor makes any account of them. They all commonly say, say's Richardus the * 1.1 Jesuit, in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed, and the Priests make the people believe, that at the end of the seventh Council, an Angel descended from Heaven; testi∣fying that whatsoever concerned our Faith, was therein perfected, and there re∣main'd

nothing more to be added or decided. Leo Allatius likewise only menti∣ons seven Councils which they approve. They have, say's he, in great esteem * 1.2 the Decrees of the seven first general Councils, and hold them inviolable, they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things, and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them.

ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians, * 1.3 which is the same as that of the Greeks, relates their Belief is, that 'twas con∣cluded in the seventh general Council, that the matters determin'd in the prece∣ding Councils should remain firm for the time to come, and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema; wherefore (adds he) they say, that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first, are accursed, per∣verse, and desperately defiled with Heresie. Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia, tells us likewise, that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since * 1.4 the seventh, saying, they are not concerned in them, seeing they were held without their consent.

SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour, that there * 1.5 ought only the seven Councils to be regarded, and that whosoever receives the De∣crees of an eighth or ninth is accursed. Mr. Basire, whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, confirms me in this matter by his Letter. In publica, say's he, Graecorum professione, non nisi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recipiunt quas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nuncupant. In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the De∣crees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical. And Metrophanus * 1.6 the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration: We only receive, say's he, the seven Oecumenical Councils, and as to the particular Councils, we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones. Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith, this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible, for in fine not to receive for a determi∣nation of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Coun∣cils, and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversi∣on, are two things very inconsistent with each other, especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils, wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd. And in effect, it seems to me that this Doctrine is im∣portant enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils, and not amongst the common customs, or practices which are still observed, altho not expresly determined, or amongst the Points, which being minute and inconsiderable, are therefore left unde∣cided, altho they are held. Let the Reader judge, whether 'tis likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the De∣crees of Councils, wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transub∣stantiation, and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established, and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins, and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms, which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms, the greatest part of which are besides the purpose. What mean these Greeks by their general expressions, which are good for nothing but to puzzle people? For according to Mr. Arnaud, they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body, and teach as they believe, it being their interest to do so, to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed. They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of

Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine. And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith, but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils, in which there's no mention of this Change of Substance, and to reject all those Councils which expressly de∣creed it, and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms, which signifie nothing. And must Mr. Arnaud (to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World, and to whom they are obliged for their pre∣servation under the Turkish Empire) tire himself, his Friends, and his Read∣ers; exhaust his store of Consequences, that is to say, his stock of Delusi∣ons, and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People? To speak impartially, he has reason to be angry with these Greeks, who are so obstinate, or at least so lazy, that they will not be at the pains to express plainly, and without ambiguity, a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds. And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves; but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome, they have changed the Latin expressions, and whereas in the Acts of these last, it is expressly mention'd, that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ, they have barely inserted, that it is changed, that 'tis consecrated, and in a word, they have ever substi∣tuted their general expressions, to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins. What can Mr. Arnaud alledge, when on one hand he sees in Raynal∣dus, this Confession of Faith, about which he has made such a noise, and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI. and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church, and that he sees it, I say, expressed in these Latins words, Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia, tenens & do∣cens * 1.7 quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Latins say's, veré Tran∣substantiatur, it is really Transubstantiated, and the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is really changed.

Mr. Arnaud, who loves not to complain, when his complaints will do him * 1.9 no good, passes lightly over this difference, as if it were a trifle not worth his notice, for having told us, that Raynaldus observes, some read in Latin Trans∣mutatur, and others Transubstantiatur, he adds, Allatius who has given us the Original it self, makes it appear that these words, Transmutatur and Transub∣stantiatur, are mere Synonimous Terms, seeing they have been substituted by In∣terpreters to these Greek words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synoni∣my, Transmutatur, and Transubstantiatur are both the same, because Inter∣preters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But who are these Interpreters, who thus render Transubstantia∣tur, are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where, and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force? If Transmutare and Tran∣substantiare are Synonimous Terms, Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render * 1.10 those words of Gregory Nazianzen, Christo indutus sum, in Christo Transub∣stantiatus sum, for there is Transmutatus, and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen, Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus, he may read, * 1.11 in Deum Transubstantiatus, and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster, Transmu∣tatur in bonam olivam, he may render this, Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam. If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these two La∣tin ones, Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur, Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus, omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur, for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur, and the Greek imports 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when he shall find in the same Author, that Jesus Christ came to change the nature, he may understand it, that he came to Transub∣stantiate the nature, forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare, and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 'Tis certain that a man who reads good Authors up∣on Mr. Arnaud's credit, and follows his Synonima's, will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations, and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all. He will say these words are Synonimy's, when they concern the Eucharist; for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantia∣ted, is the same thing. It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstan∣tiation, but not with them who do not believe it. But the Greeks believe it, say's Mr. Arnaud, which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it. Mr. Ar∣naud's Arguments are really admirable, for they are very conclusive, provi∣ded we suppose the truth of what they conclude. If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this Form of Faith, he will answer 'tis because the Term of Transubstantiatur is in it. Tell him that in the Greek there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transmutatur and not Transubstantiatur, he will answer that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are the same thing. But let this be examined, it will be found to be indeed the same thing to them that believe Transubstantiation, but as to others who do not, there is a great difference; so that to speak truly, to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good, it must first be supposed the Greeks believe the Substantial Conversion, as well as the Latins.

HE may adjust these matters when he pleases; but let me tell him in the mean time, that the Greeks used the same expressions in the Council of Flo∣rence. The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Sa∣viour * 1.12 Jesus Christ, take, eat, this is my Body, which has been broken for you, for the Remission of your Sins, &c. (they added this Prayer,) and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cap, the preci∣ous bloud of thy Christ, in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit; they answered they did acknowledge that the Consecrated Bread was made the Body of Christ by these words. The Latin Decree has this expression, fa∣teri nos diximus per haec verba Transubstantiari Sacrum Panem, & fieri Corpus Christi, but the Greek expressions are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Latin say's 'tis Transubstantiated, the Greek that 'tis Consecrated.

MR. Arnaud has recourse here likewise to his Synonimy's; for he tells us, that the Latins (to whom this answer was made) having taken it in the sence * 1.13 of an acknowledgement of Transubstantiation, it is ridiculous to pretend there

was such a great equivocation between them and the Greeks, the one understand∣ing a change of Substance, and the others a change of Virtue. He adds, That if the Greeks had not taken these words in the sence of the Latins, Syropulus, and Marc of Ephesus would have observed that the Latins were derided by this equivocation, and would have accused them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit. In fine, he say's, that Andrew de S. Cruce (who deserves as much to be credited, as any of the other Historians, who wrote on this Council, because he was there present) relates this acknowledgment of Transubstantiation, which Bessarion made in the name of all the Greeks, in a manner more precise, distinct, and with greater circumstances, and that he attributes to him these words, we have learnt that these are the words of our Lord, which Change and Transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, and that these divine words have the full force of Transubstantiation.

I answer, the more I study the Character of Mr. Arnaud, the more clearly I perceive that these things are no otherwise ridiculous and affrightful, but only as they agree not with his designs. For it is certain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Transubstantiari, are two different Terms, which signifie not the same thing; the first is applicable in general to all Mysteries, and signifies only, to be conje∣crated, or perfectly consecrated; the second signifies a Change of one Substance into another. It is moreover certain, that when the Latins wrote Transubstantiari, the Greeks have only set down 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, why then will he have it, that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural signification, and in the usual sence given to it amongst them? Because say's he, that the Latins took this answer for an acknowledgment of Transubstantiation: But who told him, that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner; Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins should take it in this sence? The Greeks have kept to their general expressions, and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage. If there has been any equivocation in them, the Latins have voluntarily made it, and 'tis very likely, could they have made the Greeks say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they would gladly have done it, but not being able to effect it, they have made what advantage they could of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in interpreting it by the word Transubstantiation. And this is the whole Secret, which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other, than Mr. Arnaud's imagination.

And as to what he say's concerning Syropulus, and Mark of Ephesus, name∣ly, that they would have observed the Latins were deluded by an Equivoca∣tion, and accuse them who thus answered in behalf of the Greeks of prevari∣cation and deceit; I see no reason they had to do this, for when the Greeks, sayd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they spoke their usual Language and derided no body. If the Latins understood it otherwise than the force of the Term and common use permitted them; 'tis they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them, wherefore there is no reason in this respect to accuse them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit. Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Bessarion according to the intention of the Latins, does but con∣firm what I say, which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expressions of the Greeks, and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us, that he deserves no less credit than the other Historians, who wrote of this Council. Would he have it, that Bessarion who speaks for all the rest of the Greeks, did not use the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council, and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not sufficient to correct a Publick Act, neither can his

Latin alter the Greek. Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Bessarion by Transubstantiatur? I grant it, and the Decree of the Council shows it, so that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his assistance. Yet may we observe that Mr. Arnaud himself is not fully satisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expressions on this Subject, do mean but one and the same thing, altho he tells us he is; for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce, relates from Bessarion, a more precise manner, more distinct and circumstantial, which is as much as to say after all, that the Transubstantiari of the Latins is more precise, distinct and plain than the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks.

AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him; and it were well if it could likewise so far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge, that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Transub∣stantiation. For had they believed it, what likelyhood is there they should thus carefully keep themselves from using the expressions of the Latins, which are proper, distinct and clear, and change them into others, which are general and equivocal, and that in the same Acts wherein those aforementio∣ned exactly describe the conversion of the Substances, th'others should be so obstinate, as not to take notice of it. Had they been perswaded the Latins did not innovate, would they not have yielded to a thousand Reasons which seem'd to constrain them to manifest their thro Conformity with them? Their Affairs were in very bad circumstances, they left their Country to im∣plore the assistance of the Western Princes; they were in the Pope's hands, and maintain'd at his charge; they consented to the re-union of the two Churches; their Emperors did not only sollicite but constrain them there∣unto; and they had already offered great violences to their own consciences, for they consented to the addition of the Filioque in the Creed; what rea∣son then could hinder them from acknowledging the Conversion of the Sub∣stances, had their belief been the same with that of the Church of Rome; Wherefore should they still affect their general Terms, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Wherefore even in the very act of the re-union made at Florence, the Term of Transubstantiation was never inserted, but only that of confici, in the Latin, and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek? For thus was it set down, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Item in azymo sive fermentato Pane triticeo Corpus Christi veraciter confici, Sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini Corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet juxta suae Ecclesiae sive Occidentalis sive Orientalis consuetudinem. That the Body of Jesus Christ is really consecrated, or made into Wheaten Bread, either with or without Leven, and that the Priests ought to make or consecrate the Body of our Lord with either of these, every one according to the Custom of his Church, whe∣ther Eastern or Western. Here is no mention of the conversion of the Sub∣stances, for the general Terms carri'd it away from the determinations of the Latins. Neither need Mr. Arnaud tell us as he does, that the Greeks took * 1.14 these words in a sence of Transubstantiation, because the Latins did so; For if the Greeks believed a true and real conversion of Substance, wherefore then was not that Article expressed in clear and proper Terms. The Latins were not ignorant of them, the Greeks knew them well enough, there being no word more common among them than that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That of Substantia had been already affected by the Latins in the Mystery of the Eucharist, and the Popes that preceded Eugenus the IV. were not wanting to bring it into that famous Confession of Faith which we have so often mention'd. In short

Mr. Arnaud need not tell us so often of these Equivocations, for we know ve∣ry well, that in these kind of Accommodations, wherein interest holds the chiefest rank, the two Parties agree commonly in certain generalities, which each of 'em endeavour to explain to their own advantage. There is no∣thing more common than these kind of Treaties, in which when there's foreseen any insuperable difficulties, they are usually left untoucht, both Parties contenting themselves with general Terms, by which each of 'em think to compass their designs. Mr. Arnaud is a Person of too much reading and experience to question a Truth so well known, and I believe we need not go far for instances of this kind. But, howsoever, this is certain and undeniable, that in all the Decrees of the Florentine Council, there ap∣pears nothing on the part of the Greeks, that establishes the conversion of Sub∣stances, but on the contrary, it seems as if they had prevail'd on the Latins, to abate their expressions in the solemn act of their re-union.

BUT before we leave this Proof, it is to be observed that Bessarion Arch∣bishop of Nice, who was one of the Principal Agents in this Accommodation, in behalf of the Greeks, was a Person already brought over to the Interests of the Latins, and for his good Services was soon after made a Cardinal in the Roman Church. It cannot then but be supposed he favoured the Latins, and used all possible means to prevail on his own Country-men. In effect Syropulus complains of this; in such a manner, as sufficiently shews, what judg∣ment we ought to make of this particular. In the mean time, compare I pray, the Terms Bessarion uses when he speaks in behalf of the Greeks in the Conferences of the Council, with those he uses in his Treatise of the Eucha∣rist, wherein he speaks from his own head, since he was made a Cardinal, in Specie, say's he, in this Treatise, Panis & Vini, veritas Corporis & Sanguinis continetur, cum in illa, Substantia Panis Vinique mutetur. The Body of Jesus Christ is really contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Substance be∣ing changed into this Body and Blood; and a little farther, verba dicuntur qui∣bus dictis mox Consecratio fit, Transubstantialitas perficitur; The words are no sooner said but the Consecration is made, and the Transubstantiation finished. 'Tis no longer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Consecration and Sanctification, but Substantia mutatur, Transubstantialitas perficitur, the change of Substance, Tran∣substantion. Whence comes this difference, but from that the Greeks do not use the same expressions as the Latins, and that there is not any Conformity between these two Churches in this Point of the Conversion of Substances? Bessarion counterfiting the Greek, makes use only of general expressions. But when he discovers himself to be a Latin, he speaks plainly and di∣stinctly.

BUT besides Bessarion, this same difference is observable in other Lati∣nised Greeks, engaged to propogate the Roman Doctrines, if we compare their Style with that of the true Greeks. Compare for example what Mr. Arnaud tells us out of Emanüel Calecas, and John Plusiadéne, with what he himself alledges out of Cabisilas, Mark of Ephesus, Simon of Thessalonica, and others, and you will find these last mention not the change of Substance, whereas the former do expressly assert it. Emanuel tells us concerning the Eucharist, that God is able to change the inward Substance, and yet conserve the same Accidents entire. Plusiadene after the same manner, That the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body of Christ. Whereas there's no such expres∣sions in the true Greeks: for we meet only with such expressions as these, that the Bread is really the Body of Jesus Christ, and that 'tis changed into the

Body of Jesus Christ: but as to the Substance they make no mention of it, and there is nothing but Mr. Arnaud's Consequence or Synonimy, which can make them do it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, chap. 12. pag. 150.
• * 1.2

  Allat. de prep. cons. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.3

  Guag. in Mosc. descrip.
• * 1.4

  Relig. Rutheni art. 9.
• * 1.5

  De uno past. part. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.6

  Confess. Eccles. Or. cap. 15.
• * 1.7

  Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 77.
• * 1.8

  Allat perp. cons. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.9

  Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298.
• * 1.10

  Gregor. Naz. Ora. 40.
• * 1.11

  H••m. 2. in di∣vers. Iren. ad Haeres. lib. 5. cap. 12.
• * 1.12

  Concil. Florent. Sess. 25.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 4. cap 2. pag. 346.