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. IV.

The Testimonies of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud, touch∣ing the Belief of the Greeks, Answered.

IT appears already that Mr. Arnaud must have greatly abridged his Dis∣pute touching the Greeks, had he designed to clear it from all its Illusions; and had reduced it into a lesser Volumn still, had he retrenched all the needless Matters it contains. I place in this Rank the Testimonies of some Protestants which he alledges, who seem to acknowledge, either by a formal Declaration, or by their Silence, that, the Greeks do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Transubstantiation. I confess he has not made a Proof there∣of, as knowing the Matter would not bear it, yet has wrote an express Chapter about it, and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp, ho∣ping by this means to make some Impression on the Mind of his Readers, and prepossess them with this Imagination, that I alone amongst all the Protestants deny the Greeks believe Transubstantiation.

THE first he produces is Crusius Professor in the University of Tubinga, who says, that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood; but this is not Transubstantiation, there being a vast Difference betwixt this and that. Crusius relates the Terms which they use, and this is not Contested, the Question is whether by these Terms, they mean a real Conversion of Substances: Which is what we deny.

HE offers us likewise something out of Grotius against Rivet, and sets again before us the Testimony of Forbesius Bishop of Edinburg. But we all know these two Persons (altho otherwise learned enough, especially Grotius) suffe∣red themselves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimsical Projects, in relation to the Differences between the two Churches, which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate, and thereupon wrote several things which they did not throughly Examine. Moreover Grotius in those Passages alledged by Mr. Arnaud, speaks not of Transubstantiation in particular, and Forbesius only says, that 'twas received by most of the Greeks, by most: Here's a Restriction, Mr. Arnaud says that Forbesius does not prove it. But whether he proves it or not, we do not much matter, for 'tis not by such a man, and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments. It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him, to see whether the Testimony of such a man be sufficient. He adds, he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Protestant, but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe, and as a great Traveller: that he quotes him as St. Augustin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknow∣ledged by this Donatist, who was more sincere than his Fellows.

BUT how comes he to forget so soon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him, in citing him? Forbesius, says he, one of the most learned amongst the English Protestants. What account does he think we will make of a Person whom he can neither alledg as a Protestant nor Catholick, and

yet lived in the midst of the Protestants, he alledges him, says he, as a learn∣ed Man, I grant he may be so. But was this learned Man a Jew, Turk, or Moor, whilst Bishop of Edinburg? St. Augustin never alledged Tichonius as a Person of this kind, that was neither Catholick, nor Donatist, but as a real Do∣natist, altho Tichonius sincerely acknowledged a Truth which the rest denyed, accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church, which acknowledg those things others deny, altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profess.

FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud, derides the Insolence of Hottinger, who * 1.1 pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confession, and shews it does in no wise contain the Faith of the Eastern Churches. Felavius does not speak of Hottin∣ger's Infolence, but on the contrary calls him Virum doctissimum, Clarissimum Hottingerum. He grants not indeed with Hottinger, that Cyrillus his Confes∣sion * 1.2 contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church, and shews his Reasons, but inveighs not against Hottinger thereupon, nor particularly mentions Transub∣stantiation.

OF all those that Mr. Arnaud alledges, there are only Sands, and Dannha∣verus Professor of Strasbourg, who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks, and Sands adds a term of Restriction, saying, that in the main, they do in a man∣ner agree with the Church of Rome, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, &c. But for two Authors, who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection, how many others can we produce, who stick not to deny there's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins? For not to mention here Kem∣nitius, Boxornius, Hospinian and Episcopius, whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number, we may here name the famous Bishop Morton, the Author of a Book intituled, Catholick Tradition, or a Treatise touching the Belief of the Christians of Asia, Europe, and Affrica. The Learned Saddeel for whom Hen∣ry the IV. had such great Esteem and Kindness. Mr. Mestrezat, Monsieur Ulric Minister of Zurich, Mr. Hottinger Professor in the same City, Mr. Robert Chreygton an English Doctor who published the History of Syropulus, and se∣veral others which I mention not, because 'tis not necessary to make an exact enumeration of them. It is sufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the most Learned Protestants in this particular.

IF some amongst them, as Chytreus, Breerwood, and Hornbeck for Instance, who discourse of the Religion of the Greeks, say nothing concerning the Ar∣ticle of Transubstantiation, Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw Advantage from their Silence. The reason of their Silence is, that they set not themselves to the describing any other Points but those that have bin expresly Controver∣ted between the Greek and Latin Church, that is to say, such Points as have bin openly and solemnly Debated on both sides, such as the Article of the Pro∣cession of the Holy Ghost, that of the Azymes, that of Purgatory, and some others. All that then can be gathered from this Silence is, that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Transubstantiation, nor the Latins with the Greeks, and that both one and the other contented themselves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expressions, with∣out condemning one another. But as it does not hence follow, that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins, so we must not take the Silence of Chy∣treus, Breerwood, nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment, or tacit Confession, that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches. Which is what I already answered to the Author of the Perpetuity, who would have

prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood, in relation to the other Schismatical Communions. For I told him, that this Author does only transiently observe * 1.3 the most common different Religions, contenting himself to say what People Im∣brace, or what they positively and expresly Reject, without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation, as not having heard of them. That is to say, as neither finding them in the Articles proposed to 'em to Be∣lieve, nor in those which they were made expresly to Renounce, as I have al∣ready explain'd. Mr. Arnaud sets himself against this Answer, and say's, I * 1.4 shew by this, that provided I say any thing 'tis enough, for I trouble not my self whether it be Rational or not. But if he Believes my Discourse to be Irrati∣onal, it lyes upon him to show the Absurdity of it, without Misrepresenting my Sence, and beating the Air as he does. There is certainly no Discourse more reasonable than that against which an Adversary is forced to betake himself to Illusions and Wranglings about Terms, for this is a sign he cannot attack it fairly with downright Blows.

AS to Mr. Aubertin, of whom Mr. Arnaud say's, he has temper'd himself, and that altho he be otherwise one of the Confidentest Men in the World, in as∣serting * 1.5 Untruths, yet it appears he finds himself gravelled in the Subject of the Greeks, and therefore falls to searching Means to escape. I answer, Mr. Ar∣naud himself is one of the boldest Men in the World at accusing Persons, and yet proves his Accusations the worst of any man, as appears in this whole Controversie, so that what he says touching Mr. Aubertin's Falsities, being grounded only on his own Word, signifies nothing, in respect of the Greeks; 'tis true that Mr. Aubertin has not throughly handled the Question of their Be∣lief, because his Design did not oblige him to do it, for intending only to shew the Innovation which has bin made in the Church of Rome, in the Subject of the Eucharist, he has sufficiently done it without needless En∣largings on the Greeks. He says something of them by the way, he explain'd some Passages out of Anastasius Sinaite, Germane Patriarch of Constantino∣ple, Damascen, the second Council of Nice, Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicho∣las Methoniensis, Jeremias, and some others. 'Tis true he conjectured that the Error of the Western people has communicated it self to several of those of the East, towards the end of the twelveth Century, there having bin a more free Commerce between them after the Conquest of the Holy Land. Yet has he sufficiently shew'd, that altho the Expressions of the modern Greeks, appeared to him Obscure, Excessive, and Different from those of the Ancients, yet did he not believe, they embraced the Transubstantiation of the Latins, and 'tis upon this ground, that speaking of Cyrillus, he say's that he returned to the ancient Faith, and spake better of this Mystery than others. This shews us he observed there was more Confusion and Ambiguity in the others, and more Plainness and Distinctness in the Patriarch Cyrillus, but not that he believed the Greek Church received the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion, nor that she held the Substance of Bread ceases, for he expresly maintains the contrary.

ALL the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse consisting only of Heats and In∣vectives against me, and my Cause receiving no Prejudice thereby, I free∣ly make thereof a Sacrifice to piety, and Christian Meekness.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 131.
• * 1.2

  Praefat. ad Christoph. Angel.
• * 1.3

  Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133.
• * 1.5

  Ibid. p. 137.