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.

AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED, The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church, touching the Eucharist, defended.

BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed.

CHAP. I.

That I have reason to take for granted, as I have done, the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin, against the Book of the Perpetuity, till Mr. Arnaud hath shewed them to be Invalid.

ALthough the Passion, which appeareth throughout Mr. Ar∣naud's whole Book, doth in a manner perswade me that his Censures are not always reasonable, yet shall not this hinder me from examining them with a composed Mind: If they are found just, I ought to make my Advantage of them, with∣out minding the sharpness which accompanies them; and if they are not, the Interest of my Cause requires I should endeavour to ma∣nifest the Injustice of them by a modest and Christian Defence.

AND this Method I intend to use, not only in the beginning but likewise in all the following parts of this Work, which I dedicate to the discovery of Truth, and the advancement of Gods Glory, who is the Author and Father of Lights, and of Truth.

IT is certain, saith Mr. Arnaud, in the beginning of his Book, that pro∣vided Mr. Claude may be granted the Priviledge, which he immediately lays

hold on, of inventing, and supposing, what he lists, he takes a very sure way to conclude from thence what he pleases. I only admire that while he

fancies he has this peculiar Liberty, he yet still busies himself in writing Books: For he can absolutely determine all our Differences with a great deal less trouble. For he has no more to do but only immediately to sup∣pose that the Reason is on his side, and that the Catholicks are in the wrong, and so the whole Controversie will be at an end, and thus may he satisfie himself with writing half a Page instead of an entire Answer, for it decid∣eth the whole; 'Tis but supposing that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath gotten the Victory over the Romish Schools, and that he has manifested to all the World, the Change the Roman Church hath made; That the Proofs are clear, strong, and numerous, which make the Change sensibly apparent, and that he hath not been opposed with any other than false and imaginary Reasonings: What need is there then of any other reply, and to what pur∣pose does Mr. Claude take upon him all this Trouble? Calvinism hath now won the Day, and Catholick Religion is utterly Routed.

THE right of opposing to the reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity, the Proofs of the matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book, and to speak our Thoughts concerning it, is not so marvelous, nor such an extraor∣dinary design that Mr. Arnaud should need raise such a Contest about it. This Author having undertaken to make us confess, if we are not desperately ob∣stinate, that the Belief of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity, and having made use of no other reasonings for this purpose, but those which are taken from the moral Impossibility of this Change which we believe hath hap'ned; Common Sense convinces us that he is bound to examine the Proofs of Matters of Fact on which the Opi∣nion, he would root out of our Minds, is established, for till then all his Ar∣guings will be to no purpose. Neither can we justly be denied the Liberty of mentioning these Proofs according to our real Thoughts. For seeing we offer them against the Author of the Perpetuity, only as a prejudication which hinders us from heark'ning to his Arguments, it is therefore very requisite we should speak our Thoughts about them, to the end that if this Author continues in the design of bringing us to an acknowledgment of what he pretends, he especially take care to remove, as much as in him lies, those things which render all his other Endeavours ineffectual.

I do not at all doubt if mens Minds were free from Prejudice, but it would be granted that Mr. Aubertin's Book doth perfectly decide the Controversie touching the Eucharist. It being a complete Piece, in which this matter is searched to the bottom. He hath answered those who have treated on this Subject before his time, and yet his Book has layn even to this present unan∣swer'd, which is a sufficient Reason to presume he hath gotten the better, and that his Proofs, let Mr. Arnaud say what he will, are plainly evident and nu∣merous; but for as much as it is needful for the ending of a Difference, and quieting Contradiction, to suppose Principles granted by both Parties, and seeing the Church of Rome doth neither agree in the Proofs nor in the Change, here in Question, I do thereupon freely confess the Controversie lyes still open in this respect, and that in general we cannot stop any mans mouth by the simple supposition of the Strength and Solidity of that Book, for every Man is at liberty, and hath Right (if he pleases) to examine and answer it.

BUT had not Mr. Arnaud suppressed a great part of what I wrot on this Subject, as well in my first as second Answer, it would immediately appear,

I have bin so far from making such a claim as that wherewith he chargeth me, that I have every where expresly maintained the contrary.

SEEING that Mr. Aubertin has made it appear, by express Passages taken out of the Fathers (these are the Words in my first Answer.) That Transubstan∣tiation was unknown to the antient Church, we may then well conclude there has hap'ned a Change, especially considering that this same Transubstantiation was not heard of till the 11th. Century; Now considering this, for a Man to Philoso∣phize on the impossibility thereof, is to give himself a great deal of Trouble to no purpose. If there yet remain'd any thing farther to be done, it would be to shew that the Passages produced by Mr. Aubertin are either false, or alleaged imper∣tinently against Transubstantiation: but to pass by these matters of Proof, which are clear, express and conclusive, to adhere to I know not what kind of pre∣tended impossibility, this is to trifle with the matter in hand.

OBSERVE here again what I said in my second Answer. We had reason to hope that the Author, treating my Abridgment in the respects and relations which the sequel of its Reasons oblige him to, should have applyed himself unto one of these two things.

EITHER to make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, on which we have relyed, are false, and of no force, or that the Consequence, which is pretended to be drawn from them, is untrue; That is to say, it do's not follow a thing is possible, altho it be made apparent that this very thing has actually hap'ned.

WHEN a man makes Suppositions of this kind, how absurd is it to say, such a one puts himself in Possession of any Priviledge, or usurps that mar∣velous Right, of terminating Differences, or deciding Controversies by groundless Suppositions? For I not only give this Author of the Perpetuity the liberty of opposing Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, and to shew, if he can, the falsity of them, but I conjure him so to do, being engaged thereunto by the consideration of his own Reputation, and the necessity of this Course to end the Controversie. Now if this may be stiled by Mr. Arnaud the decid∣ing of a Difference, I am certain that in the style of a more impartial Judge, this would be called, a disengaging of the Debate out of an endless turning, to bring it back to a necessary Discussion on which dependeth the decision of our Controversie. Mr. Arnaud therefore unjustly chargeth me with intend∣ing to decide the Question, and terminate the Difference by a simple Sup∣position, and 'tis through want of Sincerity he has suppressed those Passages in my Answer, which plainly evidence my real Design. But besides these two Defaults which immediately offer themselves to be observed in his Pro∣ceedings, I must ingeniously declare that 'tis very hard for me to compre∣hend what he would have me to do. He seems to desire me to prove that the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin's Book are clear, strong and numerous, before we suppose them to be such. But pray what means proving of Proofs? How can a man otherwise prove them than in producing them, and engaging to defend them when they shall be attacked? Now this hath bin done, they have bin produced, in referring to a Book which is easily met with, there has bin an Abridgment made thereof, they have bin set forth with some Enlargments; The Author of the Perpetuity hath bin requested to shew the insufficiency or falsity of them. What can Mr. Arnaud desire more? Would he have Mr. Aubertin's Book reprinted at the Head of mine, together with a Commentary on the Solidity of his Proofs? But yet still

perhaps he would not grant us the Liberty to speak advantageously of it, we must have proved the Solidity of the first Commentary by a second, and that of the second by a third, and so heap up Commentary upon Commen∣tary till Dooms-Day. For he that would have us prove the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin's Book may, by the same reason, require us likewise to prove the solidity of our Commentaries, and having set no bounds to his Demands, 'tis probable he would have extended them farther. These are the first Fruits of Mr. Arnaud's frollicksom Philosophy, the next time when he lights not into so pleasant a Humor, we shall have others, but perhaps not such di∣verting ones. But be it as it will, there is (I am sure) a great deal of disor∣der in this proceeding, for the strength of a Proof is with good Reason sup∣posed by that Person who offers it, till it hath received a satisfactory Answer, and so likewise the solidity of an Answer is taken for granted by him who makes it, till such time as it shall be opposed by a good Reply. And cer∣tainly such a man would appear Ridiculous, who would offer to put a stop to a Dispute, and exempt himself from replying thereunto, by saying, prove to me the solidity of your Answer. If a Proof be not good, it belongs to him who answereth it, to shew its Defects, and if an Answer be impertinent, it lies upon the Opponent to discover the absurdity thereof. For till then e∣very man is at liberty to speak his Thoughts.

ALTHO this is not a proper Place to treat on the different Use which may be made of Suppositions in a Controversie, yet will I not forbear to speak somewhat thereon to discover more plainly Mr. Arnaud's Mistakes.

THE Suppositions then commonly made use of, are of two sorts, some of them tend absolutely to decide a Difference, others serve only to re∣gulate it.

WHEN a man makes a Supposition to decide absolutely a Difference, there ought to be supposed no other things but those which are acknowledged and granted to be true by the Adversaries themselves, for these Suppositions are as common and inviolable Prejudications which ought to serve as a Law to direct the Judgment in the whole Controversie.

BUT when we make Suppositions only to regulate the form of a Con∣troversie, and hinder men from casting themselves into fruitless Contests, it sufficeth the things supposed be esteemed true by them who suppose them, others remaining still in the liberty of judging and opposing them, if they think fit. So that after this manner each Party supposeth his Senti∣ment true, and termeth it his Hypothesis, that is to say his Supposition; and if a man supposed it not true, he would not maintain it. We suppose like∣wise at the same time the Sentiment of the contrary Party false, for if we supposed it not false, we should not reject it. And this is the true state of a Controversie. That every man be permitted to suppose he hath truth on his side, and act, or defend himself on this Supposition, yet allowing others the li∣berty to suppose the contrary; And this is not that which decideth a Debate, but that which forms it; For by this means there is given to the Controver∣sie its just Bounds, and a man avoids wand'rings, in running after needless things; both parties have a just Equality allotted them, and so far as this, a Person cannot be required to shew his Proof for what he supposeth, provi∣ded he fully and unfeignedly declares his Opinion.

IN the following Parts of a Controversie, there ought to be a distinction made between that Person who opposeth a thing, and he who answereth or defendeth it. The first of these designs so to order it that his Adversary shall be obliged to change his Opinion, and therefore he ought not to pro∣pose any thing which he makes not good by Proofs; but he has likewise Right (as I said just now) to suppose his Proofs good, till such time as the contrary party has made some Answer. And it would be very absurd to affirm such a one designs to end the Difference by his Suppositions, or is obliged to prove his Proofs are good, seeing he grants every one the Liber∣ty to answer them, and in effect if there appears no Answer, the Dif∣ference is decided.

NOW as to him who answereth a matter, having upon this account no other aim but that of rendering ineffectual the Attempt of his Adversary, he has always the Right to suppose his Opinion true without proving it, being only obliged to answer the Proofs which are brought against him, and discover either the falsity or insufficiency of them. A man cannot perhaps fall into a greater irregularity, than to constrain him that Answereth, (and who has no more to do than to refure the Arguments alledged against him,) to make Arguments himself, and to pretend that he hath no right to propose his Answers taken from the Opinions themselves which he defend∣eth, if he hath not before this proved his Opinion. Either he who opposeth must make apparent the falsity of the supposed Opinion, or else he must yield it to be true.

I know that in a publick Dispute, mannaged by writing, it commonly happens, that the same Person opposeth another and defendeth himself, pro∣pounds and answers, according as the occasion and matter requireth, but we are notwithstanding obliged to distinguish these two Qualities, of Aggressor and Respondent, and preserve to each his Right apart; for it would be a very disorderly matter to expect a man should do that when he answereth, which he is not obliged to do but when he opposeth, or to expect he should do that when he opposeth, which he is not obliged to do but in answering. It sometimes happens that an Adversary makes an Exchange, and whereas he is obliged to answer directly to the Proofs of the contrary Party, or to op∣pose others against him of the like Nature and Force, he shifts them and falls into a Discourse to no purpose, and all this while the contrary Proofs he should have answered, remain firm. In such an occasion we have Pow∣er to reduce such a one from his affected Wand'rings, by supposing the Proofs he has left unanswered, strong and sollid. For in such a case they are not supposed good and firm, but only to oblige him to answer them, and shew their weakness or falsity, and if he answereth them not, we may reckon as to him the Question in effect is decided, because when a man hath nothing to say against the Method of proceeding, and that the forementi∣oned Proofs have bin proposed according to the exact Rules of Disputation, a man must then either acquiesce in them or answer them, and to do neither of these is mere wrangling.

NOW to apply these Maxims to the matter in hand, and to judge of Mr. Arnaud's Censure, we need but consider first, That when I supposed Mr. Aubertin's Proofs to be firm and good, I did not thereby propose to my self an absolute end of the Question touching the Change which hath hap∣ned in the Church of Rome, by this simple Supposition; but only to regulate

the Debate, and reduce it within those Bounds wherein it ought to be. Secondly, that in supposing them good, I have only delivered my Opinion which I take upon me to maintain against the Author of the Perpetuity, without depriving him of the Liberty of defending the contrary. Thirdly, that I have supposed them to be good without proving them so, because we ever suppose Proofs sufficiently firm, till such time as something at least is objected against them, and hitherto Mr. Aubertin's Book has layn unanswe∣red. Fourthly, that I made use of them as a means whereby to resist the Author of the Perpetuity's attempt, and when a man only defends himself in a Dispute, he is not obliged to prove any thing. Fifthly and lastly, I did not offer them but only as Prejudices at his Opinion, which ought necessa∣rily to be removed out of our Minds, before the Arguments of the Perpetui∣ty be offered us; for as much as these Prejudices make the Author's Reaso∣nings ineffectual and improper to that design of making us acknowledg there hath bin introduced no Change into the Roman Church. From whence it follows, that I may not only suppose these Proofs are clear, firm, and nume∣rous, seeing that 'tis under this Notion we have entertained these Prejudices; but morever suppose them without proving them, and I do so, to the end I may oblige the Author of that Treatise to shew us (if he can) that they do not amount to what we imagine.

IN short if he would obtain his end, he must shew us that our Prejudice ought not to hinder us from hearkning to what he hath farther to offer us, (which is to say,) supposing our Proofs to be most firm and evident, yet ought they not to avert our Minds from considering his moral Conjectures;) or shew us that our Prejudices have no grounds, and that our Proofs are neither plain nor sufficient. The first of these is absurd, the second is what we desire him to take in hand. But instead of this Mr. Arnaud has bethought himself, and requires us to prove the validity of our Proofs.

IF our Proofs, being supposed good, are in effect the Calvinists Victory, and the Romanists Defeat, as Mr. Arnaud himself granteth, we have rea∣son to admire he should think he hath overthrown them, by five or six Lines stuffed with Raillery.

HATH he bin more concerned at the calling of the Reasonings of the Perpetuity, imaginary Conjectures, than at the glorious Victory over the Romish Church which hath bin attributed to Mr. Aubertin's Book, and this Innova∣tion brought in by the Church of Rome, which is apparent to all the World? Doth he more value the Reputation he thinks he hath gotten by writing a small Treatise, than the settlement of the Catholick Church? and ought he, for the interest of a particular work, to have rifled both East and West, whilst in the mean time the Catholick Church perisheth before his eyes, lying pro∣strate * 1.1 at the Feet of Victorions Calvinisme. I will grant my Supposition resides but in my own Imagination, and in theirs of the same Communion, yet certainly this a man would think, should be sufficient to stir up the Zeal, of a Person whom the Son of God hath given to the Church to be a Teacher of Truth, and who hath bin enlightned by his Grace, and filled with his Spirit, on purpose to rescue and vindicate Truth from the Subtilties, and false Glosses of Error, as speaketh one of his Approbationers.

THIS I think should be sufficient to make him prefer the Reputation of his whole Church before that of a single Author, of whose name the

greatest part of the World is still ignorant. And moreover, as hath bin already said, this Prejudice under which we labour, whether true or false, makes a distinction between the interest of this Treatise, and those of the Romish Church, for it puts a stop to all the pretensions of the Author, and bereaves him of all the Conquests he promised himself. For to regain the Author of the Perpetuity's Reputation, will be to no purpose, seeing that Calvinisme will not give over celebrating Aubertin's Victories, and stand firm to his Proofs. The Confutation of Aubertin's Book would be to give such a mighty stroak, as would ever stop the Mouth of Calvinism, and at the same time, raise up the Glory of the Catholick Church out of the Dust. There ought to have bin no waverings between these two Parties, and yet Mr. Arnaud, this Doctor who hath bin given to the Church furnished with such Gifts, betakes himself to the writing of a Treatise, and sends the Church away till another time.

IN short, to finish the justification of my yet unproved Supposition, I need but propose the Example of a man who, to shew me the Victorys which the Treatise of the Perpetuity hath obtained against us, if we have any Reason left us, supposeth without proving it, that the Proofs of this Book are plain and solid. If I should apply to him Mr. Arnaud's Maxims, and tell him that provided he may have the Liberty which he immediately makes use of, inventing and supposing what he pleaseth, he is in a sure way to conclude thence what he will, that these kind of discourses founded on unproved Suppositions, are not wholy judicious, and that they shew he knoweth not how to distinguish between the things which he is not permitted to assert till he hath proved them, and those which may be justly supposed without being proved.

IF this man reply to me, he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself, but by shewing (if he can) the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just; May I not then justly retort upon him, that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm, that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself, but to shew, if he be able, that these Proofs are invalid? Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so rea∣sonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles, and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious diffe∣rence on my side, seeing, as already mentioned, I am Respondent in this Dis∣pute; whereas this Person would be the Aggressor. But you will ask me, who this man is, that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims? Even Mr. Arnaud himself, who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book; to shew us that the Learned, and Unlearned, the Simple, and Obstinate, and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity, he thereupon makes this Conclu∣sion, 'Tis true, saith he, that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the * 1.2 Perpetuity, suppose the Proofs are clear and solid; and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude, who would have them rejected without examining them, on this general Reason, That they are Argumentative Proofs. Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing, if he can, the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound. We shall see by what follows, whether he had reason to make this Supposition, I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example, that every man may make Suppositions, provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate, but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion

of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with. And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself.

CHAP. II.

That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful, and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous.

THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess, as he says; that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity, hath appeared so strange and irregular to me, that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon.

I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion.

II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect.

III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Inva∣lidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures.

IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments, we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact, and by gathering them into an Abridgment, to give a general view of them.

Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer * 1.3 fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, provided, saith he, that I maintained Equity and Truth; It may be, I think, then supposed I have so far done nothing con∣trary to Rule, it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Re∣flections.

I shall not insist long upon the first of these, because Mr. Arnaud hath al∣ledged * 1.4 nothing against it, appearing undenyable in it self. It is grounded on this, That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touch∣ing the Eucharist, the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided, not by the word of God, but the Churches Consent in all Ages, and Depositions of the Fathers, and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church, he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers, but by Arguments. Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course; it being a Principle of common Sense, that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally de∣cided by the Rule of Right, then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact, and that again naturally the

Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves, or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Depo∣sition.

Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule, and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact; (which is that holy Scripture, wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will;) it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe, and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages. For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures, so likewise we, who have the same Faith with them, ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle. The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Reli∣gion, but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest, than an Example for us to Imitate, and an Example too submitted to the same Rule, which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that; so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages, is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things.

IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith, seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition. Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him: For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie, and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion, he must ground this Method on Principles grant∣ed by both Parties; for if his Positions are such as may be questioned, he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them, before he can suppose them. For if he take not this Course, he will quickly be at a loss, and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual. Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done, for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith. 'Tis true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers, and that we should do, if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship. But this reaches not our Question: for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith, neither in the matter of our present Debate, nor in any other: For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Re∣ligion, by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyn∣eth us to believe, without becoming a Rule themselves and without arroga∣ting this supreme Authority over mens Consciences, which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature.

But perhaps it will be replyed that, provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist, what need we matter, by what means we obtain it, whether by means of the holy Scripture, or by Consent of the antient Church? If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith, let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate. To which I answer, That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing, though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours, so that this doth not at all trouble us.

BUT be it as it will, we must not forsake the Word of God, nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be, that is

to say, A Divine Faith, were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers. This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us, without having any fixed Principle, is certainly of very dan∣gerous Consequence. For 'twould happen at length after some Ages, that the last would have no resemblance with the former, because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation, would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it, as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture, Draughts of which being taken one from the other, become still every time less Perfect, as they are farthest distant from their Original.

THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him, that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact; Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact, to depend on the force of his Reasoning. The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist, and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves, but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose. I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact, the Truth of which can∣not be attested by any Witness, and I confess in this case, no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings, because there being no other E∣vidence to help us in our Search, even Necessity warranteth this way of Pro∣ceeding, altho it be indirect. But we are not in these Circumstances, see∣ing we have the Writings of the Antients, and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eu∣charist; which if we will apply our selves unto, we shall soon discover their Opinions about it. What need is there then, for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers, to hearken to the Author of the Perpetui∣ty's Arguments? May we not now justly complain of him, and answer him, this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us, and comparing these two ways, the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain. From whence it immediately follows, That his manner of proceeding, may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful, for it is u∣sual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road, to walk in by-Paths.

MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, re∣spects * 1.5 the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book. And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity, for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie, and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner. I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads. I shall first then make it ap∣pear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, and hath bin the first oc∣casion of this Debate. Secondly, that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner.

THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words, for on one hand I have no more to do, but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity, where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains, his whole design is only to re∣fute Mr, Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation: And on the other, I have no more to do but declare to

the World, That from the first Moment of our Debate, which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise, I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account, but defend in general the whole Book, against the indirect attempts of that Treatise. Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest, I know not any long∣er how to name things. For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate, which is not here? Must a Book be assaulted? this hath bin so. Must it be defended? this hath bin so. Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it, to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit? This hath bin likewise my Design, because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth. Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me?

THE Author of the Perpetuity, saith he, never pretended his Treatise was * 1.6 a refutation of that Ministers Book, and in a matter as this is, which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living, it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him, as from him, he is mistaken, and that this Author never designed what he charges him with. Moreover he adds, That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament: and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio, in a Preface: That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation: That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way, who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World: And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin's pre∣tended Innovation, but medleth farther with no other part of his Book.

Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me, if I affirm that there's not one word of Truth in all this. For, to speak properly, the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dis∣pute, seeing our Debate began but from that time I interposed. For had I not stept in between, the Author had talked only to himself, and when a man does so, we are not wont to say, such a one is in a Dispute. To find then the real Occasion, Mr. Arnaud should have sought it in the causes mov∣ing me to interpose, and not in the Author of the Perpetuity's Intention. Mr. Arnaud hath not considered there is a Difference between the Occasion of a Debate, and whether the Subject of it be real or imaginary. For to de∣cide the latter of these Particulars, we must look back to the Author of the Perpetuity, and consider what he has done, and what he would do, but to be ascertained in the first of them, I ought thereupon to be consulted: and when it shall appear I was deceived by a groundless Imagination that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, then it might be truly affirmed I raised a Quarrel to no purpose, seeing the occasion of it only sprang out of my own Fancy, but yet what I have said since cannot be charged with notorious Falsity, viz. That this Book was the first occasion of the Debate betwixt us, seeing that in effect I only engaged in this Controversie to defend it.

THERE is moreover in Mr. Arnaud's Discourse a false Supposition in the Term of Refuting, for he supposeth I charge the Author of the Perpetui∣ty with a design of formally and directly refuting Mr. Aubertin's whole Book, and 'tis thereupon he tells us, that seldom any man undertakes to refute a large Folio in a Preface. But he does not consider, that I did not for this reason use the Term of Refuting, but Assaulting, and that far from charging the Author of the Perpetuity with this Design of a Refutation, my complaint hath bin on the contrary, that he has not refuted this Book, and which

hath been grounded on the Necessity urging him to have done it, as I shall shew hereafter. Now to justifie what I said, that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath been the first Occasion of this Debate, and at the same time, that this is not an ill grounded Supposition, I need not repeat that the Author of the Treatise designed to refute that whole Book, it appears to me sufficient he hath assaulted the last part of it, and undertaken to answer it throughout the second Section of his Treatise. It sufficeth me that his first Section tendeth to render incredible Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation. It sufficeth me, the drift of his whole Work is to make Mr. Aubertin's Proofs of matters of Fact altogether useless to us. And this is more than need to be said to refute this fierce Accusation of notorious Falsity, with which Charge Mr. Arnaud hath begun his Book. Now this is apparently true, and a man needs but his Eyes and common Sence to be satisfied in it.

Mr. Arnaud may tell us what he pleases concerning the Author of the Per∣petuity's real Design. Yet shall I answer him, that when men judge of a Work, their Judgment is guided by what appears in the Work it self, and not by the secret Intentions of its Author. For mens Designs many times lye hid, but the drift of their Work lies open. I do not pretend to penetrate into mens Hearts, yet cannot I be withheld from judging of the Treatise of the Perpetuity, because 'tis before my Eyes.

THAT this Treatise was at first, but a simple Preface, or that it was not, it avails me little to know, for I am not usually so much in Love with Rari∣ties, as to extend my Curiosity into the Author of the Perpetuity's disavowed Designs. If this Work hath been heretofore but a Preface, and that it hath been since raised to the dignity of a Treatise, there hath been reason perhaps for its ennobling, its Desert hath made it worthy of this Honour; and they are at this day to blame who have reproached it with the meanness of its for∣mer Condition, in an occasion, which called for the establishment of its Glo∣ry. But be it what it will, Preface, or Treatise, it is all one to me, it assault∣eth never the less for this Mr. Aubertin's Book.

BUT saith Mr. Arnaud, he refutes it by the way. By the way, of four score and eight Pages which it contains, there are one and fifty of them imployed in a formal Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation, and the drift of the rest, as I have already said, is to shew that this Account is incre∣dible, because tis impossible, and indirectly to overthrow the whole Work. So that here I think the charge of our first notorious Falsity, appears to be un∣true. Let us see the second, which is that I affirmed, The Author of the Per∣petuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book after an indirect manner. But to apprehend throughly the truth of this Observation, Mr. Aubertin's whole Book must be granted to be a Discourse only touching the Eucharist, and which is divided into three Parts. In the first he handleth this Subject by Arguments drawn from Scripture, and humane Reason. He produceth the Passages thereof, and Arguments fetched from thence, and refutes the An∣swers made thereunto, nay he near upon answereth whatsoever Controver∣tists have stated hitherto considerable on this Subject. In the second, he ex∣amines the Churches Belief, during six Centuries, by an exact Discussion of all Passages produced on either side, makes it plainly appear that Transub∣stantiation, and the real Presence are Doctrines which have bin unknown during all that time. And in the third, he gives an account after what man∣ner their Doctrines have been introduced.

THE first part treateth of the Question of Right, shewing the true Rules of it, and serves as a Foundation to the second. The second Part handleth the Question of matter of Fact, by a faithful deposition of Witnesses, that is to say, by the Fathers from Age to Age, and serves as a Foundation to the third. And the third Part shews the Degrees of this Innovation, the Time when it begun, its Authors, and the Opposition which it hath met with.

THIS being so, I say, it is an indirect Proceeding, to single out this last Part from the second, and attempt the refuting of it alone, as the Author of the Perpetuity hath done. And the Reason is manifest, because the on∣ly Foundation on which the last Part is built, and which communicateth to it all its force of Perswasion consisteth in its second. For wherefore do we believe, for Example, what it saith concerning the Innovation which Anastasius Sinaite hath introduced, in reference to Expressions, he having bin the first that rejected the Terms of Type or Figure on the Subject of the Eucharist? It is because he shews us in his second Part, that the Fathers who preceded Anastasius, ever made use of this manner of Expression, for we find not any one of them who rejected them. Wherefore do we take Paschasius to be the first who ever thought of the real Presence? The Rea∣son, is because we never meet with any before his time, who thus deliver themselves. So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessari∣ly prepare the Reader for the third. In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church, for the six first Ages, to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome: The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation, and supposes it to be not only possible, but that it hath actually hap'ned, so that it only remains to know, when, by whom, and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced, and this is suffici∣ently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone, without the greatest Injustice and Disinge∣nuity; for this is to strip it of all its Strength, and to deal with it, as the Philistims did with Samson, cut off his Hair before they set upon him.

Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it; Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind, or rather, to speak better, with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions. Now this is not fair Dealing. For to proceed orderly, he ought to have be∣gun with these first Preparations; and made it appear (if he could) that they were fallacious, and so discover the unjustice, falsity, or weakness of them, and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us. Had he taken this Course, we should have had nothing to charge him with, touching his Me∣thod; but to stifle these Preparations, and cut 'em off from the Dispute, and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation, is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing.

AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account, it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former. As for Instance, Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients, in saying, The

Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ. Now to refute directly this Historical Passage, (being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius) there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him, and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself. But instead of this, the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course, for he demands, how this can be, That * 1.7 Anastasius, who could not be ignorant of the Churches. Belief in his time, should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed, and this without acknowledging, he proposed a contrary Opinion? He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West, and that Anastasius's real meaning, and that of them who spake like him in this particular, could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them. And the same doth he, in respect of Paschasius, whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence, for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion, and that he did not teach a new Doctrine, he sets himself upon shewing, that if Paschasius had bin an In∣novator, he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time, that he would have bin opposed, and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church, as he has done. I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments, neither will I say they ought to be re∣jected for this Reason alone, that they are indirect, The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable, and it must be granted, it is not; for the chief design of this his Account be∣ing only to demonstrate, that Anastasius, and Paschasius introduced Innova∣tions; Now to make it appear they were not Innovators, there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who pre∣ceded them, which should come near the same Expressions, or at least a∣mounted to the same Sence as that of theirs, which the Author of the Per∣petuity hath not done.

LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then, if he pleases, the Question, and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths, the one, that Mr. Auber∣tin's Book was the first occasion of this Contest, the other, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner. Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former; it will not be amiss to answer his Objections, and shew him first, That I pretend∣not to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination: for, provided he handles them in a regular manner, he will thereby oblige the publick. Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book, and leaving the other, provided this Part may be well refuted alone, and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separati∣on. Thirdly, Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetui∣ty to account about his employing himself, and require of him two Volums in Folio. For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult, and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book.

AND as to what he tells us, that we cannot reasonably require more from * 1.8 a Person who handleth any Subject, than that he suppose nothing which is False, or Obscure, and draw not from thence ill Consequences, seeing the truth and clearness of Principles, and the justness of their Consequences are in them∣selves sufficient, to assure us of the Truth, and gives us a clear and perfect

notion thereof. To which I answer, This is true, when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject, and do take this course to decide the principal Questi∣on of it, for in this case, only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined. But if this be not consented to, but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method, then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not, nor Whether their Consequences are true or false, for this follows afterwards. The Method of handling the Subject is only considered, without regard to the Princi∣ples or Conclusions; That is to say, Whether 'tis direct or disorderly, na∣tural or against Nature, sufficient to perswade, and end the Controversie or not, and on this account, it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong, one which is a Natural, ra∣ther than that which is not so. For such a one may well be told, He spends his time to no purpose, that takes not a right way to obtain the end of what he designs. Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity, as will appear in the following Chapter. We have rea∣son to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions, he I say, who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter, that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusa∣tions against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, upon the Defects I found therein, provided I establish Truth and Reason. But this doth not well a∣gree with what he saies here. That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject, but only this, That he lay down good Prin∣ciples, and draw thence true Conclusions. For the falsity of Principles, or Con∣sequences, proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter, or Form of an Argu∣ment in Particular, than in a Method in General.

CHAP. III.

THE third Observation justified, viz. That the Author of the Perpe∣tuity has bin to blame in pretending to overthrow the Proofs contain∣ed in Mr. Aubertin's Book, by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere Conjectures.

MR. Arnaud seems unwilling to grant, That the Author of the Perpetuity has endeavoured to invalidate our Proofs of Matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by his Arguments, and thereupon has only proposed the Question in these Terms: viz. Whether a man may not argue against matters of Fact: And takes it for grant∣ed * 1.9 he may in some particular Cases. It is then our part to shew, he wan∣ders from the Point, and that the Author of the Perpetuity has not only de∣signed to oppose, but even overthrow by his arguings our Proofs of Fact, so that the Question now is whether this Endeavour of his is just or unjust, whe∣ther according to a regular Course or contrary to it.

AND for this purpose, I shall only desire Mr. Arnaud to consider, That the Design of the Method, or advantage expected by it, as it hath bin ex∣presly

declared in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise, Is to bring a∣ny unprejudiced Person, to acknowledge the Church of Rome's Belief touching the Eucharist to be the same with that of all Antiquity; and this new Method is proposed to remedy an Inconveniency, usually attending that ordinary Method, called Discussion, wherein it frequently happens, that men seldom sufficiently comprehend the strength of Proofs; because they are not considered in their right order, which ever so placeth them as that they mutually assist and for∣tifie each other. I need but entreat him likewise to remember the first Title of the Treatise, before it was printed, when it was put into my Hands to be answered; which was as follows, A Treatise containing an easie Means to convince Hereticks, by shewing them there has no alteration bin made in the Churches Belief touching the Eucharist, as I already observed in the Preface before my Answer. Lastly I have no more to request of him, but only to remember the new Title under which the first Treatise, and them which followed, were published, which is; The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Ca∣tholick Church touching the Eucharist. For what else can be expected from a man that promises to make us confess, the Church of Romes Belief is the same with that of all Antiquity, and hopes to convince us of the Truth of this, but that he should invalidate all our Proofs of matters of Fact, by which we think we have established the reality of an Innovation? Would Mr. Ar∣naud grant me the favour to suppose a while that I am not obstinate: and I will likewise on the other hand suppose I was mistaken in Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that the Perswasion I had of the truth of his Proofs concerning an Innovation hath bin false. Now should the Author of the Perpetuity pre∣tend, that his Method is able to undeceive me and dissipate all the false Im∣pressions which Mr. Aubertin's Proofs have wrought in my Mind; should he, I say, pretend to this, he has imagined, as I have already mentioned, that he is able by his Arguments, to invalidate our Proofs; and again on the other hand, if he pretends not to do this, he hath bin certainly to blame in saying, He would convince Hereticks, and make them acknowledge, (if they are not In∣vincibly Obstinate) the Perpetuity of Transubstantiation, and the Real Pre∣sence. We shall see by what follows, whether or no Mr. Arnaud has up∣held the honour of so great a Design, or whether he has not abated some∣thing of it. I shall content my self at present with only shewing the pre∣tension of the Author of the Method.

IT cannot be alleadged in his behalf, he had not these aforementioned Proofs in his Mind, but only offered his own; which he judged conclusive; for besides that when a man lays down a Method as sufficient to produce an effect, he ought consider whatsoever may hinder the producing of this or the contrary Effect. We may farther observe he assaults Mr. Aubertin's Book in this Treatise, wherein are contained these Proofs, concerning which he could not pretend Ignorance, seeing they make up the greatest part of that Book. It ought moreover to be considered, that he refuteth, as I alrea∣dy said in the foregoing Chapter, an Account whose whole strength is ground∣ed on these Proofs of matters of Fact, an Account which taketh them for its Foundation, and borroweth from them whatsoever it would perswade, and refutes it not in opposing other Proofs after the same manner, but by Arguments. Whence it follows he imagins his Arguments are sufficient to overthrow these Proofs, it being impossible if they stand firm, but that the account of the Change or Innovation should do so too.

Mr. Arnaud's way of shifting the Question that he might draw on the

Reader to another matter, is so plainly evident, that I need not give him the least hint of it. For there is certainly a great Difference betwixt barely Op∣posing Arguments against our Proofs, and pretending to invalidate them by Arguments. The first of these may be done without thinking on the second; these Arguments may be examined and compared with our Proofs, without any other Pretence than the keeping the Mind in Suspence, and hindering it from determining on either side. Had the Author of the Per∣petuity kept himself within these Bounds, we should have answered him af∣ter another sort; but he hath extended his design so far as to bring us to a final Acknowledgment. The Question then is not so much about his bare Opposition; altho that shall be shewed him at length to be useless, and that he cannot expect any advantage from it, for the Debate at present con∣sists either in the Justice or Injustice of his Design, when he imagined this Opposition was sufficient to convince us, notwithstanding our Prejudices against it, occasioned by Mr. Aubertin's and other Ministers Proofs.

BUT to state the Question clearly, it ought to be farther supposed, that we compare not here the Proofs drawn from Arguments, then when they are made use of to establish Matters argued, with Proofs of matters of Fact, which are intended for a confirmation of the same matters of Fact. For I am far from denying, but there may be at some times Proofs drawn from Arguments, which are as conclusive in their kind, and bring along with them as much certainty of Evidence, as Proofs of Fact do in theirs. The Debate concerns the comparing these two sorts of Proofs, in respect of a matter of Fact; for the Principal Question betwixt us, is whether the Do∣ctrine of the antient Church is the same with that of the Church of Rome at present, now this is a matter of Fact, which on one side is demonstrated by Proofs of Fact, and which the Author pretends on the other side to demon∣strate by Proofs drawn from Arguments; which two sorts of Proofs form contrary Conclusions on the same subject.

IT is farther to be considered, the Question lies not in supposing our Proofs are frivolous, or uncertain, for then they might be opposed by Proofs drawn from Arguments; by pretending that the Fact would be more plainly demonstrated by this means than by the other. Had the Author of the Perpetuity made this Supposition and well grounded it, we could not a∣ny longer keep to our Proofs of Fact, of whose weakness and insufficieney he had already convinced us, we must then have hearkned to his Arguments. But we are not in this case, for he leaves our Proofs of Fact untouched in their whole strength, and we are perswaded of the truth and solidity of them. It being then thus with us, it remains to enquire, whether his Proofs drawn from Arguments can be sufficient to make us alter our Judgments. The Author of the Perpetuity pretends they are, and I deny them to be so, so that to decide clearly this Point, we must compare these two ways of Proving, one with another.

I affirm then first of all, our Proofs of Fact are regular and natural, as I made apparent in my second Chapter: whereas those of the Author of the Perpetuity are unjust and preposterous. Now to compare these two Methods one with another, that which is natural is least suspicious, for there can be nothing said against it, common Sense leads us to it, but the other is ever lyable to Exception, by reason of its contrariety and obliquity. The

latter of these leads a mans Mind by several Turnings and Windings, and the other makes it go straight.

MOREOVER, our Proofs of Fact demonstrate the matter immediate∣ly in it self; but Proofs drawn from Reason cannot do this, but by a Pro∣spect thro other things, and by means of Connexions and Consequences; Now it cannot be denyed, but of these two ways of knowing things, the one being immediate, and the other mediate; the one near, and the other distant, but that the first of these is the most distinct and certain: for not to say, that the Ideas of things grow weak, when they are discovered by a Medium, and that the Mind is more attentive, and so by consequence more distracted, and less able, when it is forced, to apply it self at the same time to three dif∣ferent Objects, viz. on the Conclusion, Principle, and Dependance which the Conclusion hath on its Principle, than when it hath but one only Ob∣ject to consider; besides this I say, the orderly Connexion of things being less known to us than the things themselves, it is easier to take for a Conse∣quence what is not one, than to take one thing for another. It is easier to deceive us by affirming, if an Alteration hath hap'ned, there must such and such Accidents have followed it, than it is by only telling us, Loe here the Alteration, and certainly a man is in less danger of being deceived this way than the other.

WHEN two Methods are offered as proper to demonstrate a Question in Debate, it seems to me, that a mans Reason will incline him to choose that way which brings him to the consideration of the Point debated in all its several Relations and Circumstances, rather than that which shews it him but in one. The Mind must be permitted to make several Reflections, be∣cause divers Reflections strengthen one another, and uniting together, they form a more extended and perfect Knowledg, even as several Rayes uni∣ted give the greater Light. Now it cannot be denyed but our Proofs of Fact have this Advantage over them of the Perpetuity. For the latter of these respects no farther than the only impossibility of an Alteration; and concludes from thence, that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath bin the same with that of the Church of Rome at present. But our Proofs ex∣amine the Belief of the Antient Church, in all the ways it can be examined in it self, by its necessary Consequences, by its Consequences of Congruity, by way of Negation, and Affirmation, by Circumstances of Time, Places, Persons, and Occasions, and in a word, after all manners imaginable, whereby the Mind may form a more solid and certain Judgment. What likelyhood is there then, that being already perswaded by a considerable number of Proofs, which this Method draws from all these Particulars, we should receive a contrary Impression by the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments?

A greater humane Certainty than that of Sence cannot be found, now that of Reasoning falls commonly under this Degree, especially when we apply it to matters of Fact.

BUT when Proofs drawn from Arguments shall be extended to the same Degree of Conviction, as those of the Eye-sight, and common Sence, they can never ascend higher, or proceed so far as to convince us, and make us renounce their Evidence. It seldom happens that these two Lights justle one another, but when this falls out, a mans Mind never fails of tak∣ing

one part or the other, it may remain for some time interdicted and a∣stonished; but unless some vain Philosophy, as that of the Academicks, or Pyrrhoniens has corrupted it, and made it wander, it will soon rally it self on the side of common Sence. I will produee an Example drawn from Physicks. Our Eyes and Sences shew us that a grain of Sand is not only fi∣nite, but far less than a Mountain, or the whole Globe of the Earth; yet there are People who endeavour to demonstrate by the force of their Ar∣guments, that this little grain of Sand comprehends an infinite number of Parts actually existent, because it may be divided ad infinitum, and it is not, say they, well conceivable how a thing can be so divided, if there be not in it actually an Infinity of Parts, seeing each Division supposeth the actual Existence of its Parts, from whence it seems, that this grain of Sand is as bigg as a Mountain, and the whole World besides, it being impossible, say they moreover, there should be a greater and larger heap than that which actually contains an Infinity of Parts. I doubt not but a mans Mind would be soon entangled in this Labyrinth, but he would extricate himself thence, not by the help of his Senses but his Reason, he will turn it on every side, and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing, as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject; yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense.

IT will be replied perhaps, that unless we are extream Obstinate, we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind, which is to say, that they have the certainty of our Senses; for they are taken from the Testimo∣ny of the Fathers, whose Faithfulness may be called in question, by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis, mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, which is, That all our Passages are false, and invented by the Disciples of John Scot, or else in saying, that the Fathers are mistaken, or some such like matter, which may * 1.10 make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question; and moreover that our Passages are not so plain, but they may well be questi∣oned, seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides. To which I answer, in supposing two things which seem to me, to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud, we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude, as is that of our Senses.

MY first Supposition then shall be, That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church. He cannot disagree with me in this Point, for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome, they produce it themselves, and we use it only out of Conde∣scension to them, not having need, as to our own particular, of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist. And when this Point should be questionable, yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it, before he proposes to us his Arguments, and not having done it, we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle. The other Supposition we must make is, That we know very well, what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucha∣rist, and that we rightly apprehend it, so that there is no danger of our Mi∣stake in this matter, and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed a∣gainst us. In effect, we neither say, nor imagine any thing on this Subject, more than what we find in Books, and hear discoursed on every Day, which is, that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood, there not remaining any thing more of the Bread

and Wine but their meer Accidents, which are not sustained by any Sub∣ject; and further, that the Substance of our Saviour's Body, is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth, on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated: that they which communicate, eat and drink this Sub∣stance with the Mouths of their Bodies, and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria. This is undenyable.

I say then, on these Grounds, we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self. For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist, our Eyes behold them, and our Senses are Judges of them. But there are not any of these Articles to be met with, which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church, neither in express Terms, nor in equivalent ones. We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles, and in what they mean; we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found, in case the Antient Church had taught them. We know likewise, that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sen∣se to seek them, and judge whether they are there, or no; for when a Church believes and teaches them, she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood, and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Princi∣ples, or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense; or wrapt up in Riddles, from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study. If they are in them they ought to be plain, according to the mea∣sure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding. Yet when we seek them, we cannot find 'em: if they were set down in express Terms, our Eyes would have discovered them; had they bin in Equivalent ones, or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences, common Sense would have discovered them. But after an exact and thorow Search, our Eyes and common Sense tell us, they are not to be found in any man∣ner. This altho a Negative Proof, yet is it of greatest Evidence and Cer∣tainty. After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home, we are agreed both touching the House and the Person, that one might not be taken for the other; and after an exact Search, if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there, the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence. Yet we are upon surer Terms, for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House, and steal away from the sight of those that seek him; and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect, to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search. But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages, (as is pretended,) it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings, they must near the matter have appeared in all of them; whence it follows, our Negative Proof is yet more certain, by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof, which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles, and these two Proofs joyned together do form one, which appeareth to be so plain and intire, that there needs nothing to be added to it. And yet this is it which the Author of the Per∣petuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments. But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will, I believe he will find few Persons approve of them, and who will not judge, that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us, which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search, the only means to disabuse us would be; to desire us to return to the using of them again, and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient, we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find.

For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments, they will do us no good, we may be perhaps entangled with them, if we know not how to answer them, but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact.

WE are confirmed in this Belief, when we consider the Nature of the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments. For they are not Demonstrations which convince a mans Mind, or of equal force with them which appear in our Proofs; being at farthest but mere Probabilities. They are Moral Impossibilities which he finds in the Alteration we suppose; as tho it were not possible but that the Bishops and others of the Clergy, together with the People, would have opposed these Innovations, and disturbed the Peace and Unity of the Church, under so great a Contrariety in their Opinions; and many such like things doth he alledge, which are not grounded on any certain Principles, nor drawn from undeniable Consequences. In general, its a hard matter to determine which are impossible Events, if you except them which carry along with them a palpable Contradiction; for the Cau∣ses or Principles of things are at a great distance from us, we know little of them but by their Effects, and these Effects not always shew themselves at the Bottom, so that a man cannot positively say, this can be, or this can∣not be. Moral Impossibilities are for the most part doubtful, especially those grounded on the Inclinations of the People, whose ways are many times so uncertain, and have so little of Uniformity in them, and so great Depen∣dance on particular Circumstances, that we cannot take any certain Rules from thence. Had the Author of the Perpetuity shewed us, That the Alte∣ration we speak of, doth imply a Contradiction, That 'tis contrary to the Nature of things, That there follows from it evident and intolerable Ab∣surdities, we should then have examined his Arguments without troubling our selves with his Method. But to tell us what the Clergy and People would do in this, this can amount to no more, at farthest, but meer Conject∣ures, and even Conjectures very uncertain; for he is not the Arbitrator of all humane Actions, neither doth he know all their Principles and different Interests, nor understands all the Causes which concur in great Accidents, or all those things which hinder them from hap'ning.

IT is then a great piece of Injustice to desire, our Proofs of Fact should yield to his way of Reasoning, and I hope Mr. Arnaud will not take it ill that in making use of his own Terms, and accomodating them to my Sub∣ject, I tell him, That 'tis in vain that he contesteth, and heateth himself a∣bout * 1.11 this Subject of an Alteration. Arguments signifie nothing in matters which are obvious to Sense, and we can make them appear to be so in this Case.

IT remains, for the finishing of this Chapter, I should satisfie some of * 1.12 Mr. Aruands's minute Observations. The first of which is, That it is every whit as bad to oppose vain Arguments against Proofs of Fact which are firm and solid, as to object solid and convincing Arguments against vain and Fri∣volous Proofs. But there is no body who doubts of the Truth of this, and this is not the matter in Question. When he shall have made it appear our Proofs are vain and frivolous, he shall be permitted to oppose against them his Arguments: Yea, and call them solid and convincing ones, 'till such time as they be refuted. But our Proofs must always be begun withal, their

weakness and vanity laid open, for without this we shall still be at liberty to hold them for good, firm and Conclusive.

HE addeth, That not only Proofs of Fact are Invalidated by Proofs of Reasoning; But likewise, that Proofs of Fact are reducible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning; and even all of 'em grounded on Arguings like unto those of the Author of the Perpetuity, that is to say, on the impossibility of certain Events, and that 'tis from these Arguings they borrow whatsoever they have of Solidity. And this he proves by the Example of the literal Proofs taken from History, to establish certain matters of Fact, and by the Proofs of Moses's Miracles, and the Refurrection of our Saviour; concerning which the humane Certitude depends on a Moral Impossibility, which yet is not perceivable but only by force of Reasoning. From thence he concludes, That a Proof is not to be Rejected, because it is called a Proof drawn from Reason; no more than it is to be believed, because 'tis called a Proof of matter of Fact; but that both one and the other are contemptible, or estimable, accordingly as they are Obscure or Evident, True or False, Slight or Solid, and that 'tis on the Quality of a Proof and not by its Kind, we ought to form our Judgment.

TO which I answer, we must distinguish two kinds of Proofs of Fact, the one Immediate, the others Mediate; the Immediate depend on our Sen∣ses, the Mediate consist in the Deposition of Witnesses. The certainty of the first of these doth not depend on Arguments, it being evident in it self by its own Nature and Original; for in that we believe our Senses; this Perswasion cometh not simply from Reasons dictitating this to us; but because their Testimony is perswasive in it self, and that we cannot doubt of the things we see, unless we have corrupted our own Natures by a strange Extravagancy.

AS to the second kind of Proofs, we must consider them either absolute∣ly, or in their Circumstances; if absolutely it is clear, their Certitude de∣pendeth on Arguments, for we do not give Credit to Witnesses, but only upon the account that Reason dictitateth we ought to believe them. Yet doth not this hinder them from being commonly stronger, in respect of the Fact they prove, than the Reasoning grounded on the same matter of Fact; and that which distinguisheth them is not their simple kind, but the Matter, or Subject to which they are applyed, seeing that an Argument is more Just and Certain, when it establisheth the Fidelity of Witnesses, than when it would decide the Fact it self concerning which the Witnes∣ses make their Depositions, whence it follows that the Testimony autho∣rised by stronger Arguments, ought to be preferred before those which are weaker. And after this manner do we prove the Truth of our Sa∣viour's Resurrection, beause the Testimony of the Apostles, being grounded on mighty Arguments, stands more firm, than all that the Wit of man is a∣ble to devise against it. But if the Proof taken from Witnesses is attended with this Circumstance, that is to say, that the Fidelity of the Witnesses be agreed upon, and that this be an acknowledged and uncontroulable Prin∣ciple, then, I say, this is no longer a Mediate Proof, but an Immediate one, it depending no longer on Arguments. For the Validity of a Testimony being a Point once decided, which ent'reth not into the Proof, but only as an undoubted Principle, it then remains only to know what the Witnesses depose, and this is a Matter of which we may be informed by our Senses,

whence it follows, we must examine their Testimony, and that this way is to be preferred before that which is Argumentative on the same Fact.

IF we consider the Fathers, not in respect of their own Belief, but as Witnesses of the common Belief of the Church, I confess, their Authority dependeth on Reasonings, and that it may be questioned; but besides, it would not hence follow that the Proofs drawn from Arguments in this mat∣ter, that is to say, on the Churches Belief, would be more certain than their Testimony, seeing their Testimony may be established on a Reasoning stronger than these Proofs, and consequently may be preferable to them. I say, besides all this, this Point of the Fidelity of the Fathers is a Principle, we have the Advantage of supposing against Mr. Arnaud, seeing that hither∣to the Church of Rome hath never questioned it, and that we take the Fa∣thers only from his Hands, and descend to the Examination of their Testi∣mony only out of complyance with him, as I have already mentioned: so that to speak properly, we have no more to do, but only to know what hath bin their Doctrine. Now this is another matter of Fact, of which we think we can be informed by our Eyes, and by the Light of common Sense, and we cannot imagine without a great Mistake, that there hath bin more per∣spicuity and certainty, in the Proofs drawn from Arguings; whence I may conclude again, that we are at Liberty to reject these Proofs, without troubling our selves with any farther Examination of them.

IT appeareth then clear enough (I think) that Mr. Arnaud's second Chapter is but a vain Amusement. And I cannot but be troubled, find∣ing my self obliged to alleadg several things which cannot but be grievous to them who shun Contention. But I could not but mention them, to fol∣low Mr. Arnaud, to the end he might not take Advantage by my leaving him unanswered.

WHAT he saies concerning pretended Proofs of Fact, viz. That they are often invalidated by Proofs fetched from Arguments, toucheth not our Question. For there is no body denys that Reason doth not sometimes cor∣rect a Mistake in Sense; and sometimes again invalidates the Deposition of Witnesses, whether by making it appear that these are False-Witnesses who impose on us, or else in shewing they themselves are mistaken, or lastly that their Testimony contains quite another thing than what is pre∣tended. But altho that Proofs of Fact ought to be tried by Arguments, to know their Goodness, yet doth it not follow that when the Question re∣spects a matter of Fact, but that the way of Proofs is to be preferred before that of Arguments, on the same Subject; it doth less follow that when Persons are prevented by Proofs of Fact, that they can be made to alter their Judgments, by simple Proofs drawn from Arguments, with∣out shewing them that their pretended Proofs of Fact are not good. What he addeth concerning the Proofs of Fact, that they are all of 'em redu∣cible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning, is not true, in reference to im∣mediate Proofs, and whatsoever there may be of Truth in this, yet is it useless, because the Question is not about a general Comparison of Argu∣ments with Proofs of Fact, but concerning the Comparison applyed to the Fact it self, which the Proof establisheth, and which lies now in Debate. All the following Discourses, touching the Fidelity of Historians, the Bat∣tle of Canes, of Pharsalia, of Philippes, Actium, Caesar, Pompey, and the

City of Constantinople, are Digressions which our Dispute hath nothing to do with. The Proofs of the Truth of Moses's Miracles, and them of the Resurrection of our Saviour, are good, but they belong not to our Subject. If the Question concerned the proving the Fidelity of the Fathers Testi∣mony, we would consent to the making use of Arguments, after the same manner as they are made use of to prove the Fidelity of Moses and the A∣postles Testimony. But this is not the Point, our whole Question is on∣ly to know what the Fathers have believed; and for this, Arguments are far less fit than Passages faithfully collected from their own Writings. Mr. Arnauds Hypothesis, that all our Quotations of the Fathers have bin foyst∣ed in them by John Scot and his Followers, is, as he is pleased to express it on another Occasion, a Fantastical Hypothesis, from whence he can draw no Advantage, and what at farthest can have no Ground but in the Dis∣quisition of the Passages themselves. And lastly his Conclusion that the Proofs of Fact, and the Proofs taken from Arguments, are either to be valued or slighted, as they are either Obscure or Evident, False or True, Vain or Solid, and that 'tis by the Quality of the Proof, and not by the kind of them that we must judge, this is I say a disingenious Conclusion, for it is true that Proofs are estimable or despicable by their Quality, and not by their Kind: but their Kind and the Matter to which they are applied serve to foreshew us their Quality, and their Quality being foreknown, rendreth them Estimable or Contemptible. A Proof drawn from Argu∣ments, being made use of to subvert a matter of Fact, which is found e∣stablished by the sight of our Eyes and common Sense, bears, in this sim∣ple Comparison, a sufficient Number of false Characters, to make us con∣clude that it belongs to the number of those subtile and loose Proofs Mr. Arnaud mentions, which evaporate of themselves, and vanish out of the Mind, * 1.13 as the Ayr doth out of our Mouths, it not being necessary to enter into a more particular Examination of them. Seeing then we have Reason to suppose our Proofs are good and Substantial, as I made it apparent in my first Chapter, we may likewise well conclude in this, that the Author of the Perpetuity's Reasonings are vain and groundless, and consequently to be re∣jected without troubling our selves any farther with them.

CHAP. IV.

My fourth Observation Justifi'd; viz. That we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, to make them Invalid.

IT will be needless to prove this Observation, seeing Mr. Arnaud ac∣knowledgeth enough to establish the Truth and Justice of it. We do not in any wise pretend, saith he, to deny him (he means me) the use of his Proofs of Fact, (if he hath any) provided he makes a right use of them, and follows the Rules of Reason, in so doing. He may then Con∣clude * 1.14 as long as he will, that the Alteration in Question is possible, in making it appear if he can, That it hath actually hapned. He may deny the Impossibi∣lity of a thing, by proving its actual Existence. All this is allowed him, nei∣ther are we so unreasonable, to deprive him of these kind of Proofs. He wrongs the Author of the Perpetuity, in charging him with such a Thought. This Acknowledgment is not of so small Importance, but that it deserves to be considered; for it perfectly overthrows the Author of the Perpetuity's re∣al Design, and makes all those great Hopes he conceived of his Method, to vanish away, in two or three Periods. We have allready seen that he hath offered it, as a sufficient Means to convince us; and make us confess, by the Evidence of Truth, if we are not desperately Obstinate, that the Church of Rome's Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity. But this Discourse do's not well agree with that of Mr. Arnaud's. For, if this Method will lead us so far on one Hand, as the making of us come to this last Confession, mentioned by the Author of the Perpetuity, the Dispute ends there, and our Proofs of Fact are Insig∣nificant, seeing they are Succors which will stand us in no stead, being al∣ready overthrown. And on the other, if we may employ our Proofs of Fact against the Method, provided we make a right use of them; if we may deny the Impossibility of an Alteration, in shewing it hath actually hapned; we have at least the Power to Suspend this Acknowledgment, to which the Author of the Method would oblige us, until such time as it is examined whether we make a right Use of our Proofs of Fact, and draw a true Conclusion from them. But how shall we make these two Gentle∣men agree? Seeing one of 'em would have the Dispute ended by his Ar∣guments; and the other would have us keep it still up by our Proofs of Fact. The one pretends, we ought to reckon our selves Vanquished as soon as ever he has done speaking, and the other gives us time, and allows us to produce our Passages. If we Expound the Author of the Perpetuity's Meaning by Mr. Arnaud, he hath undertaken no more than the bringing us to make this forementioned Acknowledgment, Exclusively; for between his Proofs and our Confession, we may put in our Proofs of Fact, which is to say in short, that he hath supposed his Method able to effect any thing, but what it ought. And if we expound Mr. Arnaud's Meaning, by that of the Author of the Perpetuity, he designs, that we shall not make use of our Proofs of Fact till such time as we acknowledg there hath no Alteration hapned; which is to say, that he will not grant us the use of them, til we

confess, they are of no use to us. So that should we comply with both these Gentlemen, we oppose and contradict our selves; for we must then acknowledg that we have bin to blame, and yet at the same time maintain that the Reason is on our side: And so again we shall acknowledg, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the same with that of the Primitive Church, and yet still prove that there hath bin made an essential Alterati∣on. And thus are we guided by these Gentlemens Speculations.

TO speak ingenuously, I take Mr. Arnaud to be a very bad defender of the Method; for he not only forsakes it in a Capital Question, wherein its Honour is chiefly concerned, (which is to know whether it be sufficient to Convince us in the State we are in, and make us confess the Truth of what it proves) but he moreover exposes the Uselesness and Vanity of it; for if after all his Endeavours, we may still return to our old Proofs of Fact, I see not any Use that can be made of it; unless it be to entangle and length∣en out our Debate, wherefore I think it may well be laid aside, and the Au∣thor of it content himself with his Method of Discussion.

NOW to clear up this Dispute, it will not be amiss to examine here, what Mr. Arnaud tells us touching these two sorts of Methods of Prescrip∣tion, and Discussion. The Method of Prescription, saith he, is that in which, by the Examination of certain principal Points, the Controversy is decided, * 1.15 the other is that in which is particularly laid down the Proofs of all the Matters debated, and all the Objections against them answered, From thence he takes occasion to discourse of the Advantages which the Church hath over us by these Methods of Prescription; and afterwards coming to a Conclusion, It is necessary addeth he, For the Method of the Prescriptions keeping its Advan∣tages, and producing the Benefit expected from it, that it remain separate from the Method of Discussion, because otherwise we should inevitably fall into Pro∣lixity, and the Perplexity of particular Examinations, which we intend to avoid. So that, whereas the Discourses designed for the Discussion of particular Matters, ought to be written with the greatest Exactness, no difficulty, which may perplex the Mind being omitted in them; So on the contrary, those which are made ac∣cording to the Method of Prescription, ought precisely to contain no more than may serve to illustrate the Proof which a Man intends to make use of, and it would certainly be a great Defect to joyn thereunto the Examination of particu∣lar Questions, which do but confound the Mind by their Multiplicity. At length he concludes, That the Author of the Perpetuity could not with Pru∣dence undertake to answer Mr. Aubertin's chief Difficulties in his Treatise. That had this Treatise bin made according to the Method of Discussion, he had bin in a manner obliged thereunto, but being a Method of Prescription he could not do it without spoiling his Design, and evidencing he understood not the Na∣ture and Advantage of the Method he followed, which was short, perspicuous, and accommodated to all Capacities.

ALL this Discourse is nothing to the Purpose, for by it we understand no more than this, that when men consent to make use of the Method of Prescription, they must only serve themselves with it according to the Rules which it enjoyneth. Very good! But this decides nothing if we are not a∣greed, but on the contrary, dispute against it, for then the Question is no longer, how we ought to use the Method of Prescription, nor whether it ought to be joyned with that of Discussion, this is no longer the Point, but the Question is only whether we ought to use it or not. Mr. Arnaud per∣petually

imposes on his Readers, he carries them off from one place to ano∣ther, from the matter in Question, to that which does not concern it, and thereupon entertains them at his Ease. We do not dispute the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity ought to have ordered his Method of Prescription, supposing this were a proper Place for it, this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions; but our Dispute lies, whether he could reasonably use it against our Proofs, even so far as to promise the Effect which he hath pretended to draw from thence. Now this is a Difference which hath bin already dispatched by what I represented in the foregoing Chapters. And in effect, seeing he would convince us there hath bin no Alteration made touching the Eucharist, notwithstanding we are prepossessed to the Con∣trary, by literal Proofs, how can he, I say, take from us this Perswasion, and give us another quite contrary to it, unless his Method of Prescription hath an Evidence and Certainty beyond that of the Proofs aforementioned? This he ought to shew us, and not straggle into the common place of Methods of Prescription. But this would be to undertake to shew a thing impossible; for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments: all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili, as the Schools term them, could not surmount the strength of our Proofs of Fact, which depend on the sight of our Eyes and common Sense, a great part of which propose the thing imediately in it self.

BUT how then? may we never establish our Sentiments by a Method of Prescription? We do not say so. We only mean thus much, that when the Sentiments of Persons are opposed, which are grounded on Proofs of Fact, and which they believe to be (as I have already said) as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senses, it is then I say an unreasonable thing, to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Me∣thod of Prescription, grounded on moral Impossibilities. This is the Knot of the Question. If a man hath to do only with People prepossessed in favour of his Opinion, he may then use his Method of Prescription, to con∣firm them in the thoughts they have already entertained. There could no∣thing be alledged against his manner of Proceeding, the strength of his Proofs are in that Case only to be considered. If he has to do with indiffe∣rent Persons, that is to say, with such who have not yet taken any side, and desire to be instructed, he might then likewise use a Method of Prescripti∣on, provided his Principles be well grounded, and his Conclusions more decisive, than any thing which can be alledged against them; There need then be nothing to be replied, unless there were something indirect in his Me∣thod; but this could do no more at farthest, but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles, and that of its Consequen∣ces, and not make them reject them; for indirect Arguments conclude some∣times with as great Evidence as direct ones. Nay I will not fear to say, that when he should have to do with Persons prepossessed with Opinions contra∣ry to what he would perswade them, he might then lawfully use a Method of Prescription, for it would not be sufficient to say that a man is prepossessed by another Method, nor object that that of Prescription proceedeth indi∣rectly, or follows not the Order of Nature, these kind of Objections may cause Suspicion; but they ought not to proceed so far, as to make men absolutely reject Arguments, which perhaps, are attended with a greater Perspicuity and Certitude, than those which have occasioned the Prejudice. But as to what concerns us, against whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written, we are in none of these Circumstances; being not only

led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypothesis, and by Proofs which propose us the Point in Question immediately in it self; but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction, and yet he would have us change our Minds, by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones, and which at farthest can amount to no more but meer Probabilities, being appli∣ed to the Subject in hand. We have then Reason to say, that these are mear Chimeras in our respect, and that without considering them any o∣therwise than in their own kind, and in the matter on which they treat, they cannot make such a strong Impression on us, as to deface that which we have already received; for 'tis not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities, than with solid Proofs which are grounded on common Sense.

MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Comparisons, of the Methods of Protestants with them of the Church of Rome. It may be made apparent that we have surer and shorter ones than those which it pro∣poseth. But this is not our Question, and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions. His Words cost him nothing, and Peo∣ple are disposed to receive them, be they what they will, as Oracles. But 'tis not the same with me, for, should I wander from my Subject as often as he does, there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our De∣bate. I shall only tell him, he is mistaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion, a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controver∣sies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion. We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read, or hear them read pub∣lickly: Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Sal∣vation, and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace, even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister, under whom they live, is able and wil∣ling to shew them the way of Life, and whether our Society be the true Church. For in this Case we need but examine two things. The first whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God, and secondly, if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of these things; for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to satisfy our Consciences, and to live in the fear of God, and to ascertain our selves in our Saviours Promises: and moreover, if nothing be taught or practised which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity. For if nothing doth offend the Conscience, we ought to be perswaded, we are in the true Church, it being needless for us to enter into a Discussion of all the Errors which have troubled, or still perplex the Christian Religion. Af∣ter the same manner as 'tis not necessary to Salvation, for a man to know all the particular Heresies which have troubled the Peace of the Church, nor to make a formal and positive Renunciation of them, for it is sufficient that we are not tainted with any of them, and firmly to believe the fundamen∣tal Truths of Religion, neither is it likewise necessary to assure our selves, we are in the true Church, that we inform our selves of the several Opi∣nions of men: It may suffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members, teacheth what it ought, concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification, and maintains nothing which doth not answer these Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church, for if he compare his Mi∣nisters Doctrine with the Word of God, he will be satisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein, he shall perceive likewise that we mix no Doctrines of men with it, which overthrow its Foundation. This way of Examination is short, easy, and proportionable to the Capacity

of all People, and thereupon there may be made a Judgment, as certain as if every single Controversy had bin examined apart.

THE most simple then among us may live in perfect Peace; But it is not so in the Church of Rome; for these Methods of Prescription, menti∣oned by Mr. Arnaud, are not built but upon one of these two Principles, either that the Church, which is to say, the Body of the People, cannot err, nor cease to be the true Church, in ceasing to believe what it believes, or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe; or that the represen∣tative Church, that is to say, the Councils, or the Pope, cannot err. The first of these two Principles is natural; the second is of a Supernatural Or∣der. I handle not at present this Point, whether they are false or true at the Bottom, it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so dif∣ficult and require so much time, that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them, is plainly to deride them: I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter: where I shall make it appear that 'tis impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him, or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it's built. It suffices me to say, that People are not commonly so regular in things, which they believe by a distinct Faith, but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines, and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries. The Author of the Perpetuity tells us, that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology: and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular. There has bin made on this Subject, I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity; there have bin Catechisms compiled, intit'led Catechisms of Grace. Which evidently shew, it has bin believed, that it was not impossible to make the People re∣cieve by way of Illustration or Addition, Articles which they knew not be∣fore, whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change; for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms, if the People cannot of themselves, either diminish, or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith. This Principle is not then so certain, but that it may be doubted of, nor so clear, or evident in it self, that the most simple may be ascertained in it, having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it.

AS to the second, it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils, or Popes, is not so easie, that the most simple People may master it. All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it. If this Church hath this, she hath it by a particular Priviledg, which must be ex∣amined before it be received. For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church, without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle, which is, that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible, because she saies so; and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true, because she is infallible. Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Autho∣rity, this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable, by things independent on the Church of Rome, and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves. Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Con∣clusion. For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is. That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith; now she af∣firmeth she is infallible, from whence it follows that she is so. A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense, will never be con∣vinced

by this Argument. The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living, before it can be supposed that such a one, or any other will receive its Doctrine, founded on this Principle. Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities, for if it be proved by way of Scripture, it is not so plainly described therein, but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense. They are controverted Places, and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judg∣ment. Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition, and a Judgment accordingly, he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of parti∣cular Doctrines, and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture, in relation to what is produced on either side.

NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments: he that endeavours to do this, engageth himself yet farther into tedious Pro∣lixities, and Difficulties, which surpass ordinary Apprehensions. In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question. This Infallibility, saith he, * 1.16 is not a thing clear in it self, seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God, which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture. The Church not being naturally Infallible, we must prove that it is supernaturally so, either by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Series of Arguments. Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments, nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith, to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence. And 'tis for this Reason, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle, than that of Priviledge. Mr. Arnaud testifies as much; for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular, that is to say, of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question. Reason, saith he, doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility. So that this Author (mean∣ing the Author of the Perpetuity) being desirous to ground his Arguments on * 1.17 a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence, and not on a Principle of Iraditi∣on and Authority, or on abstracted and remote Arguings, he must then necessa∣rily contain himself within the reach of things, in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason. There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error, on any Point which it proposeth. But it's evident to Sense, that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors, relating to matters of Faith, seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful. The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is imme∣diately apparent to Sense, there needs more abstracted and remote Argu∣ments to prove it, whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this. Much less are they fit for this, should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition, for it would be to send them far enough, in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils, to be informed in this matter; besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church, and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently, their Testimony upon this account would signify no∣thing.

IT is then manifest, that common Apprehensions not being able to as∣certain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge, as I come now from proving, nor in the Point of popular Infallibility, as I have already hinted, and which I shall do more fully in the end, they cannot remain in the Church

of Rome, with a safe Conscience, there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands, such as are, Birth, Education, Interest, Custom, and the Example of others, which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation. They are then obliged to range them∣selves on the side of the Reformists, from whom they receive for a Rule, things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture, and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry, and more∣over, where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace. If it be replied, that we must first, satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures. I answer first, that this Principle doth not fall under Debate, seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World, but only to the particular Opinions of Christians, for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures. Secondly, I answer, that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures, than other Churches, seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible, she must evidence her self to be a Church, which she cannot do, if the Divinity of the Scripture be de∣nyed her, and she will not take the Pains to prove it; besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility, depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture, and consequently they suppose its Divinity. But in fine, I say the Characters of Divinity, which shine in all parts of these Writings, are so lively, and so many in Number, that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them, if they apply them∣selves to the Consideration of them, with a pure Heart and unspotted Con∣science. Now this is it, to which the meanest Capacity is obliged, as well as the greatest, and if they do it not, their Damnation is just, and their Im∣piety without Excuse.

AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak, briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription, this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly. But to return to the principal Subject of our Dis∣pute, we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud, in that he takes it not ill, I endeavour to prove by several Passages, that the Alteration pretended to be impossible, is real and true. The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this, seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it; and if he doth agree to it, he must suffer me to draw this Consequence, that I could have hindred the Effect he promi∣sed himself from his Method, which is, to make us confess if we are not ex∣tream Obstinate, that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Sacra∣ment, is the same with that of all Antiquity. This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us, as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us, and the Production of some Passages of my Writings, starteth a particular Debate, which Mr. Arnaud approveth, for he only complains, I have not produced them in a right manner, but mained, and dislocated from their Consequences, and that I have con∣cealed all those which might be opposed, and understood. But this Com∣plaint is Unjust, and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment, which is, That that Book was made in Rela∣tion to that of Mr. Aubertins, whose Proofs I take upon me to defend. If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio, into a Preface, neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer, which contains no more than thirty Pages.

I never pretended that my Abridgment alone, should absolutely determine

his Thoughts. I know this cannot be expected; but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth, which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers; I design'd to shew them of my Communion, what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments, and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner, we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind, and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties, the matters of Proof with which it is furnished, their Nature and Force, do contribute that Truth to it, which an Abridgment ought to have, and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain. There can be nothing more required to con∣clude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is not the same with that of the Fathers, and that there has bin made an Alteration, for the Princi∣ples of this are marked out, and their Consequence doth plainly appear, that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader; Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then, * 1.18 that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, for we may ea∣sily conclude from what I said, that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome. His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridg∣ments, which allways refer to another work, in supposing that the Princi∣ples they mark out are clearly established in that Book, to which they refer, and from whence they draw their Conclusion. And this is all that can be desired in this matter, but yet this is a way of concluding; and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined, viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist. I confess that to determine his Judgment, we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion, we must go to the Spring, and see whether what is supposed issues thence; but it doth not thence follow, that the Abridgment is in fault, nor that it should be esteem∣ed as a Heap of Difficulties; and indeed it would not be an Abridgment, if in effect it did not abridge some other work, wherein the Matter is handled at large.

A Heap of Difficulties, to speak properly, is a Collection of several Ob∣jections which are formed against a Doctrine, without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established, nor the Proofs or Argu∣ments by which it is recommended, nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections, and in short, without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled. It is certain that in a Controversy, this manner of proceeding is confused and captious, and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind. But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud, to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind; for as to my part, I find that it hath all the Characters of it. For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief, touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist, of moral Impossibilities heaped up one upon ano∣ther, without any examination of the Grounds or Proofs of our Belief, nor of the Answers which may be made concerning these Impossibilities, and without any Supposition of another Work. For to tell us, as Mr. Arnaud doth, that he sends us back to all the Catholick Books, this methinks, seems to be a kind of shifting and evading, and is not sufficient to protect the Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity, from that just Title I have given it of a Heap of Diffi∣culties. Now if this Author meaneth all the Books written by Catholicks, when shall I be able to judge of them? This will be perhaps when I have

run thro above two hundred Volums. And if I should say on the other side, that my Abridgment after the same manner, supposeth all the Pro∣testant Books, and I send all Persons to them; Our Readers without Questi∣on would be very well informed and edifyed.

BUT saies Mr. Arnaud, People do not use to call Matters which are per∣fectly handled, a Heap of Difficulties, but those things which are hard to be * 1.19 judged of, whereas the Author of the Perpetuity hath handled whatsoever relates to his Design in an orderly length. I answer first that this Author very im∣perfectly handles what respects his Design in General, which is to make us forsake our Belief, concerning the Church of Rome's changing the Primi∣tive Doctrine: And secondly that he yet more imperfectly handles what respects his Design in particular, which is to shew the Impossibility of a Change; for he does not consider of any Answer which may be given his Arguments: so that to speak truly, it is nothing else but a Heap of Difficulties. It can bear no other Title until such time as shall be published the two Vo∣lums in Folio, which Mr. Arnaud mentions to us. We will receive them whensoever he will please to give 'em us; but we shall not be in haste to make that Confession, to which the Author of the Perpetuity hath promi∣sed to oblige us, till we have seen them; and in the mean time, because Mr. Arnaud will have it so, we will have once more the Pleasure, or rather the Pain of examining (altho it be needless) the Author of the Perpetuity's Proofs. I say because Mr. Arnaud would have it so, and not because the reason of the thing requires it; for what he alleageth concerning the Passages of my Book, that they contain but an indirect Answer to the Author of the Per∣petuity's * 1.20 Argument, and therefore it is necessary immediately to examine what I have answered directly. This I say is not a sufficient Cause, we ought to see rather which of us two is first found in the Possession of this Argu∣ment, that is to say, which of us has bin first answered indirectly, and it will appear without doubt that it hath bin my self, seeing the Author of the Perpetuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that he hath assaulted it in∣directly. Whence it follows that he ought at least to have begun by the Ex∣amination of our Proofs.

CHAP. V.

The pretended Advantages of Mr. Arnaud attributeth to the Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity Examined.

ALTHO the Conclsion which I have drawn from Mr. Arnaud's Confession, in the preceding Chapter, is clearly enough establish∣ed, yet do I not think he will be satisfied, till I have examined what he saith in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book. He will tell us without doubt, that it doth not hence follow we should defer the rendring our selves up to the Arguments in the Perpetuity, altho I have still the liberty of opposing against them our Proofs of Fact, and that this he hath clearly shewed in these two Chapters I last mentioned. Let us then see what he saies in them; and judge of them without Partiality.

Mr. Arnaud imediately meets with a Difficulty, For I much marvel, saith he, Mr. Claude has not observed when a point of Doctrine, as this in Question, * 1.21 is established on one side by considerable Proofs, and on the other by Proofs which are believed to be valid, that we must if we intend to judge aright, compare these contrary Proofs together, and prefer the strongest before the other; from whence we may conclude, that it will always be necessary to come to that which the Author of the Perpetuity will not yield to, which is, to examine our Proofs of Fact; For to solve this Difficulty, he supposeth; first, that they who read the Treatise of the Perpetuity, have their Sentiments alrea∣dy wholly formed on the Proofs of Fact, produced by Mr Aubertin and o∣ther Ministers; but that these Sentiments are not Uniform, because some judge of them from what they are in themselves, others by what they have heard of them, and by external Circumstances, which give them to un∣derstand what they ought to believe concerning them. That some do esteem them, others on the contrary slight them, and others again are in a Dispo∣sition of Indifferency, He afterwards represents us with a Calvinist or Re∣ligionary, (for so is he pleased to call us) who being dissatisfied with the Scripture and Fathers, by reason of the uncertainty wherein he findes him∣self, by harkning to different Voices, which call to him from all sides; and moreover less satisfied with the Divines of either Party, who cannot con∣tent him in the Solutions which they give to the Passages of their Adver∣saries; he thereupon turneth himself towards the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which shews him, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real Pre¦sence, have bin received by the Greek and Latin Churches, and in all other Societies, which are equally Enemies both to the Latins and Greeks, toge∣ther with the Impossibilities which are in this insensible Change, which the Ministers have invented; whereupon this Calvinist determines, in for∣saking all these Doubts, to believe the same which is believed thro out all the Earth, seeing the whole World would never believe it, if it had not derived this Faith from the Channel of Tradition. And for as much as this Contrivance could not be well ended, unless I were brought in as a Party, he therefore introduces me, with my Aubertin in my hand opposing this Re∣solution. But my Mouth is imediately stopt, being told, that these Proofs

are Unsatisfactory, and thus am I sent away with my Rhetorick and En∣thusiasmes.

BUT this being no more than a Supposition, it must be established. And for this Effect, Mr. Arnaud calls to his Assistance several learned Divines from Germany, Switzerland, France, and Holland, by whose Suffrage he concludes, that the Fathers are rather against us than for us, in what con∣cerns the Eucharist, or that at least, the Proofs taken from Passages out of their Writings are very uncertain. And so here is already the understand∣ing People among us convinced, and as for others that are not able to make a Judgment themselves, they must have recourse to Persons of greater Knowledg, by which means both the one, and the other, are obliged to rend∣er themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Per∣petuity, because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them, but as unevident and uncertain▪ and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Ca∣pacities, and grounded on the Light of common Sence, it may be under∣stood by all in general. This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter.

IN the sixth Chapter, he extends his Pretention a great way farther, for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side, he will not suf∣fer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands, It not * 1.22 being necessary for this, saith he, to enter into an Examination of all those Passages, without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing. But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People, observe after what sort he declares his meaning. He saith then, that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand, and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other; these two con∣trary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments, and hin∣der us from determining, and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties. And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which leading us hither, Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us, we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect, and pass over to the Catholick Religion, first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal, Original, Successive, and Catholick So∣ciety, from which we must never make aschisme. Secondly, because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors, before we separate from it, and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that So∣ciety we are of, to keep in it. Thirdly, because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry, of the ordinary Vocation, and Authority, and that the Mi∣nisters who have not been above a hundred years standing, have none of these things. Fourthly, because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us, being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity, and consequently to return to the Church of Rome, they ought to serve for Ex∣amples to the Judicious, it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society, to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong. Lastly he confesseth, that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial, and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition, to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self, than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid, and so by conse∣quence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done, by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method.

AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters, in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author

of the Perpetuity, and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work, he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence. Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not, we are so different in our Apprehensions, that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project, I have found nothing at all therein of Reason, nor co∣herence of Parts, neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences, and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest.

FIRST, methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World, in propo∣sing as it were from us, a Difficulty, which weakens our Cause, altho it do's not concern us. For I do not pretend that one of our Communion, into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity, and who is able to read it, is absolutely obliged, before he forms his Judgment thereupon, to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs, with those of that Treatise; I maintain that he may reject these last, by the general Consideration alone which he may make, without entring into the Examination of each Parti∣cular, because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them, viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability, nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity, which are ground∣ed on common Sence. Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted, and that if we take the trouble to examine them, 'tis out of Condescension, not Necessity.

IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the seve∣ral ranks of Men, who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity. For the greatest part of them in our Communion, judging this Perusal needless, will not mind it, for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this; the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther. But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons. We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have * 1.23 heard the Owners Experience of it; would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation, by Ar∣guments offered only on one side, in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions? The least which ought to be done by them, who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion; is to hear both Parties, and weigh their Reasons. I answer, that these Persons I mentioned, will act very Justly and Reaso∣nably in doing what I said. For there being two Questions, the one touch∣ing what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist, and the other touch∣ing what has bin believed by the Primitive Church. The first Question be∣ing once dispatched, we need not trouble our selves about the second. Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion, the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God. For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith. This is it which judgeth us all, and had the Author of the Perpe∣tuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle, there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him; but instead of this, he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages, and perswades himself, that hence∣forward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to, when they say in ge∣neral, that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God.

THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages, may be decided three ways; First, by the Rules of Christian Charity; Secondly, by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises, and cares of his Providence; Thirdly, by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages.

Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People, is need∣less. It is enough to a well meaning Person, that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe, touching the Eucharist, and thereupon charitably pre∣sumes, that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Er∣rors. It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church, that he would never forsake it, have had their accomplishment, and what∣soever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it, by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths, yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful, and execute the Decree of his Election. So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History, nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums, which will not yield him the least Satis∣faction, much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetui∣ty's Method, which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquaint∣ed with. When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book, and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned, I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way, which is only proper to the Learned, the Truth he believes has bin illustrated, neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith, what is told him concerning it; but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation, and left its Relyance on the Word of God, for it remaineth still where it was; so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, or that of any other Minister, relating to this Subject, he will not be troubled about it, nor farther concern himself in these Debates, for he knows his Incapacity. He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers, and with his Confidence in God, leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them.

NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book, I know none in our Communion of that number, and perhaps in the Church of Rome, there will be found as few of that Mind, if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends, who have given their Judgments about it, after a very slighting and pe∣remptory manner. But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here, but continue my Observations. I do affirm then, I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains. I was never yet told, That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts, * 1.24 which it doth not resolve, and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fa∣thers Obscure, and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him, and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart. Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires, drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving, and offered to them who would hence∣forward be of the number of its Proselytes. But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud, or the Author of the Perpetuity's Pro∣selyte, would Sacrifice the Scriptures, Fathers, and Divines of both parties to them. What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man? Howsoever it be, it's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition, and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief; and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty, for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty, touching the Fathers, but not at all as it relates to the Word of God, from which a good man will never depart, even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers.

BUT let us see who these Persons are, who are represented to us float∣ing

on Doubts and Scruples. They are two sorts of Person, the most know∣ing Ministers on one hand, and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other. It is * 1.25 most False, saith Mr. Arnaud, that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them. To which he addeth, that all Protestants of mean Capacities, who are not able to make this Search, are rash in be∣lieving it, and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor. The for∣mer of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs. Observe here the first of them. Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, in reading St. Austins Works; that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the E∣vangelists; that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts, by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained; yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind, he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers; but could not be fully satisfied by them, because he oftentimes met in their Writings, with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacra∣ment. Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men, he wholly applied himself to the Word of God, and then the Truth appeared more clear∣ly unto him. This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this, that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy, to discover immediately the Truth, seeing that Oecolam∣padius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works, and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures, was puzled by reading the Fathers, till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God, by which he was put out of Doubt, and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Do∣ctrine of the Fathers, whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth. This shews us the strength of Prejudice, and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers, to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures.

AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg, it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession, and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy. For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side, some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expres∣sions, which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence, which would overthrow their Doctrine. How∣soever it be, they are not of the number of our Ministers, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy.

THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us, is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written, and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends, seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs. This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pre∣tended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy, which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries, and Absurdities. For the School Boyes, from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press, have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads, after a childish and inconsiderate man∣ner, which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion. More∣over Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to make this Rhapsody, turned Roman Catholick, which might well transport him by a Zeal common to young Converts, to make his Master speak a

word or two in favour of Transubstantiation, Mr. Arnaud seems moreover to speak of Ministers, but it is known by every one that Scaliger was none.

WITEMBOGARD was one of the chief of the Arminian Party, in∣teressed against the French Ministers, neither is he a Witness to be fully be∣lieved in what he tells us concerning Casaubon; yet if what Spondanus has written of Casaubon; be true, we must acknowledge that this Person, who altho otherwise was extraordinarily learned, did not excel in Judgment. He was a man, saith he, of a fickle Mind, and ever wavering in maters of Re∣ligion, * 1.26 he was willing to please both Parties, and by that means pleased nei∣ther. It is very likely that near Familiarity he had with Cardinal Perron, drew him into this ambiguos Humour, which ought not to be made use of against us, much less to be proposed as an Example for the regulating of our Conduct. And besides he may more justly be said to be Critick than a Minister.

I shall not here trouble my self with what is alleaged concerning Socinus and his Followers; for there is a great deal of Passion and Injustice shewed, in Confronting them with us, seeing the Point here in Question is what our most knowing Ministers hold about this matter; I confess the Socinians reject Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, but it is moreover so much their interest to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers, that 'tis no marvel if they speak so unjustly of them. They have built on the antient Heresies of Photinus, Macedonius, and Pelagius, and seeing themselves opposed by Councils, and by the writings of the Fathers, this hath moved them not on∣ly to have no respect for them; but likewise to lay to their charge things which they never believed; to the end they might render them odious, and marr their Credit. So that Mr. Arnaud, imposes on us (when he tells us) that the Socinians have no interest in acknowledging that the Writings of the * 1.27 Fathers favour the Catholicks, and that it would have bin more to their Ad∣vantage to deny this. The contrary of which is apparent.

WHEN he should produce some of our Ministers who doubted whe∣ther the Writings of the Fathers favour us in the point of the Eucharist, or who even believed they were against us, should this appear so strange to us? It is not an easy matter for a man to disentangle himself out of all the cor∣rupt passages which are fasly attributed to the Fathers, and set forth un∣der their Names, and from all the Artifices made use of to disguise their Doctrines. I have written a Chapter on purpose in my Answer to Father Noiiet, wherein I produce several Examples of this, which the Readers may peruse at their Leasure. Even Casaubon himself whom I now mentioned, is one of them who hath fallen into this Snare, for he hath taken two prepa∣ratory Prayers for the Mass, to be the true and undoubted Works of St. Ambrose, altho that in effect, they are composed by Anselme Bishop of Can∣terbury. Now if any Person has bin deceived like Casaubon, and doubted whither the Fathers were for us, must this be used as a Proof against us, ought such a ones Mistakes to be the Rule of our Thoghts, this certainly is contrary to reason.

BUT for one Minister or two whom Mr. Arnaud can bring against us, we can produce a great number who have not hesitated in this matter. Cal∣vin himself, who lived in a time when these Fopperies were scarely disco∣vered, yet asserts that the Fathers have retained the pious and orthodox Sence

of this Mystery, and affirms, that not having found them at all to derogate * 1.28 from the only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he could not therefore consent to the charging of them with Impiety, altho he doth not think them wholly excusable in the form of the Action. To Calvin we may add Cook (who was Tutour to King Edward of England, and supposed to be Author of a Book intit'led Di∣allacticon;) Thomas Crammer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; Bp. Jewel, Peter Martyr; the Author of the Orthodox Treatise; Andrew Volan, the Divines of the University of Heydelberg; Du Moulin, Chamier, Rivet, Faucheur, Mestresat, and Blondel; not to mention Du Plessis, and Mr. De Saumaise, nor several others who have written on this Subject, by the Testimony of the Fathers; which sheweth with how great precipitation Mr. Arnaud hath asserted: that it is most false, the most knowing Ministers are perswaded the Fa∣thers are manifestly for them, and the Solutions they give their Passages are good and Solid.

WHAT he mentions concerning Mr. Daillé, is taken in a contrary Sence; for he never designed to deny the Advantage we have in the Fathers touch∣ing the Eucharist, nor leave it to be questioned. His Book against Mr. Adam, and Cottiby is an authentick Proof of this, and being as yet thro Gods Grace, in a Capacity to declare his own Thoughts, there needs no more but to ask his opinion touching this Point, and see what Answer he will make. There will appear no Difference betwixt his Opinion and mine, provided his Words are understood as he meant them.

Mr. Daillé sais, 'tis a hard matter to gather from the Writings of the Fathers, * 1.29 their Opinions touching those Articles in Religion, about which we differ, because the matters they treat of are for the most part very remote. His meaning is that it is a hard matter to find a formal and express Declaration of their Sence in these matters; which should be declared in such Terms as these, I deny, or affirm, I approve, or condemn, I reject, or receive; and the Reason he al∣leages do's sufficiently confirm this: for he saies, That the Matters they treat of are remote from our Controversies, and that they thought not of us when they wrote.

MY Sence differs not from his, and therefore I shall not fear to say with * 1.30 him, that they that expect to find the Belief of the Fathers clearly set down in their Writings, are generally mistaken, even as he who thinks to meet with the Affections and Desires of his Mind amongst the sound of Bells. And indeed, if we expect to find a positive and precise Rejection of the Romish Doctrine in the Writings of the Fathers, like unto that which is at this day amongst us, we shall be much mistaken, and the Reason is apparent, in as much as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome being not extant in the time of the Fathers, they have not expresly condemned it, for men are not wont to condemn O∣pinions before they appear. Yet do's not this hinder but that the Fathers are against Transubstantiation, by way of Negation, that is to say by their Si∣lence, because they never inserted it amongst the Articles of their Faith, they never propounded it to their Hearers, nor unfolded the Mysteries of it, nor defended its Consequences, as doth the Church of Rome, as they had with∣out question done, had they believed it. And this is what I say; and Mr. Daillé dos not gainsay it; but on the contrary a few lines after what Mr. Ar∣naud has recited, he lays down this general Proposition: That the silence of the Fathers on the controverted Points which they so much value, is of some weight, and amounts perhaps to a clear Proof; but surely not in favour of them * 1.31

who hold the Affirmative. So far Mr. Daillé and I speak precisely the same language. But I affirm likewise, that besides the silence of the Fathers there is to be found several things in their Writings; inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, and I hold this Proof doth e∣vidently conclude they did not believe these Doctrines; Mr. Daillé speaking in general of this Order of Proofs, saith, he freely confesseth that every wise mans Faith is as a Body, whose parts have a dependance on each other. So that we * 1.32 may know by the things he expresseth, what he thinks of those which he expresseth not, whether he doth believe them or not, it being unlikely he would admit what doth evidently oppose his Opinions, or reject their necessary Consequences, to which he addeth, that he does acknowledg that this way of handling the Wri∣tings of the Fathers would be most profitable, and more proper to dive into their bottom, than any other, provided we suppose two things, the one, that the Be∣lief of the antient Doctors is all of a Piece, and does no way contradict it self, and the other, that he who would judge after this manner, must have a piercing Wit, a good Memory, and a Judgment free from Prejudice.

AS to the first of these Suppositions, he saith, that it is not absolutely out of doubt; and as to the other, that all these Qualities do seldom meet in one man. What he saies is true, in this general Consideration. But this does not hinder me from adding, that in the particular case of Transub∣stantiation, and the Real Presence, the first supposition is out of doubt; and the second is not absolutely necessary. To make this apparent, we need but consider, on one hand the rank these Doctrines hold in a Church which be∣lieves them, and on the other, the number and nature of those things which oppose them in the Writings of the antient Fathers. The Example of the Church of Rome shews us, that they that believe them, respect them as in∣violable Mysteries which must not be called in question, and such as are of greatest Importance in Religion, and which must be defended against the Contradiction of Sense and Reason, and for which we ought to be armed with the greatest Caution; as being in short, Mysteries which are daily re∣presented us, in their Celebration and Participation of them, which should be distinctly known by all the Faithful, and cleerly and plainly taught the People, to the end every one may know that what he receiveth is the pro∣per Substance of his Saviour, and give him the Worship due to a Creator. Whence it follows, that if the antient Church believed these things, it has believed them in this Degree, and that 'tis not possible but the Fathers in general would take such care as not to maintain things which overthrow them, or reject others which are the necessary Consequences of them. It is not possible I say, that they should all of 'em be thus inconsiderate as to assert several things which may justly scandalize their Followers and that in so tick∣lish and well known a Point, as is that of the Substance of Jesus Christ, which they every day received. On the other hand, if we consider the Nature and Number of things to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers, contrary to Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, we shall observe they are con∣trary to them by a primary, immediate and evident contrariety, for which there is no need of a sharp Wit, nor great Memory, but a sound understand∣ing, and disinteressed Judgment: we shall find that these things are in great Number, and as well prevail over a mans Mind by their Multitude, as their Quality. And this Mr. Daillé has not denyed, so that as I do not thwart his Rule, so he does not oppose my Exception, therefore there is no Contra∣diction betwixt us.

BUT Mr. Arnaud will reply, Mr. Daillé do's oppose our Exception, for he applies his Rule to the Subject of the Eucharist, acknowledging that as there are Passages in the Fathers Writings, which seem to be inexplicable, in * 1.33 the Church of Romes Sence, so there are likewise some which can in no wise admit the Sence of the Protestants, as them which expresly import that the Bread chang∣es its Nature, that by the Almighty Power of God it becometh the Flesh of the Word: and such like. If Cardinal Perron, saith he, and other sublime Wits on both sides, protest they find no Difficulty, we must acknowledg they said it only out of a Bravadoe, turning the best side outwards, or else that the rest of the World are very dim sighted to perceive nothing but Darkness, where these People behold nothing but Light. And elsewhere, taking notice of some Passages (which seem to deny the Consubstantiality of the Son, determined in the Council of Nice,) which are to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers who pre∣ceded that Council. Let the Fathers, addeth he, affirm or deny that the Eu∣charist is really the Body of Christ, they will not for all this contradict thy Opi∣nion, whosoever thou art, whether Romanist or Protestant, more strongly than the Fathers of Antioch did in appearance contradict them of Nice. To which we may now add, that as the Arians had no reason to draw to their Opinion, and alleage, as decisive parts of their Question, such transient Discourses as were in∣nocently meant by the antient Fathers, without any Design of treating on this: so likewise we have no cause, neither thou I say nor I, to alleage as Sentences pro∣nounced in our case, which has bin stated but of late, the sayings of the Fathers, which were written by them on other matters, several Ages before our Controver∣sies began, concerning which they have expressed themselves very differently and obscurely, and even sometimes in appearance contradictorily. Having shewn af∣terwards that the Fathers designed to be obscure in their Discourses concern∣ing the Eucharist, to hide this Mystery from the Catecumenists.

SEEING then, saith he, that in this and other Matters, they designed to conceal their Thoughts, we must not therefore wonder, if their Expressions have bin oftentimes obscure, and that which commonly is an effect of Obscurity, if they seem sometime to differ and contradict one another.

I answer that this being well understood, doth not at all obstruct my Ex∣ception, nor what I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Daillé speaks of the particular Judgment which we may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties; and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs, and Difficulties brought against them; and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer, wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of * 1.34 Scripture, strength of Reason, and plain Instructions of their Ministers, may give to the mystical Expressions, which were then in use. These are things wholly different. I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers. Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of. He needed not be brought in question for this, seeing I plainly delive∣red my Mind touching this matter, in the beginning of my Answer. I af∣firm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist, by the Doctrine * 1.35 of the Fathers, is in it self a way which is indirect, preposterous, and very tedi∣ous, wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings. These are my Words, and Mr. Daillé has said no more, and I do still affirm, that if a man examines these Passages apart, and protests he finds no obscurity in them, we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes. But this does not hinder

but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fa∣thers touching the Eucharist, and which resulteth from an exact considera∣tion of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other, is undoubtedly on our side, whether these particular Passages, which seem at first to be diffi∣cult, are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them, or when their Difficulty should remain, it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs. The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places, do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the cer∣titude of this general Judgment, which I mentioned: for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity, they give us the like Examples in other Mat∣ters, and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them, and satisfy a mans Mind.

BUT he saith, that neither the Romanists, nor the Protestants have any rea∣son * 1.36 to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of la••e, the Discourses of the antient Fathers, written by them upon other matters, seve∣ral years before. What he saith is true, for we should be to blame, should we take them for declaratory Sentences. But this hinders not but we may still conclude, they held not Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, because that if they had held these Doctrines, they would not have expressed them∣selves as they do. Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation, which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines, that they held them ••ot. Neither does this moreover hinder, but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs, we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Do∣ctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour. So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose, when he undertook to shew this pretended Contra∣riety, which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me.

But Mr. Daillé's Design, saith he, is to shew in general, that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies, and especially in that of the Eu∣charist. * 1.37 I acknowledg it, because these Difficulties he mentions, do shew this way is long and troublesom; and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted, and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons, but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps. This I do not deny, but on the contrary do ever affirm, that the ho∣ly Scripture is the only certain Rule, and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension. I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong, would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Dili∣gence which is necessary, they would easily be able by the Guidance of com∣mon Sense, to make this Evident and certain Judgment; That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present: and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I.

IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 'tis because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance, by making of them contradict one another. But return we to the rest of our Observations.

CHAP. VI.

A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Ar∣naud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity.

THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Ar∣naud assures us, viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé's Mind (that * 1.38 is to say, who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touch∣ing the Eucharist, by the Writings of the Fathers, (seeing they are so obscure and intricate, that it is a hard matter to make them agree,) cannot re∣fuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity, in case they judge them evident; whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere, on the one hand, and on the other, all they who cannot judge by themselves, will acquiecse in these Proofs. This Pretension is as ill ground∣ed as the former. For there being, as I already said, two Questions before us, the one, touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist, and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church, the first of these, which is that of Right, respects in general all them of our Com∣munion; but the second, for as much as it may be decided by History, on∣ly respects them amongst us, who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves. So that the Prolixity, Difficulty, and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers, do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions, whereon depends that of our Controversies, seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us; altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second, because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought, to satisfy their Curiosity, neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour. If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs, they will answer they have no need of it, being satisfied with the Word of God; and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church, they will answer, that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity, and our Saviours Promi∣ses. But if we proeeed farther, and suppose it be enquired of them, how it has come to pass that the Church of Rome has altered the antient Doctrine; they will answer, their Salvation depends not on this Knowledg, but that it must needs be, it has made an Alteration; seeing it believes at this day what it ought not to believe, and which without doubt hath not bin believed heretofore, as they judge out of Charity to the Antients. Should they be urged to tell how this has hapned, they will answer again, this is not an account wherein their Salvation is concerned, and that this Question ought to be proposed to those Persons who know it, and in all this they will have Reason. If this Treatise be offered to those of the second Rank, that is to say to them who are learned, and have had the Curiosity of informing them∣selves, and to whom properly the second Question belongs; they will like∣wise answer, they have no need of this Method, having already informed themselves by a natural and direct way, which is of more value than all these Conjectures, or if they have not done it, they will do it, being not so silly

as to shut their Eyes, and reject the Evidence of their Senses, to betake them∣selves to a Method wherein there can be nothing but Confusion to be expect∣ed, and these last will have Reason too.

BUT saith Mr. Arnaud, we must suppose that the Proofs of the Treatise are evident, for they cannot be supposed false, till such time as they are exa∣mined. You ought then to have begun here, wherefore your Exceptions signify nothing. I answer that these Suppositions are not juster than his Ar∣guments. For if these curious Persons whom I mentioned, have already taken the Pains they ought, whereby to ascertain themselves in the Proofs of Fact, they will be prepared to judge, that the Arguments of the Treatise are false and captious, because that moral Impossibilities, such as these are, and in such a Subject as this, cannot subsist against Proofs of Fact, which are immediate, certain, and evident as ours are. If they have not yet taken this Pains, I say that without examining whether the Proofs of the Treatise be good or bad, they will only mind the Method, and by comparing it with that of Discussion, if they are men of Reason, they will prefer this last be∣fore the other, because that 'tis in effect most natural in it self, and more cer∣tain in its Proofs.

WHAT shall we do then with the Treatise of the Perpetuity, which has made such a Noise in the World? Will it be of no use? There are a crue of People in the World, who are curious and idle both together, who are willing to know the Opinions of former Ages on these famous Articles, a∣bout which Europe is at this day divided; but yet will be at no Pains for this, because Labour is distasteful to them, and they have other things to do. It is then for such Persons as these, this Treatise has bin written. For it court∣eth them, and presents it self to 'em, whether at Ease or in Business; it only desires them to spend two Hours on its Reading, whereby to decide a Point of this Importance. The Style of it is curious and enticing, and its Expres∣sions emphatical, it winneth on the Mind, and leads it insensibly where it pleases. All this flatters mens Curiosity and Lazyness both together. But if this sort of People loved their Salvation, as we may suppose they ought, we should then have but two or three things to say to them. First, that they beware of these short Methods, which favour at the same time two Inclina∣tions, which seldom agree, I mean Idleness and Curiosity. For we cannot arrive at any certainty in these kind of Questions, if we do not earnestly ap∣ply our selves to them, for Labour and Knowledg do always go together, and it commonly happens that they who thus promise us such great Knowledg, without any trouble, do cheat us two ways, for they lead us into tedious Pro∣lixities, and dreadful Difficulties, and at last having tired us, they leave us as wise as we were at first.

AND this is exactly the case of the Treatise of the Perpetuity, if we right∣ly consider it; for it promises us immediately, nothing but Perspicuity, Fa∣cilities, and Convictions, it being made up of undenyable Truths. Yet let a man take but the Pains to examine only his fixt Point, which is his first Sup∣position, on which the whole stress of his Book lies; and he will find that 'tis impossible to be certain in it. I mean the Year one thousand fifty three, wherein Berengarius was at first condemned, and in which time the Author of the Treatise pretend's the universal Church was agreed in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence. Now to be satisfied in this parti∣cular, we should have an exact Knowledg of the eleventh Century, to the

end we may discern whether this Condemnation of Berengarius was the re∣al Effect of the Churches Union, or only that of a Party, which was then the strongest at the Court of Rome. We should know each particular mat∣ter of this great Affair, that we may be able to judge whether humane In∣terest had no share in it: whether those that were concerned in it did not act against their Consciences; and whether the Procedings were just and regular. We must examine the State of Princes, Ecclesiasticks, and Peo∣ple, to be satisfied in this supposed Union. We should have before us the Writings of Berengarius and others who held the same Opinions, to under∣stand their Arguments and Defences. But all these things are impossible. We have no other account of this History, than what some interessed Wri∣ters have bin pleased to give us, and in which there are Relations justly sus∣pected to be false. The secret Designs and Motives which then prevailed are out of our reach. We know scarcely any thing more of the Persons who then made up the Church, but that they were the greatest part of them bu∣ried in profound Ignorance. The Writings of Berengarins and his Follow∣ers are lost, for there has bin Care taken to extinguish the Remembrance of them. In short, this is an Abyss wherein we behold nothing, whereby we may be able to affirm with any certainty, that the whole Church was united in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence. For a man to give Credit to any Relation of Berengarius's Adversaries; (who bragged that their Opinion was that of the whole World,) it would be to be over Credulous, in any Affair of this Importance, and so much the more, because the contrary appeareth by substantial Proofs, which should be examined, before we rest satisfied in them.

SO that here we are already sufficiently perplexed in the first Particular, and shall be no less in the others. If we would be ascertained in the Proofs of the Treatise, we should know perfectly the Tempers of the People, their Condition and principal Circumstances, in the Ages which preceded the e∣leventh Century. We should know, how the Body of the Ecclesiasticks was composed, what was the Humour and Temper of them who held the first Rank, even how far their Credit and Authority reached, what kind of In∣structions they gave the People, and after what manner the People received them. We must likewise examine the nature of the Change we speak of, by what degrees we suppose it has bin introduced, by how many ways and means it may be said to be possible. For if all this be not distinctly known, how can it with any Confidence be affirmed, that this Change is impossible. Moreover before it can be affirmed as an undoubted Truth, that had an In∣novation touching the Eucharist bin attempted, the People would have risen into Tumults, the Religious clamour'd against it, the Ecclesiasticks opposed it, and the Councils taken notice of it, and in short the Bands of an external Communion would have bin broken; how many particulars must be clear∣ed up first! We ought to know what kind of Zeal People had for the Glo∣ry of God in those Days; whether the effects of this Zeal could not be hind∣red by I know not how many things which occur in these different Orders of men, whom I mentioned, as Ignorance in some, simplicity and meanness of Spirit in others, the fear of disturbing the publick Peace, the Favour or Hatred of Persons, and several other humane Causes, which set men on acting or desisting from it. We should likewise have a true and particular Account of the Condition of the schismatical Churches at that time, when Berengarius was condemned, which is not an easy matter, as will appear in the sequel of this Discourse. In a Word, to attain the ends of the Design

of this Treatise, when even its Proofs should be Substantial and Conclusive, a man must be more knowing than an Angel; for unless we knew the Thoughts of all mankind, for the space of two hundred Years together, or could raise the Dead to inform our selves by them of what they have done; and what they have not done, it is not otherwise possible to be at any cer∣tainty. But it will be perhaps answered, we must judge according to the Light of common Sense, and what we see in our times▪ to which I reply, that even common Sense shewes us, that there is no certainty in these kind of Proofs, and that the Experience of our own Age contradicts them. And when it should be imagined that all these Difficulties are surmounted, I come then and trouble this Victory with my Aubertin, and Proofs of Fact, requiring, before the Question be decided, that my Objection be answered. Now should Mr. Arnaud pretend my Objection is groundless, and that I should be silenced in being told, that these Proofs have bin considered, and their pretended Clearness appears only to them, who suffer themselves to be transported by the Enthuthiasms of my Rhetorick, I shall make him an∣swer, that I speak here only of curious and lazy People, to whom the Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity is offered as a short Method▪ to ease them of the lengths of a way of Discussion: which sort of Persons cannot say they know all our Proofs.

I shall tell him moreover, that the reading of my Book, has not yet so far transported People with Enthusiastical Raptures, as the reading of his has done to his immortal Praise. For there are Latin Verses under this very Title of Enthusiasms, which Mr. Arnauds Friends its seems have not bin ashamed to print, in which there appears all the lively Characters of a Po∣etical Fury. For they speak of his Book, as of the Sun, which contains in it self a great measure of the Divine Light: His Lines are called new Darts of the Sacred Cupid; and his whole Book is said to be full of God. Puro Nu∣mine, mi Libelle, Plenus. It is compared to our Saviour himself, when he came down from Heaven; and is said to have done the same Miracles; there is one of its Readers introduced, who being filled with its Divinity, cries out, Numen ecce Numen, ibi Numen. Mr. Arnaud is termed, Vir sacro & numinis entheatus oestro, and his Wit, Mentis vigor entheus, and again he is set forth to us as an Hercules armed with Coelestial Weapons, trampling all things under his Feet, conquering the Conquerours themselves, and tri∣umphing over the Triumphers. In short, France is congratulated upon the Glory it receives. Tanto prodigio superba fulge, felix prodigio futura tanto. All which considered, has not Mr. Arnaud pertinently mentioned Enthusi∣asms? Certainly never the Tripos of Delphos, nor the Grove of the Sibyl Cumeé, inspired such like Ravings.

BUT to return to the matter in hand. Is it not possible will some say, to be ascertained of the matter in Question, by some way less tedious and in∣tricate, than the examination of such a great Volum as Mr. Aubertin's Book? Yea without doubt; for, to know as much as is necessary, to the satisfying of a mans Mind, he need but judge according to the instincts of Charity, and the Confidence he ought to have in our Saviours Promises. Now if a man keeps to these Principles, he will draw a Conclusion as satisfactory as can be desired. The Promises of our Saviour assure us that his Spirit shall be with the Faithful to the end of the World; and Christian Charity obliges us to believe that the Fathers are of this Number. From whence I conclude; that there has ever bin a considerable number of true Christians, whose Faith

has not bin corrupted by damnable Errors. This is a sure Conclusion, and sufficient to satisfy my Mind. I conclude likewise, that the Fathers have bin of this Number, this is a Judgment of Charity, and is sufficient to acquit me of my Duty. Should it be told me, if I proceed farther, it would be to give my self a great deal of Trouble, viz. to Read, Study, and Meditate, to compare the Proofs of both Parties, and if this offends me, I can complain of no body but my self, that is to say of my own Lazyness or Curiosity.

IT is then neither just nor necessary to require any other abridged Me∣thods, than those which I now observed. Yet it must not be thought but that there may be such offered, it being no difficult matter. For 'tis but loo∣sing from the Body of the Dispute, one of those captious Arguments, which seem to decide the whole Controversy by the Decision of one only Point. Which the Author of the Perpetuity has done, for he has singled out Bel∣larmins Argument of the Impossibility of a Change, and proposed it with greater Enlargments, tho with less Force than he, and this is all the Myste∣ry of this great Method of Prescription. So that this is not such a famous Undertaking; seeing every little Sophister could do as much. Take the Ar∣gument of the silence of the Fathers on Transubstantiation and the real Pre∣sence; insist largely thereon, write a Treatise on it; and here's then an a∣bridged Method. Take the Argument of the certainty of our Senses; shew that the Fathers supposed it as an inviolable Principle of the Christian Re∣ligion; shew the Absurdities which would follow, had they believed that what we see in the Sacrament is not real Bread; here is then another Me∣thod of Prescription. Take likewise if you will, the Argument of the Si∣lence of the Heathens, and accommodate it to the Treatise of the Perpetuity; and you will make another Method. It is the same with the Argument of the Accidents without a Subject, in respect of Transubstantiation; and of that of the Adoration of the Sacrament; and almost of all others.

TO speak my Sence of these Arguments reduced into Methods, I think they must be considered either absolutely, or in relation to some Circumstan∣ces. If we consider them absolutely; we must not reject them, for this on∣ly Reason that they are called Methods of Prescription. A rational Man will accept of them in a Controversy, as Arguments, he will weigh their Force; but whatsoever Strength they may have, he will not forme his Judg∣ment by them alone, because perhaps there may be on the other side things more considerable. What is there, for Example, of greater Force than the Argument taken from the Silence of the Fathers, touching the Existence of Accidents without a Subject? Yet is it certain that this Argument alone must not determine a Man; for should it be demonstrated that the Fathers expresly taught the Adoration of the Sacrament, and Conversion of the Substance, with all the other Consequences of Transubstantiation, excepting this Existence of the Accidents without a Subject, our Argument would not be strong enough to invalidate these contrary Proofs. They must then be ranked in the order of the Controversy, to the end they may be considered in a decisive Judgment.

THERE is not, to speak properly, but one particular case wherein we ought to be determined by a Method of Prescription, which is when God does or does not declare his Will in Points of Religion; for what is there in the World that can excel, or equal the Validity of his Testimony or Silence. In matters of Religion, 'tis the Word of God which determines us to be∣lieve

positively such and such Points, and 'tis its Silence which determines us to reject others. Our Faith imitates the Wise Men of the East, it fol∣lows the Star that conducts it, (which is the Heavenly Revelation) and stops where this Star settleth, as knowing 'twould be to wander, to go farther. This then is the only true Method of Prescription in Questions of this Na∣ture.

BUT supposing the Argument was taken from the Evidence of all the Senses, and in the Circumstances which make this Testimony Valid and Infallible, may we not determine our selves, without proceeding any farther? I answer that to speak absolutely, the Senses may be deceived, even with all the Circumstances which render their Testimony allowable, for the Devil may impose upon them by his Illusions; yet because a judicious man must judge of things, not out of regard to these extraordinary and rare Cases, but according to rule and common use, it is certain, that such an Argument must decide the Question of Fact.

THE same may be required touching those Arguments which are cal∣led in Philosophy, by the name of Demonstrations. If a Method was ground∣ed on a Proof of this Force, would it not wholly decide the Question? I an∣swer there are few Demonstrations, so evident and certain, that nothing can be opposed against them. Yet were there one offered which convinced the Mind, by an immediate and uncontroulable Evidence, (as those which ma∣nifest an apparent Contradiction, and a formal Incompatibility in the Terms; or those which are established on a necessary and inviolable Dependance, and which cannot be hind'red, or which suppose one only Cause, without which 'tis not possible that a thing should exist; or lastly, such as are grounded on an indissolvible connexion of two Subjects which cannot be one without the o∣ther;) I confess we ought then to yield; as when 'tis said, the Sun is risen, it is then day, or it is day, the Sun then is risen; there is a Son, there must then be a Father; I say, we cannot but acquiesce in these kind of Arguments. But because in things about which we dispute, these sort of primary and immediate Demonstrations are very rare, a judicious Person will not suffer himself to be surprized with every thing which bears the Name of Demon∣stration, or that has the Colour and appearance of it, and especially when it relates to a matter belonging to another Light than that of Reason, as are the Objects of Sense, and those of Faith: he must then suspend his Judg∣ment, and reduce his pretended Demonstrations into the Order of the Dis∣pute, to be compared with the contrary Proofs, to the end he may make a right Judgment.

AND this is what may be said in general of these abridged Methods. In their Circumstances, they are to be considered, either as relating to the Persons they are offered, or to the Question which they decide, or the Rank which they hold, and according to the quality of their Proofs. If they be offered to Persons to whom the Question doth not belong, it is in their Pow∣er absolutely to reject them, in alleaging, that this concerns not them, and they cannot justly be blamed when they should do thus. Should they be of∣fered to Persons interessed in the Question, or who would take part in it, they ought ordinarily to proceed according to the Rules I have laid down, and especially if the Question which they decide is of that importance, as that it ought not to be slightly handled. But if we do suppose on one hand, that the Order of these Methods is indirect and unnatural, and that their Ar∣guments

are not taken but from Probabilities, and on the other, that we may be informed by a more natural Course, and a more certain and infalli∣ble Means. I say, that a wise Man ought to prefer this last way before the other, altho it be more tedious and difficult, for tho he cannot answer these Arguments, yet this does not argue he must be determined by them; for it will be time enough to consider them, when after a due Examination of e∣very thing that may be alleaged on both sides, he shall make his decisive Judgment. In fine, I say, that if we suppose a man already ascertained in the Question, by an orderly way, by numerous and conclusive Proofs, and by a Knowledg humanely Certain, and Infallible, as is that of his Eyes and common Senses on their proper Objects, he cannot reasonably be desired to change his Opinion by an indirect Method, which is from hence suspect∣ed to be artificial and deceitful, in that the Proofs which it offers can amount to no more than Probabilities. If he be wise, he will keep to his first Con∣clusion, and reject this Method as useless, without troubling himself with a particular Examination of it, unless to give himself the greater Satisfacti∣on, he determines to discover the falsity of it.

WE see already what use must be made of the Treatise of the Perpe∣tuity, together with all its long train of Arguments and Suppositions, which Mr. Arnaud has made in its Favour. For first, there is little Sincerity in the Objection he stated in the beginning, in which he doth not explain our real Pretension. Secondly, He passeth over in Silence, amongst the Number which he makes of the Persons of our Communion, several who trouble not themselves with the Dispute touching the Question of matter of Fact, that is to say touching the Belief of the antient Church, and in relation to these, who are the greatest number, we may already affirm that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is of no use. Thirdly, He has very ill proved that the most knowing Ministers do doubt whether the Fathers are for us, whence it fol∣lows, that not being able to finde his Proselytes, neither amongst the 〈…〉〈…〉k of the Illiterate People, nor amongst that of the Learned, it is to be fear∣ed he will find them no where. Fourthly, He hath bin shewed, that when it should be granted, there were Ministers, who doubted whether the Fa∣thers were for us; yet would it not follow, that they would leave the Word of God, on which alone their Faith depends, to yield themselves up to the Arguments of the Perpetuity. Fifthly, He hath bin shewed that when one or two should be of this Opinion, yet could they not carry it away from all the rest who have bin, or are of a contrary Mind: whence it follows, that if the least judicious among us regulate their Opinions on this Point by that of the most knowing, they will 'tis probable range themselves on the side of the greatest Number, rather than on that wherein there is but one or two; so that here is almost all of 'em escaped the Treatises Conquest. Sixthly, It has bin likewise shewed him that the Prolixity and Difficulties to be ex∣pected in the common way, which is that of Discussion, yield no advantage to the Treatise to make it received under the Title of an abridged Method. Seventhly, He has bin moreover shewed the insuperable Perplexities where∣in this Method engages People: So that those who are most in Love with short Ways, and new Fashions, cannot but be disgusted at this. Eightly, It has bin demonstrated, that Persons who were never informed of the real Doctrine of the Fathers, and would willingly be ascertain'd of it, ought in all Reason to prefer a Method of Discussion, whatsoever tediousness and dif∣ficulty there may be in it, before that of the Perpetuity. We have likewise manifested that the Proofs of his Method, have not that just and due ex∣tent,

necessary to the forming of a judicious man's Mind: and which ours have. Tenthly, and lastly, It has bin proved to him that discreet Persons, who know our Proofs of Fact, and have examined them, may justly reject this Treatise as useless.

WHAT he then saies concerning these two contrary Evidences that hold the Mind in suspence between our Proofs of Fact, on one hand, and the Arguments of the Perpetuity on the other, is a meer Fancy. For this Unresolvedness is impossible in a man of Judgment. And Mr. Arnaud does not ground it but only on a Supposition, which he has no right to make, That * 1.39 the Proofs of the Treatise intimate the impossibility of a Change, to that de∣gree of Evidence, as will convince the Mind as much as the contrary Evi∣dence. Which I deny him, and that with good Reason, when I compare his Proofs with ours. His Proofs are grounded on a Supposition, in which it is impossible to be ascertain'd, they are of the kind of moral Impossibili∣ties, which never carry in them a Certitude beyond Exception, and more∣over, the Subject or Matter they handle, makes them still a thousand times more uncertain and doubtful; for what is more uncertain than that which depended on Peoples Inclinations, who lived seven or eight hundred Years ago, and on the Conjunction of a thousand things, of which we scarcely know one. We need but consider these Proofs in this respect, to declare them uncertain; But to demonstrate the falsity of them, we must compare them with ours, against which there can no general Objections be made, seing they are numerous, and throughly handle the Question, and which taken severally, have all possible Strength and Evidence.

TO find out distinctly and clearly the knot of this whole Controversy, and judge of it with less Trouble and more Solidity, it needs only be consi∣dered that Mr. Arnaud and I do make almost the same Suppositions, and draw the same Consequences, but each of us in his own Favour. He sup∣poses my Proofs of Fact are uncertain, and I do not only suppose they of his Treatise are so, but that they are moreover False. He supposeth that they of the Treatise are Evident. I suppose that mine are so. He concludes mine are to be Rejected, and them of the Treatise Embraced. I conclude that they of the Treatise are to be Rejected, and mine Entertained. For to judge aright so far, it needs only be considered which of us two has most reason to make these Suppositions, and settles them on surest Grounds; for he that does so, has the Consequence for him. Mr. Arnaud grounds his on the En∣thusiasms of my Rhetorick, on some pretended Testimonies of the Learned, and his own Judgment on Mr. Aubertin's Book, and that of the Perpetuity. I build mine on the Right a Respondent has to suppose his Opinion in a Dis∣pute. Whence I conclude, I may suppose my Proofs of Fact to be good and firm; I ground them on a general Comparison I make of his Proofs with ours, and manifest that ours are according to a natural and direct Me∣thod, and his according to an indirect and forced one; That ours are suffici∣ent to enable a man to make a sound and solid Judgment, and that his are not so, that ours are obvious to Sence, whereas his are but meer Conje∣ctures. And 'tis upon this we ought to be judged. But we must proceed far∣ther; for Mr. Arnaud goes so far as to suppose his Proofs and mine appear equally evident, and 'tis upon this that he grounds the whole Argument of his sixth Chapter. He would have that these two contrary Evidences form∣ing a Suspension of Mind, a rational Man is thereby obliged to determine himself by the Advantages which appear moreover in the Church of Rome,

and here we begin to take two different ways, for I will not grant him the Evidence of his Treatise, as he grants me that of my Proofs. And in ef∣fect no man may make groundless Suppositions, which being impossible, cannot therefore be reasonable. Now it is not possible that a man who is perswaded of the Evidence of our Proofs, can find any Evidence in his, be∣ing such as they are, because they have a Defect in their kind, which makes them vanish before ours. 'Tis moreover on this we ought to be tried.

YET let us suppose, by way of Divertisement, these two contrary Evi∣dences which hold us in Suspense, what follows thence? that we must be de∣termined by the Authority of the Church of Rome. This indeed Mr. Ar∣naud saies: and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scri∣ptures, and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers, that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God; and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church. What must we then do about this new Difference? Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome, to know which of us two has most rea∣son. And these are the Effects of this admirable Method, the Glory of our time, and Quintessence of Humane Wit, which after several windings and turnings, several hot Debates and sharp Disputes, and after an Invitation of all France; and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this fa∣mous Contest, refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church. And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity. And in∣deed if we continue to dispute after this manner, I think the World has lit∣tle reason to concern it self in our Debate, seeing 'tis a vain amusement. We wrestle against one another with all our Might, we sweat, and take a great deal of Pains, and make our Books be bought dear: and after all we are to begin again. For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church, wherefore did we not do so in the beginning? Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this? Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self, but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us? Or is it not worthy our regard, and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour. Is it that either the Church of Rome, or the Scripture have need, (to the end they may be recommended to us,) the one of the Treatise of the Per∣petuity, and the other of my Answer, and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance. For my part I pretend not to this, and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy.

CHAP. VII.

The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined.

MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces, which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity, nor our Proofs of Fact; and the greatest part of them consisting in fruit∣less Digressions, which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist: it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlarg∣ment to his Book, and as a means to tire his readers Patience. Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer, it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects, and charge my self with unnecessary matters: but howsoever concise my Answer may be, yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud.

HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity, concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People; which he grounds on this, that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them, nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion; for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils. The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations, which we sup∣pose to have insensibly crept in, as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy, praying for the Dead, the invocation of Saints, and prohibition of certain Meats. These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter. That I may proceed orderly, I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibi∣lity, by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils, for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Per∣petuity the Objection contained in my Preface. This Question will be soon ended, if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insen∣sible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church, in several Points, as * 1.40 well Practical as Speculative, and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting. That he has not offered in general this Maxim, that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change, in the use of Ceremonies, or in Opinions which are no ways Popular, but Spe∣culative, that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality, and there∣fore has restrained it to capital Mysteries, which are known to all the Faithful, by a distinct Faith. To answer after this manner, what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points, which are not popular. Which Con∣fession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome.

IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibili∣ty * 1.41 of Grace or Priviledge, and a humane and popular Infallibility, and to as∣sert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils, as it respects all kind of Mysteries, whether Popular or others. For these Examples I produced, do equally op∣pose

all manner of Infallibility, and to acknowledg it in any kind, would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge. I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular, yet are they Innovations nevertheless, and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility, yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace, seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion. Whence it follows, that a man who believes them to be true, cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome, which is, that the Popes and Coun∣cils are only Infallible, and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion: for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular, she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points. 'Tis certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Exam∣ples I produced, pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered, al∣tho the Practice of it has bin so; but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace, which is not a Point of Practice but Belief, contenting himself only with saying, That the Truths of Divine Grace have * 1.42 never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology, and that 'tis false, they are not still the same in principal and essenti∣al Points. But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular, and which are neither principal, nor essential, in the matter of Grace, there has hap'ned a Change. Now these Points whatsoever they be, whether principal or not, great or small, are Doctrinal Points which cannot be altered, without passing over from Truth to Error, or from Error to Truth. If then it be true, as I have already said, and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed, that the Church has bin several times of contra∣ry Opinions, upon which account it is impossible, but she has bin in Error, and consequently she is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace, and Pri∣viledg attributed unto her. The Author of the Perpetuity's Answer doth e∣vidently suppose the actual reality of this Change; it has then given me just Occasion to make this Objection I have made, and Mr. Arnaud's Di∣stinction comes too late.

IT is in vain, he assures us, that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the least thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace; The Question here is not to know absolutely what that Author believed, or not believed, what he thought, or did not think; when this shall be questioned, we shall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter; but here it concerns us to enquire into the Consequences which may be drawn from his Terms, and whether he hath given me a just occasion to make that Objection against him in my Preface. It will not be sufficient to make De∣clarations on this Matter, it must be shewed that the Consequence is not true.

Mr. Arnaud imagins, he has sufficiently justified his Friend, in assert∣ing, he made not use of the Infallibility of Priviledg, because 'tis a Priviledg to be proved, and not supposed, and the Calvinists denying it, it is thence clear, that to make an advantagious use of it, it should have bin established before, which is to say, there ought to have bin an intire Treatise made of the Churches Infallibility, before it could be made use of in this Dispute. But, saith he, to conclude from thence, he hath denyed it, and doth not acknowledg it, is one of the most rash Consequences as ever was drawn, altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book.

AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character, that he is never more fierce, than when he is Gravelled, or alleageth things wholly besides the Purpose. We have not grounded our present Objection on the Author of the Perpe∣tuity's not using the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle, this is a wil∣ful mistake. For it has bin grounded on this, that the terms of his Answers to the instances of a Change, which I had affirmed, do oppose this Infallibi∣lity which the Church of Rome pretends to, and acknowledg no other but that of the People. Now 'tis to this he should apply himself, and not con∣tinually entertain us with impertinent Digressions.

MOREOVER, what signifies his telling us, that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved, and not supposed, and that the Rea∣son disswading the Author of the Perpetuity from making use of it, is be∣cause we deny it. We no less deny the pretended popular Infallibility, which is a Principle needs proving, as much as the other. He himself tells us, in the beginning of his eighth Chapter; that the Principle of insensible Alte∣rations, which is directly opposite to that of popular Infallibility, is a ne∣cessary Foundation to the Calvinists, whereon to build the greatest part of their Doctrines, and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation, consisting of so many different Opinions, has almost need upon all Occasions of this Supposition, That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow, has bin insensibly Introduced into the Church. And thus does he speak, when he would have us deny him his Principle; but when he would have us grant it him, he then holds another Language. The Author of the Perpe∣tuity, * 1.43 sais he, does not design to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them, and which Mr. Claude doth him∣self grant. Never any Person disposed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud. We Deny, we Confess, according as he pleases, he brings us on his Stage as often as he list; making us say sometimes one thing, and sometimes another, and is not this to Dispute successfully? But whether we Confess or Deny this his popular Infallibility, it is all one to me, for here the Question is not about this, but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not opposed the Infallibility, attributed to the Pope and Councils; this is the true State of the Controversy, and Mr. Arnaud is at a loss how to defend himself from it.

WHAT signifies his telling us, that there are an infinite number of things, * 1.44 wherein not only the whole Church, and all the People of the Universe, but a particular number of People, a Province, a City, a Borough, a particular Person, is Infallible, that is to say wherein it cannot happen he should be deceiv∣ed himself, nor would deceive others? Wherefore must we have the Gaze∣tier brought in for an Instance of this, who is Infallible, when he tells us any considerable News, such as is the Kings going into the low Coun∣tries, the taking of Cities in Flanders, the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales, the Death of Pope Alexander the seventh, and the Election of Clement the ninth; If he relates this News only, to advertize us, he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries, every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting, for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book, altho 'tis already far ad∣vanced; but be it as it will, I dare say, that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be so certain as those of our Monarch. If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us, but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility,

I have reason to tell him, that these Instances are besides the matter in hand, for there must be a distinction made, betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Testimony of a single Person, or a particular sort of People, and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People. I would call the first if you will an Infallibility of Testimony, and the second, an Infallibility of Perseverance in one and the same State. There is a Difference betwen these two. The first of these may be attributed to a People, a Church, a Province, a City, or a particular Person, without the second. I will grant likewise 'tis im∣possible, in certain Cases, for the whole Body of a People to be mistaken in the News it relates, tho to speak the truth even this happens not seldom, there being nothing more usually false than popular News. But tho I grant this is Impossible in some Cases, yet this is far enough from acknowledging, that a People governed by certain Persons, may not insensibly without any Noise, alter their Sentiments, and pass over into an Opinion which they knew not before. For to make such a kind of Change as this is, there needs only the Concurrence of two or three great Persons in Authority, to whom all Businesses are referred. We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome, hath bin changed not long ago, and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons; Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes, and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseve∣rance in the same State, should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander. But after all, this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has op∣posed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to.

AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud, had he done me the Honour he mentions, which is, to have conferred with me about my Objection, and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him. I would have added two Observations, which would have made him better com∣prehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace, or Priviledge. The first of these Obser∣vations is, that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation, if suf∣ficiently preserved by natural means, that is to say, by the inviolable In∣clinations of the People, there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace; which will be at farthest, only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular, that is, to the Questions of the Schools, which the Church may well be without, and which are but (as speaks the Author of the Perpe∣tuity,) Theological Consequences. The second is, that the Reason where∣fore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibili∣ty for his Principle, than that of Grace, supposeth that this latter is abso∣lutely less evident, and harder to be proved than the first. This Infallibi∣lity of the Church, saies he, being denied by the Hereticks, cannot be made use * 1.45 of as a Principle against them, unless we establish it by separate Proofs. For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refu∣ted, upon the Subject of the Eucharist, if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them. All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false: But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church, which is Infallible: Therefore it is false. Not but this Reasoning is good: but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible, being a controverted Point, it is thence plain, that before it can be made use of, it must be proved, that is to say, there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility, before this Point could be used. For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in

it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God, reavealed in Scripture, The Church not being naturally Infallible, 'tis then by the Principles of Faith, or by a long Train of Arguments, that it must be proved she is supernaturally so. Now to make this Argument good, we must suppose that this Infalli∣bility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty, what∣soever Course is taken, whether by Scripture or Reason, for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture, Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain, for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it, seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self. His reasoning then to be conclusive, must sup∣pose 'tis impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibili∣ty of Grace, without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties. Whence it plainly appears, that this is not a proper Principle for the Un∣learned, who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion. It is of no use to them, according to Mr. Arnaud, and that so much the ra∣ther, that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such, whereby they may discern the true Church; Ways, saith he, which * 1.46 free men from those painful Dicussions, which Ignorance, dulness of Apprehen∣sion, and the Exigences of Life, do make so many Persons uncapable of. So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility, being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty, will be only serviceable to the Learned, and of which in effect they have no great need, seeing they can of them∣selves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines, without the help of Authority. And to this is reduced, thro Mr. Arnaud's means, this Infallibili∣ty of Grace and Priviledge, which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion.

THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book, treats, as I already said, on several other Alterations, which we pretend, have insensible crept into the Church. But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist, and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them, Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty, of saying what he pleases concerning them, for I think my self no ways bound to answer him. When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise, Blondel, or Daillé, after the manner he ought, he will not perhaps want an Answer. It is an easy matter, to joyn three or four Passages together, on any Controversy, and thereupon make Declamations. For this is the common course of the World. People usually begin where they will, and end when they please: but were one of these Books I mentioned, examined to the Bottom, and e∣very particular undertaken, I am sure this would not be such an easy Task.

THE supposition of insensible Alterations, is a Principle the Holy Scrip∣ture establishes, which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth. St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity, which began to appear in his time, and which would, in the end, produce this great effect, he calls a Revolt, or Apostasy; which has all the Characters of an insensible Change, seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time, and at length these mysteri∣ous Projects should come to their Perfection. Our Reason likewise tells us, that important Alterations which happen in Societies, are never introduced all of 'em at one time, but are brought in gradually; and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations, each one of which apart seems inconsiderable, and to make thereby a great Alteration, than if

this should be undertaken all at once. This is a Maxim amongst all Politici∣ans, and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize, but this many times happens of it self without any Design. Experience it self con∣firms this by sundry Examples; for 'tis after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection: Languages and Customs of Countries are al∣tered; 'Tis after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished; and not to seek for Instances of this kind, any far∣ther than in the Church, and Christian Religion, by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy arrived through several Ages to that De∣gree wherein we now see it. Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the ad∣ministration of Baptism abrogated, and other new ones adopted in their places. Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children, bin abolished, and we have passed over in∣to a contrary Opinion. Null us, saith St. Austin, Qui se meminit Catholicae * 1.47 fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo, sine cibo carnis ejus & sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam, ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios. There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith, that either denys, or doubts but that little Children, who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ, nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood, are deprived of everlasting Life, and consequently ly∣able to eternal Damnation.

LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed. St. Austin tells us that 'tis an Article of the Catholick Faith, he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it, that is, it was a popular Opinion: And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome: how comes this Change? We might produce several other Instances, if they were necessa∣ry: but at present one Example is sufficient, to overthrow this false Prin∣ciple of Mr. Arnaud's, and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable.

YET to speak a word, on each of these Points he has handled, does he think, that on the Subject of Episcopacy, his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom, who tells us, That before there were partialities in Religion, * 1.48 and that the People cryed out I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests, but since, every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him, and not to Christ, it was ordained throughout the whole World, that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests, should be set up above the rest, and have the Charge of the Church committed to him, to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme.

DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead, we will a∣bandon the Doctrine of St. Paul, who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, eternal in the Heavens. These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven, whence it fol∣lows they have no need of our Prayers. That if the Antients have menti∣oned the deceased in their Prayers, it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins, which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day pro∣pose in its Prayers. We Celebrate, (saith an antient Author in his Com∣mentaries * 1.49 on Job, which are thought to be Origens) Not the Day of our

Birth, but that of our Death; for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations; but that of Death is on the contrary, the end of Sorrows, and a Freedom from all Temptations. We commemorate then the Day of Death, because they who seem to dye, do not so. And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints, and devoutly commemorate our Fathers, or Friends who have departed in the Faith, as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy, as also to desire of God, that we may continue in the same Faith.

DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints: that we should believe him rather than O∣rigen, who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time, in his Dis∣pute against Celsus, who would have them to worship the Sun, Moon and Stars, seeing they are Celestial Angels. We believe saith he, we ought not * 1.50 to pray unto Creatures, who do themselves pray unto God, especially considering, they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him, whom they likewise serve, than to them, not being willing we should after any sort share our Devo∣tions.

AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats, Tertullian who was a Montanist, will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can, the Judgment * 1.51 of the Catholicks in his time. Arguunt nos, saith he, quod jejunia propria custodiamus, quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus, quod etiam Xe∣rophagias observemus, siccantes cibum ab omni carne, & omni jurulentia, & uvidioribus quibusque pomis, ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus. They censure us because we observe particular Fasts, that we make them last till the Evening, that we observe Xerophagies, using dry Meats without Flesh, and Juice, and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them, to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine. And a little farther, as to Xerophagies, they say, that 'tis the new Name of * 1.52 an affected Devotion, and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions, such as the Mortifications of Isis, Apis, and the Mother of the Gods, which puri∣fy by abstinence from certain Meats. And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars.

WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy, we need not pro∣ceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn, which may be said, without breach of Charity, equally to offend both in its quantity and quality. For having shewed, as I have done, that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected, upon the only consideration of its Method, it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece, Muscovia, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Aethiopia, and the Indias. Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact, what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries? Neither the Greeks nor other Christi∣an Nations, considered from the eleventh Century, or from the seventh, will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church, to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony. Yet shall I make him an exact Answer, not out of any Necessity, but only out of Con∣descension, and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars.

I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book, is grounded on an extravagant Fancy; That it cannot bear a rational

Interpretation; nor is made with any kind of Sincerity; that it supposeth a great Mistake; that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church of Rome; and in fine, may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Exam∣ple. Which is the Summary of the first Chapter.

II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect, and contra∣ry to Nature, seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact, and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments: which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding, as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful.

III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Auber∣tin's Book, and that after an indirect and artificial Manner, which lies as a Prejudication against him. Which is the Summary of the second Cha∣pter.

IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity, being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact, or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds, does nothing less than this, whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless. Which are the Contents of the third Cha∣pter.

V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity, in pre∣tending to defend him, and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise.

VI. That these Methods of Prescription, which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in, are vain and ineffectual, and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short, certain, and easy to the meanest Capacities: whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers, are tedious, diffi∣cult, uncertain, and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions: Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome.

VII. That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact, which I offer'd in my first Answer, has bin regular; and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion. These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter.

VIII. That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity, in relation to the Learned and Unlearned, and to those he terms the Obstinate; are groundless Imaginations, which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise. Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters.

IX, And lastly, that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity, nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils, it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome; Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter.

BOOK II.

Wherein is shown, that when it should be true, that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation; yet would it not thence follow, that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians.

CHAP. I.

Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches, and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present. Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open.

WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek, and other Eastern Churches, touching Transubstantia∣tion and the adoration of the Eucharist, and must en∣deavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insult∣ings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends. We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Tri∣umph, seeing all the World knows it. For the Author of the Perpetuity has * 1.53 already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side; and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing, is continually charging us with Absurdities, Rashness, Confidence, Con∣victions, Demonstrations, and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs. He tells the World in his Preface, that he hath left us no rea∣son * 1.54 to doubt, in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christi∣an Churches, in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. He tells us moreover in * 1.55 another place, that this is a Point most clear and evident, and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy, we should confess as much our selves, and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences. Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World; it had already gotten the Name of Invincible, like to that Legion of old, under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius, which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies. And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pre∣tended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations. Now if it be enqui∣red of Mr. Arnaud, what Advantage he can expect from this whole Contro∣versy; He will tell us, it is the Interest of the Catholick Church, and that be * 1.56 will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of

his Hand, seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery, wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World. That God preserves all these Christi∣an Societies, altho divided from his Church, and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up, nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite ex∣tinguisht amongst them, to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause, in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny. If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, have hitherto made use of this Argument; he will tell you, that no * 1.57 one yet hath exactly handled this matter. Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church, and this Proof, which is one of the most famous she hath, whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion, in respect of this Mystery, was reserved for Mr. Arnaud, and that the Divine Providence has not withheld, for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels, nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans, nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East, but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise, which was to be the Admiration of the Universe. You must not then think it strange, if he himself after this, hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes, and Dedicated even to the Head of the Ro∣mish Church, and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise. What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World. And this Honour has not bin wanting to it.

THE Author of the Enthusiasms says, that as the Son of God before his Birth, purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner, and having wrought this Miracle, left the Virgins Bosom, to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace; So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book, when as yet in the Bosom of its Author, has replenished a great Man with its Divinity, and having begun its Mira∣cles by this Conversion, was published in the time of this late Peace, made in the Roman Church. So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty.

NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum & numine numini libellum aequa∣re, ut gravibus licet Poetis. Iis omnibus diem subibis, O quantum omnibus Li∣belle faustis, quibus Sydereus subit puellus, qui dum delituit tenebricosus sacris vi∣sceribus Sacrae Puellae, quot miracula sunt secuta natum? Hoc monstro fuit auspicatus uno quod cum numinis ad sui perenne lumen & prodomo suo{que} Vali futuro in∣genitas fugâsset umbras, purgasset veteri{que} labe foedum, nil beatius aestimârit il∣le quam per pacificos subire plausus diem, & Virginis sinu Parentis involare si∣num recentioris pacis. Quid melius beatiusve iis ominibus diem videbis? O quantum ominibus libelle faustis, ex quo, dum latites tenebricosus, abs{que} sole, tui in sinu Parentis Dius—immigravit ardor affulsit{que} viro undequa{que} numen quod imas animi in sui medullas, quando ambilius vir ille sensit chartis gliscere de tuis libelle magis gliscere quo magis magis{que} lustraret latebras sinus{que} rerum tua luce, liber, nitoribus{que} raptus numine quo tumebat intus raptus numine, numen, ecce numen, ib numeni ait, severior{que} in se se exerit hoc sides libello, Enthu∣siasmo.

TO all which I have no more to say, but only that I am not at all concern∣ed at this pretended Divinity, and that Mr. Arnaud's Thunder has neither scared nor hurt me, his twenty Million of Witnesses are no more in my Ap∣prehension than twenty Millions of Phantasms; and in short I doubt not but I shall prove the Truth of these three Propositions. First, supposing that Mr. Arnaud is able to make good his Pretences concerning the Greek and o∣ther

Eastern Churches, from the eleventh Century to this present, it would not hence follow, that either the Alteration here in Question must be impos∣sible, or that it hath not actually hapned, and consequently, that this tedi∣ous Dispute on this Subject is vain and useless, in respect of the main of the Cause which I defend. Secondly, That the true Greek Church, and others whom the Latins call Schismaticks have never reckoned Transubstantiation, nor the Adoration of the Sacrament amongst the Articles of their Creed. Thirdly, That all Mr. Arnaud's Endeavours to prove the Affirmative, are In∣effectual, and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends. And for as much as it may not be amiss to enquire into the Reasons of this his pretended Triumph so loudly proclaimed, we shall therefore in confirming these three aforementioned Propositions, ob∣serve likewise how Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World, to the end his Pro∣ceedings may be the better laid open.

TO Evidence then the Truth of the first of them, we must begin from the State of the Eastern Churches, since the eleventh Century, that is to say from the time Berengarius was condemned, to this present, for by this means we shall come to know those happy Fields which have furnished Mr. Arnaud with so many Laurels, and at the same time discover the first of his Artifices, whereby he would conceal the Condition of those Churches, to the end he might make the World believe the Argument he draws from their Consent, hath all the Weight and Strength which it is possible for Arguments of this Nature to have. I say since the eleventh Century to this present, because that Mr. Arnaud having divided his Discourse touching the Greeks into two parts. The first from the seventh Century to the eleventh, and the other from the eleventh to this present, and having begun with this latter part, I am thereby obliged to follow his order, that I may accommodate my self as much as in me lies to his Method. It must then be remembred, the present Question only concerns these Churches, and especially that of the Greeks, from the eleventh Century to this present; for we shall examine in its place this other part of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse, which reacheth from the seventh to the eleventh Century.

IT must not be imagined, these Christian Churches are now in as flourish∣ing a Condition as they have bin heretofore. For they lost soon after the e∣leventh Century their antient Splendor, being fallen into a most profound Ignorance, and corruption of Manners, and a horrid Croud of Superstitions, and Disregard to the Mysteries of Religion; Which State of theirs instead of being amended by time, has grown every day worse.

WILLIAM Arch-Bishop of Tyre, describing the Causes of the Inun∣dations of the Barbarians into Syria, and the Holy Land, and of this long * 1.58 Servitude of the Eastern Christians; The Faith, saith he, and fear of God de∣parted the whole Earth, and especially from amongst them who styled themselves the Faithful. Justice and Equity were no longer to be found amongst them, for Fraud and Violence reigned everywhere, and Malice had taken up the Place of Virtue, so that the World seemed to be at its Period, and the time of the coming of the Son of Man at hand. For the Charity of many waxed cold, and there was no longer Faith to be found on Earth. The whole Face of things was changed, and a man would have thought the Universe to be at the point of falling into its antient Chaos. The Princes instead of keeping their Subjects in Peace, broke their Allyances and made War upon every frivolous Occasion. Wasting whole

Provinces by their Violences, and exposing the Goods of the Poor to the fury of the rude Soldiery, there being nothing which could be preserved from their Snares. Men were haled into Prison, and suffered the most exquisit Torments to make them confess and resign up their Estates. Neither could the Churches Treasure, nor Monasteries escape their Hands, altho their Priviledges and Immunities had bin granted by Princes. The Sanctuaries were Violently broke open; the Vessels dedicated to Gods Service, together with the Sacerdotal Vestments and Ornaments were forcibly carried away. The Churches were no longer a shelter to the Misera∣ble. The High-ways were filled with Robbers, who spared neither Pilgrims nor Religious. The Towns and Cities were as little free from Danger, being full of Cut-throats who la••d wait for innocent Blood. Fornication in all kinds was com∣mon, and suffered without shame or Punishment, as a thing lawful. Men added Incest to their Adulteries, and Chastity which is a Virtue so acceptable to God, was grown out of use amongst them, as well as Moderation and Sobriety, which were forced to give Place to Luxury and Drunkenness. And as to the Ecclesi∣asticks, they lived no more regularly than the others, it was the same with the Priest as with the People, as speaks the Prophet. For the Bishops growing care∣less, became dumb Dogs, having Respect to Persons; They besmeared their Heads with the Oyl of Sinners, like Hirelings abandoning their Flocks, and leaving them to the Mercy of Wolves; and becoming Simonists they forgat the Word of God, freely you have received, freely give. The Almighty then being provoked by so many Crimes, did not only suffer the Faithful in the Holy Land to remain in Bondage, but farther to Chastise them who were at Liberty, he stirred up Belphe∣rus the Satrapas of Persia and Assyria against Romainus Sur-named Diogenes, Emperour of the Greeks.

JAMES de Vitry, who makes almost the same Observations touch∣ing * 1.59 Gods Displeasure against his Church, addeth moreover a thing very likely, which is, that the Carelesness and Ignorance of the Prelates, and the several Heresies, which had then Infected the East; occasioned the succesful∣ness of the Mahometan Religion.

LEO Allatius, discoursing of the State of the Greeks during the twelfth * 1.60 Century, tells us that, after the Death of the Emperor Emanuel, the Grecian Empire began every Day to Decay, either by the Incursions of them of the West, and the Barbarians of the East, or else through the softness and delicacy, or Ty∣ranny of the Emperors, or Avarice of their Ministers; and frequent Insurrecti∣ons of the Nobility, till such time as at length, this Empire was miserably op∣pressed by the Armies of the Latins. Religion it self likewise was involved in the Ruin of the Empire, for matters were no longer determined by Reason and Honesty, but by Rage and Hatred, which transported mens Spirits into Rashness and Fury. At that time all things were in Confusion, Divine and Prophane, the Just and Unjust were mixt together without any Discrimination, and these Christi∣ans (who had indeed no more of Christianity but the Name) instead of obeying the Doctrine of the Church, minded nothing but how to be revenged on their Enemies.

WILLIAM de Rubruquis an Emissary sent by Pope Innocent the fourth * 1.61 to the Tartars, in the Year 1253. Relates that the Allains, which are saith he a kind of Christians that speak the Greek Language, and have Grecian Priests, but are so Ignorant, that they know not any of the Ceremonies belonging to the Christian Religion, and scarcely have learned any thing more than the Name of Christ.

THE Author of the History of the Council of Florence, relates a mat∣ter * 1.62 which sufficiently shews the Ignorance and small Capacity of the Greeks, for he tells us, that when the Emperor John Paleologus determined to go in Person to the Council, and take along with him some of his Clergy, he sent for Marcus of Ephesus and George Scholarius, who altho they were the most Learned in the Empire, yet were fain to apply themselves to the study∣ing of Cabasilas's Treatise, and to sent to Mount Athos for Books, to the end they might be instructed in the Points Controverted between the two Churches.

AND 'tis in effect in the Monasteries of this Mount, wherein hath for a long time bin confined all the Knowledg and Learning of this Church, to * 1.63 which Mr. Arnaud Consents; for he tells us, that this Place is the Seminary of all the Religious in the East, because they who are there Educated, do afterwards disperse themselves over all the Provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and are usually setled as Superiours over the rest. So that adds he, the Doctrine of Mount Athos, is the same of that of all the Religious of the East, and the Belief of the Religious of the East, is the same with that of all the Bishops, who are all taken hence. Whereupon we may conclude I think from Mr. Arnaud's own Testimony, that the Knowledg at Athos is that of all Greece, and con∣sequently to understand wherein consists this Knowledg, we need but Read what they Relate who have travelled into these Countries. The Greeks be∣longing * 1.64 to the Monastery of Mount Athos, saies Belon, have bin far more Learned heretofore than at present. There are not any of them now but are very Ignorant, there being not to be found above one knowing Calojer in each Monaste∣ry. He that desires to have Books of Divinity, in Manuscripts may be furnish∣ed with some, but as for any Books of Philosophy or Poetry they have none. We must attribute this loss of Greek Books to the Carelessness and Ignorance of that People who are totally Degenerated. And not only within our own Memory, but for a long time there has not bin any Learned Man thro out all Greece. A∣mongst the six thousand Calojers that Inhabit the Mountain, in so great a Mul∣titude I say, scarcely can we find above two or three in a Monastery that can Write and Read.

JOHN Cottovic speaking of the Monks of this Mount, and others that in∣habit * 1.65 the Mountains of Sinay and Olympus, tells us they apply themselves parti∣cularly to Husbandry, that they Live on their Labour, and that there are few of them addicted to Study, the greatest part of them being very Stupid and Ignorant.

HE that wrot the Voyage of Mr. De la Haye who went Embassador from the late King to Constantinople, gives almost the same account of the Learn∣ing * 1.66 of those good Religious: we Visited, saith he, Mount Athos, which they of that Country call the Holy Mountain, because of five thousand Calojers who live in great Austerity in twenty three Monasteries about it; these Religious are of St. Basils Order, and acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople for their Head. They are greater Lovers of an Active than a Contemplative Life, for there are few of them that can read; so that the greatest part employ themselves in Tilling of the neighbouring Grounds, which are very fertil. * 1.67

ANTHONY Caucus Arch-Bishop of Corfu, giving an Account to Pope Gregory the thirteenth, of the State of the Greek Church in his time, de∣scribes it after this manner. There is no body but knows, saies he, that the

Arts and Sciences came from Greece, as the Hero's out of the Trojan Horse. But it is now much otherwise, for I found so much Ignorance of all things amongst these modern Greeks, and especially the Priests that have the charge of Instruct∣ing the People, that scarcely do they know how to read the Church Service. And we need not be astonished at this: for those that are called to the Exercise of the Ministry are Tradesmen, who leaving their Shops and Trades become immediate∣ly Papa's. It is ordinarily observed in Greece, that to day you may see a man who is a Taylor, to become to morrow a Priest. To day he is a Perfumer or Barber, who the next day is a Papas. To day a Goldsmith, and to morrow a Prelate. If you ask them concerning their Belief, or Ceremonies, and require a Reason for their Customs, they return no other Answer, but they follow their Predecessors. If you proceed farther and ask who these Predecessors were, they become mute.

THE same John Cottovic whose Testimony I already produced concern∣ing the Monks of Mount Athos, Olympus, and Sinay, affirms the Religious thro out all Greece, to be no better learned than those aforementioned, That * 1.68 which I find, saies he, most despicable in this Nation, is, they have no town nor Ci∣ty, wherein there are any Schools or Colledges for the bringing up of their Youth. Neither take they care to form their Childrens Minds, to Arts or Sciences. They are so averse to Learning, that they seem as it were to be afraid of it: So that we may truly affirm, Learning is wholly banished from Greece, which was here∣tofore the Mother of it. For at this day there is not the least Trace to be found of it, the Greeks becoming Barbarians with the Barbarians.

BELON made the same Observation before him: All the Greeks, saith * 1.69 he, as well those under the Venetians, as them under the Turkish Empire, are so marvelously Ignorant at this day, that there is not a City thro out all their Coun∣try, wherein there is any University; for they care not to have their Children In∣structed.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Francisan Fryar, who was an Emissary in Bar∣bary, * 1.70 tels us (in his Description of the Holy Land, That the greatest part of the Religious and Secular Priests (he means of the Greeks in Palestine) are extreamly Ignorant, and apply themselves to mean Exercises, and mechanical Arts.

Mr. Thevenot confirms the same, in his Voyages, where speaking of the * 1.71 Greeks of the Isle of Chios. Learning, saith he, is a Stranger to them of that Country, being all extreamly Ignorant. And a little farther, speaking of the Island of Nixia, and of a Church there, it is served, saies he, by Monks, who are all of 'em Peasants, void of Learning, and 'tis not only so there, but 'tis the same in all the Islands of the Archipelago, they are so Ignorant that it may be truly said of them, they Worship the unknown God.

FRANCIS Richard the Jesuit, in his Relation concerning the Isle of * 1.72 St. Erinis, makes the same Observation, the Ignorance, saies he, of our My∣steries is so great in Turkey, especially where the Emissari's have not frequented, that I wonder, considering the several particular Difficulties in our Faith, and the Temptations they have offered them to leave it, that all of 'em do not take the Turbant, after the same manner as them of Candia, where above sixty thousand Persons have already done it.

DU Loir, discoursing of the Arnautes, or Albanoises, (that are a kind of Peo∣ple * 1.73 whose Original is scarcely known,) they are, saies he, dispersed over the Cam∣pains of Greece and call themselves Christians, but yet know nothing of our Re∣ligion more than the Name, and exercise no more of it but the Sign of the Cross.

BUT it may be perhaps answered, there ought not to be the same judg∣ment made of the Greeks at Constantinople; seeing the Patriarchal Church being there, it is likely they are not so Ignorant as the others, where the same Care has not bin taken for the Preservation of Religion. I am willing to believe that if there be any Knowledg left in Greece, the Church of Con∣stantinople hath it, and yet if we would know the Condition of this Church we need but read John Barbarean's the Jesuits Letter which was written from * 1.74 Constantinople, the tenth of July, 1667. The Schismatical Greeks, saies he, which are in this City to the Number of three hundred Thousand, are so many Souls to be won to our Saviour, because that in effect, after they have told us they are Christians, and for a Testimony thereof have crossed themselves, there is no other sign of Christianity to be expected from them: for as to what concerns Pray∣ers and other religious Exercises they are Names and Things unknown to them. I have oftentimes asked Persons whom I took to be the most intelligent amongst them, whether there were more Gods than one, and whether Jesus Christ from whom they derived their Name, was God and Man, and several other Questions which are put to Children in France, when they learn their Catechism. But they all of 'em answered they were not so deeply learned in Divinity as to answer such great Points, and when I told them they were bound to know these things under Pain of Damnation, I perceived they were not much troubled thereat, for as they believed nothing, so they feared nothing. Now not only the common People and Seculars are no better Learned, but most of their Prelates, and others of the Clergy. I have oftentimes asked the Priests of religious Orders, who were brought up all their life times in Monasteries, concerning their Belief, whether they thought there was more than one God, and whether Jesus Christ was the true God, and other principal Mysteries, but I could not find one amongst them able to answer me. And some of 'em being ashamed of their own Ignorance and Stupidity, made this Excuse, that their Abbot knew all these things, but for their parts they ne∣ver studied Divinity. And demanding how it was possible they could live twenty or thirty Years in a Monastery, without hearing any Mention made of these neces∣sary Points, they thereupon told me, that in Monasteries and in all other places, all their Endeavours are laid out in getting their Living; (He afterwards tells us) that one of the chiefest Causes of this Disorder is, that the Patriarch buys his Patriarchate, and sells all other Ecclesiastical Promotions, and that the Arch-Bishops, and Bishops do the same to their inferiour Clergy. Neither must we imagine other Eastern Christians in a better Condition than the Greeks. Pietro Della Vallé a famous Traveller, assures us, that the Christians at Bag∣dad, being of several Communions, know nothing of Religion, but its Name, and * 1.75 to make the sign of the Cross, having no Churches, Sacraments, nor Persons who can administer them, or if they have, their Priests are so Ignorant that 'tis im∣possible for them to instruct the People in those things, they themselves do not understand.

THE same Author speaking of the Christians of Presbyter John, there * 1.76 are, saies he, I know not how many Chaldean Christians, called Christians of St. John or Sabea, but have no more of Christianity than the name, for they have

no other Church but the Lodgings of a Priest, a very ignorant man, which place they had in my time, and where scarcely any body assists at Divine Service. They keep no Fasts, nor observe any Abstinence from Meats, Eating indifferently of all sorts, neither have they scarcely any thing like a Sacrament amongst them. He observes the same concerning the Georgiens, they are, saies he, less in∣fected * 1.77 with Errors than others, and being less addicted to Learning than the Greeks, they have less Malice, and more Ignorance.

THOMAS Herbert, a famous English Man, (whose Voyages are Trans∣lated into French, by Mr. De Vicqfort) speaking of these same Georgiens, in * 1.78 the City of Assepose, saies he, and thereabouts, dwell near forty thousand Geor∣giens, and Circassians, who all of 'em profess Christianity, but live most misera∣ble Lives, being Slaves, and destitute moreover of all Knowledg of the Christian Mysteries, only they have a great Veneration for St. George, who was Bishop of Cappadocia, and their Apostle.

AS to what concerns the Coptites, they are said to be as Ignorant as any of * 1.79 the rest. These Coptites, saies Mr. Thevenot, are a sort of very dul and stu∣pid People, so that there can be hardly found a Person amongst them who is fit to be a Patriarch, Montconys, after the same manner tells us, that the Coptites * 1.80 hold the heretical Doctrine of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and are very Ignorant in matters of Religion.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Franciscan Fryer, one of the Popes Emissaries * 1.81 in Barbary, speaking of these Coptites, tells us, That this Nation is the most dull and Ignorant of all the Eastern Christians. They are never heard to discourse concerning Divine Mysteries, or Religious Matters. The greatest part of their Priests can neither Write nor Read, and seem to act with as little Reflection as bruit Beasts, as far as I could perceive, all the time I sojourned in Egypt, He adds, that the greatest part of the Religious, who dwell in Monasteries in the Deserts of Thebes, are extream Brutish, and work like Horses.

Mr. De Sponde Bishop of Pamiez, giving an Account in his Annals of a * 1.82 pretended Union of the Coptites with the Church of Rome, made in the Year 1561, Pius the fourth being Pope, he tells us amongst other things, that their Patriarch whose Name was Gabriel, was a very ignorant Man, and one of their Errors was, they reckoned seven Sacraments, and instead of those of Marriage, Confirmation, and extream Unction, they substituted Faith, Fasting, and Prayer, which they adopted into the Number of Sacra∣ments. The Armenians are no less Ignorant, for Anthony de Gouveau tells us * 1.83 they are a Peope wholly Unlearned and Simple, and that moreover David their Pa∣triarch knew no more than only to Write and Read in his own Language, which is, adds he, a thing very common amongst them.

JOHN Barbereau, a Jesuit whom I already mentioned, saies they are in Constantinople to the number of above sixty Thousand; and are, if possible, more Ignorant than the Greeks. They hold the same Errors with them, and have a particular Heresy which distinguishes them from the rest. Their Ignorance, ad∣deth he, is so great, that I have heard themselves say, they never go to Church * 1.84 but when they Consecrate, knowing neither the Use nor Design of that Mystery, and who can instruct them in these things? their Patriarchs and Prelates are busied in getting Mony, like the Greeks, that they may have whereon to live.

VINCENT le Blanc, speaking of the Christians of the India's, cal∣led the Christians of St. Thomas, and who follow the Nestorian Heresy, the * 1.85 Christians of these Places, saies he, have still retained some part of the Instructi∣ons left them by St. Thomas, but they are extream Ignorant in the principal Ar∣ticles of Faith, and know not how to sing in their Churches, so that 'tis a hard matter to keep them in any kind of Tune.

THE Inhabitants of the Isle of Socotora, saies Du Jarric the Jesuit, call themselves Christians (being likewise Christians of St. Thomas, that is to say * 1.86 Nestorians) they very much honour and reverence the Cross. They are all of them very Ignorant, so that they can neither Write nor Read, and 'tis the same with their Caciques (that is to say their Priests) who having learned certain Prayers by rote, sing them in the Church, and often repeat a Word which comes near to our Halleluja.

THIS same Du Jarrick, who wrote the History of the Reduction of the Nestorians of Malabar to the Obedience of the Pope, which was brought to pass by Alexis de Meneses Arch-Bishop of Goa in the Year 1599, does suffi∣ciently set forth the Ignorance of this People. For he tells us, that there was so great Confusion amongst them, in respect of the essential form of Baptism, that eve∣ry Cacanar (for so do they call their Priests) baptised after a several manner, and the greatest part of them, (addeth he) cannot be said in any kind to admini∣ster the Sacrament, seeing they use not Words essential thereunto. So that the Arch-Bishop found one of the greatest Towns of this Bishoprick of (Angomalé) to have bin deficient in this important Point of our Religion, whereupon he pri∣vately Baptised the greatest part of the People, after a right and due manner. He relateth moreover that there were several amongst them who were not Baptised at all, and yet received the Eucharist, which was a very common thing amongst them, that they usually did not Baptise their Children till some Months or Years after their Birth: and that there were some at ten or eleven years of Age Unbaptized. That they were wont every Sunday to kindle a Fire in the middle of the Church, and having cast Incense thereon, every one drew near to take of the Smoak with his Hand, with which carry∣ing it to their Breasts, they thought thereby their Sins were chased out of their Souls. He adds, that the Latin Bishop which was sent them, after their Reduction, visited several Places of his Diocess, in which there had no Prelate bin for this thirty Years, where he found such a Degeneracy both as to Points of Faith and Manners, that most of them had no more of Christianity in them but the Name.

ALTHO the Maronites have bin long since reconciled to the Church of Rome, yet are they not better Instructed than the rest. Joseph Besson in his Treatise of the Holy Land, saies, They are striken with four Plagues worse than the Plagues of Egypt, viz, Ignorance, want of Devotion, Usury, and Injustice, they can scarcely be perswaded, saies he, that the second Person of the Trinity is the Son of God; and that Jesus Christ who is God, dyed, and that God ever had a Son. It is incredible say they with the Turks; How can he have a Son see∣ing he was never married? and if he was God how could he dye?

I could easily produce several Testimonies touching the State of the Mos∣covites, Abyssins, and Jacobites; for their Condition is no better than the rest, God having suffered all these Churches which were heretofore so favoured

with the Light of his Truth, to fall insensibly into so great Darkness, that a man can scarce perceive the least Mark of Christianity amongst them. There is not in Moscovia, saies Possevin the Jesuit, any Greek Books or Aca∣demies; having made diligent Search for some that understood Greek, I could find none. They have heaped up Error upon Error, and altho they brag of their * 1.87 Christianity above other People, yet do they refer all things to the Wisdom of their Prince as to an Oracle, having imbibed this Principle from their Infancy. They value not Strangers nor suffer them to come into their Country unless they be Po∣landers, Germans, or Portugaises, for they despise all others. He saies more∣over * 1.88 the Moscovits have such Confidence in their Prince, that when they are asked touching any Point, they commonly answer, God only and our Prince know that. Our great Czar knows all things, he can immediately solve all Diffi∣culties. There is no Religion whose Ceremonies and Opinions he is not acquainted with. Whatsoever we have or are, whether on Horsback, or in Health, 'tis all owing to our great Prince, he saies farther, they have neither Schools nor Aca∣demies amongst them, only bringing up their Children to Write and Read, learn∣ing them the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, a certain Chronicle which they have, with some of St. Chrysostom's Homelies, and the Lives of some of their Saints, that should any Person endeavour to make a farther Progress in Learning, he would be in danger of being punished. As to their Priests and Monks, he assures us, they are prodigiously Ignorant, for having demanded of them who was the founder of their Order, not one of them could answer him; and as to the People he saies, they work at all times, not excepting Sundaies and Holy∣daies, and think it belongs to Gentlemen, and not to them to frequent the Church. That they are very well pleased with their own Simplicity, and often make the Sign of the Cross, and are great Worshippers of Images. As concerning the Russians, which are under the King of Polands Government, he saies, that sometimes their Bishops performe the Divine Service in Greek, altho few of them, if any, do understand that Language, and that they are very Ignorant in Divi∣nity.

AS to the Abyssins, the Relation of the Jesuit Paez, which Du Jarrick has inserted in his History of the East Indias, gives us sufficiently to understand their Ignorance. For he tells us, that the Spiritualities of the Empire, depend wholly on the Emperour. That the Ecclesiasticks do nothing but what he would have them, and that should he command them all to turn Catholicks, they would not disobey him. He tells us he disputed with one of them, upon occasion of the legal Ceremonies which they observe, and that this Person could not tell how to answer him otherwise, than that there were some who could sa∣tisfy him on that Point. He farther adds, That these People knowing little, there was immediately spread a Report concerning me, that I was a great Doctor, and thereupon never came any Person afterwards to dispute with me. Du Jarric observes that the Jesuit Paez having taught some Children their Catechisme, the King and all his Court were so astonished at the matter, that he told those about him, saying, what should our Monks dispute with this Father for, who are not able to answer these little Children, the plain Truth of it is, we have neither Doctrine, nor Instruction, neither any thing more than the Name of Christians.

MAFFEUS the Jesuit, relates, that a Priest named Gonsalvus Rhode∣rick, sent from Goa to Claudus King of the Abyssins, in the Year 1556. Found * 1.89 him and his greatest Courtiers very Ignorant both in the Knowledg of Councils, and all kinds of Divine and Humane Learning. These are his own Words.

Mr. De Sponde, relating in his Ecclesiastical Annals the principal Articles * 1.90 of their Belief, according to the Confession of Zaga Zabo, concludes in these Terms. They have so many ridiculous Fopperies amongst them, that they have scarcely any thing more of Christianity than the Name.

MOREOVER they are not only Ignorant of the Mysteries of Religi∣on, but likewise in all kinds of Learning, which made Besson the Jesuit say concerning Syria. That the Sciences are more rare in the Eastern Parts than the Phenix, and mechanical Arts more prized than Sciences, wherefore, addeth he, the continual multitude of Books which encrease every Day in Europe, con∣tinually decrease in Syria. The best of them have already passed the Seas, seve∣ral of which are to be seen in the Libraries in France, so that those which remain are very ordinary ones.

TO this gross Ignorance, we may joyn their Superstition, the usual attendant of Ignorance; for 'tis certain these People are incredibly guilty of * 1.91 it. The Armenians according to the Testimony of Nicephorus, still Celebrate Easter after the manner of the Jews, slaying Sheep and Oxen, and sprinkling the Posts of their Doors, with the Blood of a Lamb, and instead of communicat∣ing of the Blood of our Saviour, they Sacrifice a Lamb, which being Roasted they divide it amongst them. This Custom being a very antient one, is yet in use amongst them.

BESSON the Jesuit tells us, They call this Sacrifice Korban, and that he that offers it, causeth a Sheep to be brought to the Church Porch, where the Priest * 1.92 blesses Salt, and puts it down the Throat of the Sacrifice, afterwards Consecrates the Knife, and then laies his Hand on the Head of the Sheep and cuts its Throat, The Bishop and Priest take their Share, one part whereof is distributed to the Poor, and another serves for the Feast, which is Celebrated with all publick Testimonies of Rejoycing. The same Emissary informs us, that the great Disorders of the Levant are its Superstitions, and the Peoples Recourse to Magicians, the number of whom is very Considerable amongst Christians, whose Poverty and Sicknesses make them use these wretched Remedies,

THE Coptites, and Abyssins, besides Baptism, use Circumcision, which they receive the eighth day, after the manner of the Jews. The Abyssins * 1.93 Baptise themselves every Year on Twelfth Day, in the Lakes or Ponds, in re∣membrance of our Saviours Baptism. Possevin relates the same of the Moscovites. For he tells us that twice a Year, viz. on the day of the Epiphany, and that of the Assumption, the Metropolitan Blesses the River of Mosco; and that the Priests Bless after the same manner other Rivers, that several Men and Women Wash themselves therein with the Ceremony of a triple Immersion; that the Horses and Images are Baptised in like manner, and that this in their Language is called Baptism. * 1.94

I scarce know what to think of that Custom amongst the Greeks, of tak∣ing up their Dead, a Year after they are buried. If they find their Bodies are not yet consumed, they examine what remains of them, and if it doth not stink, but hath a good Colour, they esteem that Person a Holy Man: But if on the contrary, the Corps be Black or Swelled, they repute him to have bin an ill Liver, and an Excommunicated Person. Wherefore it is, that in their form of Excommunication, one of their Imprecations is, that such a Person

may not be consumed after Death, neither in this World nor in that which is to come, but that he may be swelled like a Drum. They verily believe this is per∣fectly accomplished: And Leo Allatius tells us several Stories of those Phan∣tasms which they call Burcolaques, which are saith he, Excommunicated Per∣sons, who being deceased torment the living, and of whom the Greeks are as much afraid, as our Children, when we tell them of Fryar Bourru's Ghost. Nay so greatly are they Prepossessed with false Opinions, as to imagine an Ex∣communication pronounced by a Christian that afterwards turns Turk, pro∣duces the same Effect, that is to say, keeps the Body from Consuming, and causes it to grow hard and swell, till such time as this Excommunication be taken off by him who pronounced it, altho never so great an Infidel. Which is confirmed by Leo Allatius concerning the Patriarch Raphael, who to dis∣solve * 1.95 the Body of an excommunicated Person, was forced to apply himself to a Renegado for his Absolution.

WE may reckon in the Number of the Grecian Superstitions, the belief they have long held, touching a Miracle that happens every Year, in the Se∣pulcher at Jerusalem, on the Saturday before Easter, which is, That all the Lamps being extinguished, the Patriarch enters alone into the Sepulcher, and God sends a Beam of Light from Heaven, wherewith he kindles the Torch he holds in his hand, and therewith lights all the rest. Which is per∣formed * 1.96 with great Ceremony, and publick Acclamations of Rejoycing, not only by the Greeks, but all the Eastern Christians which are at Jerusalem, for they all hold this Miracle to be true.

NEITHER do they at all suspect the Truth of another Miracle, which * 1.97 they say happens once a Year in Caire, near the River of Nile, and which lasts from Holy Thursday to Ascension Day. Which is, that in several Countries the dead Bodies arise out of their Graves: But this Miracle only happens when they celebrate Easter according to antient Custom; Where∣as should they Celebrate it according to the new Kalender, the Miracle would infallibly cease, as it fell out about fourscore or a hundred Years since, when the Greeks altered the time of the Celebration, upon which the dead Bodies arose no more, and the Sacred Fire was also withheld from the Sepulcher, which obliged them to the Observance again of the former Day, whereupon the Miracles returned. And this Relation we have from Christo∣phorus Angelus, and some others. We might give a farther Description of the Ignorance and Superstition of these poor People, were not what has bin already mentioned sufficient to inform the World of M. Arnaud's vain Triumphs. For when it should appear that all these Sects held Transubstan∣tiation and the real Presence, what Advantage would accrue to him thereby? Would it hence appear impossible that these Doctrines have crept in amongst them, by the same means the true Mysteries of Christianity have slipt out; for Ignorance and Superstition are but sorry keepers of Evangelical Truths. It is easy to impose on these People whose Minds have bin so darkned with Er∣rours, all marks of Christianity having bin long since lost amongst them. They may be made believe any thing, being in this respect as white Paper, whereon men may write what they please. There needs but one mans falling into an Errour, to draw all the rest after him. And this Mr. Poulet hath well * 1.98 observed in the Account he gives us of the Nestorians, who still obstinately re∣tain their old Errours, for which Reason they are hated by all the Levantine Christians, They know not what they Believe, saies he, being ready to receive a∣ny new Opinion, be it what it will, provided it includes not a Submission to the

Holy See. Which is as much as to say, they are not firm or Precautioned, against any Article but that of Obedience to the Pope, having bin oftentimes tempted, and sometimes surprized into an acknowledgment of his Suprema∣cy, but as to other Points, they are very Ductil, being ignorant of their Meaning. And these are such People Mr. Arnaud desires, and who seem to him fit Objects to ground his Dispute on. He thought to make his Advan∣tage of this Confusion; but certainly he ought to give the World a true ac∣count of these Matters, and not so highly to extol his own Victories, seeing the Honour of them is much diminished by what I have allready offered.

CHAP. II.

That the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Cen∣tury, and the Efforts the Latins have ••ade to communicate to them their Religion, do invalidate the Proof which is pretended to be drawn from their Belief. Mr. Arnaud's Artifice discovered.

HERE is then Mr. Arnaud's first Deceit detected, which consists in the concealing from us the real Condition wherein this People have so long layn, as to Religion, to the end the weakness of his Arguments may lye undiscovered.

The second consists in setting before us several impertinent historical Pas∣sages, on purpose to avert his Readers Mind, from a due Consideration of those things which he knows would prove disavantagious to him. It is with∣out doubt a very disingenuous Artifice, thus to change the natural Use and Order of things, and snatch out of mens Sights the true and important Con∣sequences may be drawn thence, by substituting others which are but mere Amusements. And yet this Mr. Arnaud has done: for not being able to de∣ny that the temporal State of the Eastern People, since the eleventh Centu∣ry, hath very much facilitated the Attempts of the Latins, establishing their Doctrines in those Parts; He thereupon supposes I affirm the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation: and under pretence of opposing this Fancy sprung from his own Brain, he retails out the History of the East, to shew that the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist. I will not insist at present on the little reason he had to charge me with this Opinion; I shall make it appear in the following parts of this Discourse, that this is his Chimera and not mine. I shall only represent here the same historical Passages, Mr. Arnaud has pro∣duced, in that manner wherein they ought to be proposed, to make a right Judgment of this Dispute, and not in that false View wherein he has re∣presented them. In a Word, I pretend to manifest by those very things he has offered and Perverted, That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians doe believe Transubstantiation, as fully as the Church of Rome, yet does it not thence follow that this Doctrine has bin perpetual in that Church:

seeing they might have received it from the Latins.

FIRST then Mr. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove, there has bin a frequent Commerce between the Greeks and Latins, for he tells us that * 1.99 Pisa, Venice, Rome, and several other Cities of Italy were full of Greeks, That Constantinople was full of Latins, and Latin Churches; that the Armies were usually made up of Greek, Italian, and French Soldiers, which were continually in great Numbers at Jerusalem, where they communicated in the same Churches from the Hands of the Patriarch, and Priests of that City; That so great was the multitude of Pilgrims, that they administred the Sacrament every Day, that Persons of the greatest Quality, namely Kings, Princes, and Prelates, and La∣dies of the highest Rank, undertook these Pilgrimages, and that Jerusalem was then, that is to say in the eleventh Century, a place whereunto all the Nations of the World resorted.

I shall not now enter into a Debate concerning what he tells us touching the Christians receiving the Communion at Jerusalem, from the Pa∣triarch and Priests of that City. He affirms it without proving it, for there is very little likelyhood that ••ersons of different Churches, who were so greatly divided, would receive the Communion together from the same Person. But be it as it will, I am so far from raising a Contest about this frequent Commerce of the Greeks, with the Latins, that I take it for granted, to the end I may thereby demonstrate to Mr. Arnaud the weakness of his Ar∣gument. For when he shall prove, that the Greeks believe the Conver∣sion of Substances, and adore the Sacrament, he may then well con∣clude against me, that I have bin guilty of Rashness in denying it: but he cannot any ways thereby advantage his Cause, seeing it will remain still to be examined, whether these People did not receive these Doctrines from the Latins, by means of their mutual Commerce since Berengarius was last condemned. What I related in the preceeding Chapter touching the Igno∣rance which hath reigned for so long a time in those Countries, and the foo∣lish Superstitions which were introduced, even without our Knowledg of their Original, will ever render this Supposition probable, it being no diffi∣cult matter to conceive that a Doctrine of this Nature might creep in, in the Dark amongst ignorant and superstitious People, who held a perpetual Com∣merce with others, that make open Profession of this Doctrine.

Mr. Arnaud proceeds farther, and relates the History of the Croisado's to∣wards the end of the eleventh Century, and in the twelfth, for the Conquest * 1.100 of the Holy Land; and this History does well deserve our Notice; For there will result from it these two Truths, the one, that the bad Condition of the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians obliged them, how Proud and Haughty soever they might otherwise be, to a servile Complacency with the Latins, and to an accommodation with their Humours and Interest: And the other that the Latines have not neglected this favourable Occasion, which the Con∣juncture of Affairs then offered them, to establish their Religion in the East.

WE all know in what Condition Palestine, Syria, and Egypt lay, when * 1.101 those of the West went thither. The Saracens had overrun these Coun∣tries from Heraclius his time, that is to say from the seventh Century, and the Power of these Infidels grew formidable to all the World, whilst the Greeks strength continually decayed, whether by the Supinity of their Em∣perours,

or by the horrible Crimes with which the same Emperours disho∣noured their Throne. The Turks, having subdued Persia, overspread the whole East, and possessed themselves of Palestine, Syria, Cilicia, Isauria, Pam∣philia, * 1.102 Lycia, Pisida, Lyconia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus, Bythinia; and moreover of a considerable part of Asia minor, and so greatly terrified the Greeks, as relates Wm. of Tyre, that scarcely did they repute themselves safe within the Walls of Constantinople, altho the Sea was as a Rampire betwixt them. The Christians in the East had already received the Benefit of Char∣lemain's Intercession for them to Aron, under whose Government they then * 1.103 lived. But this lasted not long, for the Miseries into which they fell after∣wards became so intollerable, that towards the end of the eleventh Century, Simeon Patriarch of Jerusalem, according to the Relation of Wm. of Tyre, * 1.104 and James de Vitry, resolved to procure the Assistance of the Latins, and write to Pope Urban the second, and the Western Princes, as well in his own Name, as in that of the whole Church, by means of a French Pilgrim called Peter the Hermit, a Native of the Diocess of Amiens. Wm. of Tyre ob∣serves that in the Conference the Patriarch had with this Hermit, he told him, amongst other things, That they could expect no help from the Greeks, al∣tho of the same Blood with them, and their Neighbours, because they could hard∣ly preserve themselves, having fallen into such a Declension, that within a short time they had lost above half their Empire. In effect, Mr. Arnaud hath him∣self very well observed; that the Emperours of Constantinople finding them∣selves * 1.105 unable to withstand the Turkish Power; implored the Assistance of the Christian Princes in Europe and especially that of the Pope, who at that time was the most Powerful even in Temporals of all Christendom, and that Alexis Com∣nenus sent for that Purpose Embassadors to the Council of Plaisance.

THIS then was the true State of Affairs amongst the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians, which forced them to a great Complyance with the Latins, from whose Assistance they expected their Establishment.

THESE Letters of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Entreaties of Alexis, together with the Sollicitations of Peter the Hermit, procured the Expedition of the Latins into Syria and Palestine. The Success is known; I shall say no more but that the Christians of that Country, only changed their Masters; for the Lattins setled themselves there, not only as Friends, and Deliverers, but Conquerors, which made all things depend on their Will, for as soon as ever they possessed themselves of Syria and Palestine, they e∣stablished Latin Bishops there, and drove out the Greek Bishops from their Churches that would not yield Obedience to the Roman Church, nor ac∣commodate themselves to its way of Worship. Mr. Arnaud does not wholly accord with me in this. We must imagine, saies he, there was a mil∣lion * 1.106 of Transubstantiators that passed over from Europe into Asia, and made themselves Masters of a great part of these Eastern Provinces. As soon as they took any City, there was established in it a Bishop of the Latin Communion with a sufficient Clergy for the Service of that Church. Sometimes the Christians of the East ranged themselves under his Obedience, and othertimes they were per∣mitted to have a Bishop of their own Choosing. He farther adds, that after the taking of Antioch, there was no other Patriarch established than him that was there before, and that he remained for the space of two Years. That after the taking of Jerusalem and other Cities of Syria and Palestine, there was another Patriarch made, and several Latin Bishops, the Greeks and other Christians of Syria being left at their own Liberty as to their communicating with the Latins.

THIS pretended Moderation of the Latins is first of all refuted by the same Author whom Mr. Arnaud quoted, who is James de Vitry. James de Vitry, saies he, Testifies that the Christians of Syria, who were of the same Re∣ligion with the Greeks, had Bishops of their own. 'Tis not possible for an * 1.107 Author to be cited with less Sincerity; for these are James de Vitry's Words; The Syrians exactly observe the Customs and Ordinances of the Greeks in the Celebration of Divine Service, and other Spiritual matters, and obey them as their Superiours. But as to the Latin Prelates in whose Diocesses they live, they * 1.108 freely affirm they obey them with their Mouths, but not in their Hearts, super∣ficially, and for fear of their temporal Lords. For they have their own Greek Bishops, and would dread neither the Excommunications nor other Laws of the Latins, did they not fear our Lay-men would break off all Trade and Commerce with them. For they say amongst themselves the Latins are Excommunicated. Now where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's Sincerity in thus alleaging James de Vi∣try's Testimony to prove the Moderation of the Latins, who obliged not the Syrians to communicate with them unless they pleased themselves. These Words of his declare the Syrians did still acknowledg their Greek Bishops: But then again on the other hand, that they were constrained for fear of their temporal Lords to acknowledg the Latin Prelates; and render them an external Obedience: which is expresly contrary to what Mr. Arnaud con∣cludes. And yet he has not contented himself with thus alledging James de Vitry, in a contrary Sence, but has made a Principle of it; From whence he draws this Consequence, concerning the other Christians: We ought, * 1.109 saies he, to conclude the same of the other Sects of Armenians, Jacobites, and Nestorians, with which all Syria was at that time filled. This seems to me, to be a too free disposal of Principles and Conclusions.

IN the second place, this pretended Moderation is refuted even by those very Letters which Pope Paschal the second wrote to the Latins in the East, after the taking of Jerusalem, in which he tells them, he has charged his Le∣gate * 1.110 to endeavour the regulating of the Church, which God has delivered by their Hands, and that which should hereafter be delivered by them, to correct whatso∣ever should be found contrary to sound Doctrine, to Plant and Edify whatsoever he judged fitting, by their Assistance; which plainly shews that the Latins, after they had freed these Eastern Christians from the Tyranny of the Infi∣dels, suffered them not to live according to the form of their own Religion, and that in this respect they subdued them to themselves.

ALLATIUS a Latiniz'd Greek, and keeper of the Popes Library, has bin more ingenuous than Mr. Arnaud, for he freely confesses that the Latins * 1.111 established Prelates of their own in the East, and drove out them of the Greeks, when they could do it with safety, and severely chastized Schisma∣ticks and Obstinate Persons. And as to what Mr. Arnaud alledgeth out of Balsamon, That Antioch only excepted, in all other Cities the Latins permitted * 1.112 the Greek Bishops to exercise their Episcopal Functions, altho they had estab∣lished Bishops in the same Places. I have not met with any such Passage in his Nomocanon of the Parisian Edition printed in 1620. Those that publish∣ed it relate this Passage in a Supplement annexed to the end of the Book, and tell us that these Additions are not to be found in any Greek Copy, but on∣ly in the Latin Version of Gentian Hervetus; so that the Truth of this Te∣stimony is doubtful, and Mr. Arnaud that seems to have taken his Quotati∣on from Baronius, ought to have more certainly informed himself. Howso∣ever

it be, Balsamon lived towards the end of the twelfth Century, about a hundred Years after the entrance of the Latins into the East, in a time where∣in their Affairs were in Disorder; for the Infidels had retaken Jerusalem with a great part of those Places which were held by the Latins: So that we need not wonder if the Latins slackned their Rigour towards the Greeks, and so much the less, because it appears by this same passage of Balsamon, that the Infidels gave the same Liberty to the Greek Bishops, to exercise their episcopal Functions in their Dominions.

IT is certain, this Moderation Mr. Arnaud speaks of, is a meer Chimera * 1.113 of his own. For immediately after the taking of Antioch, there were La∣tin Bishops put into all the neighbouring Cities; the Patriarch for some time kept his Dignity, but at length was forced to withdraw to Constanti∣nople, and a Latin Bishop was substituted in his room. After this Dabert Bishop of Pisa was made Patriarch of Jerusalem; Baldwin Arch-Bishop of Cesarea, William Arch-Bishop of Tyre, Adam Bishop of Paneada, and all o∣ther Diocesses furnished after the same manner, as it appears by Wm. of Tyre's Account.

WE may then I think, without farther Trouble, conclude that the La∣tins did not omit so favourable an Occasion of Introducing their Religion and particular Doctrines in the East. We may moreover consider another historical Passage of which Mr. Arnaud makes use according to his ordina∣ry manner, which is to hinder us from beholding the just Consequences may be drawn thence: This History concerns the subjecting of the Grecian Em∣pire to the Latins.

IN the Year 1204. The Latins took by Assault the City of Constantino∣ple, and seized almost at the same time on the greatest part of the Grecian Empire, which they bestowed on Baldwin Earl of Flanders. They kept it fifty eight Years till Michael Paleologus retook Constantinople, and drove the Latins out of Greece. The Greeks were no more moderately dealt with af∣ter this Conquest, than they were after that of the Holy Land. The Latins, * 1.114 saies Leo Allatius, established in the places they Possessed Priests and Prelates of their own, who ruled the Church after their manner, and drove away the Greeks, whensoever they could do it with safety; and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks, who would not relent and embrace the Truth, they severely punished them, as they had done heretofore in the East, and especially at Antioch. He after∣wards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author, which I shall here set down, and so much the rather, because of the Consequence which may be made of this History. Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu's * 1.115 time, to that of John Batatza's the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands. They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats, and substi∣tuted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them. And this they did at Constantinople, Cyprus, Antioch, and other Cities, and not content with this, they constrained all the People, not excepting the Priests and Monks, to be of their Opinion, and Communion, and commemorate the Pope. They were Friends to those that obeyed them; but as to them that reprehended them, they treated them as Hereticks, and those that abhorred their Communion, were punished openly, even to the making them suffer Martyrdom; and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians. Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus, whom they kept three Years in Prison, because they would not Communicate with them, Inflicting on them all

manner of Torments, and in fine, not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good, being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes, and drew them over Precipices, causing othres to be burnt alive. John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God, one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire. And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator. He farther adds, that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes, under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice, who complaining of these Cruelties, received for Answer, that the Pope was troubled thereat, and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received, It was only, saies he, to deride and impose on us, that they would have us send first to them, as it were to accuse our selves, and acknowledg our Error, which plain∣ly appeared afterwards by their Letters.

BUT to the end, we may not think Leo Allatius, who relates this Com∣plaint of the Greeks, is suspected by the Latins, under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth, it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes. If this Author, saies he, means the Greeks, who remaining fixt to their Cere∣monies, embraced otherwise the Truth, he is mistaaen; For the Latins have * 1.116 bin so far from driving them away, that they have made use of them, as often as they have Occasion. If he means the Schismaticks, and those that maintain∣ed the Errors of the Greeks, he trifles; for how can he imagine, the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church, should suffer in a Country, they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood, the Greeks their Enemies and Adversa∣ries to their Faith, to live unpunished? These erronious People must be redu∣ced, being Rebels to their own Faith, not only by simple Banishments, but by Fire and Sword. And this is Allatius his Moderation, which does not well ac∣cord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines.

BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him, we need but hear him∣self, to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences, to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks. After the taking of Constantino∣ple, * 1.117 saies he, the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches; they establish∣ed a Latine Patriarch, they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests, they cre∣ated a Latin Emperor, who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders, and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece, they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever apper∣tained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople. The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia, having but three or four Cities left him, which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks. Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins, but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes. He adds a little after, that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope, that at length the Emperour Henry, Baldwin's Suc∣cessor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus. He tells us like∣wise * 1.118 in another place, that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans, and Fryar Minorites, that is to say, Inquisitors as he himself calls them, who had often performed this Office in France, and Germany, and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks, who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them, and a great part of their Piety to have them se∣verely Punished, that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks, and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them, and examine their Doctrine.

WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Ar∣naud's good Intentions towards them; these historical Passages he has of∣fered, were enough to make him suspected. For this deplorable Conditi∣on of Greece and all the East, and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion, for several Years together, that is to say, for near two hundred Years in the East, and fifty eight in Greece, might well introduce amongst these People, the Belief of a substantial Conversion, and there is methinks, more reason to admire, if this has not hapned, than if it hath.

WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories. He tells * 1.119 us three things worth our Observation. The first is, that altho Constantino∣ple was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus, yet they kept still seve∣ral places in Greece, and even whole Provinces, as Achaia. Secondly, that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands, as Cyprus, Crete, Eu∣beé Rhodes, and divers other Places. Thirdly, that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes, caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them, and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople, so that there was always a great number there, who made Profession of the Romish Religion. Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce; but in several places their Lords and Masters, and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion.

LEO Allatius, tells us likewise that, when the King of England had Pos∣sessed * 1.120 himself of Cyprus, and given it to the King of Jerusalem, that he might return home, the whole Country was immediately filled with Priests and Latin Bishops, to bring over the People to Piety and Orthodoxy.

WHEREUNTO Mr. Arnaud Consents, and saies, That they were * 1.121 more rigorously handled for their Religion in Cyprus, than in Greece, that se∣veral Greek Authors have grievously complained of these Cruelties; and that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, residing in Asia, most pathetically laid open their Sufferings to Pope Gregory the ninth.

FRYAR Stephen, a Portugais, in his History of the Kingdom of Cyprus, * 1.122 Relates that altho Guy de Lusignan, was King of Jerusalem, yet was he forc'd to be contented with being King of Cyprus. He brought along with him seve∣ral Greeks, Armenians, Coptites, Maronites, Jacobites, Indians, Nestorians, Iberians, and Georgians, who would not acknowledg the Romane Prelacy, each of these having their own Patriarch. 'Tis true, saies he, that the Kings of Lusignan would not permit their Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them, * 1.123 but ordered they should only administer to them the Sacraments, leaving the Over∣plus to the Jurisdiction of the Latine Arch-Bishop, to whom these Nations in this respect were Subject. He likewise Relates, that about the same time, there was published the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget, in which our Saviour himself exhorted the Greeks to submit to the Roman Church. Let * 1.124 the Greeks know, (these are the Words,) that their Empire, Kingdoms, and Lordships, will never be in Peace and Security, but always subject to their Ene∣mies, from whom they will continually receive exceeding great Dammages, and perpetual Miseries, till such time as they submit themselves to the Church of Rome with a true Humility and Charity, obeying its Holy Constitutions, and

Ceremonies, and wholly conform themselves to her Faith. And after this manner did they make Heaven and Earth meet, to cause these People to change their Religion.

WE may then I think plainly enough see, that it has not bin the Latins Fault, if the Greeks have not received their Doctrines, from whence it fol∣lows that if it dos appear they have from that time Believed Transub∣stantiation, and it not appearing they held it before, we may then rea∣sonably conclude, they received it from the Latins. This is a Consequence which follows naturally of it self. The Testimony of the Greeks cannot be any longer produced as that of the pure Greeks, after so many endeavours to make them embrace the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the more Mr. Arnaud strives to prove the Entercourse of these two Nations, the greater hold he gives us to contest with him the Advantage he pretends to have obtained from hence. But he uses an admirable Expedient, to hinder us from minding this Consequence. For having seen on one hand, that these Histories were too well known, to be passed over wholly in Silence; and on the other, that if he should sincerely produce them as they are in them∣selves, they would certainly make for our Advantage, as it hath bin already observed; he has thereupon bethought himself, and presented them in ano∣ther kind of Dress, whereby he may insensibly turn aside his Readers Minds, and amuse them by an agreeable Diversion. And to this end has thought good to suppose, I denyed the Greeks knew what was the Belief of the La∣tins, and to employ all these historical Passages in opposing this Phantastical Supposition, that is to say, in manifesting the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist, I shall make appear in its proper place, that this is but a vain Pretence, and a meer quibling on Words, which he has designedly taken in a Sence contrary to my meaning. Where∣fore I here declare it never entred into my Thoughts to deny, what he makes me deny. For this is an Invention he has used on purpose to conceal his in∣direct dealing.

CHAP. III.

That the Greek Emperors, led by politick Interests, have themselves favoured the Design of the Latins, in Introducing their Doctrines into Greece. Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered.

IT has not bin only the Latins that earnestly endeavoured to make the Greeks receive their Doctrines. For even the Grecian Emperors them∣selves have favoured this Design; induced by politick Respects, which put them upon seeking the Friendship of the Western Princes, and especially that of the Popes, who in those times, as speaks Mr. Arnaud, gave Laws to all the rest, and that even in Temporals. We all know what a great Influence the Inclinations of Princes have, not only on the People, but Ec∣clesiasticks and Prelates. It is usual with Subjects to turn themselves on that side which is most pleasing to their Sovereign, and there are few Persons who make it not their Business so to do, especially when Princes openly de∣clare their Minds, and make use of their Authority in punishing those that withstand them, and rewarding those that approve them. Now this the Grecian Emperours have often particularly done, in favour of the Church of Rome, to which they have endeavoured to unite their Subjects.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit, reckons up fourteen of these interessed Reuni∣ons, * 1.125 the Greeks, saies he, have bin reunited to us fourteen times, by publick Confessions, and have so many times departed from us. And it is certain that as they have ever known the Popes earnest Desires to submit them to the See of Rome, so likewise have they not failed to flatter this Desire by fair Promises, when they needed that Churches Assistance, either for the obtaining of some important Design, or for the averting of some dangerous Tempest which threat∣ned them. But as soon as ever these have bin over, they have returned to their first State, and slighted these Reunions. I know not how it hath come to pass that the Popes having bin so often deceived, should still continue so Facile; but perhaps it was not a single Interest, but be it as it will, the Popes have never bin backwards in these Matters.

MY Design is not to set down here all these Reunions, one after another, and relate their particular Circumstances, seeing an Account thereof is to be met with in sundry Historians, but more especially in the Book Leo Allatius wrote touching the Agreement of these two Churches. I shall only here take notice of some of them observed by Mr. Arnaud, and which will be suf∣ficient to shew after what manner the Greek Emperors have proceeded in Favour of the Latins, when they wanted the Pope's Assistance.

MICHAEL Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo Bishop of Acrida, having written some Letters against the Church of Rome, to Peter the Patriarch of Antioch, thereupon caused the Latine Churches to be shut up at Constantinople. Pope Leo the Eleventh was greatly moved at it. He therefore wrote to Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida a long Letter, wherein he

answered their Objections, and accused likewise the Greek Church of Light∣ness, Rashness, and Presumption. This hap'ned about the middle of the ele∣venth Century. The Emperor Constantin Monomaque who then Reigned, seeing this Difference, did not stick to take the Church of Rome's part: he commanded therefore Cerularius to write back to the Pope, Letters of Re∣conciliation and Peace; and the Pope sends thereupon to Constantinople (in order to the Churches Re-union) his Legats, Humbert, and Frederic, Cardi∣nals, and Peter, Arch-Bishop of Melphus, with Letters to the Emperor and Patriarch. The Emperor granted to these Legates whatsoever they desi∣red, even to the constraining Nicetas Pectoratus, a Greek Monk, that had written against the Romain Church, to burn publickly his own Book, and anathematise all those that would not acknowledg the Pope's Supremacy, or dared in any wise censure the Doctrines of the Latins. This Protection so raised the Legates Courage, that coming into the Patriarchal Church, in the presence of all the People and Greek Clergy, they Excommunicated the Patriarch and Bishop of Acrida, and all that took their Parts; which raised such a Tumult in Constantinople, that the Emperor had much ado to save the Legates from the Popular Fury, who after this returned into Italy; where∣upon the Patriarch Excommunicated, on his Side, the Legates, and rased the Popes Name out of the Diptyches, which are Tables, wherein the Names of those that are prayed for in the Divine Service were set down. Some Authors say, that he Anathematised the Pope, and all the Latines, as Here∣ticks; but Leo Allatius cites the Testimony of an anonymous Author, by which it appears, that the Emperor hindered, by his, Authority this Ex∣communication. In the time, saies this Author, that Michael Cerularius * 1.126 held the See of Constantinople, the four Patriarchs rased the Pope's Name out of the Dyptiches, and yet did they not fully pronounce the Anathema against the Latines, being hind'red by the Emperor, who considered them as a great and mighty Nation, and therefore was afraid of their usual Incursions.

IN the Year 1071, Michael Parapinacius was made Emperor, being a Prince that loved his Ease, and therefore withstood not the Turks Progress into Europe. He observed the usual Policy of the Greek Emperors, which * 1.127 was, to favour the Latines; and Mr. Arnaud observes from Baronius, and Leo Allatius, that Pope Alexander the second, sent to him Peter, Bishop of Anag∣nia, * 1.128 as his Nuncio. Allatius adds that Peter remained a Year at Constanti∣nople. Which shews us, saies he, This Emperor was in the Communion of the Roman Church, and in effect, Gregory the seventh Excommunicated, upon his account, Nicephorus Botionatus, who had usurped the Empire, and shut up Michael in a Monastery.

IN the Year 1081 Nicephorus Botoniatus, was handled by Alexis Com∣nenus, in the same manner that Michael was used by Nicephorus, that is to say, he was deprived of the Empire and shut up in a Monastery. But Alex∣is getting into his place, varied not from the Custom of his Predecessors: the necessity of his Affairs obliging him to turn himself on the Side of the La∣tins, more openly than others had done before him, and observe their Mea∣sures, altho inwardly he did not affect them. He obstructed their Designs on the Holy Land, as much as in him lay, and hind'red their Passage thither, obliging them sometimes to turn their Arms against him, and chastize him * 1.129 severely; which caused Pelavius the Jesuit, to say, That it was impossible for a man to be more deceitful and unjust than this Emperor was towards the Latines in this whole Expedition. Yet had he sent his Embassadors to the Council

of Plaisance to sollicite the Pope and Western Princes to undertake the War against the Infidels. He flattered the Romain Church on all Occasions, send∣ing * 1.130 oftentimes Presents to the Monastery of Mount Cassin, using likewise the same Liberality towards the other Latine Churches, and especially that of St. Marc at Venice, on which he bestowed considerable Revenues, as 'tis obser∣ved by Allatius, who alledgeth for this the Testimony of the Princess Ann * 1.131 Comnenus the Daughter of this Emperor. He likewise gave his helping Hand towards the Essay of a Re-union made at the Synod of Bary in the Year 1097. He sent Embassadors to Rome in Behalf of Pope Paschal, the second * 1.132 who obtained the Papacy, two Years after the Synod of Bary, and this Pope in the second Year of his Popedom, sent him the Arch-Bishop of Milain. Eo solo nomine quod ipse existimo, saies Allatius, ut si quid erat in Graecia * 1.133 noxium ex Cerularii Schola radicitus extirparet, Graecosque alios contineret in fide. To the end he might utterly Extirpate, whatsoever remained of Cerulari∣us his Doctrine, and keep the other Greeks in the Faith.

JOHN Comnénus, who succeeded Alexis, was yet more favourable to the Latines than Alexis, for this I suppose is the Jesuit Peteau's meaning, when he saies that he was, Patre aliquanto commodior, a little less troublesom than his Father. I do not observe there has bin any thing more said of him on this Subject, unless, that he received a Letter from Peter the Abbot of Clugny, in which he entreated him to surrender a Monastery belonging to them of his Order at Constantinople, and which had bin taken from them, promising he should participate of all the Merits of that Order, if he re∣established them. Baronius saies likewise that Anaclet the Antypope to In∣nocent * 1.134 the second, wrote to this Emperor, informing him of his Promotion to the Popedom; and that he called him his most dear Son.

AFTER John succeeded Manuel Comnénus, a Prince very much addict∣ed to Dissimulation and double Dealing, who on one hand did the Latines all the Mischief he privately could, by the Secret Intelligence he held with the Sarracens, and on the other, earnestly endeavoured at a complyance with the Desires of the Church of Rome, touching the Re-union of the Greeks. Allatius tells us, that he sent Embassadors to Pope Alexander the * 1.135 third, to treat with him concerning this Re-union, and that the Pope sent John the Sub-Deacon of the Church of Rome, to Constantinople, to reduce the Greeks by his Sermons. He likewise tells us, 'twas this Emperor that ob∣liged Hugo Eterianus to write against the Greeks, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost; that the Empress his Wife (as Mr. Arnaud himself ob∣serves) after him, was a Germain and of the Romish Religion: and that he be∣stowed great Gifts on the Latine Churches: whereupon the Latine Bishops for an acknowledgment of his Munificence, set up his Image in their Church∣es. It is difficult to Imagine how a Prince who in his Heart so greatly hated the Latines, that the Jesuit Peteau has not stuck thereupon to call him, homi∣nem subdolum & Christianis rebus quae ad Latinos spectabant infestum & iniquum * 1.136 adeo, ut cum Saracenis in eorum conspiraret exitium, that is to say, a Person so deceitful and cruel to the Latine Church, that he conspired its Ruine, together with the Saracens, yet should favour the Latins in his Empire, and endea∣vour to procure the Re-union of its Church with the Roman. But Allatius unties the Knot, by shewing us in the Acts of Alexander the third, that the * 1.137 Design of this Emperor was so to bring it about, that the Pope who was at Variance with the Emperor Frederick, should take away from him the Latin Empire, and render it to the Greeks, to whom Manüel affirmed it did justly

belong: and for this Effect he sent Embassadors to the Pope; and the Pope sent back together with his Embassadors the Bishop of Ostia, to negociate this Affair at Constantinople. Howsoever it was, it sufficiently appears that all these different Interests yielded the Latins fit Opportunities to plant their Doctrines amongst the Greeks.

EMANUEL'S Intrigue was so far carried on, that he assembled a * 1.138 Council at Constantinople, where the Reunion of the Churches was propo∣sed. Some say, the Latins required no more of the Greeks, but the Acknow∣ledgment of the Popes Authority, the grant of Appeals, and the Comme∣moration of him in the publick Prayers of their Church: Others say, the Latins would have intirely subjected the Greeks to their Wills and Customs. That which is certain is, they could not Agree, and that the Emperor him∣self lent his helping Hand to separate them, yet not daring to Anathematise * 1.139 the Latins, because, saies a Greek Author, Cited by Allatius, they were a great and famous People.

AFTER the Latins had established their Empire at Constantinople, the Greeks withdrew into Asia, where they chose an Emperor and Patriarch, and the Affairs of the Latins falling to decay, there was an after Tryal made upon the Greeks, touching a Reunion. Mr. Arnaud observes, that the Pope wrote about it to Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, and 'tis ve∣ry * 1.140 likely he forgot not to sollicite the Emperor, who was then John Ducas. He sent two Dominicans, and two Franciscans, who caused an Assembly to be called for this Effect, but to no purpose. For each of them had his par∣ticular Interest and Design in this Affair.

THE Pope intended to subject the Greek Church to himself, and the Em∣peror endeavoured to hinder the Pope from favouring the Latins, who held Constantinople, and to Regain this City, as the Greeks did some time after; Mathew Paris gives an account of these Letters of the Patriarch to the * 1.141 Pope, and of the Popes to the Patriarch, concerning this Negotia∣tion.

THEODORUS Lascaris succeeded John Ducas, in the Year 1255. * 1.142 Pope Alexander the fourth fail'd not to sollicite him to a Reunion: he sent him an express Legate for that purpose; but this Emperor soon died, where∣upon this Affair was no farther prosecuted.

ALLATIUS observes there was then a Greek Patriarch, Named Blem∣mida, * 1.143 who was a Learned Man, and very Zealous for this Union with the Latins.

MICHAEL Paleologus, obtaining the Empire, and having a while after made himself Master of Constantinople, endeavoured above all others at * 1.144 a Reunion with the Latines, Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, that having united himself to the Church of Rome, he forced, by all manner of Severity, the Bishops and Religious Greeks to do the same. This Prince Contracted a particular Friendship with Gregory the Tenth, before he came to the Popedom, accord∣ing to Allatius, which gave him the greater Facility to Negociate with the * 1.145 Church of Rome. He sent several times his Embassadors, and the Pope his Legates in order to a Reconciliation. He held several Councils on this Oc∣casion, * 1.146 and Inflicted the greatest Torments on those that had the Courage to re∣sist

him, and promoted others who embraced this Union; these are Allatius his own Words. He falsly accused John Veccus, Treasurer to the Church of Constantinople, and caused him to be Imprisoned; because Veccus had said in his hearing, that altho the Latines were not respected as Hereticks, yet were * 1.147 they such nevertheless; which so greatly provoked this Emperor, as caused him to think of nothing but Revenge; And for as much as Veccus had shelt∣red himself in the Temple of St. Sophia, and the Emperor daring not to Violate this Asylum, he wrote to him very kind Letters, intreating him to come to him, which Veccus had no sooner endeavoured, but was apprehend∣ed, and carried to the Tower, where he was sollicited to joyn with the * 1.148 Latins.

THIS Prince made and unmade Patriarchs at his Will, he usurped, saies the Historian Raynaldus, the Ecclesiastical Authority, placing and displa∣ing * 1.149 Patriarchs at his Pleasure. He first of all constrain'd Arsenius to resign up his place to Nicephorus; and after the taking of Constantinople, he recal∣led the same Arsenius, who had excommunicated him, for what he had done against John Lascaris the Son of Theodorus, to whom the Empire did of Right belong; and whose Eyes he had caused to be put out; and seeing he could not prevail on this Patriarch, he raised up false Witnesses against him, and caused him to be deposed in a Synod, and Germain chosen in his place. Germain not being sutable to his Humour, he so far prevailed with him as to obtain a voluntary Resignation to Joseph; but Joseph not consenting to the Reunion with the Latins, nor the sending of Deputites to the Pope, with whom the Emperor had charged them to conclude this Affair, he caused him therefore to retire into a Covent, upon Condition that if this Matter broke off, he should enter again into his charge of Patriarch. Now the Deputies being returned with the News of the Reunion accomplished, the Emperor chose this same above named John Veccus, who at length suf∣fered himself to be won, either by the reading of some Books put into his Hands, or by the Miseries he had suffered during a long Imprisonment, and hope of a contrary Usage: Yet Veccus did not please him long.

IT would be a difficult matter to relate here all the Violences and Cru∣elties of Michael, against those that withstood the Reunion of the two Churches. It will be sufficient to relate here two or three of them, by which we may judge of the rest. He Imprisoned Holobulus Rhetor of the Church of Constantinople, whose Office, according to Codinius, was to Interpret the Holy Scriptures, and caused him to be cruelly Scourged, and at length a * 1.150 Rope to be fastned about his Neck, and to be thus exposed thro out all the City, with his Wife and Neece, together with ten others, bound after the same manner, causing the two former of these to be flapt ever and anon on the Cheeks, with the Entrails of a Sheep, which is amongst the Greeks, a kind of Infamous Punishment, wherewith only the Vilest Offenders are treat∣ed, and those who add Obstinacy to the Crimes of which they have bin Guil∣ty. He likewise Imprisoned four of the Chief Officers of his House, two of which were his Kinsmen, and there kept them a long time laden with * 1.151 Irons. This Severity seemed very great, but not content therewith; when the Pope sent Legates to Constantinople, to Confirm the Greeks in their Obe∣dience to him, he made them Witnesses of his Cruelty towards the Oppo∣sers of this Union, commanding a certain Bishop of Ephesus, to conduct them to the Prison, and shew them these four Persons, who were of the chiefest Rank in Greece, they were in a square Room, each of 'em chained

to a corner thereof, and laden with Irons, and that which was an Aggrava∣tion of their Misery, was to be thus exposed a Spectacle to their Ene∣mies.

WOULD we know the Motives inducing this Prince to use so great * 1.152 Severity in this matter. Observe we then what Pachymerus tells us. He sent oftentimes Embassadors to the Pope, and endeavoured to gain him by Pre∣sents. For he plainly perceived the Danger lay on that side, and that the Itali∣ans could not lye long Idle; Wherefore he made Proposals of Union, to the end he might be secure as to them, and the better Dispose of his other Affairs. These Embassies then were frequent, and the Presents Magnificent, not only to the Pope, but likewise to several Cardinals, and others whom he judged powerful in the Court of Rome. In effect as soon as ever Pope Urbain the fourth, receiv∣ed * 1.153 the News of the re-taking of Constantinople, and the Progress of the Greeks, he earnestly endeavoured to stir up the Princes and People to assist the Latins; he wrote for this Effect, to the Fryar Minorites in France, and enjoyned them to Preach a Croisado on this occasion, with the same In∣dulgences which had bin granted them that undertook the Holy War; he wrote likewise to King Lewis upon the same account; and threatned the Genoises who favoured Michael, (being at Varyance with the Venetians) that if they forsook not his Allyance, he would excommunicate them, he wrote to the Prelates of England and France, exhorting them to contribute to this War, in short he forgot nothing he judged necessary in this Occasi∣on. Michael then seeing that the only means to shelter himself from this Storm, * 1.154 was to fly to the usual Policy of the Greeks, that is to say, to negotiate the Re-union of the two Churches; he thereupon wrote to the Pope, Letters full of Respect and Affection to the Roman Church, and having received such an Answer as he desired, he earnestly applyed himself to this Business. Mr. Arnaud himself is agreed on the Motives which set this Emperor at work. Foreseeing, saies he, the Popes would not fail to arm the Western Prin∣ces * 1.155 against him, and that he had a potent Enemy, in the Person of Charles D'Anjou, King of Naples, and Sicily, with whom the Emperor Baldwin, being driven from Constantinople was allyed, he resolved thereupon to reunite the Greeks with the Roman Church, that he might by this means deliver himself from the fear of those dreadful Croisado's, which made the Greek Emperors tremble at that time in Constantinople, the Sultans in Babylon and Grand Caire, and the Tartars themselves as far as Persia. It is certain, adds he, that this Re-union was carried on upon politick Respects.

AND these in effect were the true Reasons of Michael's Undertakings; which being his greatest Interest, he therefore left no means unattempted whereby to accomplish it. Which Mr. Arnaud does still grant; We may read, saies he, in Pachymerus, that he endeavoured too violently, to bring the Bishops over to his Will. But did he not acknowledg it, we need only * 1.156 read what Michael himself saies in his harangue to the Greek Clergy, assem∣bled upon this Occasion. I must acknowledg, saies he, that I have stisled with∣in me the most tender Sentiments of Nature, to accomplish my design. You know * 1.157 I loved a Person, with the same tenderness and Respect, as if he had been my own Father, and I believed I ow'd him more than my Father, seeing he gave me the Communion, and received me into the Bosom of the Church, which I esteem more than the giving me Life, and yet have I Sacrificed him to this Interest. 'Tis the Patriarch Joseph I mean. I have violently handled several others, even my intimate Friends, and oppressed divers among your selves. I have moreover

several of my near Kinsmen in Prison, there having bin no other Reason for their opposing me, or my punishing them, than only this Re-union with the La∣tins. I think this is sufficient to Convince us, that this Emperor abused his Power in Favour of the Court of Rome.

I confess those that succeeded him, altho they had the same Opinion touch∣ing the Re-union, yet used not the same Extremities, nevertheless John Pa∣léologus * 1.158 endeavoured earnestly to effect this, and therefore went in Person to Rome in great Pomp, to make his Declaration.

EMANUEL the second who succeeded him, trod in the same Steps, addressing himself to Pope Boniface the ninth, who published a Croisado for his Assistance against the Turks; and a while after, he treated with Mar∣tin the fifth, touching the Reconciliation of the two Churches. In Fine, John the seventh, Paleologus came to the Council of Florence, and * 1.159 sent his Clergy thither on the same Design.

WE may then well conclude the Latins wanted not Opportunities to in∣troduce their Religion amongst the Greeks. For first it is not to be supposed but that this great Passion these Emperors shewed towards this Union, in∣clined the Minds and Hearts of several Persons, as well of the Clergy as Laity to favour the Roman Church, to embrace its Interests, and accommo∣date themselves to its Doctrine. We all know how weak and fickle the greatest part of mankind are, they approve and esteem whatsoever is in Fa∣vour and Credit, there being few whose Minds are not Byassed even in Re∣ligious matters, by temporal Advantages. Men commonly in such cases en∣deavour to Mollisy and take in a good Sence, that which before was a Sub∣ject of Scandal: they enlarge or diminish Objects, to bring 'em to the Point they desire; they hearken to nothing but what is pleasing, and behold what∣soever opposes their Interest in such a manner as shall be sure to render it unjust and odious.

IN the second place, we need not doubt but this same Passion of the Em∣perors obliged several others to manage these Controversies, and let go di∣vers Articles as being but of small Importance. All the Schismatical Greeks, * 1.160 saies Allatius, are not like minded towards the Latins, some of them are more moderate than others, making the Difference consist only in one or two Points; o∣thers more Rigorous, for whatsoever the Latins do, which agrees not with the Ce∣remonies and Rites of the Greeks, they Condemn and Reject, as an Abomination. He Confirms afterwards what he saies, by a Passage taken out of Demetrius Comatenus, which tells us, that several moderate Greeks, agreed with the La∣tins in divers Particulars, acknowledging the proud and fierce Humor of their Nation, which hath almost become Barbarous by their frequent Commerce with the Barbarians, and that these aforementioned have only stuck at the single Ar∣ticle touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Arnaud himself saies, 'twas * 1.161 observed the Greeks were of different Dispositions in those times (he means in the twelfth Century) for some of 'em maintained the Latins ought to be treat∣ed as Hereticks, and others blamed these Transports of Passion. But 'tis certain even the most rigorous amongst them, only stuck to those Points which were openly debated by the two Churches, amongst which the Principal were touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Azymes. The Constancy they shewed in Reference to these Articles, sufficiently exposed them to the Hatred and ill Usage of their Emperors, so that we need not

descend to the Examination of other Particulars, which broke not out into Disputes on either side.

NEITHER need we any more doubt but that several condescended to the Will of their Emperors, upon this Consideration, that altho they were Reunited to the Church of Rome, yet should they suffer no Alteration, ei∣ther in the essential Parts of their Religion, or Ceremonies, and that there was no hurt in cheating these Latins, by this Fancy of a Union, which sig∣nified nothing at th'bottom, but which yet would yield them great Advantage in their Affairs. And this was the chief Reason which Michael Paleologus offered to his Clergy, according to Pachymerus his Relation, he shewed them, saies he, that the only Cause moving him to procure this Peace with the Latine * 1.162 Church, was to hinder those Cruel and Bloody Wars which threatned them, and to spare his Subjects Blood. That as to the rest, they might assure themselves, that after the Reunion, their Church should remain as it was, without any Inno∣vation? That he himself would take care of it. That the whole Reconciliation with the Church of Rome, might be reduced to these three Articles, viz. The Primacy, Appeal, and Commemoration, all which signified nothing, if rightly considered. For when, saies he, will the Pope come to Constantinople, to take Possession of this Primacy! who will make Appeals, to end them in so far a Coun∣try, who will Cross the Seas for this. And as to the Commemoration of the Pope in our Patriarchal Temple, and your other great Temple, (when the Patriarch shall Officiate there,) being prudent as you are, can this appear such a strange thing to you. Do you not know the Fathers have often made use of Dispensati∣ons, and frequently submitted themselves for the publick Good. Pachymerus adds, that there were some in effect who let go these two Articles touching the Primacy, and Appeals, upon this Consideration, that the Pope would have only the Name and Shadow of the thing, but never enjoy the thing it self.

BUT in fine, we need not question, but this Carriage of the Emperors, much encouraged and imboldned the Latins, to endeavour effectually to insinuate their Opinions into the Minds of both Clergy and Laity, under pretence of instructing, and making them capable of this Union. We know what a Religious Zeal can do, and especially when 'tis countenanced by Pow∣er, and seconded by hopes of Success. Had the Greek Church remained but some Years in this Condition, it might be said, that these have bin but slight and transient Attempts, which have not had time to produce any great Effects. But 'tis certain that since the eleventh Century, which is to say, since the time Berengarius was last Condemned, till now, she has bin continually as it were under the Roman Yoke, and they have had all desira∣ble Opportunities to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and 'tis a kind of Miracle if they have not obtained their Ends. For when men have had to do with an ignorant and gross People, in matters of Religion, as the Greeks are, and have bin for a long time, when Persons have had a familiar and ordinary Commerce with them, and have besides all proper means to prevail on them, as Power, Authority, Mildness, the way of In∣struction, Fear, Hope, and moreover upheld by the Emperors, Patriarchs, and Bishops; it is so far from being difficult to do what one will, that 'tis on the contrary very difficult not to do it. Whence it follows, that even when Mr. Arnaud should make it appear that Transubstantiation, and the A∣doration of the Eucharist, have bin established amongst the Greeks since the eleventh Century, his Proofs would be useless and of no Consequence, as

to our Debate; for it might always be answered, that this Doctrine hath bin communicated to them by the Latins, and the ways of this Communication are not hard to be understood. Mr. Arnaud has bin very sensible of the truth of what I say, and therefore was willing to relate, himself the greatest part of these Historical Passages I mentioned: But he has otherwise represented them, to the end he might draw fruitless and impertinent Conclusions from them, and by this means hinder us from making a just and right use of them. This Deceit of his, is like to that he has us'd in the foregoing Chapter.

WE shall in the insuing part of this Discourse, overthrow his pretend∣ed Consequences. It may suffice at present to observe the Circuit he has taken, on purpose to divert his Reader from discovering the real Truth. For I do not believe there is any rational Man but will judge, that seeing these Doctrines appeared not in the Greek Church, before these Disorders; if they should appear afterwards, they must be introduced by them. This is a natural and plain Conclusion.

CHAP. IV.

That the Monks and other Emissaries, with which the Eastern Coun∣tries have bin for a long time Replenished, do Invalidate the Proof taken from the Belief of these People. Mr. Arnaud's fourth De∣ceit laid open.

MR. Arnaud's fourth Artifice consists in concealing from us, the Care taken for several Ages, to fill Greece, Asia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Indias, and in a word, all the Countries wherein there's any People professing Christianity, with Religious, and other Ec∣clesiastical Persons, sent expresly to plant the Roman Religion, and even to establish fixt Seminaries, who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks. This Artifice of his, is not of small Importance: for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars; without which 'tis impossible to make a true and right Judg∣ment of this Controversie. And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Ar∣naud's Ingenuity. For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us, if they are so publickly known that 'twill be to no purpose to conceal them, he then produces them, but in so doing, applyes them to o∣ther matters, on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them: and on the other hand, if they are Passages less known, and that he may well conceal them; he then either not mentions them, or but lightly touches on them, to the end they may not be throughly considered. He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions. Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches; he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them, or

if at all, so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of, lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret, and overthrowing himself, what he has taken upon him to defend. But seeing he has no reason to ex∣pect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity; and that they must know no more but what he tells them, so he must not take it ill, if I relate what he would have concealed.

I say then, that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land, and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire, all Greece and other Eastern Nations, have bin filled with Monks, or Emissaries, whose only design and employ∣ment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries. Mr. Arnaud, who commonly takes things in the worst Sence, will be sure to tell me I am to blame, in blaming this Design; Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Re∣ligion, it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith, to do all they can, to make Schismaticks, and Heretical People to Embrace the same. To which I answer, I do not at all blame the Endea∣vours of the Roman Church, to win these People. Seeing she believes they are in an Error, and therefore would undeceive them, and so far is Christi∣anly and Charitably done; but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use, which savour so much of worldy Policy, they are in no wise to be commend∣ed. I do not, I say, blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to pro∣pagate their Faith; seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Com∣munion.

YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud, who knows full well, what the Monks and Emissaries have done, and do still in the East. That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason, That they are to be found established amongst these People. For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind, no means ha∣ving bin left untried to effect this; how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation, this Doctrine hath bin received by them, at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them? Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence? Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction, Instruction, Conversion, or what else he please? Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us, That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, for whose sake the E∣missaries have taken such Pains, do believe Transubstantiation, it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches, for this is a way of Arguing, which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him, that if these People believe Transubstantiation, 'tis because the Emissaries have taught it them, unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them. And this is the Contents of this Chapter. The Consequence I pretend to draw hence, is clear enough in it self, and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks, and Emissaries in the Le∣vant.

FIRST then, it is evident, that after the Conquest of the Holy Land, both Palestine, and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order. Mr. Ar∣naud himself acknowledges it, and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry, who tells us, that multitudes of People resorted from all parts * 1.163 of the World, to the Holy Land, being allured thither by the Odour of those Ve∣nerable

and Holy Places, where they repaired the decayed Churches, Built new ones, and founded Monasteries in several Places, by the Liberality of Princes. In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors, who were present at the Councils held at Napolis, a City of Samaria, and at An∣tioch. * 1.164 He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians, and Patriarch of Jerusalem. Mr. Arnaud him∣self saies, there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks, together with others of St. Norbet, and St. Bennet, in several Commodious Places.

NEITHER need we any more doubt, but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece, the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof, to which Mr. Arnaud consents, and tells us, That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites, that is to say, Inquisitors who had often performed this Office, in France and Germany. He farther saies, that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks, and examine their Doctrine; which is not a difficult matter to believe.

IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius, Pope Alexander the third sent * 1.165 a certain Physitian, called Phillip into Ethiopia, to convert the Christians of that Country, and Instruct them in the Romish Religion.

NOT long after, Innocent the third obtained the Popedom, and imme∣diately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over * 1.166 to the Roman Church. And sent for this Purpose John, and Simon, into Dio∣clia and Dalmatia, and some others into Bulgaria, Albertus, and Albertinus, to Constantinople, and the Arch Bishop of Mayence, into Armenia.

GREGORY the ninth his Successor, continued the same Design. Ray∣naldus Reports in his time, all Asia was full of Religious, who went up and * 1.167 down, Preaching from place to place. He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip, which he wrote to the Pope, in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of the Patriarch of the Eastern Jacobites, of two Arch Bishops, one a Jacobit, and the other a Nestorian, of the Conversion of the Patriarch of the Nestorians, and of an other Patriarch of the Jacobits in Egypt. He added farther that all these Nations, viz. the Christians of Chaldea, Media, Persia, Armenia, Syria, Phe∣nicia, India, Ethiopia, Libya, and Egypt, yielded themselves to their Exhor∣tations▪ there remaining none but the Greeks that persevered in their Malice, and who every where withstood the Doctrine of the Roman Church, either privately or openly, in blaspheming all its Sacraments.

INNOCENT the fourth who succeeded Gregory, wrote to the Prince * 1.168 of Bulgaria, Solliciting him to embrace the Religion of the Latins, and for this effect sent him several Monks and Fryars, entreating him to give them a favourable Hearing. In the Year 1246 he sent Fryar Ascelinus, Simon of St. Quentin, Alexander, and Albertus of the Order of Preachers, and John du plan Carpin, with Fryar Bennet a Polander, of St. Francis's Order, to the Tartars, to perswade them to receive the Christian Faith; they passed thro Russia, and delivered to Duke Daniel, to Basil his Brother, and the Bishops of that Country the Popes Letters, which conjured them, to forsake the Greek * 1.169 Religion which they professed, and unite themselves to the Roman Church; they likewise endeavoured with all their Power to effect this, and the Suc∣cess of their Negociation was, that the Russians sent Deputies to Opizon,

who was then the Popes Legate in Poland, offering to submit themselves to the Roman Church, provided the Pope would raise their Countries into a Kingdom, and bestow the regal Crown on their Duke. Opizon gladly receiv∣ed them, and granted what they demanded. The Pope sent the Arch Bishop of Prusia in quality of a Legate, and ordered for their Instruction in the Ro∣mish Religion, a Mission made up of as many Secular Priests, as Religions, of the Order of Preachers, and Fryar Minorites, amongst whom there was cho∣sen a certain Preaching Fryar named Alexius, who was particularly to attend the Prince. The Arch Bishop of Prussia reconciled King Daniel, his Brother Basil, who was King of Laudemirie, and likewise their People to the Church of Rome.

BUT whilst Innocent, endeavoured the Conversion of the Russians, he neg∣lected not the rest of the Christians in the East. He earnestly laboured, saies * 1.170 Raynaldus, to Reduce those People, how far distant soever they were, and for this purpose sent them several Religious, who were Learned and Zealous for the propogating of the Faith, whom he honoured with the Title of Apostolical Le∣gates. He farther saies, that he gave to Lawrence his Penetentiary a large Commission, for the same purpose, injoyning him to take care of Armenia, Iconia, Turky, Greece, Babylon, and endeavour to gain the Greeks, who were in the Patriarchate of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Kingdom of Cyprus, as well as the Jacobites, Maronites, and Nestorians.

IN the Year 1253, the foresaid Innocent the fourth, sent William de Ru∣bruquis, * 1.171 and Bartholomew de Cremone, who were of the Order of Fryar Mi∣norites, into Tartaria, where they found several Christians of the Greek and Nestorian Religion, for the Reduction of whom they laboured with all their Power.

URBAIN the fourth imitating in this his Predecessors, sent in the Year 1264 Nicholas Bishop of Crotonia, with Gerard and Rayner, Monks of the * 1.172 Order of Fryar Minorites, to Michael Paleologus the Grecian Emperor, who had re-taken Constantinople, To the end, saies Raynaldus, he might be instruct∣ed together with his People, in the Orthodox Religion. It appears by the Let∣ters of Clement his Successor, that Urbain, sent moreover other Monks to Constantinople, on the same Design, to wit, Simon, Peter de Moras, Peter de * 1.173 Crista; and Boniface, and Clement sent Dominicans.

IN the Year 1276, two Bishops, and two preaching Fryars went into Greece, by order of Pope Innocent the twenty first, to instruct farther the * 1.174 Greeks, and confirm them in Obedience to the Roman See, to which the Em∣peror Michael Paleologus had obliged them to submit themselves.

A little while after, there was another Mission of Fryar Minorites to the Tartars, to instruct them more fully in the Articles of the Roman Faith, who * 1.175 had embraced the Christian Religion. This was in the Year 1278, under Pope Nicholas the third.

TOWARDS the end of this Century, Nicholas the fourth sent others * 1.176 after the same manner, for the Reduction of those People who professed the Greek Religion. Raynaldus tells us, that this Pope made use of Dominicans particularly for this purpose, and sent them to preach thro out all the East, * 1.177 in Greece, Bulgaria, Valachia, to the Syrians, Iberians, Allains, Russians, Jaco∣bites,

Ethiopians, Nestorians, Georgians, Armenians, Indians, to the Tartarian Christians, and generally to all strange Nations, separated from the Roman Church. And for this purpose, he likewise made use of the Fryar Mino∣rites, of whose Order he had bin himself, that he sent to several Eastern * 1.178 Bishops a Summary of the Christian Faith, according to which he would have the People instructed; and earnestly recommended his Emissaries to Kings and Princes, to the end that being respected by them, their Labours might be the more Effectual.

BONIFACE the eighth, renewed these general Missions into the East, and to encourage them the more, to acquit themselves well in their Employ, * 1.179 he augmented their Priviledges after a very considerable manner. This was in the Year 1299; These continued under the following Popes, as it appears by the Letters that John the twenty second sent them, in the Year 1318, wherein he gives God thanks for the Progress the Fryar Predicants had made, and exhorted them to continue there. The same appears by other Letters, of Gregory the eleventh towards the end of the fourteenth Century.

THERE are likewise two other Relations of the Voyages of two Domi∣nicans, * 1.180 one named Brother Bieul, the other Brother Oderick, who went by the Popes Command to preach in the East. The first of these does not set down the time, but I suppose 'twas about the fourteenth Century, for there∣in is mention made of the Death of Argon King of the Tartars, which hap'ned towards the end of the thirteenth Century. The second bears date 1330. It ap∣pears by the first of these, that there was at that time Houses of Dominican Fryars, set up in Asia, for the Conversion of the Schismaticks. We came directly, saies this Author, to the stately City of Baudas, where the Fryar Predicants of our Order who dwelt there, came out to meet us, Receiving us with great Joy. And by the second, it appears likewise, that the Emissaries of the Order of Fryar Minorites, had already gotten as far as the Indias, for * 1.181 there is Mention made of three Fryars, who after a long Dispute against the Nestorians, were put to Death for speaking against Mahomet.

IN the Year 1369, Urban the fisth sent Fryar Minorites, amongst all these * 1.182 Nations, with the same order to Preach, and propagate the Catholick Faith. He sent likewise four Bishops into Albania and the neighbouring Provinces, to reduce these Schismatical People to his Obedience. He took the same Care for the Instruction of the Russians, Moldavians, and Valaquains, to whom he sent twenty five Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites. An∣thony Bishop of Miléve was ordered to instruct the Georgians, and other Ea∣stern Christians, together with twenty five other Monks, who were joyned to him. Under Gregory the eleventh, there were several Convents Found∣ed in Bosnia, Bascia, for the same Design of Converting the Schismaticks. This Pope enlarged the Priviledges of the Eastern Missionaries, on Conditi∣on * 1.183 they would remain in those Countries, and not return into the West, un∣der Penalty of being deprived of all their Priviledges.

IN the fifteenth Century, Martin the fifth took Care again of the Mis∣sions, which had bin in some sort Interrupted during the Troubles of that great Schisme, which began under Urbain the sixth, in the Year 1378, and * 1.184 which ended not till after the Council of Constance in the Year 1414, where∣in Martin was chosen. He made the King of Poland his Vicar, thro out the whole Extent of his Dominions, to the end he should endeavour the Re∣duction

of the Greeks, giving him for this purpose full Authority over the Ecclesiasticks and Monks. He conferred the same Power on the Duke of Lituania, giving him an express Charge to endeavour to propagate the Ca∣tholick Religion.

EUGENUS the fourth, Martin's Successor, set forth a new Mission, which consisted of twenty Religious of the Order of Fryar Minorites, to∣gether * 1.185 with a Bishop, whom he sent into Asia, for the propogating of the Roman Faith, and the particular Instruction of the Christians that dwelt in the Caspian Mountains. He employed Gregory Arch Bishop of Moldoblachie, who was a Latinized Greek, for the Reduction of the Bulgarians, Valaqui∣ans, Moldavians, enjoyning him to apply himself thereunto with all possi∣ble Care and Diligence. He sent Andrew Arch Bishop of Colossia into Cyprus, to bring back to his Obedience, the Christians of different Sects who Inha∣bited this Island, namely the Nestorians, Armenians, Coptics, Chaldeans, Ja∣cobites, together with the Greeks who were the Natives of that place.

IN the sixteenth Century the Portugaises having setled themselves in the East Indias, it is well known they established Missions and Seminaries in divers places, and earnestly endeavoured to Instruct the Ethiopians, Ne∣storians, and other Christian Sects which are in that Country.

LEO the tenth sent several to Instruct the Russians and Muscovites, he * 1.186 took the same Care for the Abyssins, and Maronites; for these last, altho they had submitted to the Roman Church, yet retained their antient Errors.

CLEMENT the seventh received an Embassador from Basil, Duke of Muscovia, and sent to this Duke a Legate to treat concerning his Reunion to the Church of Rome. This was in the Year 1531, according to Sponda∣nus, Raynaldus refers it to the Year 1525.

IN fine, if we would know the present State of all the East in this Re∣spect, 'tis but considering that the Emissaries have so far overspread these Countries, that scarcely is there any place where they have not setled them∣selves, and wherein they do not exert all their Learning and Industry, not for the Conversion of the Infidels, for this they cannot expect, but for the gaining of these Schismaticks, Insinuating the Roman Religion amongst these Ignorant and Dull People, who still profess Christianity.

EUGENIUS Roger, a Recollet who was sent into Barbary, in his De∣scription of the Holy Land, tells us, That those of his Order have maintain∣ed * 1.187 themselves in Palestine, from the Year 1333; to this present, and have two Convents at Jerusalem, one at Bethlem, one at Nazareth, one at Rama, one at St. John of Acra, one at Sydon, six in Aegypt, two in the Isle of Cyprus, one at Aleppo, one at Damascus, two at Mount Libanus, one at Alexandria, and one at Constantinople.

JOSEPH Besson the Jesuit, in his Holy Syria, tells us, that the Soci∣ety * 1.188 have five Seminaries in Syria, to wit, at Tripoly, Sidon, Damascus, Alep∣po, and at Questroan, which have bin setled there since the Year 1652, and sent over by the Order of Urbain the eighth.

FRANCIS Richard in his Relation touching the Isle of St. Erinys, gives us this Account. Since, saies he, Princes have ceased to Succour this * 1.189 poor Eastern Church by Arms, our Kings continue to assist it by means, which altho not so Expensive and Famous, yet no less Effectual for the Salvation of Mens Souls, which ought to be the chief end of such like Undertakings. And in another place, Our Society being preserved in this Country by the Providence of God, and Charity of the Faithful, have not ceased to continue their Services to this desolate Church. And to the end the Fruit of our Labours may not be in∣closed within the Walls of Constantinople, our Society has extended it self as far as Thessalonica, Patras, Athens, Naples de Romanis, Milos, Paros, where they have for some time Sojourned, and afterwards setled themselves at Smyrna, Scio, Naxie, Negrepont, St. Erinys, not to mention Syria, where they have four o∣ther places of Residency, viz. Aleppo, Damascus, Seide, and Tripolys. And now they design for Mount Athos, and all other parts where Schisme and Here∣sy reign. And certainly they have undertaken no easy Task, having so many and distant Countries to Travel over, so many Errors to Oppose, and to Correct such a number of Abuses, which Ignorance and Heresy have Introduced amongst these People.

Mr. Thevenot informs us, that there is a Convent of Capucin Fryars in the Isle of St. Andra, which do very much help the Bishop by their Preaching, and * 1.190 Discoursing of the Isle of Chios, he say's, that besides the Jesuits, who have a Church and Colledge, there are also Capucins, who teach humane Learning and Divinity, and also Jacobins, and Gray Fryars, who have all of 'em beauti∣ful Churches. He tells us likewise, that in the Isle of Nixia, there are Je∣suits, Recollets, and Capucins, who make great Progress in the propagating of the Catholick Faith. Besides the Jesuits and Capucins that are, according * 1.191 to Thevenot's Relation, in the Isle of Chios, the Sieur Stochove tels us of Car∣melite Fryars who are there likewise.

AT Smyrna there are both Capucins and Jesuits, saies the Sieur Boulaye * 1.192 Le Goux, and Villamont observes that in the Isles of Cephalonia, and Zant, there are Religious of the Order of St. Francis.

WE know that the Jesuits have settled themselves since the Year 1609 at Constantinople. The Jesuits, saies the Sieur Stochove, have St. Bennet's Church, where they are very well accommodated, having a fine Garden; The * 1.193 Church altho it be but small, yet is a very beautiful one, being covered with Mosa∣isk Work. These Fathers, saies he, do make great Proficiency in the Conversion of the Hereticks and Schismaticks, Instructing them in the Catholick Apostolick Roman Faith. But besides the Jesuits, there are Jacobins, and Cordeliers. The Cordeliers, say's the Sieur Du Loir, are at St. Marys, the Jacobins at St. Peters, and the Jesuits at St. Bennets, which is a very fair Church and Painted * 1.194 also with Mosaick Work, very Rich, but not well Contrived. It is well known there are Emissaries likewise in Hispaham in Persia, who have spread them∣selves as far as the Borders of the Armenians. We have not seen any City in all our Travels, saies the Sieur de Bourges, which is better provided with Emis∣saries, the Reverend Fathers the Austin Portugais Monks, Carmelites, and Je∣suits, have successively established themselves since some Years: and by the Per∣mission of the Prince, they exercise with a great deal of Liberty their Functions. The Reverend Fathers the Jesuits, having setled themselves at Julfa, which is a small City about a League distant from Hispaham, chiefly consisting of Armeni∣ans,

have a particular Conveniency, for the Conversion of Schismaticks. He tells us likewise, That there is at Surat, a Mission of French Capucins, and another at Babylon, and speaking of the former of these, These are, says he, the only Emissarys in this City. We have been Witnesses of the Re∣spect shewed them, and of the Fruit of their Labours, to bring home to the Church the Armenians, Jacobites, and Nestorians.

I shall not trouble my self with mentioning the Missions of the Indias, nor them of Ethiopia, for the relations of these are publick, and known by all the World. We may read what John Peter Maffeé and du Jaric, both Jesuits have written in their Histories of the Indias touching this mat∣ter. And likewise the Relations of Ethiopia taken out of the Letters writ∣ten to the General of the Jesuits Viteleschy, and another History of the East Indias Printed at Arras Anno 1628. but what I already mention'd is sufficient to discover the fallacy of Mr. Arnaud's Argument, who pretends to prove the Perpetuity of his Faith from the Testimony of the Schismati∣cal Churches. For now after what I represented, all which has been faith∣fully transcribed out of Authors never suspected by the Church of Rome, what assurance can we have if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, be found established amongst these people, that it has not been communicated to them by all these Emissaries, who have been sent for so many years, for no other purpose? It ought, methinks, to be shewed us (to colour over this proof) that the sources whence they drew their Christianity have not been adulterated, that these Springs have run clear, without being troubled to this day; or at least the time of these Missions must be laid aside, and Mr. Arnaud (if he intends to deal sincerely) must begin from the Ages which precede them; for if it does not appear these Schismaticks believed the same as the Church of Rome concerning the Eucharist, before all this care for their instruction, what likelihood is there we shall suffer our selves to be surpriz'd by so frivolous an Argument. I will suppose for once that I was deceiv'd, when I maintain'd that any one of these Nations who profess the Christian Religion and submitted not to the Pope, did not reckon Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Creed, nor the Adora∣tion of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies. Will Mr. Ar∣naud then imagine that my mistake has prejudiced my Cause, or justified the Consequence he pretends to draw from his Principle? This pretension of his in my mind, would be very unjust and unreasonable. For whether the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, do or do not believe Transubstan∣tiation, this is only a question between him and me, to which the Subject I defend has no relation, and therefore he can expect no more at utmost than a Victory over me and not my Cause, seeing the Consequence he would draw hence will be continually disputed him, to wit, that Transubstan∣tiation has been perpetually believed in these Churches. Whence it follows that he has been to blame in passing over so slightly as he has done, a point of this importance, on which depends the whole force of his Proofs, and he may justly be complain'd of in the Church of Rome, in that he hath in his whole proceeding betrayed a greater care for his own private Reputation, than that of the Church whose cause he takes upon him to de∣fend. As to what concerns my self I hope I shall be able to give the World a good Account touching what I denyed: and were I mistaken, I would not be ashamed to make an open Recantation without the least ap∣prehension that this my Retractation would in any sort prejudice my Cause, seeing in effect, I do not believe it follows that a Doctrine has been perpetual

in Religion, altho Schismatical Churches now profess it as well as the La∣tins. This Consequence must be proved, as well as its Principle, did Mr. Arnaud take a direct course and argue in a requisite manner to satisfie judici∣ous Persons. And therefore he ought to have given a sincere account of this whole History of the Missions, which I come now from representing in this Chap. for I cannot imagine how Mr. Arnaud could pass over in silence as he has done, an History so important and necessary for the making of a right Judgment of this whole Controversie; seeing he could not be igno∣rant of it. If he believes he has done right, I must needs say, he has a kind of sincerity different from that of all other people; and if he be∣lieves he ought not to have taken this course, we must affirm, that his silence is so much the more criminal, in that he has acted against the light of his own Conscience.

CHAP. V.

That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Ro∣man Religion amongst the Schismaticks, The Seminaries which have been set up for the same design, and the particular Instructions given them touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, do sufficient∣ly shew that there can no Advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their belief. Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice discovered.

WHOSOEVER considers the foregoing Chapters will not I suppose overmuch value Mr. Arnaud's Labours touching the Grecian and other Eastern Christians called Schismaticks. For 'tis certain there was never a more vain and fruitless Amusement, than his whole Dispute on that Subject; at the end whereof I am much mistaken if he finds not he has ill bestowed his time, having given no light at all to the main Question, which is to know whether the Doctrine of the present Roman Church is the same with that of all Anti∣quity. But besides what I already offered, it remains, that I make some important Reflections on those things, the most part of which Mr. Arnaud has past over in silence, and which I shall recollect as briefly as I can in this Chapter, to the end I may not any longer detain the Reader on a point, which I believe I have sufficiently evidenced.

First, Then I find in the Relation of the Emissaries of St. Erinys, that one of the reasons for which they were sent, was to endeavour the Ad∣vancement of the honour of the Holy Sacrament. The Author of these Relations desirous to give the World an account of the Honours they have endeavoured to procure from the Inhabitants of this Island, to the Sacrament, begins thus, I believe, say's he, the Gentlemen of * 1.195 the Confraternity of the August Society of the Holy Sacrament, having testi∣fied

so great Zeal for the Advancement of this Devotion, especially in the Eastern Countries, will approve of these Discourses, seeing they will be inform'd by them that the Prayers and Vows they have made for the Conversion of these poor wretches, were not fruitless. These words sufficiently shew (if I be not mistaken,) that one of the chief ends which the Emissaries propo∣sed to themselves in the Conversion of the Greeks, is to give them those Sentiments which they have not yet entertained concerning the Holy Sa∣crament, and 'tis unto this whereunto tends the Zeal and Prayers of the Confraternity.

WHENCE it follows, that 'tis no great wonder if they have accomplish∣ed their Design; and that if these people do at this day believe Transub∣stantiation and Adore the Eucharist, it cannot be hence concluded that this Doctrine has been amongst them ever since they first received the Christian Faith.

BUT the better to convince Mr. Arnaud of the vanity of his pretended Consequence, and how little I would esteem his victory if it were as real as it is false and imaginary; I need but set before him the means these Emissa∣ries have used whereby to insinuate the Roman Religion, in these Countries, in all which I shall relate no more than what I learn from Authors no wise suspected by the Church of Rome.

THE first instrument they use is Money, Francis Richard the Jesuit, in the foresaid Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, plainly tells us so. Above an hundred poor Greeks, say's he, became our own, being drawn over to us by * 1.196 some small Charity we bestowed on them. Money can do all things in these parts, and we are certain that provided we had wherewithal to give the Greek Bishops, they would suffer us, to Confess, Preach and Instruct them who are under their Charge, in whatsoever we pleased. So that are not these very fit people to de∣termine the Antiquity of our Doctrines. Anthony de Gouveau one of the * 1.197 Emissaries of Persia, in his History of the Reduction of the Armenians, which were carried over into Persia, under the Conduct of the Patriarch David, expresly observes, that one of the first courses the Missionaries took to draw these people to them, was to distribute money amongst them, by which means they were easily wrought on to come to Catechisings.

BUT besides Money, they make the practice of Physick, to serve as a pre∣tence, for the introducing of them into Houses, where they take their oppor∣tunity, * 1.198 to discourse of Religion. By this means, say's the Jesuit Richard, we have free admittance into the Houses of the Greeks, and many times gain by Conversation what we could not effect by Preaching.

THE knowledge of the Mathematicks draws to 'em several persons and furnishes them with occasions of entertaining them. Besson the Jesuit, speaking of one of their Emissaries at Damascus; he drew, say's he, to our * 1.199 house several Greeks, by the fame of his Skill in the Mathematicks, which is a Science in great Esteem amongst the Levantine People, and especially Astronomy, upon which account our Emissaries have easie admittance into great Houses, whe∣ther of Turks, or Christians.

THEY endeavour more especially to gain the Bishops and Patriarchs, and that with success, as it will appear, by the Testimony I shall produce.

Father John Amien, say's Besson speaking of the Emissaries of Tripolys, gain'd * 1.200 the Greek Bishop of Tripolys to the Romish Religion.

The same Besson, discoursing of the Mission in Aleppo, and of one of its Fathers, he hath intirely won, say's he, Philip the Patriarch, who is Pa∣triarch * 1.201 of great Armenia whose Seat is in Persia, at Eschiniadzin. This ve∣nerable Prelate being come to Aleppo, to visit the holy Places, received the Father with great Expressions of good Will, and shewed him that he was a Catholick in hit Heart, being of a very frank Nature, he farther declared this in the pre∣sence of another Patriarch. He say's moreover that this same Emissary con∣verted an Armenian Bishop, who was afterwards forc'd by the Schismaticks to leave his Country, and retire into a Monastery in Cappadocia, and would turn Jesuit, but, say's he, whatsoever great qualities he had, it was not judg'd meet to deprive the Armenians of this Pastour.

Speaking in another place of an Emissary of Aleppo, he has brought over, say's he, to the Roman Church another Greek Bishop, and with this person en∣dowed * 1.202 with such good Qualifications, he doubts not but he shall gain several o∣thers who will 'tis likely follow so great an Example. Certainly, adds he, in these Missions of the Levant there ought to be a particular regard had to the Bi∣shops, whose Example the people will not fail to imitate.

Discoursing elsewhere, of the Emissaries of Seyde. We are obliged, say's he, to the Bishop of the Greeks, who besides his being won to the Roman Church * 1.203 by one of our Fathers lays other Obligations on us. For he opens to us his Heart as well as his Church, and publickly declares to his hearers that the Frank's Church and that of the Maronites are, the true Churches. These Conquests cannot be lost, unless by the ill conduct of the Pastours, and the pernicious Maxims they may give out. Gain but one of them, and you gain them all, but if one of 'em holds out and will not yield, what you have done already signifies nothing.

Discoursing of the Mission of Aleppo, he say's that the Bishop of the Syrians at Aleppo, before his Ordination, conceived a great hatred against the Sy∣rian Heresie, and turn'd Catholick, and within a while, went to Rome, from whence returning, he was Consecrated by the Patriarch of the Maro∣nites, and settled in the Syrian Church at Aleppo. From whence being constrain'd to withdraw, he was brought there again at the request of the Curats and by the Assistance of Mr. Piquet. He generously serves, adds he, Almighty God amongst his own people, whom he exhorts to keep stedfast to the Church of Rome. And thus have the Endeavours of our Emissaries, been assisted by the Divine Grace, which we doubt not but will prove of great consequence to the Syrians, seeing that in gaining a person of his merit, they have done as much as if they had converted a whole Nation.

The Sieur Stochove, speaking of the Jesuits at Galata, These Fathers En∣deavours, say's he, have not been ineffectual amongst the Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks, * 1.204 for they converted several Greek Bishops and disposed others, in case of any Revolution, to abhere to the Roman Church.

I acquainted my self, say's Busbequius, the Emperour's Embassadour, with Metrophanus the Metropolitain and Superiour of the Monastery of Chalcy, he * 1.205 is an honest and learned Man, and one that passionately desires the re-union of

the two Churches, contrary to the custom of his Nation, who detests them of our Communion, as prophane and impure Persons.

GOUVEAU the Monk relating how he and other Augustin Portugai∣ses * 1.206 proceeded in order to the Re-union of the Armenians in Persia to the Roman Church, tells us, that they particularly applyed themselves to the winning David their Patriarch, making use of him afterwards as an instru∣ment to prevail on the Bishops and all the rest of the People.

NOW tell me, I pray after this, with what sincerity the Greeks and other Eastern Christians can be alledged in this matter? they are won by Money, several pretences are made use of by the Emissaries to introduce themselves into their houses, they prevail on their Bishops, not making them publickly change their Religion, but leaving them in the same Communi∣on wherein they find them, to the end that they may likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith. Now what can be said of these people, but that if they believe Transubstantiation (it not appearing they believed it before all these Intrigues) they have received this Doctrine from the Emissaries, by these indirect ways which they practise.

BUT this is not all, for one of the most usual and effectual Courses they take to establish insensibly, and without any noise, the Roman Religion in Greece, and amongst all other Nations, is the instruction of their Youth, which employment they commonly take upon them wheresoever they come; for under pretence of instructing them in Human Learning, they instil in∣to their minds the Principles of the Romish Faith, so that a great part of the Greek Prelates are of this number, that is to say their Schollars, having received from them in their tender Age a favourable Opinion of the Roman Church.

WE are inform'd by the Author of M. de la Haye's Voyages who was * 1.207 Embassador to the late King of France, that the Jesuits at Galata, are very suc∣cesful in their undertakings in this kind; for besides their Preaching and Con∣fessions, they instruct all the Youth, as also the Schismaticks, whom they have con∣vinced (for the most part of them) of their Errors, so that several Principal Greek Bishops and Archbishops, (who have been their Schollars) do favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and are capable of doing it great Service.

THE Sieur Stochovius, speaks to the same effect, the Greeks, say's he, do * 1.208 not at all scruple the sending their Children to School (he means to that of the Jesuits) wherein they are instructed as well in the Catholick Religion, as in Hu∣man Learning. And discoursing of the Isle of Chios, he tells us, that the Je∣suits have a strong-built Convent there, besides a fair Church, that they are twenty in number who are all of them naturaliz'd, and take upon them ac∣cording to their custom the instruction of Youth, and bring divers over to the true Religion. The Carmelites, adds he, have a Church and Convent there, who likewise apply themselves to the instructing of Youth, and convert divers from the common Heresie of the Greeks.

THE Sieur du Loir tells us likewise, that the Jesuits of Galatia, keep * 1.209 School for the Children of the Greeks and Armenians. And the Sieur Theve∣not informs us, that in the Isle of Chios, there is a Convent of Capucins who teach human Learning and the Christian Doctrine, to several Children who re∣pair

thither. He tells us in another place, that in the Isle of Andria the Ca∣pucins do greatly ease the Bishop, by their Preachings and Confessions, and by * 1.210 their School, to which go all the Greek Children, and that some are sent from Athens for that purpose.

LA Boulaye le Goux tells us, that the Jesuits have a convenient House at * 1.211 Smyrna wherein they instruct the Greek Children. And the same do they at St. Erinys, as appears by the relation of Richard the Jesuit, who introdu∣ces another Jesuit speaking as follows, I set open my School every day to all that will come and learn any thing, being ever ready and most willing to instruct Youth, as well out of Obedience to my Superiour, who earnestly recommended to me this course, as for that likewise it has been revealed to me from Heaven, that this is the surest way to reform by degrees the Greek Church, and perhaps one of the most likeliest means to maintain us in these forraign Countries.

IT already appears, by these Testimonies, that one of the principal things recommended to the Emissaries, when they are to be sent abroad, is the E∣ducation of Children, as an infallible means to set up the Romish Religion in the midst of these people, and that the Emissaries on their side do well acquit themselves in this particular. But the Author of the Book called A Description of the Holy Land, delivers himself more plainly. For discour∣sing how the Jesuits employ themselves in the City of Aleppo, he tells us, that their chief business is to instruct Youth, which has always been esteem∣ed a matter of great importance and highly conducing to the reformation of these Nations. Observe, I beseech you, what he says, that the Emissa∣ries do not only carefully apply themselves to this, and that by order from their Superiors, but that this is an especial means to make all these people in a short time to become insensibly Roman Catholicks.

BUT we must likewise take notice that these Gentlemen who leave no means untryed, do wholly betake themselves to these two last ways, name∣ly, that of gaining the Prelates and that of instructing Youth. For when they have won any Bishop to their Party, they oblige him to set them upon the educating of their Children, making use of his Authority that they may manage their business with greater success and security. Which the same Author of the Holy Land shews us, Father Queriot, say's he, was a fit per∣son to offer his service to the Greek Metropolitain, who was a good Catholick, * 1.212 and a man of a strict Life (he means the Metropolitain of Aleppo) he has ob∣lig'd him to trust us with the Education of the Grecian Children of that Country, and to slight the discourses of the Enemies of the Roman Religion. And a lit∣tle farther, it is to be moreover observed, say's he, that the Patriarch of Constantinople reprehending him for employing a Religious Frank in the teach∣ing of the Greeks, even in his Episcopal House, this great man who is ever like himself, does notwithstanding permit the Father to proceed on still in his under∣taking.

SPEAKING of the Mission of Damascus, this Mission, say's he, is the work of Father Jerom Queriot who was sent from Aleppo to Damascus, in the beginning of the year 1643, by the Greek Patriarch Euthymius, who was of the Isle of Chios, and of the Romish Religion, for the instruction of Youth, and especially of his Nephew, and for the composition of his circular Letters and Greek and Arabian Patents. Yet he tells us, this Father was forc'd to leave

the place, the Greeks growing jealous of him, in as much as that he being a Religious Frank was employed in the chief affairs of the Patriar∣chate.

I cannot forbear mentioning what the said Author relates on the same Subject, namely, the instruction of the Greek Youth. We must betake our selves to this Course, say's he, for the converting the Greek Schismaticks. We are too old, said Jerasimus an Archbishop and Vicar of the Patriarchate, to receive new Impressions: but instruct our Youth, who by your care will be capable of trying good things and prove a Seminary of perfect Christians; words, say's he, which he uttered in the hearing of the Youth on purpose to encourage them to make use of the advantage offered them. It is certainly a great satisfaction to us when we see young Greeks who are naturally eloquent, to instruct so hand∣somely their Servants; and I had almost said, even their very Parents, who be∣come as it were their Disciples in Religion. Is there any thing more great and glorious than the building of new Churches with the Apostles, and converting the World? For new Churches are planted by the settlement of these Missions, and the old ones repaired at the same time, by means of the Instruction of Chil∣dren who teach their Parents. This Jesuit lays open the matter plainly and sincerely, whereas Mr. Arnaud does not so, for he would have these new Churches pass for old ones.

THE same Author relates that having observ'd John Damascen was e∣steem'd in this Country as an infallible Doctor, and that his Testimony a∣gainst Heresies was of great weight with them; One of our Fathers, say's he, undertook to teach this Saints Logick and Divinity touching the controvert∣ed Points. He say's, this invention took, and inspired the Schollars with great Zeal. But say's he, this their forwardness was taken notice of by some envious Per∣sons, who informed the Vicar of the Patriarchate of the matter, and so far in∣censed him that he caus'd the young Students to be brought before him, and ha∣ving reprehended their Boldness, condemned their Opinions and charged them to desist from such Discourses, adding therewithal, that if they obeyed not his Com∣mands, he would ruine them and their Families. These Arguments, say's he, could not prevail with the Schollars to change their Opinions, or break off their Assemblies, and forsake their Masters, but they were more cautious afterwards, and did forbear publishing any thing in the Circles as they had heretofore done.

IT is is an easie matter to comprehend the Advantage the Church of Rome makes of the labours of these Emissaries; and to be more particularly informed thereof, we need but read what the Sieur Poulet has written con∣cerning * 1.213 the Jesuits, and their manner of proceedings in the East. They rightly understood, say's he, how difficult it is to work on the mind of a Person grown old in his Errors, and that the first impressions being strengthened by a long custom, become a new Nature in us, wherefore our instructions must be bestowed on them whose minds are not yet corrupted by Maxims of Schism and Heresie. They have therefore very advisedly, set up Schools, whereunto the Children of Schismaticks and sometimes of Turks too do resort. The desire of having some Images, or Agnusses draws them to our Congregations, where hearing our Doctrine, they become effectually Catholicks without perceiving themselves to be so: as for the other Schismaticks, they hear our Sermons, and pretend to be Catholicks only in hope of some Advantage they expect by this their Dissimulation.

WE need likewise but read what Besson the Jesuit has written, touch∣ing * 1.214 the proceedings of the Society at Aleppo. The Religious Orders, say's he, even the most regular amongst them, have received from the Society at A∣leppo not a few Advantages, and the Eastern Church has had such Prelates from them as are at this day the greatest lights of the Syrian Clergy. Whereupon he tells us in another place, that the Greeks and Syrians admit Apostolical Men in∣to * 1.215 their Houses. They likewise permit them the use of their Churches, and the Curats accept of our help, the Bishops entreat us to prune their Vines, and this Church in the East being now weary of its miseries, and blinded with its tears, expects from the West the most pure lights of the Gospel.

I confess these Gentlemen have been very dext'rous and fortunate in per∣forming what has been given them in charge, and that the Church of Rome in general is very much obliged to them, but I ••ind Mr. Arnaud to be more fortunate than they: for it seems as if these persons had foreseen long be∣fore, by a Prophetical Spirit, the book Mr. Arnaud was to make, and there∣fore would prepare him Materials, and furnish him with this fine Collection of Attestations and Testimonies. Who would ever have thought that these Gentlemen the Jesuits should pass over the Seas and run to the farthest parts of the World to do Mr. Arnaud honour? Yet is it true, that they have been his Messengers, and a man would be apt to think, they went only into these Countrys upon his account.

NEITHER must we pass over in silence the Seminaries, establish'd in Rome, and other places, for the bringing up of Greek Children, where∣in they are taught on one hand the Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church, and on the other, the Doctrines and Opinions of the Church of Rome: for leaving these Schools, they betake themselves to the East, where it frequently happens they are called to the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Fun∣ctions, and these are as so many of the Court of Romes Creatures, who endeavour to the utmost of their power to establish the Doctrines and Max∣ims of the Latins. It is well known that during the Popedom of Gregory the XIII, there was a Colledge founded at Rome; to what end, we may be infor∣med by Leo Allatius. The Colledge of the Greeks, say's he, was built in Gre∣gory * 1.216 the thirteenth's time, to the end the Grecian Children might learn the Arts and Sciences, which are not now to be found in Greece, and also be instructed in the Catholick Religion, that they may afterwards communicate it to others, and especially to them of their own Nation. And in the following Chapter, relating what means has been used to propagate the Roman Religion in Greece, since those Countrys have been possessed by the Turks, he adds, Thus thro a long series of time has Religion made its progress in Greece. But at length Gregory the XIII, desirous to quench the fire which wasted all Greece, and remedy its miseries, has therefore caused to be built at Rome the Greek Church, which he Dedicated to St. Athenasius. He bought likewise at the same time, the neighbouring Houses, for Dwellings to entertain the Greek Schollars which should be brought over from Greece, being all the Children of Greeks. He gave likewise a considerable yearly Revenue for their Maintenance; to the end that they being instructed in the Greek and Latin Tongues might serve as an Ornament and help to their distressed Country. Now this is not a matter needs proving, seeing this Church continues even to this day at Rome, in the same use for which 'twas intended.

THE Fruits gathered hence are not inconsiderable, for there has been and is now every day sent, I know not how many persons, full of Zeal for the Roman Church its Rites and Ceremonies, into the East, who spread∣ing themselves over all parts of it, and professing the Religion of the Schis∣matical Greeks, and living in the same Communion with them, do not fail to insinuate the Doctrines of the Church of Rome into their minds. Leo Allatius has made a Catalogue of these Persons, which the curious may see, if they please, he has observ'd that several of them have been made Arch∣bishops, and a great number of others promoted to Episcopal Charges: some of them having been too zealous, occasion'd the Greeks to rise up a∣gainst them; and others have been so succesful in their Endeavours, that they gained the very Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves. He mentions amongst others one Josaphat Azales, who having finish'd his Studies in the Seminary, was sent to Messene, a City of Pelopenesus, to instruct the Monks of St. Basil who live there, and having been some time after made Papas, that is to say, a Greek Priest, he went to Mount Athos, and there say's Allatius, he taught the true Faith. Now it is to be observed, that this Mount Athos is the general Seminary of the whole East, as Mr. Arnaud tells us, it be∣ing from thence the Religious do disperse themselves over all Greece; from this place they have their Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops, so that to carry the Roman Religion to Mount Athos, it is to go to the source, which is a means to gain in a short time all the Greeks. He mentions ano∣ther, whom he calls Ignatius Mindon, who leaving the Seminary, return∣ed into Greece, where he taught several years; and from thence went to Trebizonde which is a City on Pont Euxin, where as before he set himself to the instructing of people, and that with such success, that he was taken by them for a Prophet; And in fine, being sent for by Raphael the Patriarch of Constantinople, to be Rector of the Patriarchal Church at Pera, he endea∣voured, say's he, with all his power to advance the Interest of the Church of Rome.

IT is in this Seminary wherein were brought up two Persons who made * 1.217 a great noise in the World, to wit, John Mathew Caryophilus Archbishop of Iconia, and Peter Arcudius; the first of these was sent into Greece, but ha∣ving not discreetly carried himself, was forc'd for his preservation, to re∣turn to Rome, where he set himself to writing against the Greeks: and the other was sent into Poland, Lituania, Russia and Muscovia, where he employ∣ed himself, according to his own relation for the space of twenty years in the propagating of the Roman Faith.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit writing to Pope Gregory the 13th, touching the means to be used for the introducing of the Doctrines of the Roman Church amongst the Moscovits, he so highly esteems Seminaries, that he advises him to settle one at Rome for the Russians, and another at Vilna in * 1.218 Lituania, where he say's, that the Jesuits have likewise their Colledge in which there are many Schollars. He tells us in another place, that this Pope in effect founded several Seminaries for the Russians in Lituania and other places.

M. the Bishop of Pamiez having told us in his Annals that Gregory found∣ed * 1.219 a Seminary at Rome for the Maronites, says farther, that the same Pope

founded others for the Eastern and Northern Countries as well at Rome as in the Provinces.

AS to what remains we must not imagine the Turks, under whose Go∣vernment the Greeks live, do hinder the Endeavours of the Latins; it was never heard of, say's John Cottovicus, that the Turks have been in any sort se∣vere against the Religious, who having finished their Studies at Rome, and ta∣ken Orders, returned into their own Countrys and were raised to Dignities, nor that the Turkish Magistrate hath upon this account made them suffer the least Dammage. In effect provided they oppose not their Religion, they are rea∣dy enough to connive at all other matters. They favour them that give 'em most Money, and from thence 'tis we see on the Patriarchal See of Con∣stantinople, Persons who keep a good Correspondency with the Court of Rome, or else such who have been the Jesuits Schollars, who feeing them∣selves rais'd to this Dignity, do not fail to favour, as much as in them lies, this change so long prosecuted: and 'tis in this rank we must place Raphael, Neophytus, Timotheus, Cyrillus of Berrhaea, and I know not how many o∣thers whom the Roman Party has at divers times helped to the Patriarchate, and who in requital did them afterwards great Service.

ALL this, me thinks, shews evidently that Mr. Arnaud has been very dis-ingenuous in his whole proceeding, who concealing these Intrigues, confidently undertakes to convince us, of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist, upon this Principle, that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches, as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither, or as if the Latins had never attempted this. Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere, or invented them themselves; Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument; neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience: But seeing he knew well enough, the Latins have been perpe∣tually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys, and con∣stantly laboured at this, since I know not how many Ages; he therefore upon supposal they have effected this, comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine, this is, to speak modestly, such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men.

IT will perhaps be objected, that I do indeed here shew, That the La∣tins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East; but that I do not make it particularly appear, they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. To which I answer first, this is not neces∣sary; for proposing only to my self at present, to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed, touching Transubstantiation, in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same, it suffices me to shew there∣upon, That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves, in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East, especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it. And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist, he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned, and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them. For unless he proves, that Tran∣substantiation has been believed in these Churches, before all these endea∣vours

to bring them over to the Roman Faith, there is no Person endued with sence, but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it, seeing he is ever lyable to be told, they have received it from the Latins, it not appearing amongst them before.

BUT in the second place, I will not have it stick here, to the end Mr. Ar∣naud may receive full satisfaction touching this point. I say then, that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that * 1.220 great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman (as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book) he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith, which he would have receiv∣ed by the Greeks, because he found that which the Greeks sent him, not only deficient in several things, but full of Errors, altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it. Now Amongst other Articles in this Con∣fession there is one, which relates to the Eucharist, and which runs thus in Latin. Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia, tenens & docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, which is to say, the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread, Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Bo∣dy, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks.

IN the Year 1272, Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece, * 1.221 to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks, under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus, who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate, and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith.

IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites in∣to * 1.222 Esclavonia, to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome, he gave them Letters to King Urosius, and Helena the Queen Mother; and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine, con∣taining the Article of Transubstantiation, to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People.

THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East, who embraced his Communion, exhorting them to instruct the People accord∣ing * 1.223 to the Doctrine contained therein, and at the same time he recommend∣ed to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries, for the Conversion of the Greeks, Bulgarians, Valaquians, Syrians, Iberians, Alains, Russians, Jaco∣bites, Nestorians, Georgians, Armenians, Indians; whence it is easie to con∣jecture, that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary.

IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confessi∣on * 1.224 to the King of Armenia; And not only, say's Rynaldus, The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia, and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church: but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens, had retired into Chersonesus Taurique. They submitted themselves to the Ro∣man Church, in the presence of the Bishop of Capha, who was a Latin. The Pope, adds he, congratulated them, and shewed 'em, that in the Divine Myste∣ries, the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species remaining entire.

IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains, * 1.225 who were a sort of Christians, that professed the Greek Religion, and lived under the Government of the Tartars. He return'd them an answer, and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction. Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I late∣ly cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria, which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it.

IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to * 1.226 reunite himself to the Church of Rome, that he might be assisted against the Turks, Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him, as his Predecessors had done to Mi∣chael this same Confession of Faith.

SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians, but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to the end it may not be said this Con∣fession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith, as well as that of the Substantial Conversion, it is to be observed, that it has two distinct parts: in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained, and in the other there are several particular points expresly determined by the Church of Rome, propter diversas Haereses a quibusdam ex ignorantia & ab aliis ex malitia introductas, by reason of certain Heresies introduc'd by the ig∣norance of some, and Malice of others. Now 'tis under these last points that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained; which plainly shews, that this Doctrine was proposed to them as lately defined by the Church of Rome, and of which those People had at that time no certain Know∣ledge.

MR. Arnaud then must seek elsewhere for Proofs whereon to ground his pretension touching the Antiquity of the Opinion in question, and I will not stick to affirm, he must be an extraordinary Person if he can solidly acquit himself of what I have lay'd before him, and in all which I defie him to produce a false Quotation. He has been shewed five remarkable deceits whereby he has imposed on the World, in concealing whatsoever was necessary to be known in order to a right understanding of this Con∣troversie, and in turning to a vain and unprofitable use whatsoever concludes directly against him. He has been shewed the profound Ignorance where∣in these People have lay'n from the eleventh Century to this present, and the fond Superstitions reigning amongst them, which makes them very un∣fit Judges of our Controversie. He has been shewed the miserable condi∣tion of these Churches in respect of Temporals, and the Violences offered them by the Latins to make them change their Religion. We have repre∣sented him with the Persecutions they suffered from their own Princes up∣on this account; We have observed all these Countries ore-spread with Monks and Emissaries, time out of mind, and that without interruption to this day; We have represented him with a particular account of what the Emissaries do, and what the Seminaries contribute towards the making them receive the Roman Faith. And in fine, we have shewed him, that one of their chiefest cares for these People was to make them learn the Mystery of the Substantial Conversion. Now after this, whether they do believe it, or not, it is an indifferent matter in respect of the main

of our Controversie. So that it only now lies upon me to vindicate my own particular Reputation; that is to say, whether I have rightly or no affirmed that they do not believe it, and which I shall demonstrate by God's Assistance in the following parts of this Work, and that in such a manner as I doubt not but will satisfie all reasonable Persons.

BOOK III.

Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation.

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 * 1.227 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 * 1.228 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 * 1.229 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 * 1.230 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. * 1.231 He likewise takes a great deal of pains to prove that Nicholas Méthoniensis * 1.232 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 * 1.233 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 * 1.234 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 * 1.235 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 * 1.236 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 * 1.237 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 * 1.238 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.

CHAP. II.

The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the Term of Transubstantiation. The second from their not expresly teaching the Conversion of Substances. Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion.

MY first Proof is taken from the Greeks not using the Term of Transubstantiation, when they explain their belief touching the Eucharist. And this Arcudius himself (who cannot be suspected by the Roman Church, seeing he is a Person devoted to its In∣terests) is forc'd to confess in the same place, where he would perswade us, that the Greeks believe the Conversion of Substances. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, say's he, the Greeks acknowledge, embrace and believe, with a firm * 1.239 Faith, veram 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a real Transubstantiation, as it appears by the Testi∣mony of the ancient Greek Fathers of all Ages, and lately by that of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the tenth Chapter of his Censure of the Luthe∣rans. So far he agrees with Mr. Arnaud, but what follows does not well accord with what he said before, And altho they use not this Term, yet have they invented others, by which they explain themselves as fully as can be desired. Dicunt enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, aliaque id genus, we shall by what follows whether he has reason to say these Terms signifie and express areal Transubstantiation, it suffices me at present to represent what he acknowledges, That they use not the Term of Transub∣stantiation. This justifies it self by the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius, a real false Greek whom Mr. Arnaud produces with so great ostentation, and that which shall be considered in its place; vox etenim, say's he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, transubstantiatio tametsi nova quodammodo videatur, & a pluribus non libenter ut recens suscipiatur licet nihilominus, &c. This Term of Transubstantiation altho it seems in some sort new, and that several by reason of its novelty do not willingly receive it, &c. These several he speaks of are all the true Greeks, which is to say, all them which are not as Paysius, who holds intelligence with the Latins.

I might likewise here produce the Testimony of Mr. Basire Arch-Deacon of Northumberland, and Chaplain to his Majesty of Great Britain, a wor∣thy Person, exquisitely Learned, exemplary for his Virtue, and well ver∣sed

in Languages, who has not only voyaged into Greece and other Eastern Parts, but has lived there a considerable time, and publickly Preached in the Greek Churches. For in one of his Letters he sent me, and out of which I shall produce hereafter some Articles, he assures me he has carefully read several publick Writings of the Greeks, as their Symbols, Confessions, and Catechisms, to see whether he could find the Term of Transubstantiation in them, which he could not find in any of them. He farther adds, that one of these false Greeks which the Latins make use of for the propogating of their Doctrines in these Countries, having compiled a Catechism, wherein he had inserted the Term of Transubstantiation, he was censured for it by the true Greeks. But all these Testimonies are not necessary, seeing we may read a great many of these authentick Pieces of the Greeks, as their Canons collected by Balsamon, Zonaras, and several others, part of their Liturgies inserted in the Library of the Fathers, their Euchology given us by James Goar a Dominicain, their Pontificia published by Mr. Habert Bishop of Va∣bres, the Confession of Faith which their Prelats make at the time of their Ordination, the Typick, that is to say, the Book that regulates every days Office, with their Festivals, Fasts and Solemnities, their Anthology which particularly contains the Offices for Festivals, their Horologies consisting of daily Prayers and many other Ecclesiastical Books, a great number of which we find in the dissertation Leo Allatius wrote on this Subject. Mr. Arnaud who has made an exact search by himself and Friends, cannot pro∣duce one passage that bears the expression of Transubstantiation, which in my judgment is an evident token that 'tis not in them. We may see like∣wise the Books of their most approved Authors, as of John Damascene, Ni∣cephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Germain, Balsamon, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabisilas, Marc of Ephesus, Jeremias the Patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whose works are extant, in which we find no such expression as answers that of Transubstan∣tiation. Neither can it be said, that this expression being new and found out but since the Contest with Berengarius, the Greeks have therefore no such word in their Language whereby perfectly to express this, seeing they have the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies properly Transubstantiation. We have already seen that Arcudius, and Paysius Ligaridius, have observed it, in effect the Latinis'd Greeks do commonly use it, and it was ever inserted in the Formulary of Abjuration, which the Greeks make, when they em∣brace the Romish Religion, as I shall make it appear hereafter. And Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to acknowledge, this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not * 1.240 that which the Greeks ordinarily use whereby to explain Transubstantiation, He should have said they used it not in the explication of their Creed. Moreo∣ver he needed not insert the word, Ordinarily, for 'tis certain they do nei∣ther use it ordinarily nor extraordinarily.

BUT it may be perhaps replyed, It does not follow that they do not believe with the Latins the Doctrine represented under this Term, altho they use not the Term it self. I answer first, that if we suppose the Greeks ever held this Opinion, as Mr. Arnaud would perswade us, there could not be any reason given why the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has not been found all this while in use amongst their Authors, and so much the more because we find that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in them. For the Latins who had not in common use either the Term of Substan∣tiatio, nor Substantiare, have therefore invented and admitted of that of Transubstantiatio, and Transubstantiare, as most proper to express their con∣ceptions on that Subject, so that this very consideration, That we find not

these kind of expressions in the Writings of the Greeks, is a kind of proof that they believed not the thing signified by them. Moreover, the Latins having Invented the Term of Transubstantiation; how comes it to pass the Greeks have not all this while, following their example used that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to keep up this perfect Conformity with the Church of Rome, which Mr. Arnaud has all along supposed? How comes it to pass that when this Greek word has been known to 'em, and even the Latins themselves have taught it them, yet they would not admit of it? and I pray, what ill conveniencies could they apprehend thereby, if they in effect believed the conversion of the Substances? It cannot appear strange to us, that there were heretofore Persons of sound Judgments, who scrupled to admit the term of Hypostasis, because that in effect ignorant people would take thence occasion to imagine, there were several Divinities; but there can be nothing like this alleadged in respect of Transubstantiation, for there is no danger of giving this an ex∣cessive sence, beyond what ought to be believed, supposing we admit the Sub∣stantial conversion. There is rather on the contrary, a kind of necessity to make use of it, because it expresses better than any other this kind of conver∣sion, and the Terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being general expres∣sions are consequently defective, and suffer a man to deny the change in que∣stion, and fall into Heresie; which is as much the Greeks interest as the La∣tins to prevent, if it were so they had the same Sentiments in this Subject with them, as Mr. Arnaud assures us they have. He mightily bestirs him∣self with his Arguments, or rather Declamations on that the Greeks have never quarrelled about this Doctrine, and finds it strange supposing they were of a contrary belief to the Latins. But let him then tell us, wherefore they so obstinately refused to use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transubstantiation, and would never express themselves on this Mystery in the same form as the Church of Rome; for I find this far more strange, supposing they hold in the main the same Doctrine with her. It cannot be alledged that their igno∣rance has hind'red them from finding so proper a Term; for it has been made to their hands, or that they feared thereby to offend their Emperours; see∣ing they were deeply engaged to favour the Church of Rome, or feared there∣by to incur a greater hatred from the Latins, seeing they could not do 'em a greater pleasure.

HOW comes it then to pass, they never used it, but on the contrary, when the Latins in these forc'd and interessed Unions I mentioned in the pre∣ceding Book, have proposed to them the Article of the Eucharist under the Term of Transubstantiatur, the Bread is transubstantiated, they kept to their general expressions, saying, only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bread is changed, as I shall hereafter make appear? Is not this an evident Testimony they would not adopt a Doctrine unknown to their Church, and which they regarded as a Novelty?

THIS first Proof shall be upheld by a second of no less strength than the former. Being taken from that the Greeks in the explicating of their belief on the Eucharist, not only do not use the Term of Transubstantiation, but whatsoe∣ver Terms they make use of, they signifie not any thing which expresly bears the real conversion of the Substance Bread of and Wine into that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. When Pope Gregory, towards the end of the Ele∣venth Century was minded to shew what his belief was on this Subject; he did not indeed use the Term of Transubstantiation, because 'twas not then found out, but explained himself in such a manner as was sufficiently clear and

intelligible. The Bread and Wine, say's he, on the Altar are changed substanti∣ally * 1.241 by virtue of the mystical and sacred Orison, and words of our Redeemer, in∣to the true, proper, and lively Flesh, and real, proper, and lively Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and after the consecration 'tis the true Body of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and the real Blood which ran down his side, not only in a sign, and by vertue of a Sacrament, but by propriety of nature, and reality of substance.

WHEN Innocent the Third would have this same belief known in the Council of Latran, he clearly explain'd himself, and made use even of the very Term of Transubstantiation. In the Sacrament of the Altar, saith he, the * 1.242 Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine, the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the blood, by the divine power. In the same manner was it in the Council of Trent, which expresly declared their belief, and what they would have others be∣lieve likewise. There is made, say they, by the consecration, a conversion of the * 1.243 whole Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood, which conversion is rightly and properly called Transubstantiation.

AND thus speak the Doctors of the Church of Rome, and thus in effect they ought to express themselves for the forming the Idea of this Doctrine. But 'tis otherwise with the Greeks: for besides what I said, that they use not the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but reject it, it will not be found they use any expres∣sions which come near them of the Church of Rome, or mention any thing relating to a substantial conversion, or presence of substance under the accidents of Bread and Wine, or change of one substance into another, which is what ought to be said, to shew they believed Transubstantiation. We see not any thing of this kind appear in the Cannons of their Councils, Confessions of Faith, or Liturgies, Books of Devotions, or any of their Writings, whether published by their Modern or Ancient Divines, and certainly 'tis very strange these people should believe Transubstantiation, and yet at the same time not so much as declare in express Terms this their belief. For besides, that these Terms are but few and easie to be found out, there being nothing more easie to a man who believes the Substantial conversion, than to say, the Bread is substantially converted into the Body of Jesus Christ, or the substance of Bread is really changed into the substance of Christ's Body, in such a manner that the former substance remains no more. Besides this, I say, they have in the Greek Language words which answer exactly the expressions of the Latins on this subject, and upon this account they would be inexcusable, expressing them∣selves as they do, differently from the Church of Rome, were their belief the same with hers.

YET is it evident, that the expressions of the Greeks are no ways like those of the Latins, and there needs only the comparing of the one with the other to discern the difference. Compare for Example the confession of Gregory the Seventh, with what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning Nicetas Pe∣ctoratus and Theophilact. Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance, of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran, of Thomas Aquinas, and all the School-men, and in short of the Council of Trent, with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius, Nicholas Methoniensis, Zonaras, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabasilas and Jeremias; and you'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed, and on the other no such thing.

I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine, who had a par∣ticular Commerce with the Greeks, and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books; observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam, Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere, neque voce, neque re. De publicis instrumentis, puta Symbolis, confessionibus, catechismis, &c. intelligi volo; quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem, neque in eorum vel unico, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vocis, ut & rei ipsius, priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae, vel vola vel vestigium. Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror, quoniam non sum nesci∣us quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli, illam vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intrusisse, qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit: The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation. I mean in their publick Symbols, confessions and catechisms, &c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused, but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transub∣stantiation, or the thing it self signifi'd thereby, which Doctrine was altogether un∣known to the Greek Fathers. I matter not some private Doctors amongst them, for I know that a certain Monk, of the number of these false Greeks, had se∣cretly inserted the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Transubstantiation in his Catechism, which I saw at Constantinople, but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks. It will be perhaps replied, that Mr. Basire is a Protestant, and consequently to be suspected in this case; but besides that he is a person deservedly ho∣noured for his integrity, and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice, and moreover a Divine, and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession, being a person of great Learning, and one that dwelt long in those Parts, and had not only the curi∣osity, but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates; besides this, I say, Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground, that he is a Protestant; seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew, and Mr. Picquet, and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens, touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks.

BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony, that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn. I suppose there's no body doubts, but that Mr. Ar∣naud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks, and 'tis certain, had he found any passages containing in ex∣press Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he would not omit them. Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged, which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances, in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book, is but a meer Sophism, impo∣sing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and La∣tins by Michael Paleologus, and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year, 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place, and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them. In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs, which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject, he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses, wide Consequences, and negative Arguments, which at bottom conclude nothing. For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact, we expect thereupon Testimo∣nies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud, and the im∣possibility

wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation, is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends. But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter, wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World.

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 * 1.244 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 * 1.245 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, * 1.246 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 * 1.247 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 * 1.248 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 * 1.249 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 * 1.250 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 〉. * 1.251 〈 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 * 1.252 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 * 1.253 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, * 1.254 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 * 1.255 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 * 1.256 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 * 1.257 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.

CHAP. IV.

The Sixth Proof taken from the Greeks, employing on other Subjects, the same Expressions as on the Eucharist. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Delusion manifested.

THE only way to judge of the meaning of Authors, when 'tis matter of Debate, is to examine their Style in other like Matters, it being impossible, but in comparing their expressions some of 'em will give light to others. Had Mr Arnaud followed this me∣thod, he would never have valued so highly several expressions in Greek Authors; for he would have seen at the same time, that they deliver them∣selves almost after the same manner on other Subjects, where there's no Transubstantiation to be suspected. I know 'tis a hard matter for a Person that is prejudiced, to consider the question he handles, in those respects which are disagreeable to him; but besides that this prejudice is a fault, and there∣fore to be avoided, especially when men write on a Publick Account, or take upon them to instruct People; besides this, I say, there are several con∣siderable matters which so offer themselves to be seen, that we cannot abstain from beholding them; and 'tis more especially in respect of these, that mens neglect is blame-worthy, because 'tis affected, and is inconsistant with the Rules of Sincerity. As for instance, how can we approve of Mr. Arnaud's pro∣ceeding, who has scarcely mentioned a word in his Book touching that prodi∣gious ignorance which has overspread the East, in matters of Religion? How can we approve his taking no notice of that multitude of Emissaries, wherewith all that Country has been filled, for I know not how many Ages together, nor of the means used for the propogation of the Romish Do∣ctrines, nor the progresses they made. These are things he could not be ignorant of, and are not matters of small importance; seeing the Judgment to be made of this whole Controversie, does in some measure depend there∣on. But not to rehearse what we already mention'd, how can we bear with him, when he passes over in silence several Greek expressions, like unto those from which he would draw advantage, and yet are applied to Subjects which have not the least relation to Transubstantiation. These expressions offered themselves to him, and there needed little deliberation to determine what use was to be made of them, and what rank they hold in the decision of this Controversie. Yet has he taken no notice of them, for his desire of vanquishing has far exceeded his love to Truth.

BUT howsoever 'tis certain the Greeks speak almost after the same man∣ner concerning the Church (it being likewise the Body of Christ) as they do concerning the Eucharist. Cabisilas is one of the Authors Mr. Arnaud has quoted with most complacency, having filled a long Chapter with Passages taken out of him, he alledges amongst others, these words of his 38 Chapter,

The Church is represented in the Mysteries of Religion, not as in the Signs, but as the Members are marked by the Heart, the Tree by the Root, and the Vine∣branches by the Vine, forasmuch as the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that this Body and Blood are the Nourishment of the Church. So far is his Allegation; but 'tis requisite to hear Cabisilas himself in the full extent of his Discourse, to judge of the Style of this Author, and Mr. Arnaud's Delu∣sion. The Church, say's he, is represented in the Mysteries of Religion, not as in the Signs, but as the Members are in the Heart, the Branches of the Tree in the Root, and the Vine-leaves in the Vine, as speaks our Lord. For here is not only a Communion of Names, or a reference of likeness, but 'tis the Identity of the thing it self; For the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Now they are the real nourishment of the Church, and when she partaketh of them she does not change them into a humane Body, like unto other Food, but she her self is changed into them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, forasmuch as the most excellent part has the predominancy. Behold the iron, when 'tis joyned with the fire, it becomes fire, and it does not make the fire become iron, for the fire effaces all the properties of the iron; so in like manner if any one could see the Church of Christ in that respect, whereby 'tis united to him, and partakes of his Flesh, he would behold nothing but the Body of Christ, and therefore St. Paul say's, you are the Body of Jesus Christ, and each of you are his Members; For when he calls him the Head and us the Members, he does not represent to us thereby the cares of his Providence, nor our subjection to him in the same sence as we call our selves the Members of our Parents, or Friends, by an hyperbolical way of speaking; But he means what he says; That the faithful by the efficacy of this Blood, live the Life which is in Jesus Christ, and have their real dependance on him as their Head, and are clothed with this Body.

It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud, why he cut short this passage of Cabisilas, seeing the reason manifestly appears; for if we take but the pains to compare what he alledges from this Author touching the Eucharist with what I now related touching the Church, we shall soon find that these last expressi∣ons are far stronger and significant than what he say's concerning the Sacra∣ment. He excludes the bare communion of name and resemblance between Christ and the Church, and establishes a perfect Identity. He say's the Church is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He uses the comparison of iron inflamed, which others apply to the Eucharist, and as if he design'd to make us understand that the Church is Christ's Body in a litteral and complete sense, he assures us this is no Hyperbole, and that St. Paul speaks the same thing. I am greatly deceived, if there can be any thing found so pressing and comprehensive in relation to the Eucharist, either in this Author, or any other of the true Greeks; and this shews on one hand, how vain and groundless Mr. Arnaud's Triumphs are, and on the other, how requisite and necessary a thing it is, for men to shew the Substantial Conversion, clearly, and expresly in the Doctrines of a Church before it be concluded she believes it.

CABISILAS is not the only man who speaks after this manner touching the Church, for others borrow his proper Terms to explain them∣selves fully like him; for we may find the same passage at large, in the first Answer of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Divines of Wittemberg.

PHOTIUS spake likewise to the same purpose, and Oecumenius after him, as appears by the Commentaries of the latter of these, on the Tenth

Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians; The Apostle, say they, tells us, that the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ; but forasmuch as it seems that that which is communicated is of a different nature from him to whom 'tis communicated, he would now shew us that we do not communicate, but that we are all of us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the same Body of Jesus Christ: For as one piece of Bread is made of several Grains, so we likewise altho several, are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ: I believe there's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist, which exceed these.

BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church, we must like∣wise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves con∣cerning the Book of the New Testament, or Volumn of the Gospels, when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church., This entrance is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the small entrance, designing to repre∣sent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World. They bow before this Book, and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself, cry∣ing out altogether at the same time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Come let us worship Christ, and fall down before him, Save us O Son of God. Assoon as they begin to read, the Bishop throws off his Mantle, and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action, tells us, 'tis to give a publick testimony of his Servitude; For, say's he, when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel, and is as it were present, the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle. Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him, when the true Shepherd himself appears, say's he, in the reading of the Holy Gospel, the Bishop throws off his Mantle, to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors, our God and Master is present. I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated, and yet they speak and behave themselves, as if it was our Saviour himself; which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious, and that we have no rea∣son to impute Substantial Conversions to them, every time they make use of excessive Terms.

We may likewise see here another Example of what I say, even in the ve∣ry Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration. The Greeks have two Tables, one which they call the Prothesis, and th'other the great Altar. They place on the former of these, the Symbols, and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God, that is to say, his Birth, Life, and Sufferings. They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar, where they consecrate 'em, so that before this 'tis but simple Bread and Wine, yet on which, they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ, and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure; Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same * 1.258 manner before they are consecrated as after. Germain the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, calls them, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, he say's, that the Saints and all the Just enter with him, and that the Cherubins, Angels, and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him, singing Hymns, and accompa∣nying the great King our Saviour Christ, who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice, and is carried by mortal hands. Behold, say's he, the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts, that is to say, with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre. And in another place, the Translation of Holy Things, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which come from the Pro∣thesis, and are carry'd to the great Altar, with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the

entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem. He say's more∣over, that our Saviour is carried in the Dish, and shews himself in the Bread, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And as yet 'tis no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated.

ARCUDIUS observes, some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus * 1.259 Christ. He say's farther, that Gabriel de Philadelphia, calls it, the imperfect Body of Christ, and proves the Symbols are called in this respect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy, divine, and unutterable Mysteries, which are the same names they give them after their Consecration.

WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar, the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn, in which are these words, Let the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd, and given to the Faithful for Food. At which time their Devotion is so excessive, that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the * 1.260 Greeks in this respect of Idolatry. Goar clears them of this crime, yet say's himself, that some bow, others kneel, and cast themselves prostrate on the ground, * 1.261 as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels, that all of 'em say their Prayers, or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests, and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ, as if he was per∣sonally present, praying to him in the words of the good Thief, Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom. The Priests answer, the Lord God be mindful of us all, now and for ever.

THEY repeat these words without ceasing, till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary, and then they cry out, Blessed is he, that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there's not any Consecration, and much less a Conversion of Substance.

WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table, they separate a Parti∣cle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour, and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary. They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first, in honour of the Holy Virgin, to the end they may say, in effect say's Goar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Queen is at thy right hand, in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours. They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist, another in honour of the Apostles, and several others for a remembrance of other Saints. Goar tells us, they sepa∣rate * 1.262 nine pieces after this manner, besides those of our Saviour, and the Blessed Virgin his Mother, and that this is done to represent the whole Cele∣stial Court. They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar, where the Consecration is performed; but when they speak of these Particles, they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary, th'other the Body of St. John, th'other the Body of St. Nicholas, and after the same manner all the rest. I know Goar denies they are thus called, affirming the Greeks say only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Particle of the Virgin, and not the Body of the Virgin, I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point, and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking. But Goar himself say's, that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine, that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of the Bles∣sed Virgin in her Particle of Bread; and what likelihood is there, Persons endued with the least sense, should fall into this Opinion, if the expressions

of the Greeks gave them not some reason for it? Arcudius assures us, that in * 1.263 his time, there was a certain Person in Poland, otherwise both Pious and Learn∣ed, who perswaded a Lady of Russia to receive no more the Sacrament from the hands of the Priests of her Religion, because they administred not the Body of Jesus Christ, but that of the Virgin Mary, and St. Nicholas, &c. This man's mi∣stake, to whom Arcudius gives another kind of Character than that of a Ca∣lumniator, was no otherwise occasioned, but by the manner of speaking usual amongst the Greeks, who called these Particles the Body of this or th'other Saint. For 'tis not likely he invented this Fable himself, which * 1.264 is so impertinent and ridiculous. Hottinger affirms, there's to be seen in the Library of Zurich a Manuseript, which bears the name of one Peter Numa∣gen, in which is expresly mention'd, that the Greeks affirm, the remainders of the Consecrated Bread, (which is to say, of that Bread from whence the great Particle has been taken in remembrance of our Saviour, and which they distribute to the People at the end of the Action, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) to be the remainders of the Body of the Virgin Mary. Guy Carmus relates the same thing, the thirteenth Errour of the Greeks, say's he, is, that they affirm the remainders of the Consecrated Bread, are the remains of the Body of the Bles∣sed Virgin.

GERMAIN the Patriarch of Constantinople, speaks after this man∣ner, * 1.265 we [need not doubt, say's he, but there are great spiritual blessings and ad∣vantages which do follow from the communication of this Bread, which is the Bo∣dy of the Blessed Virgin. And the same kind of expressions are to be seen in * 1.266 Boucher's relation touching the Greeks: They all of 'em, hold, say's he, a most ridiculous and extravagant opinion; for they believe that under these Particles of the Consecrated Host, is really contain'd the Body of the Virgin, after the same manner as the Body of her Son under the principal parts of the said Host, so that they receive these Fragments with new Prayers and Preparatives in honour of the Mother of our Saviour. I do not doubt but that Boucher is mistaken as well as those mentioned by Goar, and this good man of Poland mention'd by Ar∣cudius, in imputing to them such a ridiculous Superstition; but 'tis certain the occasion of this charge was the manner of the Greeks expressing them∣selves, who attribute to these Fragments and Particles of Bread, the name of the Body of the Virgin and Saints in the same manner as they call the great Particle our Saviour's Body.

NOW this manifestly shews we ought not to abuse (as Mr. Arnaud do's) their Mystical expressions; for seeing they apply them to the Bread, when as yet unconsecrated, and speak of it as if it was our Saviour himself, be∣having themselves as if he was present in his Humane Nature; who then can find it strange if they express themselves above the ordinary rate, con∣cerning the Consecrated Bread, which is the consummation of the whole Mystery? And seeing they are not sparing of their Mystical expressions touching the Particles of Bread: divided and set apart in honour of the Vir∣gin Mary and Saints, what likelihood is there they should be more reserv'd in respect of that, which they consecrate in remembrance of the Son of God, and on which they express with so great Ceremony and Pomp, the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation? It is evident, that to attribute to them the be∣lief of a real and substantial Conversion, according to the sence of the Ro∣man Church they must have explain'd themselves in clear and proper Terms; for should we be guided by Mr. Arnaud, who makes the most tri∣vial matters serve for Proofs, and draws Consequences from all Sides, either

right or wrong, we should run the hazard of being deceived, as well as those that imagined the Greeks believed the real presence of the Virgin Ma∣ry's Body, and that of St. Nicholas.

CHAP. V.

The Seventh Proof taken from that the Greeks do not believe the Parti∣cles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be consecrated on the great Altar, as is that of our Saviour, and yet they distribute them to the People in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud's Tenth Fallacy laid open. The Eighth Proof taken from their believing that the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, has a greater virtue than that which is consecrated at other times. The Ninth Proof taken out of several Passages of their Liturgies.

WE have seen in the preceding Chapter, that the Greeks when as yet at the Prothesis, (that is to say, at the little Altar) do separate eleven Particles of Bread, the first and principal Particle in honour of our Saviour, the second in honour of his Holy Mother, and the rest in honour of the Saints, and that they carry all these and place them on the high Altar, where the Consecration is per∣form'd.

WE must here observe they believe not that all these Particles are con∣secrated, for they restrain this effect to that which bears the name of our Saviour, the others remaining unconsecrated. Arcudius affirms Simeon of * 1.267 Thessalonica (who lived in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century) to be the Author of this Opinion, against which he with much passion inveighs. Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not attribute this Error to all the Greeks; because, say's he, that Simeon protesteth before he proposed it, that he did not offer it dogmatically, but only as a probable Opinion; But Arcudius does not fully say this, he only tells us that Simeon, at the end of his whole Discourse adds, that he mentions not these things as Points of Doctrine, because he always follows the Sentiments of the Church. This is a Clause of Submission, but this is not to protest before the proposal of the Opinion, that he offers it but only as a mere Opinion. Mr. Arnaud adds, That 'tis likely the Greeks in the Council of Flo∣rence did answer the Latins according to the sence of Simeon, for the Acts men∣tion that the Bishop of Mytilene fully satisfi'd them touching the Questions pro∣posed, amongst which this was one. But he is mistaken, for the Question of the Latins was not concerning the Consecration of the small Particles, but touching the Making of these Particles, and uniting them with the great one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They demanded of us wherefore we divided the Particles in the Oblation, that is to say, on the Prothesis, and afterwards joyned them to the Divine Bread, or great Consecrated Particle. Now this Question does not respect the Consecration of these Particles, but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated; for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated, it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which

is consecrated. It appears likewise by Arcudius, that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles, not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica, but as that of the whole Greek Church, for he recites these words of Gabriel, What is it which perswades me * 1.268 of this? 'Tis first the Faith, and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers, but in fine, I am perswaded of this, because 'tis the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and con∣firmeth. By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks. In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary, speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles, tells us, that he has had seve∣ral * 1.269 Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion, and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe. Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius, his chief Author, who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks, he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos. All the Monks, say's he, that inhabit Mount Athos, are of this * 1.270 Opinion, as testifies Athanasius Venoire, the Archbishop of Imbre, who dwelt a long time with them, and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing.

BUT be it as it will, Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions, the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated, his Conclusion is, that they then hold Transubstantiation, and mine on the contrary, that they then do not believe it. Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest.

HE tells us, that when any Object against the Greeks, that if their Opi∣nion be true, it would follow, that they which communicated of these Partcles * 1.271 would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ; they answer, there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated, which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated, out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity, so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Je∣sus Christ, and when it should fall out otherwise, it would only follow they commu∣nicated but of one kind.

BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority, who alleges no Author to confirm it, and Ar∣cudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel, and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows, makes no mention of it.

HE adds, That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstan∣tiation, and that we need but consider after what manner they express it. And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel. The Church up∣on just Grounds, say's Simeon, offers these Particles, to shew, that this lively Sa∣crifice, sanctifies both the quick and dead, but she makes them not Gods by nature. He means, that as the Saints are united to God by Grace, but become not Gods in their nature, so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ, altho they do not therefore become his Body. And this he clearly expresses in these words. The Saints being united to Jesus Christ, are deifi'd by Grace, but become not Gods by nature; so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account, obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood, and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture, but if you consider them separately, they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ, but are only joyned to them. The Arch∣bishop of

Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison, as the Souls of the Saints, say's he, being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them, become Gods only by participation, and not by nature, so these Particles, altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, are not changed, but receive holiness by participation. After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words, it is as clear as the day, that all this has no sence, but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that as these Authors suppose these Par∣ticles are not transubstantiated, so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ, and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick, is effectually transubstantiated, and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ.

BUT I shall not stick to tell him, his Philosophy deceives him, for these Authors do not dispute on this Point, that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not. But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion. And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body, but not that it is tran∣substantiated. The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition, for they mean no more by it than this, that as the Saints are indeed united unto God, and partake of his holiness, but become not Gods by nature, so the Particles which represent the Saints, are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ, and partake of its Sanctification, but they become not effectually what the great one is made, to wit, the Body of Jesus Christ. And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body, whether by a Sub∣stantial Conversion, or otherwise. And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick con∣clude nothing.

LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence. First, we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance, and represent the Saints. Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread, and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, there can be nothing more im∣pertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks, to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour, who is in his own proper Substance, not real Saints, but little morsels of Bread which represent them. Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ, and the small ones according to their way, mystical Saints, than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ, and the small ones, are only Bread in Substance, and Saints in the Mystery.

MOREOVER, what means Simeon, when he tells us, that the small * 1.272 Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture? which is to say, that when they joyn them with the great Particle in the Cup, and mix them therein together, it is no more then but one and the same thing. For if we suppose, that as well the great one, as the lesser, are the Body of Jesus Christ, and mystical Saints, I find no difficulty therein, for he means that all these Particles put together make no more than one Mystery, which expresses that perfect Unity, which is between Christ and his Saints, which to∣gether with him make but one Body. But if on the contrary we suppose that the first Particle is Jesus Christ in Substance, there will be found nothing more absurd than the expression of this Person, when he tells us that little Saints made of Bread are converted into the very Substance of Jesus Christ. He is one and the same with his true Saints, whether they are in Heaven or on

Earth, but to say he becomes one and the same with their Figures and Repre∣sentations, or with Crums of Bread, which represent them on an Altar, is in my opinion such an extravagant fancy, that we ought not to charge the Greeks with it.

IN fine Arcudius assures us, that 'tis customary to administer these Parti∣cles to the People, after the same manner as we do the Sacrament. He say's indeed that Simeon and Gabriel warned the Curats not to distribute them in this manner to the People, but to administer them with the great Particle mixt and pressed together in the Cup. Yet, adds he, Simeon ambiguously * 1.273 expresses himself, for he say's that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when they are mixt with the Body and Blood, and are not so being separate, and there∣fore the Faithful may partake of them in the Sacrament, which is to say, they may receive them as the real Sacrament. Now tell me I beseech you, whe∣ther 'tis likely a man that believes the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ, in its proper Substance, would speak after this manner. These Par∣ticles, say's he, become the Body of our Lord when mixt, but separate they are not so. Is it that the conjunction and mixture transubstantiates them, and the separation untransubstantiates them? If this be his meaning, why does he so earnestly assert, that they are not consecrated? Why does Gabriel his Dis∣ciple, say, that they are not changed, altho united? He must certainly mean * 1.274 they are the Body of Christ, otherwise than in propriety of Substance, and he sufficiently explains himself, when he says in the second passage which Mr. Arnaud has alleged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they partici∣pate * 1.275 of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which Mr. Arnaud understood not amiss when he translated it, they receive holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood. Which is to say, they are made the Body and Blood by a Communication of Sanctity, which comes to them from the great Particle by means of the mixture, even to the making them capable of being given in the Communion to the Faithful. Now there are several things which do hence necessarily follow. For first, it follows that the Bread which is the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ, not in Substance, but in Sanctification, is sufficient for the Communion of the Faithful. Secondly, that the great Particle is the Body of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it may be communicated to another piece of Bread without the change of its Substance, and by consequence that it is not it self this Body substantially, for besides that this manner of being the Body of Jesus Christ is incommunicable, it is evident that if it could be communicated to another Subject, even to the making of it the Body of Jesus Christ, it then follows that this other Subject must be transubstantiated. In a word, Simeon's meaning is, that the great Particle is in such a manner the Body of Jesus Christ, that it may communicate this honour to the rest, and make them become the Body of Jesus Christ in such a sort as renders them proper for the Communion. And to the same effect are these words of Ar∣cudius. He saith, say's he, that the Particles are the Body of our Lord, when mixt with the Body and Blood, and therefore the Faithful may receive them in the Sacrament, and these other words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they communicate, or participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is then evi∣dent he means not that the great Particle is the Body of Christ in propriety of Substance, for this propriety cannot be communicated to another Subject, if we suppose at the same time as Simeon does, that this other Subject re∣mains really Bread.

AND this is my Argument. Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of it, has

endeavour'd to escape it by his usual Artifices, for on one hand he has con∣cealed from us what Arcudius has expressly declared, to wit, that these Par∣ticles are the Body of Christ being mixt, and that the faithful may partake of them as of the Sacrament, and on the other, he has mis-represented Sime∣on's sence, and pretended it to be to his advantage. But all his Artifices can∣not hinder us from perceiving that the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is; 1. That the Substance of Bread remains in all the Particles, that is to say, as well in that which is consecrated as in all the rest. 2. That the con∣secrated Particle becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in full virtue of Sanctifi∣cation, and is as it were a Fountain of Grace and Divine Efficacy. 3. That the other Particles by mixture and union with the great Particle do partake of this Sanctification, and become by this means the Body and Blood of our Lord, not after a complete and perfect manner like unto the great Particle, but in a far lower degree, which is yet sufficient to make them proper to be distributed to the People in the Communion, as being the Body and Blood of our Lord.

WE shall be confirm'd in this opinion, if we consider the eighth Proof which I shall here offer. It consists in that the Greeks believe the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, to have a greater efficacy than that which is consecrated at other times, which may be verifi'd if 'twere needful by the testimony of several Authors. See here what Prareolus say's; They assure us, say's he, that this excellent mystery consecrated on the day in which our Saviour celebrated his Supper, that is to say, on Thursday in the Holy Week, hath a more excellent virtue, and is more efficatious than when 'tis consecrated on other days, * 1.276 and 'tis for this reason, according to Guy Le Carmes Relation, that they conse∣crate the Eucharist (for the sick) on no other day of the year than in that where∣in our Saviour made his last Supper, which they keep all the year only for this pur∣pose. John de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne, and Ambassadour from the King of Poland to Leo X. in the year 1514, relates the same thing of the Mosco∣vites, whose Religion as every one knows, is in a manner the same with that of the Greeks. As to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, say's he, which they con∣secrate * 1.277 on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, they say that this only is proper for the sick, and not that which is consecrated at other times, so that they consecrate Bread on that day for the whole year, in a Chalice prepared for that purpose, and put it dry and full of maggots (as it is) into the mouth of the sick with a spoon. Possevin the Jesuit in the writing he presented to the great Duke of Muscovia in the year 158••. In which he reckons up the Errours of the Greeks, especially remarks this as one of the chief; They err, say's he, * 1.278 in saying the most excellent Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, is more efficacious and of great∣er virtue than that which is consecrated on other days. Anthony Caucus Arch∣bishop of Corcyra in his Relation of the Errors of the Greeks to Pope Grego∣ry the XIII. observes likewise in the 14th. Article; That they hold the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, which is consecrated on the day in which our Lord made his last Supper, has a greater virtue than that consecrated on other times. Allatius mentions this Article of Caucus, amongst others, which he censures as ca∣lumnies; but altho he is very earnest to refute this Archbishop, and treats him as unworthily as may be, without any respect to his Dignity, even to the calling of him, os durum & Stygium, non nisi mentiri gnarum, yet has not he * 1.279 dared to touch on this Article in particular, and his outrages only confirm in this regard the Authority of Caucus, and the truth of his Relation.

ALPHONSUS de Castro attributes this same opinion to the Greeks. * 1.280 He alledges for this effect, the Testimony of Guy Carmus; and altho he has been accustomed not to spare him in his censures whensoever he can find the least occasion, yet does he agree with him in this particular, saying, we must not wonder if the Greeks be in this Errour, seeing the Genius of that People lies, in expressing themselves after a vain manner, and in inventing of Fables.

ARCUDIUS confirms the same thing, There are, say's he, People so * 1.281 impertinent, as to believe, the Holy Eucharist which is prepared on that day (Ho∣ly Thursday) hath a greater virtue to sanctifie them who receive it, than that which is consecrated on another day. As if it were not still the same Jesus Christ, or as if our Lord was at sometimes more powerful than at others.

IF it be demanded what consequence we can hence draw against Tran∣substantiation; I answer it appears plain enough in it self. For if we sup∣pose the Greeks hold the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ, in virtue and efficacy, by means of this abundant sanctification which the Bread receives, we shall not find any absurdity in this other Opinion, which they hold, concerning the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, namely, that it is more efficacious than that consecrated on other days, for this sancti∣fication of the Bread, and quickning Grace which accompanies it may have its degrees; it receives more and less, as the Schoolmen speak; but if you suppose the Eucharist to be made the Body of Jesus Christ by conversion of Substance, this more and this less, which they imagine, cannot be admit∣ted; it is true indeed that the Sacrament will produce various effects, ac∣cording to the various dispositions of the Persons who receive it, and ac∣cording as there shall be more or less devotion in a man's Soul, it will feel more or less the strength of Grace, but the cause will be in them who shall receive the Sacrament, and not in the Sacrament it self, nor in the day of its Consecration. If the Bread becomes the proper Substance of the Son of God, it is always of equal virtue in it self; and the time of Consecration, can neither encrease nor diminish it. It is then scarcely to be imagined, that Persons who believe Transubstantiation, can fall into this other Opinion; for is it not the same Substance, the same Jesus Christ personally, is it not one and the same Conversion, which terminates it self in the same Subject? Whence then can proceed this more and less? Would they say that the Tran∣substantiation is made more on one day than another? This thought cannot happen in the mind of those that know what Transubstantiation means. Do they mean that the Body of Jesus Christ has greater virtue in it one day than another? This thought likewise cannot happen in the mind of those that know what our Saviour is. Do they hereby only mean that he displays a greater efficacy one day than another, altho he has ever the same measure of it in himself? It is certain that this more and this less of Grace, which the Faithful receive in the Communion (supposing we take the proper Sub∣stance of Jesus Christ with the mouths of our Bodies) cannot proceed from any other cause, but that of more or less devotion, which we bring with us to the Lord's Table. So that this Opinion of the Greeks being found incon∣sistant with that of Transubstantiation, and moreover it not appearing clear∣ly to us that they have this latter, whereas it is plainly manifest they have the other, we are obliged to conclude they hold not the substantial Conver∣sion. I know we must not imagine that men do always so exactly adjust their Sentiments, that they never contradict themselves; and I acknowledge

the Greeks are ignorant enough to have on the same Subject contradictory Opinions, but besides that there are certain palpable contradictions, of which few men how bruitish soever they be are capable, as this would be to be∣lieve that the Eucharist is the proper Substance of the Son of God, and yet to be of a more excellent virtue being consecrated on Holy Thursday than on other days; besides this I say, seeing it does not expresly and clearly ap∣pear to us from any thing else that they believe Transubstantiation, it is far more just to give to their Terms, on the subject of the Change which happens to the Bread, a sence which agrees with this aforementioned belief, than to give them another which wholly contradicts it, and makes them ridiculous. If they must be led to the Substantial Conversion, or carried off from it by way of explication of their general expressions, there is more reason to ex∣pound them in a sence conformable to their other Opinions, than to make them guilty of manifest absurdities.

WOULD Mr. Arnaud lay aside for a while this Personal Interest wherewith he seems to be transported in this Dispute, and consider things without passion; I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies, nor other usual expressions. As for example, we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies, Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit. Mr. Arnaud un∣derstands them as mentioning a change of Substance; I say on the contrary, these are general Terms, to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence, and that if they must have a particular and determinate one, we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change, and a change of Sanctification, which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ, that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls, that it spiritually communicates him to us, and that 'tis accom∣pani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it, and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ, and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains. Let us examine the Liturgies themselves, to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto.

WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom, and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks, that immediately after the Priest has said, Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ, and that * 1.282 which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, he adds, to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them, that is to say, be made a proper means to purifie the Soul, by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit, &c. These words do suffici∣ently explain what kind of change we must understand by them, namely, a change of Sanctification and virtue, for did they mean a change of Sub∣stance, it should have been said, changing them by thy Holy Spirit, to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood, or some such like expressions.

In the Liturgy, which goes under the name of St. James, we find almost the same thing; Send, say's it, thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts ly∣ing * 1.283 here before thee, to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy, good and glorious presence; and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy

Christ, and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ, to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it, namely, purifie their Souls from all manner of sin, and make them abound in good works, and obtain everlasting life. And this methinks does sufficiently determine, how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ; to wit, in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spi∣rit, and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification.

The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc, has almost the same ex∣pressions, Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit, that he * 1.284 may sanctifie and consecrate them, even as God Almighty; and make the Bread, the Body, and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Sa∣viour Jesus Christ, our Sovereign King; to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them, a means of obtaining Faith, Sobriety, Health, Temperance, a regeneration of Soul and Body, the participation of Felicity, E∣ternal Life, to the glory of thy great name. A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice, cannot but perceive that this Clause, to the end they may become, &c. is the explication of the foregoing words, change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that it determines them, to a change, not of Substance, but of Sanctification and Virtue. This Truth is so evident, that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge, that if this Clause be taken (make this Bread the Body of thy Christ) in an absolute sence, * 1.285 that is to say, that it be made the Body of Christ, not in respect of us, but simply in it self) it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow, to the end they may be made, &c. And he makes of this a Principle, for the concluding, that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer, but that 'tis already perfected by the words, this is my Body, directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks, who affirm 'tis made by the Prayer. So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church, to wit, that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer, we shall plainly perceive that their sence is, That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us, inasmuch as it sanctifies us and ef∣fects the remission of our sins.

AND with this agrees the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Sanctifie, which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration, and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sanctifications, by which they express their Mysteries, as appears by the Liturgies, and those of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy Gifts, the sanctified Gifts, the holy Mysteries, the quickning Mysteries, the holy Bread, which are common expressions amongst them. All which favours the change of Sanctification.

ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecrati∣on, in the Pontificia four times, and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread, it is so called seven times. In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration, Lord, remember me * 1.286 a sinner, and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread, and Cup, grant we may live in Union, and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit. Like∣wise what the Latins call Ciborium, the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is as much as to say, a Bread Saver, and 'tis in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread, being the Communion for the sick. I know what is wont to be said in reference to this, namely, that the Eucharist is call∣ed Bread upon the account of its Species, that is to say, of its Accidents,

which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject; but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication; for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term, which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins, it must there∣fore be granted not to favour the Conversion of the Substances.

IT is no more favour'd by several other Clauses in the same Liturgy. For in that of St. James there is a Prayer, which the Priest directs to our Saviour in Heaven; altho he has the Consecrated Bread before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say's he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.287 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. O thou Holy One, that dwellest in the Holy Places, sanctifie us by the Word of thy Grace, and coming of thy Holy Spirit. We find this same Prayer in St. Mark's Liturgy. In those of St. Basile, and Chrysostom, there is another directed after the same manner to our Saviour in Heaven. Look down we beseech thee, say's it, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, from the Holy Place of thy Habitation, and Throne of thy Glory, which is in thy Kingdom, and come to sanctifie us, thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father, and art here with us invisibly. Mr. Arnaud perverts these last words, and who art here invisibly with us, not considering they relate to that part of the Petition, wherein, they beseech him, to come and sanctifie them, and that they only signifie this invisible presence of his Grace and Divinity, which he promised his Disciples when he left the World, and ascended up into Hea∣ven. It plainly appears that the intention of the Greek Church is to send up their Devotions to the Place where our Saviour inhabits. How comes it to pass, we find not at least one Prayer wherein is expressed, that he has clothed the proper Substance of his Humanity, with the Veil of the Accidents, or some such like words? But on the contrary, when the Priest reads with a loud voice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Holy Things are for Holy Persons, the Quire answers, there is only one that is Holy, only one Lord, who is Jesus Christ, at the Glory of God the Father. For 'tis clear, that these words, at the Glory of God the Father, mean that he is above in Heaven. In the Liturgy of the pre∣sanctifi'd (Bread,) the Priest thus addresses himself to God, beseeching him, that his only Son may rest on this Altar, by vertue of these dreadful Mysteries there∣on * 1.288 exposed; thus manifestly distinguishing the Mysteries from Jesus Christ, and immediately prays, That he would sanctifie our Souls and Bodies, by a perpe∣tual Sanctification, to the end that partaking of these Holy Things with a pure Conscience, a holy assurance, and enlightned mind, and being quickned by them, we may be united to Jesus Christ himself, our true God, who has said, he that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him. By which words it is evident, that the Mysteries are plainly distinguished from our Saviour him∣self, and that those who receive them unworthily, are not united with him. In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest prays, That receiving with the Testimony * 1.289 of a pure Conscience the Particle of the Sanctifications of God, we may be united to the Body and Blood of his Christ, and that receiving these things worthily, we may have Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts. These words do moreover distin∣guish Jesus Christ from the Sacrament he has ordained, and 'tis certain these Terms, of Jesus Christ dwelling in our hearts, do more plainly intimate a Spi∣ritual Communion, than a corporeal one. In fine in this same Liturgy the Priest having performed his Office in this particular, makes a Prayer unto God, in which he recapitulates whatsoever has passed in this Mystical Cele∣bration; but mentions not the least tittle concerning Transubstantiation. We have, say's he, finished and consummated the Mystery of thy Oeconomy, O Jesus Christ our God, as far as we have been able. For we have celebrated the memory

of thy Death, we have beheld the Figure of thy Resurrection, we have been filled with thy never fading Life, and been made partakers of thy immortal Pleasures, grant we may be found worthy to enjoy the same in the World to come. Is it not a wonderful thing there should not in all this be the least mention of the con∣version of the Substances, which is yet in the sence of the Roman Church the most essential part of that Mystery, that whereunto all the rest does tend, and whereon depends so much, that the rest without this would signifie no∣thing. Let Mr. Arnaud alledge what he pleases, 'tis not to be imagin'd the Greek Church would forget this part of the Mystery in such a solemn reca∣pitulation which it makes to God at the end of its Office, did she in effect be∣lieve any other Change in the Bread, than that of its Virtue and Holyness.

CHAP. VI.

The Tenth Proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating Term, when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ. The Eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eu∣charist, do receive the Body of Jesus Christ. The Twelfth from their believing the dead, and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce, do receive the same as we do in the Communion.

ALTHO the Greeks do frequently call the Eucharist the Body of Je∣sus Christ, yet must we not thereupon immediately conclude that they are in this respect of the same opinion with the Church of Rome; and adopted Transubstantiation or the substantial presence amongst the Articles of their Faith. One Proof of the contrary of this, is, that sometimes, when they mention the consecrated Bread, and give it the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, they add a Term of Diminution, which shews they do not mean that it is his Body in propriety of Substance. Which appears by a passage taken out of Balsamon on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles. This Canon ordains a punishment to those that shall fast with the Jews, and celebrate their Feasts; and Balsamon takes hence an occa∣sion to inveigh against the Feasts of unleavened Bread, in these words. If a * 1.290 man deserves to be deposed only for eating unleavened Bread with the Jews, and expelled the Christian Communion; what punishment do they not then deserve that partake of it, as of the Body of our Lord, and celebrate the Passover after the same manner as they do?

MATTHEW Blastarius, speaks almost to the same purpose, in Arcudi∣us. They, say's he, that celebrate the mystical Sacrifice with unleavened Bread, * 1.291 do greatly offend against the Christian Customs; for if they who only eat the un∣leaven'd Bread of the Feast of the Jews, ought to be deposed and excommunica∣ted, what excuse can they make for themselves, who receive it as if it were the Bo∣dy of our Lord.

SIMEON of Thessalonica expounding that passage of the Liturgy, where the Priest perfumes the Gifts, in saying these words, Be thou exalted, O God,

above the Heavens, and be thou glorifi'd thro out all the Earth; the Priest, say's he, speaks of the Ascension of our Lord, and the Glory he re∣ceived when he was preached to every Creature; as if, he spoke to our Saviour himself, and said to him, Thou art descended to us, thou hast ascended into Hea∣ven, and fillest the whole Earth with thy Glory. And therefore do we celebrate these Holy Mysteries, and partake of and possess thee eternally. Wherefore have we this (as if) he spoke to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Goar has well translated, Quasi cum salvatore dissereret. How comes it to pass, I * 1.292 say, we have this, quasi, if in effect our Saviour was present, and the Priest spake to him? It may be alledged the passages I come from producing have some ambiguity, for it may be doubted whether by the aforemention'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is meant, as being the Body of our Lord, or as if it were the Body of our Lord, that is to say, as if it were in the stead of our Lord's Body. But first of all this ambiguity is void in respect of the passage of Simeon, who tells us, that the Priest does, as it were speak to our Saviour; for it cannot be alledged, that this is either a quasi of quality or of Identity, if I may so speak, nor give it another sence than this, to wit, that the Priest speaks no otherwise, than if he had our Saviour himself in Person before him, and directed his Discourse to him, in the same sence, as he says, Let us see our Saviour speaking in the * 1.293 Gospel, and that he is, as it were, present, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and elsewhere, That the Priest holding the Gospel in his hand, gives it to be kissed by him that takes upon him the Christian Profession, as if it were our Saviour himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and says to him, behold Jesus Christ is invisibly present in the midst of us. Now this contributes to the resolving of whatsoever may seem doubtful in the other passages.

MOREOVER the reasoning of Balsamon and Blastarius clears the difficulty: for if we suppose they believed Transubstantiation, we cannot give any tollerable sence to their Discourses. In effect, either they acknow∣ledged that the Azyme was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as well as the leavened Bread, or deni'd it; if they acknowledged it, their sence is, that 'tis a great crime to eat the proper Body of Jesus Christ, under the Ac∣cidents of an Azyme. Now this is absurd: for if the Body of Christ be really under the Accidents of the Azyme, what crime is there in thus eating of it? For that which is eaten is no longer a real Azyme, but the Substance of the Body it self. Wherefore moreover should they be judged more worthy of condemnation than those who mix themselves with the Jews when they celebrate their Feast, and eat unleavened Bread with them? For the latter of these do really eat an Azyme, whereas the others receive only the Accidents of it, which serve as a vayl to the proper flesh of our Lord. If it be said they do not acknowledge the Azyme to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, as the leavened Bread is, their sence will be that 'tis a greater Crime to eat an Azyme, in supposing it to be the Body of Jesus Christ, than to eat the same Azyme, wittingly and willingly, in the Communion of the Jews. Now this is no less absurd, for the intention, and belief, which the first have, lessens their fault, whereas the knowledge and intention of the o∣ther aggravates it. They that eat the Azyme with the Jews, mean only to eat an Azyme; whereas those that eat it in imagining they eat the Body of our Lord, pretend nothing less than to eat an Azyme; so that it cannot be said in this respect, but that the crime of these last is greater than that of the others. It must then be granted that to give a likely sence to Balsamon and Blastarius, their quasi must be a quasi of comparison and not of Identity, and that they mean, that for a man to eat unleavened Bread in stead of the Body

of Jesus Christ, is a greater crime than to eat it simply with the Jews, be∣cause this is an introducing of Judaism in the Christian Religion, and to make of that which is accursed, the Mystery of our Lord's Body. Mr. Ar∣naud will without doubt reply, that they dispute against the Latins, and so by consequence this quasi ought to be taken in the sence of the Latins. Now the Greeks know very well that the Latins do not receive the Bread of the Eucharist instead of the Body of Jesus Christ, but as being really and in ef∣fect this Body it self. I answer that Balsamon and Blastarius do not dispute in particular against the Latins, whom they do not so much as mention in the Commentary they wrote on the Seventieth Canon of the Apostles; but establish in general this Rule, that we ought not to eat unleavened Bread in this Mystery. So that this subterfuge will not serve Mr. Arnaud's turn, for their quasi must be taken in the sence of the Greeks, and not in the sence of the Latins. But supposing there be still a great deal of ambiguity in this Term; yet is it fully cleared by the expression of John Citrius in a passage cited by Allatius; We offer, say's he, leaven'd Bread in the Sacrifice instead of * 1.294 the Body of our Lord. And this is the meaning of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Greeks, as the Body, that is to say, instead of the Body.

IT is in the same sence that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, say's, That as often as we eat this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we confess the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that in this Belief we eat the Bread, and drink of the Cup, AS of the Flesh of the Son of God, confessing his Death and Resurrection. We find the same Particle used by Nicetas Choniatus; Our Saviour, say's he, is AS it were eaten after his Resurrection.

ST. Athanasius used this Particle, AS a great while before him, Our Saviour, say's he, after his Passion and Resurrection sent his Apostles, to gather * 1.295 together the Nations, having spread his Table, which is the Holy Altar from which he gives the heavenly and incorruptible Bread, to wit, his Body, and Wine that makes glad the heart of man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mingling, AS it were his Blood in the Chalice. These quasi's have such a bad rellish with them, that Father Noüet, alledging this passage of St. Athanasi∣us, has thought good to leave it out, and 'tis the same antipathy to quasi's that obliged the Translators of Mons to leave out one, which they found on another Subject in the Text of St. Paul in his Third Chapter of the First E∣pistle to the Corinthians Verse 15. For whereas the Greek reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, which they have translated, he shall be saved, but must pass thro the fire. The respect due to St. Paul could not save his quasi from the fury of these Gentlemen. And thus do they deal with the Holy Scripture, when it speaks not according to their mind.

I know not whether the quasi's of Balsamon, Blastarius, Simeon of Thessa∣lonica, Germane, Nicetas, and those of Athanasius are less distastful to 'em, than that of St. Paul: But howsoever these diminutive Terms do sufficiently evidence the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, for th••se that do be∣lieve it study rather to strengthen by clear and precise expressions the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, which is given to the Eucharist, than to weaken it by restrictions and diminutions.

BUT to go on with our Proofs, It is an opinion generally received a∣mongst the Greeks, That the wicked who participate of the Eucharist, do not

receive the Body of Jesus Christ. And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by the Testimony of several good Authors.

PRATEOLUS expressly mentions this amongst their Errors. They affirm, say's he, that those who live in the practice of any known sin do not re∣ceive * 1.296 the Body of Jesus Christ, altho they draw near to the Table of our Lord, and receive the consecrated Bread from the hands of the Priest.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit confirms the same thing, They err, says he, * 1.297 in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord's Body when they come to the Altar.

NICHOLAS Cabasilas does fully set forth the Belief of the Greek Church touching this Point. The causes, say's he, of our sanctification, or if * 1.298 you will the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us, are purity of Soul, and love of God, an earnest desire to partake of the Sacrament, and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it. These are the things which procure our Sanctificati∣on, and with which it is impossible but those that come to the Communion must par∣take of Jesus Christ, and without which it is impossible they should. And a little further endeavouring to prove that the Souls seperate from their Bodies, do receive the same as the Faithful which are living in this World of the Sa∣crament. If the Soul, say's he, has no need of the Body whereby to receive Sanctification, but on the contrary the Body has need of the Soul, what more of the Mystery do the Souls receive which are clothed with their Bodies, than those which are stript of them? Is it that they behold the Priest and receive the Gifts from him? But the Souls that are out of the Body have the Eternal Priest, who is to them more than all these things, being the same likewise that administreth it to them alive, who receive it as they ought to do. For all those to whom the Priest administers it, cannot be said truly to receive it. The Priest administers it to all that come to him, but our Saviour gives it only to those that are worthy to partake of it: Whence it clearly appears that 'tis our Saviour alone, who by means of this Sacrament consecrates and sanctifies the Souls as well of the living as the dead.

LEO Allatius has made a Catalogue of Simeon the Abbot of St. Ma∣mant's Works, who lived about the end of the Eleventh Century, and whom the Greeks call Simeon the Divine. Now in one of his Treatises there is a Hymn expressly relating to this Subject before us, to wit, that the wicked do not partake of the Body of Jesus Christ when they receive the Sacrament. Allatius tells us that he has seen this particular piece, (being a Manuscript) in a certain Library in Italy, and that the Title of it is, That they which receive unworthily the Sacraments do not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And 'tis unto this whereunto relates what Nilus say's in his Sentences, Keep your selves from all corruption, and partake every day of the Mystical Supper, * 1.299 for 'tis after this sort, that the Body of Jesus Christ becomes ours. And what we find in the Verse of Psellus on the Canticle of Canticles, Jesus Christ gives his Body to the Children of the Virgin, that is to say, to the Church, for thus does he speak to them, (but 'tis Only to those that are worthy) whom he calls his near Kindred, come my Friends eat and drink, and be merry my brethren, you * 1.300 that are my brethren in good Works, eat my Body and drink my Blood. And these words of Joanicius Cartanus, the Saints are made partakers of holy things, not they that are unworthy, and sinners who having not cleansed themselves from * 1.301 their sins remain still polluted, and elsewhere, when we shall draw near unto God with Love, Fear, Reverence and Repentance, and be in charity with all men, then

shall we be meet partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ.

NOW if you would know of what importance the Argument is, which we draw from this Doctrine of the Greeks, you need but read what Chifflet the Jesuit and others have written touching a passage of the Confession at∣tributed * 1.302 to Alcuinus which bears, That the virtue of this Sacrifice is so great, that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners, tanta est virtus hujus Sacrificii ut solis justis peccatoribus Corpus sit & Sanguis Christi. If the Sacrifice, or Sacrament, say's this Jesuit, be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to some only, and not to all, what remains then but to confess, that Alcuinus has been the Forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin: and that he has denied the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? He tells us this passage has given him no small trouble, and endeavours to expound it, saying, that Alcuinus speaks of the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of their saluti∣ferous effect which appertains only to the Just. But the Authors of the Of∣fice of the B. Sacrament; having told us, that it seems we must read, tanta * 1.303 est virtus Sacrificii ut solis justis, non peccatoribus Sanguis sit & Corpus Christi, they have added, that this expression has not been used since the Heresie of Beren∣garius, and that the Schoolmen who have been more scrupulous as to Terms, have (after the rise of the Heresies touching this Mystery) avoided it. Which is as much as to say, in my opinion, that if we believe Transubstantiation, as the Church of Rome has believed it since the time of Berengarius's condemnati∣on, we cannot be of this Belief, that the Eucharist is only the Body of Jesus Christ to the faithful and not to the wicked. And in effect if the Substance of Bread be really changed into that of Christ's Body, it hence evidently fol∣lows that all those that communicate thereof (be they either righteous or wicked) do receive this Body as it is, that is to say, in its proper Substance, covered with the vail of Accidents. So that the Greeks asserting the Eucha∣rist not to be the Body of Christ to Sinners; (as I have already shew'd) makes the Proof I draw hence concerning their not believing of Transub∣stantiation to be solid and convincing.

YET may there be two Objections made against my Argument; the First, That what the Greeks say concerning Christ's Body, is to be understood only in respect of its salutiferous effect, as has been declared by the Jesuit Chifflet, and not in respect of its Substance, which is to say, their meaning is, that the wicked do indeed receive the real Substance of this Body and Blood, but receive thereby no advantage: The Second, that the Bread re∣assumes its former Substance, when a wicked man approaches to receive the Communion, and that that of the Body of Jesus Christ withdraws it self. But first, I say to make people of good sence contented with this explicati∣on, they must be shewed these kind of meanings in the Writings of the Greeks themselves, which without question would be met withall, did they hold Transubstantiation. It cannot be denied but this Doctrine they teach concerning the wicked does manifestly oppose that of the Substantial con∣version, and furnisheth us with this conception, that if the Eucharist be not the Body of Jesus Christ to the wicked, how can it then be said, that the Substance of the Bread has been changed into that of this Body? This scru∣ple does naturally arise in the mind of those that believe Transubstantiation, as appears by the example of the Jesuit Chifflet, by that of the Authors of the Office of the blessed Sacrament, and by the pre-caution of the School∣men and Lattin Writers who carefully shun these kind of expressions. We need not doubt but if the Greeks believed the conversion of the Substances

they would do one of these two things, either they would renounce this o∣ther Opinion, and deliver themselves after another manner, or at least they would so expound and mollifie it as to shelter thereby Transubstantiation. But besides this, I say, if we examine these pretended illustrations in parti∣cular one after another, we shall find they are vain and ill apply'd to the Greeks. In effect the first cannot be of any use, because the Latins impute to them the Doctrine here in question, as an Error. Now this would not be an Error in respect of the Latins, if the Greeks understood it only in this sence, that the wicked do not receive the salutiferous effect of the Body of Je∣sus Christ in the Communion, altho they received the Substance of it, for even this is believed in the Church of Rome. Yet Possevin does not only af∣firm they err, but he opposes moreover against their Error a contrary Pro∣position to be held, and on which he grounds his censure. They err, say's he, * 1.304 for the wicked do really receive the Body of Jesus Christ, although they receive it unworthily, and to their condemnation.

AS to the other Objection, 'tis certainly groundless, for not to take no∣tice of the extravagancy of this Opinion, that the Substance of the Bread is changed into that of Christ's Body, and again that of the Body into that of the Bread, the Terms of Cabasilas are so clear that they admit not any evasion, for he distinguishes two Persons that give the Communion, one the Priest, and th'o∣ther our Saviour Christ, and he attributes to our Saviour alone the glory of giving his Body and Blood, 'tis likewise he himself, say's he, that administers to * 1.305 them amongst the living who truly receive. For all them to whom the Priest gives it, do not truly receive it. He himself; that is to say, immediately and without the Priests sharing in the honour thereof. The Priest has the honour to di∣stribute the Bread, but not of giving the Body and Blood. Now this does wholly overthrow Transubstantiation, and refutes the second Objection which I examine, for if the Bread were transubstantiated, there would be no need of having recourse to our Saviour himself, in order to his giving the Faithfull his Body and Blood, the Priest would give it them, for that which he holds in his hands and communicates to the Faithful, would be this Body and Blood in propriety of Substance, and Cabasilas would have no reason to oppose our Sa∣viour to the Priest.

BUT before we leave this passage of Cabasilas, it is necessary to observe two things, one of which respects the Proposition he would establish, and th'other the means he makes use of for this. The Proposition he would esta∣blish is, That the dead receive the same as the living when they partake of the Eucharist. The purity of the Soul, say's he, the Love of God, Faith, an earnest desire to partake of this Holy Mystery, a secret joy which accompanies this desire, a fervant appetite and thirst which makes us run to it, these are the things which procure our Sanctification, with which qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the Communion do partake of Jesus Christ, and without which it is im∣possible * 1.306 they should. Now all these things depend only on the Soul, and are not corpo∣real. There is nothing then which hinders the Souls of the dead from having these things as well as the living. If then these Souls are in the state and dispo∣sition requisite for the receiving of the Mystery, if he to whom it belongs to be∣stow Sanctification and Consecration is always willing to sanctifie, and ever desires to communicate himself in all places, what can then hinder this participation? And a little further, It is evident, say's he, by the things I now mention'd, that whatsoever belongs to this Mystery is common as well to the dead as living, and a little lower, the participation of the Holy Gifts is a thing which necessarily at∣tends * 1.307

the Souls after death. If their joy and repose sprang from any other Prin∣ciple; it might be said that even this would be the reward of that purity where∣in they are, and this Table would be no longer needful to them. But it is certain that whatsoever makes up their delights and felicity, whether you call it Paradice, or Abraham's bosom, or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares, or that you call it the Kingdom of Heaven it self, all this I say is no more than this Bread and Wine. For these things are our Mediatour, who is entred as our Fore∣runner into the Holy Places, who alone conducts us to the Father, who is the only Sun of our Souls, which at this time appeareth and communicates himself to all them that are in the Bands of the Flesh in the manner he himself pleases, but he shall then visibly manifest himself without a Vail, when we shall see him as he is, and shall gather together the Eagles about the dead Body. He afterwards proves that the Souls seperate from the Bodies, are far more fit to partake of the Mysteries, than when cloathed with their Flesh, that whatsoever rest or recompence they enjoy, is nothing else but this Bread and this Cup, of which the dead have as much right to participate as the living, and for this reason, our Saviour calls the Saints felicity a Supper, to shew us thereby, that 'tis no∣thing else but this Table. And this already gives us great cause to suspect that Cabasilas did not believe that which we eat in the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ; for we must not ima∣gine he thought the Souls of the dead did really partake thereof. They do indeed participate of the Body and Blood of Christ, but after a spiritual manner, which is accomplished without our Saviour's Substance entring in∣to them. Yet Cabasilas say's the dead receive the Holy Gifts, that they re∣ceive the Mystery, and that which makes up their felicity, is this Bread and Cup, that they partake of it, and that whatsoever appertains to this Mystery is common to them with the Living. All which is well enough understood provided it be supposed we have no other Communion with our Saviour Christ in the Eucharist than what is Spiritual, for the Souls seperate from the Body have this as well as we, and partake of our Bread and Cup, not in re∣spect of their Substance and Matter, but in respect of the Mystery they con∣tain and Grace they communicate, and thus it is certain that whatsoever be∣longs to this Mystery is common to them with the living. But if we suppo∣sed the Substantial Conversion, how could it be said, They partake of the Holy Gifts, that they receive what we receive, that we have nothing more in the Mystery than they, and that whatsoever appertains to the Mystery is common to them with us? For in fine we should really receive the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which they do not.

BUT to manifest more clearly this Doctrine of Cabasilas and put it out of doubt, we should consider the course he takes for the strengthening of his Proposition. For it will appear that this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, which he makes common both to the dead and living, respects not only the thing of which we partake, but likewise the manner of partaking of it; and in a word, he means we communicate thereof no otherwise than Spiritually. First, then he always speaks of the Sanctification which is made by way of participation and reception of the Body of Jesus Christ, as of one and the same thing, without the least difference, which is justifi'd by the bare reading of his whole Discourse. Now this shews us, he means not that we receive in the Sacrament the proper Substance of the Body of our Lord, for if it were so, the wicked would receive it without receiving Sanctification, as the Church of Rome it self does acknowledge, and the reception of this Sub∣stance, and the Sanctification, could not be considered but as two distinct

things. Yet Cabasilas confounds them, and thereupon immediately considers this difficulty; how the dead which neither eat nor drink can be sanctifi'd by this participation. Are they, say's he, in a worse condition in this respect than the living? No sure, say's he, for our Saviour communicates himself to them in * 1.308 such a manner as is best known to himself. He afterwards inquires into the causes of the sanctification of the living, and their participation of Jesus Christ, and say's, 'tis not to have a Body, nor to come with feet to the Holy Ta∣ble, nor to receive the Communion with our hand and mouth, nor to eat or drink, but that 'tis the purity of the Soul, Faith, Love of God, and other motives of Pie∣ty, these are the things, say's he, which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus Christ, and without which it is not possible to be so. Whence he concludes that the Souls seperate from the Body are capable of this participation, and that in effect they have it seeing they have all these good affections. Now it hence plainly appears that he grants the living but one kind of participation of Jesus Christ which is Spiritual; and which they have in common with the dead, and which immediately respects the Soul. For if they be only the good dispositions of the Soul which make us partakers of Jesus Christ, and that without them it is not possible for us to be so, and that the dead have the same advantage we have, it cannot then be said, we receive the pro∣per Substance of the Body, seeing on one hand according to the Hypothesis of the Church of Rome, the want of these dispositions hinders not men from receiving it, and on the other that the dead with all these their qualifications cannot receive it.

THIS appears by the Sequel of his reasoning, for what he say's con∣cerning the dead, the same he say's concerning the living which dwell in De∣serts, and that cannot personally come to the Lord's Table. Jesus Christ, * 1.309 say's he, sanctifies them invisibly with this Sanctification. How can we know this? I answer, because they have the life in themselves, and they would not have it, were they not partakers of this Mystery. For our Saviour himself has said, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. And for a further confirmation of this, he has caused to be brought to several of these Saints, the Gifts, by the Ministry of Angels. It is evident, he attributes to these Inhabitants of Deserts, the same participation of Jesus Christ, the same manducation of his Flesh and Blood which we receive in the Sacrament without the least difference, whence it follows, that our Com∣munion with Jesus Christ by means of the Sacrament is purely Spiritual, and that our eating of his Flesh is Spiritual likewise, there being no need of adding the reception of his Substance into our Stomacks.

BUT yet this does more plainly appear by what follows. The Gift, say's he, is indeed communicated to the living by means of the Body, but it first passes to the Substance of the Soul, and afterwards communicates it self to the Bo∣dy, by the Ministry of the Soul. Which St. Paul meant when he said, that he that is joyned to the Lord, is one and the same Spirit with him, because this Union and Conjunction is made first of all in the Soul. This being the Seat of this San∣ctification which we obtain by the exercise of our virtues. This is likewise the Seat of Sin. 'Tis here wherein is the Band of Servitude, by which the Sacra∣ment links us to God. The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul, and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart, from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification; as well that of the Virtues, as that of the Myste∣ries. If then the Soul has no need of the Body, to receive Sanctification, but the Body on the contrary of the Soul, why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their

Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery, than those stript of them? We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice, if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion, and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue, it is easie to comprehend what he means, but if we suppose Transubstantiation, how shall we then understand what he say's, viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body, but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body? Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack, and does it not remain there till the change of the Species? How then shall we understand him when he say's, that our Com∣munion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul? For 'tis certain, that to judge of it, in the sence of Transubstantiation, it would be establish∣ed on the contrary first of all in the Body, which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse, to wit, that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living, for the living do communicate after two manners, Spiritually and Substantially, whereas the dead only in one? How in fine, shall we under∣stand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery, than that which comes to it from the Soul? Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God.

CABASILAS stay's not here, for concluding by way of Interroga∣tion, that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them, he continues to demand what they have more. Is it, say's he, that they see the Priest, and receive from him * 1.310 the Gifts? But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest, who is to them all these things; It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive. Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does, should it be supposed he believed Transubstan∣tiation? Could he not remember that the living have not only this advan∣tage above the dead to behold the Priest, and receive from him the Gifts, but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour? Could not he call to mind, that the Spiritual Communion, remaining common both to the one and the others, the Substantial was particularly to the living? Moreover, what does he mean in saying, that as 'tis Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead, so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it? Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it? Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis, the Truth and Reality, and which Mr. Ar∣naud always understands, when he finds these kind of expressions, the real Body, and Blood of Jesus Christ? Is it, I say, that this is not a Truth?

MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases, and 'tis likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation, seeing he himself has heretofore written, that God ad∣mits * 1.311 us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all E∣ternity, there being no other difference betwixt them and us, but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it, reserving both one and the o∣ther of these for us when we come to Heaven. He will tell us there's no body doubts, but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators, seeing he has

with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude, and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas. I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas, for if there be no other diffe∣rence between the participation of the Faithful on Earth, and that of the Elect in Heaven, than that of the sight and sensible taste, which we have not here, nor shall have but in Heaven, I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies, and which enters into our Stomacks, is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, seeing 'tis certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner. But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another, should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors, all that I can do in his favour is this, freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas, when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome.

CHAP. VII.

That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria, as the Latins do, and consequently believe not Transubstantiation. The Thirteenth Proof. Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion.

VVE may I think already begin to doubt, whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touch∣ing Transubstantiation, and whether the assurances Mr. Ar∣naud has given us thereof be well grounded. He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point, and behaves himself as a Per∣son that has already conquered, but 'tis more than probable that these flou∣rishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause, to the end they may obtain that by noise, which they could not by reason. But howsoever, it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections, Ar∣guments, Attestations, Consequences, Keys, Systems, those confident Defies, and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs, and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy.

—Aurae Omnia discerpunt & nubibus irrita donant.

THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this, but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it, and at the same time discover another of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions. My Proof shall be taken from the Greeks not adoring the Eucharist with that Sovereign Adoration the Latins do. Now if this be made apparent, what likelihood is there, that a Church which otherwise is not at all scrupulous in matters of Ceremony, and which has such a great devotion for Pictures, for the Writings of the Evan∣gelists

consecrated Bread which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and even the Bread of the Eucharist before 'tis consecrated, should believe the Substance of the Sym∣bols to be really changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet not render it that Sovereign Honour which belongs to it. It con∣cerns us then to know what the Custom of the Greeks is touching this Ado∣ration, and so much the more, because this Question being one of the chief of our Dispute, it is therefore absolutely necessary to be throughly inform'd in it.

BUT before we proceed any farther, we must distinguish (according to the sence of the Greeks and Latins) two sorts of Adoration, the one inferiour and subalternate which is rendred to Subjects, in which we do not acknow∣ledge an infinite Majesty, and th'other a Sovereign and Highest Worship, called that of Latria, which is only due to God.

WE must likewise distinguish according to the sence of the same Greeks and Latins, an Adoration called relative, which terminates not it self in any one Subject, but passes (as it were) from one Subject to another, as thro a Channel; and an absolute Adoration, which terminates it self in that Sub∣ject which is worshipped, without a reference to any thing else.

IN fine there ought to be a distinction made betwixt an internal Adorati∣on which consists in the motions of the Soul towards the Subject adored, and the external Adoration which consists in outward expressions.

WHICH Distinctions being premised, we are now to enquire whether the Greeks adore the Eucharist with a Sovereign Adoration, and that of La∣tria, not relatively, (as we speak) but absolutely, and in the same manner we ought to worship the proper Substance and Person of Jesus Christ. And because the internal affections of the Soul, cannot be immediately known, it therefore concerns us to enquire whether the Greeks do outwardly express a∣ny Sign of such an Adoration, either by their words or actions. Mr. Ar∣naud holds the affirmative and I the negative, and this being here only a que∣stion of Fact, 'tis likewise by Proofs of fact wherewith it must be decided.

FOR this effect I shall first here offer the testimony of a Cannon of Cra∣covia called Sacranus, who in reckoning up the Errors of the Moscovits, (whom we all know do follow the Greek Religion) does expresly mention this. Before the Cup is prepared, say's he, they light Torches and expose to the * 1.312 Peoples sight with exceeding great devotion the Bread, which is to be consecrated, with the Wine and hot Water, which they pour into the Chalice. They carry these about, and the People bow down before them with the greatest testimonies of re∣spect and veneration. But afterwards when the Bread is placed on the Altar and consecrated, there is no veneration shewed it, nor do they make any elevation of it.

JOHN de Lasko Archbishop of Gnesne, and Ambassadour from Po∣land * 1.313 to Rome in the beginning of the last Century, makes the same relation of the Errors of the Russians, as Sarcanus had done before him. It is likely by what Mr Arnaud tells us, that he has only copied out what Sacranus wrote and appropriated it to himself, for we find their expressions to be both the same. But be it as it will, he has not forgotten this Article I now mentio∣ned.

PETER Scarga a Jesuit of Vilna in Lituania has written a Book a∣gainst

the Greeks and Russians, which he intitled, de uno pastore, in which, * 1.314 making a Catalogue of their Errors, he particularly mentions this. At Mass they worship on their knees the Bread before 'tis consecrated, but after its Consecration they give no honour to the most Holy Body of Jesus Christ.

SO that we have here already three Witnesses whose Testimonies are not to be rejected, seeing they are of far greater weight than the forced conse∣quences of Mr. Arnaud, for they lived in those Parts, and were eye-witnesses, of what they tell us, and moreover considerable Persons in the Romish Church, the first of them being a Cannon, th'other an Archbishop, and the third a Jesuit, who do all three of them positively affirm the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist after Consecration. Behold here a fourth of the same Order, which is Anthony Caucus a Venetian, and Archbishop of Corfou. He had an order from Pope Gregory XIII. to inform himself exactly of the belief of the Greeks, and to make him a Relation thereof which he did. Allatius speaks of this Relation as if it were published. I confess I never saw it in print, but I have seen a Manuscript of it in the King's Library, wherein I found these words in the thirteenth Article of their Errors. They yield no Reverence, Honour, Veneration, nor Worship to the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist consecrated with leavened Bread according to their Custom, they carry it to the sick without Lights and Torches. They keep it in their Churches in a bag hanging against a wall in a little wooden box, and yet burn Tapers before the Ima∣ges of all the Saints. He informs us elsewhere that the Greek Priests when they carry the Sacrament to the Sick, are wont to wrap it up in a linnen cloth, or Handkercher, and so put it into their bosoms without any other Ce∣remony. But when he sets himself to the opposing of this Error, he thus speaks. There's no People (that I know of) who profess the Christian Religion that shew less respect and veneration to the Holy Sacrament, than the Greek Na∣tion. They adore and reverence their leavened Bread before 'tis consecrated, even to the very idolizing of it, but after scarcely rise up to respect it. Their Priest carry the Eucharist in their bosoms to the sick, without any Lights, and that which is most absurd is, they keep it in their Churches in a little wooden box, tied up in a bag and hanged against a wall without any Lights before it, as if 'twere a pro∣phane thing to the scandalizing of all pious People. I believe they have this Custom from the Heretical Sacramentaries, who deny the virtue of this most Holy Sacrament. They are moreover so super stitious and covetous, that when deceased Persons have bequeathed them any Legacy, they light Candles before the Images of all the Saints, drawing near to them with the greatest testimonies of reverence when they enter the Churches, but they turn their backs to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. I wondred to see them do thus, and being desirous to inform my self of the reason of this irreverence, shewing them how grievously they erred, in that they testifi'd a greater respect to the Saints who are the servants and friends of our Saviour than to himself, who is their Lord and Master. These Papa's gave me no other answer but that there was no command which enjoyned this respect and adoration. This answer is Heretical as I shall hereafter manifest, for John Oe∣colampadus (that arch Heretick of our time the ring-leader of the Sacrament a∣ries, asserted that our Saviour was not contain'd in the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist) has likewise written and publickly taught that we ought in no wise to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration of Latria, terming all them Idolaters that did so. Wherefore let Catholicks judge whether this does not well agree with the Opinion of the Greeks.

IT will be thought perhaps, this Author speaks only of some particu∣lar

Persons and not of the Greek Church in general, but such Persons may be soon satisfi'd when they read what follows towards the end of his Relation, Behold most Holy Father, say's he, all the Heresies of the Modern Greeks which I have laid open and confuted as well as I could. I say the Heresies of the Greeks, not only of the Inhabitants of Corfou, but of all the Eastern Greeks, to the end the others may not magnifie themselves, for they have all the same be∣lief, the same will, and obstinacy, to maintain every where the same things, And here I think is another good Witness, being likewise an Archbishop, and a Person that wanted neither Wit nor Learning, who dwelt among the Greeks. He affirms precisely as well as the rest, that the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament. He proceeds farther and lays this to their charge as a crime, and aggravates it by comparing it with the respect they shew the Images; he relates their Reasons, there being no command enjoyning this Adorati∣on. He condemns this Opinion as Heretical, and likens it unto that of the chief of Hereticks; he farther tells us, that this is not only the opinion of some particular Persons, but of all the Eastern Greeks, and in short he re∣marks the irreverences which are directly opposite to all kinds of Adoration. What can be more expressive, and what can Mr. Arnaud reply to this? Will he call again here to his assistance Allatius who disputes against Caucus, and would have it believed that this Archbishop has falsely charged the Greeks. But besides that it cannot be shewed by what interest Caucus should be moved to form such an accusation contrary to the respect he owed the Pope, and that his testimony is found conformable to that of several others, it is certain that Allatius himself is of all men the most passionate and least sincere, fre∣quently denying and affirming things according to his own Capricio, or ra∣ther Interest, and that which likewise is most considerable, is, that Allatius who meddles with other Articles dared not touch in particular on this, so that his silence is a confirmation of what I say.

THE Jesuit that wrote the Relation touching St. Erinis, affirms almost * 1.315 the same thing as Caucus. A great abuse, say's he, has crept in amongst the Greeks. For when the Priest comes from the lesser Altar to the Offertory, to pass on to the great one, all the People there present adore the Bread which is not yet consecrated, and shew a greater devotion during this action, than in or after the time of Consecration; for in the time of the Consecration they put out the Torches which they lighted for the Offertory. And in another place, We see * 1.316 by what has been said in the foregoing Chapters how greatly the Greeks are to blame for the little respect they yield to this adorable Sacrament, seeing that having consecrated on Holy Thursday a great quantity of Particles, they keep them all the year in a little wooden box inclosed in a bag, and hanged on a nail over the Altar, or behind an Image, without a light or any other mark of venera∣tion. When they enter into the Church to say their Prayers, you may see 'em make a profound bow, before the Images of our Lord, or Virgin Mary, or some other Saint, but you will never see them prostrate themselves before this adorable Sacrament. We have often reprehended them for this fault, and some have promised to amend it, others are really sensible of the unseemliness of this their carriage; but being loath to appear singular in their Devotions, they choose ra∣ther to follow the Customs of an ignorant People than to render themselves up to reason. So great force has ill examples over weak minds. Some time since the Lady Margareta D'argenta, a Person both devout and eloquent, told me, that be∣ing in company with some Greeks, she sharply rebuked them upon this occasion; you Greeks really show your selves, said she, in matters of Religion, to be void of sence, not knowing to whom you owe your respects, nor to whom to direct your

Prayers. On one hand you acknowledge that Jesus Christ who is God and Man, our Creator and Redeemer, is really in the Sacrament, with all the Treasures of his Graces, and on the other, we can see you show him not any reverence answerable to the respect of his Majesty. I have been several times in your Churches, and having sought the only object of my affection, and the God of my heart, I found, you keep him close shut in a wooden box, hanging up in a little bag on a nail cove∣red with dust and cobwebs. A Saviour in a pitiful box, an Infinite Majesty in the dust, an Almighty God in a bag, hanged on a nail! He is not thus treated a∣mongst us, you may see him receive an other kind of usage, shewing him far greater respect than this. Our Priests keep him in a silver Pyx, he rests in a Ta∣bernacle gilded without, and within covered with Sattin, and to shew that we be∣lieve he is the Light which light'neth our Understandings, and enflameth our Af∣fections, we have Lamps always burning day and night before him. When we come into our Churches we set not our selves upon considering the several Pictures and other Ornaments, for our affections do immediately lead us to the place where we believe our Treasure is. Whereas you keep your selves standing like the Pha∣risees, and we fall on our knees with the Publican.

THAT which the Jesuit makes this woman speak concerning the Greeks believing the real Presence, is forged by him without any grounds in the sence wherein he takes it, that is to say, as a Substantial Presence, for 'tis cer∣tain the Greeks do not thus understand it. But whatsoever he otherwise tells us is matter of fact which he has seen himself, and concerning the truth of which we have no reason to doubt. Now these Facts are such, that we cannot but judge them inconsistent with the belief of adoring the Sacrament of the Eucharist with such a Supreme Adoration as is due to the Son of God alone.

THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambas∣sadour, * 1.317 observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag, and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar, wherein they put the conse∣crated Particles. He says he thus saw it at Selivrée, and several other places. But because this remark might offend his Readers, he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks; but this is but a false co∣lour, for the Greeks are not so poor, but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner, did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ. The true reason of this Custom, is, that they do not believe what the Latins do, (or as speaks Caucus) they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins.

MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller, gives us an account of * 1.318 the manner, which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sa∣crament; but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration, and he is even forced to say, that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins.

MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service, * 1.319 which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai; and ob∣serves not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament, and

several other Proofs which might be added, and which conclude the same thing, has betook himself to his usual Artifices. First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration, as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation, or the real Presence. He on the contra∣ry handles it only as a necessary consequence of it, I would say, that instead of arguing thus, the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ; they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance, he reasons on the contrary after this man∣ner, the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence, therefore they adore the Sacrament. Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method, for although Transubstantiation may be used, when 'tis agreed 'tis believed, as a means whereby to conclude, that those who believe it adore it, yet who sees not, that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud, it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation? For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts, a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees, and consequently is more sensible and apparent, and more easily known than an Article of Faith, concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned, judge of Persons, and weigh their expressions. It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does, or one equivalent thereunto, than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion. We may be imposed on by this last, for there may be forged attestations produced, and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses, whom a small pension will byass either way; or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks. A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change. The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged, as of that of a true one, and moreover 'tis no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Ar∣guments. But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration. In a word, it plainly appears that Mr. Ar∣naud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences, to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs.

THE second thing he does, seems to correct the first; for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs, which he calls gross Proofs, to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof, which he draws from the real Presence. He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in * 1.320 these Terms, The faithful, desirous to shew their Faith, in receiving the Commu∣nion do adore, bless, and praise Jesus Christ as God, who is manifested in the Gifts. I answer, he ought faithfully to translate this passage. Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts, and say's, That the Faithful adore, bless, and praise Jesus Christ, who is understood in them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now a man must be very * 1.321 little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know, that when the questi∣on is concerning the Symbols, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies the Spiritu∣al and Mystical Object, represented by the outward Sign. Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts, is adored according to Cabasilas, and not the Gifts themselves. Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Pre∣sence. For, say's he, Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is re∣ally present in the Sacrament, and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him * 1.322 in the Gifts. Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist. I an∣swer,

that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence, as I shall make appear in its place, and had the Author of the Perpetuity al∣ledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud, we should not have been wanting to examine them, but the question then in hand only concerning the Ado∣ration. I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dis∣pute about the real Presence, before I could alledge one formal passage touch∣ing the Subject I handled.

MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards, that Cabasilas blames those that adore be∣fore * 1.323 the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about, and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself, and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration. I answer, that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it, as to our Saviour himself, and yet it cannot hence be concluded, they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration, as if the Book were in effect our Saviour him∣self. Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecra∣ted Gifts, but does not approve they should do it before their Consecrati∣on, altho he already acknowledges them to be Types and Figures, because he would have a difference made, they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Christ. But this is not to say they ought to give to the Gifts, either be∣fore or after their Consecration, an honour which terminates it self in them alone.

AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Thessalonica, we have no other * 1.324 assurance of the truth of these passages than the bare word of Allatius, that is to say, of a passionate man, ready to assert and maintain any thing right or wrong, for the interest of the Court of Rome. We shall have occasion to speak more of him hereafter, but in the mean time shall only say, that the words of Simeon be they what they will, do not conclude, we ought to yield the Gifts an absolute honour, which terminates it self in that Substance which the Priest carries on his head when he enters into the Church.

THE passage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted, as of Gabriel de Phi∣ladelphia * 1.325 was more specious, but because Cardinal Perron (from whom 'twas borrow'd) does not recite the Greek Text, and Arcudius who relates some clauses thereof, describes him as a Person void of all kinds of Learning, ei∣ther in Divinity, Philosophy, or Grammar, and that moreover the same Ar∣cudius assures us, the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sa∣crament after its Consecration, I therefore said I would suspend my Judg∣ment till I could ascertain my self by reading the Book it self.

MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticisms, and willingly passes over the * 1.326 matter, that he might fasten on the Person, imagines he has found here a luc∣ky occasion to triumph over me. But I am sorry to find my self oblig'd to disturb his Enjoyments, which I would not do, could I well avoid it. I affirm then first, I had reason to suspend my Judgment, because that to judge aright of the sence of an Author, it is not sufficient that we see a passage translated into French by Cardinal Perron. For besides that, his Translations are not always very exact, as several have observ'd no more than those of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament (according to their Relations that have examin'd them,) 'tis probable this passage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand, by Persons unknown to us, and for whose Fidelity he was not willing to an∣swer. In effect forasmuch as he has not inserted the Greek in the Margent,

as he has done in the most part of his other Quotations, may justly give us a shrewd suspition of this. Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Transubstantiation which Mr. Arnaud himself confesses is not an usual expressi∣on with the Greeks. There is likewise mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain, which is not the usual Style of the Greeks. I have then wrong'd no body when I suspended my Judgment, but have rather done what I and every man else ought to do in the like occasion. I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this, altho he pretends I was; for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reason, there being several things which pass there, in which he takes no part.

BUT, say's he, Arcudius Mr. Claude's great Author relates several pas∣sages * 1.327 out of Gabriel which are as expressive as that now in question. I answer, that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to suspend my Judgment, because that in it there are several Contradictions and manifest Absurdities, as I shewed in my Answer to Father Noüet, which the Reader may consult, if he desires information touching this particular.

I confess, adds Mr. Arnaud, that having not the least reason to doubt of the * 1.328 Sentiment of this Author touching the passages produced by Arcudius, I have therefore avoided giving my self the trouble to inquire after his Book. And I for my part profess I am not so easily satisfi'd, for I cannot thus take things up∣on trust. What shall we say, every one has his way, Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing, but mine is not so hasty, and indeed I never had cause to repent of my slowness in this particular, reckoning it to be the best way to prevent mistakes. Not that I would have him put him∣self to the trouble of seeking after this Book of Gabriel's, as he has proffer'd me to do, for our Dispute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbishop, whofe Book, (if we will believe Arcudius) is a very extravagant one, and the Civilities of such a Person as Mr. Arnaud is, may be expected in a weightier occasion.

BUT as we must not suffer our selves to be prevailed on by his kindness, so neither must we suffer our selves to be run down by his Injuries. For he charges me with disingenuously suppressing Arcudius his words, which would have discovered the true sence of what I cited. He chages me with like∣wise impertinently designing to invalidate the Testimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius. I must then justifie my self concerning these two particulars. The first of which will be soon dispatched by considering, that having in the first Edition of my Books only set down in the Margent the particular places of those Authors where are to be found the passages I made use of, I have in the last Edition inserted these passages themselves in full length, according as they are in the Original. Now that very place of Arcudius in question, may be seen there set down at large, together, with the Clause which Mr. Arnaud say's I have suppressed. Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page, and he shall find these very words therein, Nam etiam postea in elevatione Sacratissimae Hostiae quamtumvis eam non aspiciant, quamprimum ta∣men Sacerdos ea verba protulerit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sancta sanctis, statim procumbunt & cultu Latriae adorant, which are the same words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon. This is then a groundless Accusation, for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition, seeing he has mention'd it himself in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book, upon occasion of the Council at Nice.

BUT, it will be demanded, perhaps why I did not insert into the Body of my Discourse these words of Arcudius which do so plainly manifest his meaning. I answer, that if I had argued on the sence of Arcudius, I should have been to blame in not alledging whatsoever might give light to this sence. For when we would draw a true consequence, we ought to establish the Principle in a clear and perfect manner, to take away all occasion of mistakes. But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Person this Arcudius is, being a Greek latiniz'd Priest, brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks, extremely passionate for the Interests of the Roman Church, having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants, to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins, as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essen∣tial Points. I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact, which do now and then escape him, after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron, and Bellarmin, and Mr. Arnaud himself, not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude, but as Persons who affirm things, from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe. And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé, and sundry others of our Authors. Now 'tis evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect, a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom, nor to relate all the words which may make it known, for this piece of imperti∣nence would be good for nothing, but to tire the Reader's patience and trifle away the time. It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true. Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me, seeing I published this illu∣stration in my Answer to Father Noüel, which altho well known to him; yet has it not stopt him in his carreer, concealing my Justification, neither more nor less than if I had said nothing.

IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude, that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist, notwithstand∣ing whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted. Which is what I take upon me to maintain. He say's, that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts, * 1.329 in saying, this is my Body, this is my Blood, he then shews them little or no respect at all, he bows not his head, neither does he adore them, nor prostrate himself be∣fore them, nor lights Candles, nor makes any Reverence. Mr. Arnaud answers, the question concerns not the Adoration in it self, but the time of the Adora∣tion, * 1.330 that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adora∣tion of Rite or Ceremony, that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins, because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission, which both one and the other do, as soon as the Consecration is performed, that as to what concerns the second, the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration, and the Greeks later, to wit, at the Elevation of the Hoste, which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate.

THAT we may examine this Answer, we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks, for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks, than his bare word, or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence; but this is what's in question, and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs. To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration, and an Adoration of Rite, he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucha∣rist

immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary, and that in their intention, this is a sovereign honour. But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence, and to perswade us the Greeks do this, is a plain abuse, for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts, and guessing at their thoughts? Those that have this inward reve∣rence to the Eucharist, do certainly shew it by some outward Sign, and the Greeks shewing none, Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing, unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter.

SACRANUS, Scarga, and Caucus, who lived amongst the Greeks, were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence, for had they known any thing of it, they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence, Respect, or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration; nor would they call them, as they have done, Heretical, and Prophane People. Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration, knew nothing of this. This inward Reve∣rence had its residence and operations in their Souls, and yet they knew no∣thing of it; for had they known it, they would never return such an An∣swer. None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret; but if he gives us not other Proofs, it is to be feared, his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits.

WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite, or Ceremony, which is used, as he say's, at the Elevation of the Hoste, and see whether it is an Ado∣ration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self. Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned. The Greek Liturgy has these words, That the Priest and Deacon adore three times, in saying thrice with a low voice, O God be propitious unto me a sinner. The Au∣thor of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sa∣crament, * 1.331 wherefore he say's, that the Priest adores, and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are, in saying thrice softly, Lord be propiti∣ous to me a sinner. My Answer was, that I found in Goar's Book of Rites and * 1.332 Ceremonies, not this Term of Lord, but that of God, which shews that this Ado∣ration terminated it self in God, and not in the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth, leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit, and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy, then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise, and a little while after the People in * 1.333 general do reverently bow. Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist. But he ought to proceed sincerely; it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore, but it is like∣wise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, O God be propitious to me a sinner, from whence 'tis plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist.

AS to Arcudius's Testimony (who tells us, that the People prostrate them∣selves on the ground, as soon as they hear the Priest say, Sancta Sanctis, Holy Things are for Holy Persons, and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adora∣tion of Latria) we need not be much concerned thereat, being a Person pre∣possessed, and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant, * 1.334 Arcudius, say's Goar, altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of the Greeks, being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age. In effect what he say's

concerning the Peoples prostrating themselves on the ground, as soon as they hear the Priest say, Sancta Sanctis is not true, for the Liturgy denotes this A∣doration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis, at the same time as the Priest and Deacon adore, immediately after this Prayer, Look upon us O Lord Jesus Christ our God, &c. But granting it were so that the People prostra∣ted themselves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was said, it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it self in the Sacrament. They would worship God, as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd, O God be propitious, &c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer, which I likewise now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis, Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling. They prostrate themselves before the Images of the Saints, before the Book of the Gospels, before the Bread when as yet unconsecrated, and yet no Body concludes hence, they adore these things with an absolute Adoration. Why then will Arcu∣dius have them to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration terminating it self in it?

BUT if Arcudius's Testimony be of no validity in reference to this last Article, wherefore must it be otherwise in respect of this other Article on which I ground my Conclusion? I answer, for two Reasons, the one, for that being interressed as he is against us, it is not to be imagin'd he would speak any thing in our favour, unless the thing were so well known and un∣deniably true, that he could not disguise it; or pass it over in silence; and th'other because that in effect his Testimony in this respect, agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks, which expresses no kind of Adoration directed to the Eucharist immediately after its Consecration. And there being no mention likewise of any such thing afterwards to the end of the Office, the Con∣clusion I draw hence is undeniable. Had the Greeks the same Sentiments as the Latins, and made profession of rendring the same Divine honours to the Substance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Person of the Son of God, what time could they choose better for the acquitting themselves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be present on the Altar? When a Prince comes into a place, People are not wont to delay the shewing him the respect due to him, every one stands immediately uncovered in his Presence, and those Persons that did otherwise would be esteemed foolish and stupid. What likelyhood is there then, did the Greek Church believe, that immediately after the Consecration, the Bread becomes the very Substance of the Body of our Lord, she would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be so, by a Solemn Adoration? Mr. Arnaud must not tell us, that the Priest's mind is so taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice, that it is all this while fixed in Heaven. These are Reasonings invented, expresly to excuse a thing which cannot be alter'd, but in truth, it is so natural, to Persons that believe Tran∣substantiation to shew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes, that notwithstanding all these fine Reasons, those who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine. So that this very consideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any solemn kind of Re∣verence or Worship to the Sacrament after its Consecration is alone suffici∣ent to make us conclude what we contend for.

MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reason to rest satisfi'd with his first Proofs, has recourse to his Baron of Spartaris and Paysius Ligaridius, that is to say, to two false Greeks, brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church;

and won to its interest, as will appear hereafter. I only wonder he is not asham'd to bring for witnesses such kind of People as these are.

AS to Oderborne the Lutheran (who discoursing of the Russians, tells us, That the Priest leaving the Altar to shew the People the Eucharist, the People kneel down, and the Priest say's in the Moscovit's Language, Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the Jews put to death altho innocent,) it is easie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Eu∣charist, a Devotion which they practise before its Consecration, when the Bread is carri'd, from the Prothesis to the great Altar. There can be rais'd no scruple concerning the truth of this, seeing we have the Testimony of all Authors who by unanimous consent observe, that this Ceremony is perform∣ed before the Consecration of the Symbols.

ALEXANDER. Gagnin, say's, That one of them carries the Bread * 1.335 which is prepared for the Sacrifice, and another the Cup full of Wine, that they issue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Priests that carry the Ima∣ges of St. Peter, St. Nicholas, and Michael the Archangel, whilst in the mean time the ••••ople express their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worship, that some of 'em cry out, Lord have pity on us, others knock their foreheads a∣gainst the Ground, and that others make often the Sign of the Cross, and bow their heads, in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about sundry marks of veneration and honour. That having went round the Church, they en∣ter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary, and there make the Sacrifice. Sigismond Baron of Herberstain, say's likewise, * 1.336 That before they consecrate the Bread according to our manner, they walk with it about the Church, worship it, and adore it with a certain form of words they utter.

ARCUDIUS, who inveighs so earnestly against this Custom as an I∣dolatrous * 1.337 practice, attributes it not only to the Greeks, but likewise to the Russians, and say's, That they prostrate themselves and knock their heads against the Ground. M. Habert Bishop of Vabres, say's, That in the Greek Churches * 1.338 the People make a low bow, but in other Churches, as in those at Russia, they pro∣strate themselves on the ground after the same manner, as if our Saviour's real Body passed along. We have already observ'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expresly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconsecrated as well as others, and moreover add, that the Russians shew no reverence to the Sa∣crament after its Consecration. And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church, whence it follows that Oderborne was mistaken, and sup∣posed this respect was given the Bread after its Consecration, for there be∣ing but one turn made round the Church, it cannot be denied but 'tis done before the Consecration. What I say is so well known, that Allatius him∣self censures a Protestant named Jerom Viscer, for saying, the Greeks carry the Body of our Saviour in Procession twice about the Church; So far are * 1.339 they, say's he, from carrying the Eucharist twice about the Church, that on the contrary they carry it not at all, for that which they carry from the Prothesis, to the great Altar which they call the great Entry, is no more than Bread and Wine unconsecrated.

AND these are Mr. Arnaud's gross Proofs, as he calls 'em, for I meddle not here with what he tells us concerning a Letter from Mr. Pompone. We shall examine that in the following Book. His fine Proofs (as he tetms them) are those he draws from the real Presence in supposing the Greeks hold it.

For, say's he, whosoever believes Jesus Christ to be present in the Eucharist, * 1.340 speaks to him as God, implores his assistance, beggs his pardon, excites himself by expressions of confidence in him, acknowledges his own unworthiness, and all these actions being external are outward expressions of Adoration. So that to bring Proofs of the Adoration of the Eucharist, there needs no more to be done, but on∣ly to produce all the Prayers contain'd in the Liturgies which are offer'd to our Saviour after the Consecration. But it has been already observed that this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions, who is not willing to handle the Question of the Adoration, as a means whereby to decide that of the substantial Conver∣sion, but rather as a Consequence thereof; so that all the force of his preten∣ded Proofs consisting in supposing the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence, there needs no more to be done, for the overthrowing them, than to send him to the refutation of these Arguments, by which he pretends he has establish'd his Principle; and even this very consideration that he could not form his Proof without making this supposition, will only confirm what we maintain, viz. that the Greeks adore not the Sacrament, whence it follows they do not believe 'tis the proper Substance of the Son of God, for 'tis not likely a Church that holds this Opinion, would be wanting to give to the Sacrament those outward expressions of reverence which would distinguish themselves easily, from all other kinds of honour. The Church of Rome furnishes us with an example of this, on which we need only cast our eyes, for it clearly appears by her words and actions, that the honour she gives the Eucharist is a sovereign and divine honour, such as is due to God alone. Had the Greek Church design'd to shew it the same re∣spect, what should hinder it from doing as the Roman Church does? Would she not at least indeavour to imitate its example in several particulars? Why do they not carry it to the sick with the same solemnity as those of the Church of Rome? Wherefore, I say, does not the Greek Church enjoyn her Children to kneel as oft as they shall meet the Sacrament? Why does she not openly expose it in publick rejoycings or afflictions? Wherefore does she not carry it about in Procession? Why not dedicate a particular Festi∣val to it? Mr. Arnaud may tell us as long as he pleases, That there is no natu∣ral * 1.341 coherence between these things and the Adoration, that the Institution of these Ceremonies is pious and commendable, but no wise necessary, and that the Adorati∣on may subsist without them, as it does in effect in all the East. When there were not a natural coherence between Adoration and each of these particular Cu∣stoms, yet would it be (me thinks) contrary to nature that the Adoration should subsist seperated from all these things in general; seeing these are in a manner almost the same external marks of Divine Worship, which People have ever rendred to some visible Object. What likelihood is there if the Greeks had the same Sentiments as the Latins touching this Sacrament, but they would adopt some one of these Devotions which are so familiar to the Latins, especially those that approach the nearest their usual Customs, and which are moreover very proper to express this sovereign honour now in question, as is that solemn Feast called God's Festival, with all its Pomp. But so far have they been from imitating the Church of Rome in this particu∣lar, that they have on the contrary shewed the greatest aversion to it, as ap∣pears by the Confession of Metrophanus Citropulus made at Helmstad in the year 1625. We carry not about the Streets, say's he, this Holy Mystery, un∣less * 1.342 it be to the sick, it being not given us to make a show of it, but to be religiously received for the remission of sins according to the words of our Saviour. All Historians are agreed that the Russians do not observe this Festival. Sigis∣mond in his Commentaries touching Moscovia and Gagnin, in his Descripti∣on

of this same Country do expressly take notice of it. But that which most considerable is, That when those amongst them, who were subject to the King of Poland were forc'd to reunite themselves to the Roman Church, which hap'ned in the year 1595. under Pope Clement the Eighth they made this Contract. That they should not be compelled to make any Procession on the * 1.343 Festival of the Body of Jesus Christ, because they had other Customs amongst them in reference to the Sacrament.

WHEREUPON a Learned man of the Roman Church being con∣sulted, gave this Answer, That as to the carrying or not carrying of the Sacra∣ment about in Procession, that was not to be much regarded, but there were several other things of greater importance touching the Sacrament to be considered.

THIS Person, although he spake not fully his mind, yet said enough to make us understand him. For he means, (if I mistake not) that did the mat∣ter concern only the Festival of the Sacrament it signified little, but that the unwillingness these People shewed to observe this Feast, did sufficiently evi∣dence they had not the same Sentiment in the main with the Latins touch∣ing the Eucharist. And in effect wherefore should they refuse to observe this Feast, did they believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God, and adored it with an Adoration of Latria? Were they a∣fraid of giving it too much honour? Why not conform in this particular with the Roman Church, seeing they were reunited to her, and had left the Greeks? Is not this an evident token, that the Greeks cannot accommodate themselves to the Adoration practis'd by the Latins, nor consequently to the Doctrine they teach, and on which this Adoration is established.

BUT when what I said should have no ground, and the Adoration might subsist without these Ceremonies, Mr. Arnaud ought at least to shew us they substituted some others equivalent to them, which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud takes no no∣tice of this. He thinks it sufficient, to tell me, I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence, that I make extravagant and ridiculous Con∣clusions, and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me, that he laughs at my Ar∣guments, being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person, and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist. These are his usual Civilities, which yet shall not make me change my humour. I hope he will be one day of a better mind, and to that end I shall deal with him, not only in a calm and gentle manner, as it becomes a man of my Profession, but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him.

BUT before I finish this Chapter, I am obliged to tell him, he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist, a passage taken from Stephen Stylite, who told the Emperour Copronymus, That the Christians adore, and kiss, the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Either he has not examined this Passage, or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day, to wit, that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration, such as is given to Images, the Cross and consecrated Vessels, whose matter is not adored. And this appears through∣out the whole sequel of his Discourse. The Emperor accused him for be∣ing an Idolater in that he adored Images. He answers that his Adoration

related not to the matter of the Image, but to the Original which the Image represented. And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry (al∣tho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless) he alledges the example of the Cross, holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise ado∣red, and in fine that of the Eucharist. Loe here his words which justifie what I say. What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the hu∣mane * 1.344 shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen, and whom we worship? Is this to adore a Creature, or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter, when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will? We adore the Holy Vest∣ments and Sacred Vessels, without incurring any censure, for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things. Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood? We worship, and kiss, them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification. Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him (if he has quoted this Author only from their Re∣lation) or he has deceiv'd himself, or which is worse he has design'd to de∣ceive others, when he produc'd this passage; for 'tis certain, that hence a∣rises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question, and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive. There needs little strength of reaso∣ning to make this Conclusion, and as little Meditation to comprehend it. We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputa∣tion of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images, by the example of the Ado∣ration of the Eucharist, and ranks in the same order, the Adoration given to the Cross, to the sacred Vestments, to the Vessels of the Church, to Images, with that given to the Eucharist. We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist, the Anti-Type, Image, and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ, whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucha∣rist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us, but which refer to the Original they represent, wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored; but where by means of a material Symbol, a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds. In fine it needs only be observ'd, that if the Greeks adored the Sa∣crament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament, never man was more impertinent than he, in endeavouring to excuse a re∣lative Adoration by an absolute one, never man betrayed more his Cause, for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings, for which he may be justly reproach'd, he may be likewise told, he falls into a new Heresie, and horrible Impiety, making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels, or that of Images, whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore. Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents, for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped, and conse∣quently, means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored. He say's, they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them. Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents, but to the whole Subject called the Eucha∣rist. He say's, in short, that in partaking of these Anti-Types, we obtain Sanctification, which appertains to the whole Eucharist, and not the bare Ac∣cidents.

DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen, and stifly maintain'd the same Cause, thus argues. I worship not, say's he, the * 1.345

Matter, but the Author of the Matter, who has himself become Matter for my sake, and exists in it, to the end he may give me Salvation by it, and as to the Mat∣ter by which Salvation is procured me, I will ever worship it, not as the Divinity, God forbid, for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing, altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person, for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed, and remains what it was by Nature, to wit, Living Flesh, indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding, which has had a beginning, and bin created: AS TO THE OTHER MATTER, by which Salvation has been ob∣tain'd for us, I honour and worship it, as being full of the Divine Grace. The blessed wood of the Cross, is it not Matter? The Holy and Venerable Mount Cal∣vary, is it not Matter? The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ, and which was the Spring of our Resurrection, was it not Matter? Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written, are they not Matter? This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life, is it not Matter? In fine the Body and Blood of our Lord, are they not Matter? You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things, or grant the Adorati∣on of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints. It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ, he means the Eucharist, and distinguishes it from the Natural Body, for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter, he adds, As to the other Matter, &c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity. It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross, Mount Calvary, the Holy Sepulchre, the Letters of the Gospel, and the Communion Table, and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration, an Adoration proporti∣onable to that of Images.

WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body, he expresses himself after a different manner. I adore, say's he, one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I give to him alone the * 1.346 worship of Latria, I worship one God, one Divinity, but I adore likewise the Tri∣nity of Persons, God the Father, God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh, and God the Holy Ghost, which yet are no more than one God. I worship not the Creature besides the Creator, but I adore the Creator who hath made me, and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature. I do also toge∣ther with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body, if a man may so ex∣press himself, tho not as a Vestment, or fourth Person, God forbid, but as having been declared God and made without Conversion, that which it hath been anointed. Here the Humanity is adored in Person, with an Adoration of Latria, where∣as the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration af∣ter the same manner as the Cross, the Holy Sepulchre and Images. If you say, say's he, in another place a little farther, that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding, abolish then all corporeal things, Tapers, Incense, Prayers uttered with an articulate voice; nay, even th•• Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter, to wit, the Bread and Wine, the Oyl of Unction, the Sign of the Cross, the Reed, and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence. Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished, which can∣not be done, or not reject the Worship of Images; What he called a little above, the Body and Blood, he here calls Bread and Wine, but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood, or whether he calls them Bread and Wine, he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration

unto that which he pretends ought to be given, Images and other material things he mentions, that is to say a relative Adoration.

WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen, and Damascene, in which he justifies after the same manner, the relative Adoration given to Images, by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries. He com∣pares these two Worships together, and makes them of the same order and quality. When we adore, say's he, the Image of Jesus Christ, the Cross, and the * 1.347 Sign of the Cross, we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things, but direct it to him, who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us. And thus do we adore the Temples, Se∣pulchers, and Relicks of Saints, from whence do proceed those miraculous cures, praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power, and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments, we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it, for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means.

AND this is what I had to say on this Point; I leave now the Reader to judge, whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament accord∣ing to the manner of the Latins, be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness, as speaks Mr. Arnaud, or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his. I ground my ne∣gative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus, John de Lasko, Peter Scarga, Anthony Caucus, Francis Richard, all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks, who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular, who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sa∣crament after Consecration, and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks. I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office, without observing this essential particular, but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Cere∣monies the Latins use to express their Adoration, without substituting others equivalent to them. I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of o∣ther Greek Fathers, who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration, like unto that given to Images, Temples, Crosses, and Relicks of Saints. And yet Mr. Arnaud, tells me, that he is both ashamed and sorry for me, and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example, and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations, which no bo∣dy ever saw but himself, that is to say, on Chimera's with which the necessi∣ty of maintaining his Th••sis, right or wrong, has furnish'd him. Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd, I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind.

I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins. For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons, Archbishops and Jesuits and not me, who only denied it after them. I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be e∣steemed inconsiderable, my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle. Not only, say's he, the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily * 1.348 annexed to the internal Adoration, but also to some act of external respect. For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors,

such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days, yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence.

CHAP. VIII.

The Fourteenth Proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme, do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle, That the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration. The Fif∣teenth, from the little care they take to preserve the Substance of the Sa∣crament. The Sixteenth, from a Passage of Oecumenius.

WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread, and that there is touching this Point, between them and the Latins, so stiff a Controversie, that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon, and therefore when ever this happens, they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them. I shall not trouble my self, or Reader, with mentioning here any thing touching the be∣ginning or progress of this Dispute, all that I aim at here, being only to give farther light to the question I handle. It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point, to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation, for we find them continually arguing from this Principle, that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration.

AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius, and Leo Bishop of Acrida, to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples; for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, they add, observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body. This ex∣pression * 1.349 let Mr. Arnaud say what he will, does not well agree with the be∣lief of Transubstantiation; for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd, that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body; but it cannot be said with good sence, that he calls the Bread his Body, seeing this latter expression signifies, he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body, which supposes the Bread remains, and receives the name of the Body of Je∣sus Christ. Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Mi∣chael Cerularius, but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesi∣astical Books, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say they, having likewise related the words of the In∣stitution 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.350 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme, let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread. It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius, that this Pas∣sage * 1.351 is frequently used by the Greeks. And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner, Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body, the Wine his Blood; He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation, but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter; He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expres∣sion with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation, to wit, that the

common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance.

IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach * 1.352 the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme, and that they eat it as a Fi∣gure of the Flesh of Christ, You offer to God in Sacrifice, say's Nicetas Pecto∣ratus, the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews, and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ; and a little further, he that makes the Azyme, and eats it, altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews, yet does he in this imitate them, and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew. They ap∣ply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo, which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews, and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks. But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread; for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme, is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews, and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them, that after the Conversion 'tis no longer Bread, neither leaven'd nor un∣leaven'd, but the Body of Jesus Christ, and that in supposing this Conversi∣on, the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous, as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th. which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book.

IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, that at the Council of Florence, wherein 'twas ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread, and with the Azyme, every one according to the Custom of his own Church, the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves, saying, * 1.353 That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts, and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ, the one of unleavened, and th'other of lea∣vened Bread. Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation; for besides that this would not be two Bodies, but one alone under the different Species, it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies, one made of leaven'd th'other of un∣leaven'd Bread.

WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie, to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery, affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread, as the Soul is to the Body, because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven, so that they call leavened Bread, living Bread, as be∣ing that which has Spirits, and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread, a dead Lump, unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ; and there∣upon they ground this Accusation, that the Latins eat a dead Lump, inani∣mate Bread, and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours, and is not void of Soul, as taught the Heretick Apollinarius. We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter, in that of Nicetas Pectoratus, and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert, and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd, The Christians Easter, say's he, * 1.354 was celebrated, not with unleaven'd Bread, but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd; to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ. For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person; and as the Divine Nature is most simple, so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body, or Flesh. There being then

in Jesus Christ the Divinity, the Soul and the Body, so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread, that is to say with lea∣vened Bread, there are three things, namely, Flower, Leaven, and Water. But yours, far from being a true Sacrament, is no Sacrament at all, being so different from the Truth. But we find this arguing more clearly expressed in a Letter of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Bishop of Aquila: Those, say's he, that * 1.355 partake of the Azyme are in danger of falling into the Heresie of Apollinarius, who did not stick to affirm that the Son of God took of the Virgin Mary a Body de∣stitute of Soul and Reason, affirming the Divinity was to him in stead of the rational Soul. The Azyme then which has neither Salt nor Leaven, is it not dead and inanimate, and worthy in effect of Death? Our Lord Jesus Christ who is per∣fect God and Man has two Natures, and one only Hypostasis, having taken of the Holy Virgin a living Body indued with Understanding, and given us the Mystery of the New Testament by means of perfect Bread. Supposing the Bread of the Eucharist to be a Mystery that represents Jesus Christ, its Substance still ex∣isting, it will then be no hard matter to comprehend this reasoning of the Greeks; for they mean, that the lump of Bread represents the Body of Christ, the Leaven his Soul, or Life, and the Salt his Understanding, or Rea∣son, wherefore they say, that the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the Salt for the Understanding: So that partaking of this Bread, we mystically eat the animate and living Body of Jesus Christ, such as it is in effect, and not such a one as Apollinarius dreamt of. Whereas those that partake of an Azyme, do only mystically eat inanimate Flesh. But suppose, these People be lieved Transubstantiation, and judge then of their meaning. They that cele∣brate the Eucharist, say they, with unleavened Bread eat a dead Lump, how so? They eat not the Substance of the Azyme, but that of the living Flesh of Je∣sus Christ. They offer, say they, Flesh that is dead. How so again, if they offer'd it in its proper Substance such as it now is, that is to say living? They eat not the Body of Jesus Christ which is consubstantial with us, because they eat an inanimate Azyme. But it is false that they eat the Azyme, they receive only the colours and appearances of it, in the same manner as others take the co∣lours and appearances of leaven'd Bread. Their Sacrament is not indeed a Sacrament, differing so greatly from the Truth. Their Sacrament being the Truth it self, it can admit of neither difference nor resemblance. Who sees not these People are unintelligible if we imagine they argue from the Prin∣ciple of Transubstantiation? For if they only mean, that the matter of the Sacrament must be leaven'd Bread to become proper to be changed into the real Body of Jesus Christ, they must consider it in the time preceding the Consecration; as for instance, were I to shew that these Stones are not proper to build a Pallace, I must consider them in the time preceding the Building. Common sence leads us to this. But these People on the contrary are wont almost always to consider it in the time which follows the Consecration. You partake, say's Nicetas, of an inanimate Azyme, you offer to God an Azyme, being the dead Bread of the Jews; You are fed from the Hebrews Table, and not from the living and rational Table of the Lord. You communicate with the Jews, say's Cerularius, you eat a dead Lump, say's the Author of the Treatise of the * 1.356 Azymes against the Armenians, you receive an Azyme, you offer an Azyme, be∣ing dead Flesh, whereas Jesus Christ has given his Mystery, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with perfect Bread. All this does very ill accord with the Belief of Tran∣substantiation.

NEITHER will it be less difficult to reconcile it with some other ex∣pressions used by the Greeks in this same Controversie, as with that of Nice∣tas,

which I already mention'd; You offer in Sacrifice to God the Azyme, the * 1.357 dead or unleavened Bread of the Jews, which you eat as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of our Lord; and that which he adds soon after. You say that the Apostles receiv'd the Azymes of Jesus Christ, and that they left 'em to you▪ for the celebrating of the Mystery as a representation of the Body of Jesus Christ, And that of John Citrius which I already likewise mention'd, We offer in Sacrifice leavened Bread for the Body of our Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And that of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Leaven stands for the Soul, and the * 1.358 Salt for the Understanding. And that of John the Metropolitan of Russia in his Letter to the Pope, or rather to the Archbishop of Rome, as he calls him, Jesus Christ gave not to his Disciples an Azyme, but Bread when he said, Behold the Bread which I give you. Let Mr. Arnaud pretend what he will, yet I really be∣lieve these expressions do not well please him. He may tell us the Eucharist may be consider'd in two different respects; and that when 'tis looked upon in reference to its external Vail, 'tis called a Figure and Bread, and yet the Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation receive no prejudice thereby. But this will not satisfie the World, for 'tis plainly apparent, the sence of Nicetas and other Au∣thors reaches farther than this; for to say, we offer dead Bread, unleavened Bread, and figuratively eat it as the Flesh of Jesus Christ, that our Saviour gave Bread to his Disciples, that he told them 'twas Bread he gave them, that this Bread, should signifie his Body, the Leaven his Soul, and the Salt his Understand∣ing, this is not a bare consideration of simple Accidents. But 'tis on the contra∣ry to suppose, that the Bread remains, for we can neither offer, nor eat, dead Bread, a dead Lump, unleavened Bread, the figurative Bread of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, if it does not remain Bread in its real Substance. The Bread can neither stand for the Body, nor the Leaven for the Soul, nor the Salt for the Understanding, if in effect this Bread, this Leaven and Salt do not any longer subsist, but give place to the Body, Soul, and Understanding of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud, may tell us, if he pleases, that Agapius his Monk of Mount Athos, who taught Transubstantiation makes use of this way of speaking, that the Eucharist is to us in the stead of Jesus Christ, wee shall find he is a Person that would not wholly estrange himself from the expressions of the Greeks, if it be true that he received the Doctrine of the Latins. But we must go on with our proofs.

OUR Fifteenth Proof, shall be drawn from the little care the Greeks take to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament after its Consecration. For it is not to be imagin'd supposing their Belief to be the same with that of the Church of Rome, they would be so neglectful of it, and disrespectful to it as they are. I have already related in my Answer to the Perpetuity what Car∣dinal Humbert wrote from Constantinople, touching their Custom of burying under Ground the remains of the Communion, and letting fall the Crums thereof, without troubling themselves about them. When you break, say's * 1.359 he, the Holy Bread, or receive it, you are not concerned at the Crums falling down on the Ground. Neither are you more careful when you wipe the Dishes after an undecent manner, with the Leaves of Palm-trees, or Brushes made with Hogs∣bristles. Some among you gather up the Body of Christ with so great irreve∣rence that you fill boxes with it, and to prevent the scattering of the Crums, press them down with your hands. They eat likewise what is left of the Oblation after the same manner as common Bread, and sometimes so much of it, till they glut themselves with it, and what they cannot eat they bury under Ground, or throw it into Wells. He in another place severely censures the Custom of the Greeks; To bury, say's he, the Eucharist, as some are said to do, or put it in

Bottles, or scatter it about, is certainly a great neglect, and sign, that such have * 1.360 not the fear of God before their eyes. For the Holy and Divine Mysteries are the Faith of Christians. And in another place, in answer to Cerularius, who boasted that he would teach great and excellent things, are these, say's he, those great and excellent things you speak of, to place the Oblation on the Altar * 1.361 in so great a quantity, that neither the Ministers nor People, can devour it, but you must bury it, or throw it into Wells made for that purpose?

THE Anonymous Author of the Treatise against the Greeks observes the same thing with Humbert, At Easter, say's he, when the People receive the * 1.362 Communion, they provide abundance of Bread, and consecrate it all; and because the heaps which are left, cannot be kept, they bury them.

THIS Custom of burying the Eucharist remains still amongst the Greeks; for the Jesuit Richard relates, that a poor Woman of the Isle of Saint Erinis, had no sooner received the Holy Communion, but she brought it up again by reason * 1.363 of the weakness of her stomach, and that the Greek Priest, who gave it her be∣fore he confessed her, did not scruple to take up what she had vomited and bury it, together with the Sacred Particles at the foot of his Altar, for which fact he was blam'd by the other Papa's, who would have him bury it on the Sea-shore, judge then, adds he, how great is the ignorance of these Greek Priests, and how great our Saviour's patience to bear this? He undoubtedly saw all these disorders and indignities he was to suffer, when he instituted this Divine Sacrament.

THE same Author, say's likewise, That their Priests following the Custom of the Jews, let their Beards grow, which are all over wet with the Lord's Blood * 1.364 when they drink. Arcudius reproaches them in the same manner. The Greek Priests, say's he, receive the Eucharist very undecently, for taking the consecra∣ted Bead they grasp it close in their hands, and so lift it up on their heads, (I sup∣pose they do this as a sign of Honour and Veneration) and having eaten the Eu∣charist, and recited some Praises, they lift up their hands to their heads and stroke them, for it commonly happens that some Crums stick thereon. As soon as they have drank the Blood, they do not scruple to wipe their Beards with their hands, or handkerchiefs, as if they had drank common Wine; and forasmuch as they let their Beards grow, and never cut their Moustaches, it frequently happens that drops of Blood fall from them on the Holy Vestments, or Altar, and not seldom on the Ground. He farther adds, That the Rubrick of their Liturgy deceives them, and that these words should be corrected, after the Priest has wiped his lips and the brims of the Sacred Chalices, with the Veyl he has in his hands, he calls the Deacon. Sacranus speaking of the Russians, say's likewise, That they give the Communion to the People in nasty wooden Spoons, and wipe off the Crums which stick thereon with a cloth, letting them fall on the Ground.

THEY are far from being scrupulous, and taking that care the Roman Church does, to prevent the Eucharists being eaten by Vermin, for the Rats may run away with great pieces of it, and yet they not concerned thereat. Manuel the Patriarch of Constantinople (whom Binius ranks in the Seventh Century) being askt by one of his Bishops what punishment he thought a Priest deserv'd, who let a Mouse run away with the consecrated Bread, coldly answered, That those to whom these mischances happen are not to be blamed, because these things are usual; Multa enim ejusmodi saepe accidunt. If the like Questions were offer'd to a Latin Bishop, 'tis not to be doubted but he would insist on the care that ought to be taken for the prevention of these

inconveniencies, and instead of slighting the matter and excusing the Priest, as this Patriarch does, by saying this often happens, he would on the contra∣ry invent all ways imaginable to prevent this from ever hap'ning.

LET Mr. Arnaud if he pleases reflect a little on all these things. How is it possible these People would shew so little reverence and so great neglect to the Substance of the Sacrament, did they believe it to be the proper Sub∣stance of their Saviour? They eat thereof as common Bread till they have glutted themselves, they bury it, and cast it into Wells, and when any Crums thereof fall to the Ground, or stick on their hair, they are not all concerned thereat. They spill the consecrated Wine on their Beards, on the Altar, yea on the Ground, and matter it not, and their Liturgy enjoyns them to wipe their lips with their handkerchers when they have received the Communion, to which we may add what I related in the foregoing Chap∣ter, that they let the Sacrament hang a whole year in a linnen bag on a nayl, exposed to the mercy of worms, according to the express testimony of Sa∣cranus, and the Archbishop of Gnesne. Now what congruity has all this with the belief of Transubstantiation? Mr. Arnaud may distinguish, if he pleases, between the necessary Consequences, and those of congruity, yet all his Philosophy falls short of perswading us that these practices are consistent with the belief, that 'tis no longer the Substance of Bread, but the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.

I shall finish this Chapter with a passage taken out of Oecumenius, which shall be my Seventeenth Proof. This Author (who is famous amongst the Greeks and lived in the Eleventh Century) expounding these words of Saint Pe∣ter, Let your Conversation be honest among the Gentiles, that whereas they speak ill of you as of evil doers, they may glorifie God; Saint Peter, say's he, speaks here of the false Accusations of the Heathens, and if you would know the particulars thereof, read what Ireneus Bishop of Lyons has written touching the Martyrs Sanctus, and Blandina, and you will be perfectly informed. This in few words is an account thereof. The Greeks having taken some Slaves belonging to the Christian Catecumenists, used great violence towards them to make them confess the Christians Mysteries, and the Slaves not knowing what to say to please those that so rudely handled them, remembred they heard their Masters relate that the Holy Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ, imagining that 'twas, In effect Flesh and Blood. Whereupon they taking this as if the Christians were wont REALLY to eat and drink human Flesh and Blood made report hereof to all the other Greeks, and by torments forced the Martyrs, Sanctus, and Blan∣dina to confess it. But Blandina afterwards very pertinently demanded of them, how they could imagine People who out of Devotion did abstain from eating Flesh (whose use was permitted them,) should do any such thing.

THIS passage may be considered in two respects, either as being of St. Ireneus or Oecumenius. I know very well there are several Learned men that believe Oecumenius was mistaken in relating this Story as if it came from Saint Ireneus, and in effect, we do not thus find it in the Letter of the Church∣es of Vienna and Lyons produced by Eusebius. But in the second respect, under which I now offer it, we may certainly conclude that 'twas the Senti∣ment of Oecumenius himself. For how can we suppose he would call the be∣lief of the Slaves and Heathenish Inquisitors a mistake, That the Holy Com∣munion did in effect consist of Flesh and Blood, and that the Christians did really do this. Wherefore would he reckon this Errour amongst the Slanders of

the Heathens? Wherefore should he introduce Blandina refuting this Imagi∣nation had he himself believed the Communion to be in effect and reality the Flesh and Blood of Christ in its proper Substance, and had this been the real Sentiment of his Church? How came it to pass, he did not endeavour to mollifie and explain these Terms, and show that Blandina was mistaken in denying the Eucharist to be in effect and reallity Flesh and Blood, or that what she did in this case was only to conceal from the Heathens, the Churches Belief in this particular, or in fine that she only denied it in one sence, to wit, that it was visibly and sensibly Flesh and Blood? How happened it, he feared not lest the Greeks amongst whom he lived when he gave this account would not be scandaliz'd at it, or the weak take hence occasion to call in question the truth of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence? Yet does he not trouble himself in searching after mollifying Terms or Explanations, and the manner in which he has laid this down does clearly shew us that he did not in any sort believe the Holy Communion to be really and in effect the Body and Blood of Christ, nor imagin'd, he af∣firm'd any thing contrary to the Doctrine of his Church, or which might be taken in an ill sence.

CHAP. IX.

The Seventeenth Proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century touching the Eucharist, some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible, and others cor∣ruptible. The Eighteenth, from a Passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the Twelfth Century.

I Mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity a Dispute which arose a∣mongst the Greeks in the Twelfth Century, touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist, from whence I took occasi∣on to prove the Greeks do not believe the Transubstantiation of the La∣tins. Mr. Arnaud contents not himself with pretending my Proof is not good, but will needs draw a contrary Conclusion from the same Principle I made use of. It then lies upon me to examine in this Chapter two Passages, the one of Nicetas Choniatus, and th'other of Zonarus who both take notice of this Controversie; and to know whether this difference do's suppose Tran∣substantiation or not.

I will begin with Nicetas, who lays down the Question in these Terms. The Question, say's he, was whether the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ which we * 1.365 receive, be incorruptible, such as it has been since his Passion and Resurrection, or corruptible as it was before his Passion. Before we go any further, we should con∣sider whether 'tis likely such a Question should be stated in a Church that be∣lieves Transubstantiation. This is a Point easily decided if we consider, that those that hold this Doctrine do not reckon the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to be either in a corruptible state; such as it was before his Passi∣on, or an incorruptible one, wherein it has been since his Resurrection. They have invented a Third, which holds the middle between the two others, and

which equally agrees with the two times, before and after his Resurrection, which is that they call the Sacramental State, in which they will needs have this Body to lie hid under the Accidents of Bread, being invisible and insensi∣ble in it self, without Extension, Action, or Motion, having all its Parts in one Point, and existing after the manner of Spirits. In this State according to them he has neither the incorruption he obtained by his Resurrection, nor the Corruption he put on in coming into the World, but is corruptible in respect of the Species which enclose him, and incorruptible by reason of that Spiri∣tuality which Transubstantiation gives him. How can Mr. Arnaud imagine that in this Principle of the Sacramental State, there may be formed the Que∣stion, whether he is incorruptible, such as he has been since his Resurrection, or corruptible as before his Passion? How can he conceive that Persons who have his third State in view, and are agreed amongst themselves, can fall into a debate touching the two others? For it cannot be supposed the ignorance of the Greeks has bin so great as not to let them see the inconsistency there is between their Question and the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion, as it is taught by the Latins. No People can be so ignorant as not to know that a humane Body, such as is that of our Saviour; being under the Accidents of the Eucharistical Bread, is neither the same that was on the Cross, nor that which Thomas touched when it was risen and we must necessarily sup∣pose that he has neither the corruptibility under which he was before his death, nor the incorruptibility he received when he arose from the Sepulchre, but another incorruptibility, which comes to him from his existence after the manner of a Spirit. They could not be so ignorant as not to know that our Saviour celebrated his Sacrament before his death, and that we celebrate it likewise since his Ascension into Heaven, and that consequently according to the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation we cannot regulate the State of his Body in the Mystery, neither by one nor th'other of these two times, that is to say, neither by the time which preceded his death nor that which followed his Resurrection, but we must take a middle time which may agree both with the one and the other, whence it plainly appears these People believed not Transubstantiation, for had they believed it, this difference had never arose among them; and so much concerning the Question in general. Let us see now in what manner the two Parties maintained their Opinions.

SOME, say's Nicetas, asserted that it was incorruptible, because that the Participation of the Divine Mysteries is an acknowledgment, and commemoration that our Lord died and rose again for us, (as teaches the great Divine Cyrillus) so that whatsoever part we receive, we receive intirely that which Thomas handled, and that he is as it were eaten after his Resurrection, according to these following words of Saint Chrysostom. O wonderful! he that sits at the right hand of the Fa∣ther, is found in the hands of sinners; and in another place, Jesus Christ is a fruit which budded in the Law, ripened in the Prophets, and was eaten after its Resurre∣ction, and he tells us afterwards, this is no other Body than that which was too strong for death, and which began our Life. For as a little Leaven leavens the whole Lump according to the saying of the Apostle, so likewise this Body which God has made immortal, being in our Body changes and converts it wholly into it self; some likewise alledged these words of Eutychius that great light of the Church, we receive the Sacred Body of the Lord intirely and his precious Blood after the same manner, although we receive but one part of it, for it is divided indivisibly into all by reason of the mixture.

MR. Arnaud pretends this Party supposed Transubstantiation, because,

say's he, they asserted after St. Chrysostom, that our Saviour was in Heaven * 1.366 and on Earth, and after Eutychus that he was distributed wholly and intirely to all, that is to say, they taught the real Presence. But I hope he will correct his, that is to say, when he has considered that the Design of these Disputants was only to shew in what respect Jesus Christ communicates himself to us in the Eucharist, to wit, not as being mortal and corruptible, such as he was before his Passion, but as being risen. So that when they say we receive him whom Thomas handled, him who sitteth at the right hand of the Fa∣ther, the same that vanquish'd death, the Body which God made immortal, they do not design thereby to signifie his Substance, but only the State which followed his Resurrection, as if they had said, we do not so much receive that Body, which the Souldiers misused, as that which Thomas handled, not so much in respect that it was on Earth, but at the right hand of the Father, not so much for that it has suffered death, but vanquished it, and that God has made it immortal, which is to say, in a word, that we receive him as risen, because that in this Quality he is the Principle of our Life. It is clear that this was their drift, whence there can be nothing concluded in reference to the Substance, for when we receive the Body of Jesus Christ, not in Substance, but in Mystery, yet do we receive it in respect of its being risen; and receive him also intire, and so that passage of Eutychus will not decide our difference.

THERE need other considerations for this.

AND first it must be remembred that those that will argue from the Hy∣pothesis of Transubstantiation, that the Body of Jesus Christ is incorrupti∣ble in the Eucharist, must not attribute to it the incorruptibleness which comes to it from the State of his Glory, for besides that it could not have it, as I already said, at the time of the first Supper, seeing that our Saviour was not then glorifi'd, it is moreover apparent that even at this day, it is not in this State of Glory and Majesty which it has in Heaven. They must then at∣tribute to it this other incorruption, which is the effect of its Sacramental State. And 'tis unto this that the Doctrine of the substantial Presence does naturally and necessarily drive them. It is therein incorruptible, because 'tis indivisible and insensible after the manner of Spirits.

YET do not the Greeks mention one word tending to this sacramental in∣corruption, they speak absolutely only concerning the incorruption which follows his Resurrection and Glorification, which is an evident token they argued not from the Principle of Transubstantiation. Secondly, had these Greeks intended to propose our Saviour's Resurrection; wherefore say they, that the Mysteries are a commemoration of it as well as of his death? for they might with greater strength and clearness of reason affirm, that seeing 'tis the proper Substance of the Body that is risen, it can be no more either passible or corruptible, as it was before the Resurrection. How comes it then to pass they mention not a word of that which reason would suggest to them, supposing they believed the Conversion of Substances?

YET Mr. Arnaud tells us their reasoning was good, and that it overthrew the whole Foundation of those Hereticks, which was, that the Eucharist only re∣presented * 1.367 our Saviour Christ in a State of Death, whence they concluded he was in it only in a State of Death, in taking for their Principle that he was therein such, as he is represented. But Mr. Arnaud does not consider, that besides it is not true that the Adversaries of these Greeks did take for their Principle that the

Body was in it, such as 'tis therein represented, in supposing it was really in it; I say this would be moreover to impute to these Greeks, not a reason, but an overthrowing of all reason and common sence. If we believe Mr. Arnaud their Adversaries must have reasoned in this manner. Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist, such as he is therein represen∣ted; now he is therein represented, in a State of Death, he is then therein effectually dead. Supposing they believed Transubstantiation, were they not very imprudent to let slip this first Proposition, which is altogether contrary to Transubstantiation in the sence Mr. Arnaud would have them hold it, to apply themselves to the second, which is undeniably evident. For no body ever denied, that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death, seeing this Sacrament is a commemoration of his Death. But those that hold the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the living and glorifi'd Body of Jesus Christ, may not grant that he is really in it such as he is re∣presented, because he must be effectually dead, being represented therein as dead, which is punctually what the Adversaries of these Greeks would con∣clude. They had been then very imprudent to pass by the first Proposition of their Adversaries Argument, on which they might defend themselves and apply themselves to the second, against which there could be nothing said. For as I already observed, it cannot be denied but that our Saviour is repre∣sented in the Eucharist in a State of Death. But would they not likewise have been very impertinent to apply themselves to the second Proposition (in asserting as they have done) that our Saviour is represented in the Eucharist in a State of Death and Resurrection both together? What is this but to conclude, that he is then in it at the same time actually dead, and actually risen by this Principle acknowledged by both Parties, that he is really in it such as he is therein represented. The Catholicks, say's Mr. Arnaud, overthrew the Foundation of the Hereticks, by a Passage of Saint Cyril's, in which this holy man affirms that the Eucharist is the Confession of Jesus Christ dead and risen for us. Whence they rightly concluded that he was then in it in a State of Resurre∣ction, and consequently in an incorruptible State. If this Conclusion be good, as Mr. Arnaud say's it is, this is so too; he is then in it in a State of Death, and consequently in a State of Corruption, for Cyrillus does as well assert that 'tis the Confession of Jesus Christ dead, as risen; whence it follows that according to these People our Saviour dies and rises again effectually in the Eucharist. And thus do they argue according to Mr. Arnaud, Our Savio•••• is in the Eucharist, such as he is therein represented, now he is represented therein, not only in a State of Death but Resurrection. He is then really in it not only dead, but likewise risen again, and consequently corruptible and incorruptible both together. This would be the most sottish reasoning ima∣ginable, for after this manner they would as well argue for their Adversaries as themselves. And yet this is the arguing which Mr. Arnaud so commends. And into these absurdities and extravagancies does he lead those Persons he would have favourable to him.

YET he adds, That 'tis an easie matter to conclude that according to these Catholicks, Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist, but 'tis a hard mat∣ter to divine by what means Mr. Claude has concluded he was not in it. It is no such difficult matter to know this. For if these People said not what com∣mon sence immediately dictated to them, supposing they believed Transub∣stantiation, but on the contrary that which even common sence would hinder them from saying, it follows they had not this Hypothesis in their Minds. Now this is what my Proof contains, for it shews that what they said would

be an extravagancy, and likewise what they ought to say, and have not said. For they ought to say that our Saviour since his Resurrection can be no long∣er in a State of Death, or passibility, and consequently that being really in the Eucharist, he cannot be therein corruptible, and this they have not said.

BUT how, (say's Mr. Arnaud,) can Mr. Claude know what they have said, or not said? Will he pretend that all the reasonings of these Persons are contain'd in the short account this Historian gives us of this Debate. But I do not pre∣tend to this, for I only say, that if the Greeks whose Dispute is set down by Nicetas, believed Transubstantiation, he would have made them reason after another manner than they do, he would have made them say what sence and reason do readily suggest to People that hold this Doctrine, and not Imperti∣nencies, which could never enter into the mind of a man prepossessed with Transubstantiation.

BUT, adds he, these Greeks have expresly said, what Mr. Claude blames them for not saying. For have they not expressed this clearly in these Words, * 1.368 that whatsoever part we receive of the Eucharist, we receive intirely Jesus Christ himself whom Thomas handled, because we eat him after his Resurrection, which they confirmed by divers Passages of the Fathers, and amongst the rest by that of St. Chrysostom; O wonderful! He that sits at the right hand of the Father is found in the hands of sinners. I answer that Mr. Arnaud comprehends not the force of an Objection but only when he pleases. I do not deny but that these Greeks said, That Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist as risen, and that we receive him wholly and intire. This is the State of their Question, and they prove it by Passages taken out of the Fathers. But I say that had they reasoned on the Hypothesis of the substantial Conversion, they would have said that Jesus Christ since his Resurrection can be no longer either mortal or passible in himself, that he exists on the Altar after the manner of a Spirit, and is consequently incorruptible; that the substantial Conversion cannot be made in the dead and inanimate Body of Jesus Christ, forasmuch as this is a State which has ceased since so many Ages, and that it would be blasphemy and horrid cruelty against the Majesty of the Son of God to make him die every day really and personally. And this is what I said in plain Terms, but Mr. Arnaud would not understand me. I tell him therefore again, that com∣mon sence led the Greeks to this, had their belief been the same as the La∣tins. Yet you cannot find this in what Nicetas makes them speak. You read indeed that whatsoever part we receive, we partake of him whom Tho∣mas handled, that is to say, of Jesus Christ; the word Same which Mr. Arnaud has added, is of his own invention. You find there that he is eaten after his Resurrection, and instead of Mr. Arnaud's Because, there is in the Greek a Diminutive Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he is as it were eaten, but you find not that Jesus Christ can be any more passible, nor that he is in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit, nor what a great outrage it would be to the Son of God to make him die and suffer personally again. And yet this is what ought to be said according to sence and reason, supposing they believed the real Pre∣sence, and design'd to refute their Adversaries.

NICETAS continuing to relate as from the part of these Greeks the Passage of Euthychius, adds these words, It is as a Seal which imprints its form on the matters which receive it, and which yet remain one, after this Com∣munication, without being diminished or changed into those things which receive the Impression, altho several in number. Even as one voice alone uttered by a

Person, and cast forth into the Air, remains wholly intire in him that utters it, and yet is carried wholly intire in the Air to the ears of them which hear it, with∣out any of the hearers receiving more or less, but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all, when they should be several thousands in number, altho it be but one Body, for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord, and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration, but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue, as the things I offered by way of example do, and that he fully and intirely exists in them. I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words, but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done. He mentions what precedes, and follows them, but leaves out those that are in the middle. 'Tis probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things, nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air, without losing its Unity, for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression, nor in the Air which receives the voice, and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its I∣mage, or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves, and with the Seal, or the first Air, in respect of the Characters, or Articulation, but not at all in respect of the Substance; whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament, which is to say, that the Bread altho it receives the impres∣sion of the virtue of Christ's Body, yet does it keep its Substance, after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his, the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread. 'Tis probable he did not like, that in pro∣posing the comparison of the Seal, Eutychius has observ'd, that 'tis not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters, whence it follows, that they are not likewise changed substantially into him. 'Tis likely he could not well rellish this expression, that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types, and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than the Seal does in things, and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ, in virtue and efficacy a∣gainst which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion. I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantia∣tion or the real Presence. For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration, and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues, if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood, and become the same numerical Substance? But be it as it will, Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest, or if he design'd to do it, not to reproach me, for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity, I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zo∣narus. I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself, for it will appear at the end of this Chapter, that 'twould have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length, and the rea∣son why I did it not, was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long, and the sum of which may be represented in few words; besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Mar∣gent of the last Edition of my Book. We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me, to his humour and not to his Judgment, for had he taken time to consider, he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter. But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse, this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment

and not of his humour, for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums.

IN fine Nicetas, having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence, he introduces the other, and adds these following words; Which things being alledged by these, and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church, the others replied on the contrary, That the Mystery is not an acknowledg∣ment of the Resurrection, but only a Sacrifice, and consequently is corruptible, being without Soul or Understanding, and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire, but in part. For were it, say they, incorruptible, it would be in∣dued with Spirit, it would be alive, it could neither be touched, seen, nor chewed with the Teeth, and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain.

TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, we need only inquire whether they had common sence, for unless they were deprived of it, they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord, which is seen, handled, cut, and chewed with the teeth, and which altho inanimate, yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used. If Mr. Arnaud can make us be∣lieve this he may make us believe any thing. How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain; to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth, and cut his flesh in pieces, that every one may partake thereof; to believe he is without Life and Soul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and yet that he is pained and grieved, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence, seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us, That all this would be ridiculous, if we understand it as meant of Bread, which is only the Figure of our Saviour, and which con∣tains only his virtue. I answer, 'tis no hard matter to give their words a na∣tional sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue, for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as dead and sa∣crific'd for us, and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding, from amongst those things (I say) which we see, handle and chew with our teeth, and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ, when he lived on Earth, and was subject to pain and misery; whereas were he re∣presented in it in his incorruptible State, wherein he is no more visible to our eyes, nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies, our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols, wherein these dolours are not so lively repre∣sented. And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire, but in part, this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body of the Bread receiving the impression of our Saviour's virtue becomes his whole Body, and that each Particle is in effect but one part of it. 'Tis probable likewise they had regard to the moral Body of our Saviour which is the Church, and is represented by Bread, of which every one takes a part, to signifie that every particular Believer is not the whole Body, but one part thereof in communion with the rest, according to that of Saint Paul, For we being many are one Bread and one Body; for we are all partakers of * 1.369 that one Bread.

SO that here's the Passage of Nicetas examin'd, and to the end it may not be thought the sence I give it is only grounded on meer conjectures, we

shall see immediately that Zonarus expresses himself to the same effect, and that these two Authors explain one another. And this is the reason Why I differ'd in this particular from Mr. Aubertin, when he thought Nicetas did not faithfully relate the Question, and that in effect the Dispute was grounded on Transubstantiation, and the real Presence. This was his conjecture, and we all know that the meer conjectures of Authors, altho otherwise never so judicious, lay not any necessity upon us of following them. Every man is at liberty in these kinds of matters, and Mr. Arnaud who scruples not to devi∣ate sometimes from the Opinions of his own Doctors in Points of greater importance, had little reason to say, That here I am at variance with my Ma∣ster * 1.370 Aubertin. I do in truth profess my self a Disciple to those that pre∣ceded me, for I am not of an aspiring humour, neither have I as yet been ac∣cused of affecting Singularity, but when Masters offer their conjectures un∣der the title of videtur, touching an Historical Passage, as Mr. Aubertin has done, the Disciples have right to judge of it and reject it, if their conjectures be not well grounded. Which is what I have done in this particular, and Mr. Arnaud must not pretend to refute me by opposing Mr. Aubertin against me, much less in quoting some pretended Marginal Notes of Wolphius, which appear not in his Nicetas, Printed at Basil, 1557.

I come now to the other Passage which I said belong'd to Zonarus, and which Allatius attributes to Glycas, We know, say's he, dear Brother, that some * 1.371 suffering themselves to be too much led away by their own reasonings, do raise doubts concerning the nature of the immaculate Mysteries, sometimes maintaining the Eucharist to be incorruptible, seeing it communicates to us the life immortal, and othertimes affirming it is corruptible, because we chew it with the teeth and eat it. They assert likewise several other things according to their own fancy, and as it were, making a sport and jest of these serious things. But as for your part, dear Brother, follow not their example, trouble not your self with examining the Mysteries, lest that curiously enquiring whether the Holy Communion be above cor∣ruption, or whether it lasts but for a time, in trusting too much to your self you exceed the bounds of Truth. For these kind of things are to be believed, not que∣stioned. And let not your reason make you so much a Sceptick as not to reject one of these Opinions as impious, and hold the other. For in examining them you will find they may be both maintain'd in a Catholick sence. The Bread of the Prothesis, is that very Flesh of our Saviour that was crucifi'd at the time of his Pas∣sion, and laid in the Sepulchre. Which manifestly appears by what our Lord said to his Apostles when he instituted the Mysteries of the New Testament; for in giving 'em to them, he said, take eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the remission of sins. Consider, that if the Flesh of our Lord had not been cor∣ruptible it would not have been subject to the corruption of Death. For that which is incorruptible, is above all corruption. The Bread then of the Prothesis is subject to corruption, as being the real Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is cut, and chewed with the teeth, for were it incorruptible it could be neither cut nor eaten; moreover be not troubled at this saying, nor think it hard and insupportable, for although we speak to you of corruption in this divine and dreadful Cummunion, yet is it in fine attended with incorruption. For the Flesh of our Lord after it had yielded to death, and was laid in the Sepulchre, was not corrupted according to the saying of the Prophet, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption, for being preserved by the Divinity it remain'd incorruptible. So likewise the Bread of the Prothesis after it has been chewed with the teeth, and descended into the Stomach as in a Sepulchre, returns to the state of incorruption according to John Damascene, being united to the Substance of the Soul. And therefore those

that depart this life, if they have participated of the Holy Mysteries of our Lord with a pure conscience, are taken up by Angels by means of what they have received, as say's Saint Chrysostom.

MR. Arnaud that always offers his Arguments as Decrees, say's, That a man need but only read these words, that the Bread which is offered on the Altar is that very Flesh of Christ which was crucifi'd and buried, to explode the vain Arguments of Mr. Claude, and that a man who undertakes to argue against such an Evidence deserves not to be heard. And I passing by the vanity of his Discourse, which shews how greatly 'tis his interest that I be not heard, do demand Publick Audience to discover the Nullity of his Proof. There is nothing more usual in Eccelsiastical Writers then to say of a Subject to which the Scripture gives the name of Jesus Christ, that 'tis Jesus Christ himself. Saint Chrysostom speaking of a poor man, say's, That he is Jesus Christ himself, * 1.372 who suffer'd death for us. Discoursing in another place of the Church, he say's, That it is the Body it self of Jesus Christ. Saint Austin expresses himself af∣ter the same manner in several places, and were it requisite, we could easily * 1.373 shew that this same, or he himself, is applied sometimes to the Poor, and some∣times to the Church, and sometimes again to every particular Believer in Sedulius, Cesarius, Fulgentius, Ephraim, Valerian, in Alcuinus amongst the Ancients, and Cabasilas and Jeremias amongst the Modern. Moreover how can Mr. Arnaud (who so triumphantly charges me with differing from Mr. Aubertin in an Historical Passage) maintain that the Evidence of these words of Zonarus, (the Bread is the very Flesh it self of Jesus Christ which has been sacrific'd for us) leaves no place for my arguings, he I say, who knows very well that the most famous Doctors of the Roman Church do teach that this Proposition, the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, cannot be admitted but in a Figurative Sence? Every Proposition, say's Occam, in which the Body of Je∣sus * 1.374 Christ is said to be Bread, is impossible. This Proposition, say's Bellarmin, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, if it be not taken Figuratively and in this sence, that the Bread signifies the Body of Jesus Christ, is wholly absurd and impossible, for the Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ.

SUAREZ and Vasquez affirm the same thing, and were not these three last Jesuits, I might likewise say in my turn, that here the Disciple is at variance with his Masters. In the third place I affirm that in the Discourse of Zonarus the Term of, the same, relates not so much to that of Flesh, as that of sacrific'd, as Mr. Arnaud renders it, and of buried, to signifie not the Bread is this Flesh in propriety of Substance, but that it is this dead and bu∣ried Flesh; which shews how frivolous Mr. Arnaud's Proof is, for this can neither be the same death nor burial, it must then of necessity be another. In fine, 'tis but observing never so little Zonarus Discourse, and we shall find he distinguishes the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ, for he compares the one with the other, saying, that as the Flesh of Jesus Christ suffered death and was buried, so the Bread is subject to corruption; being chewed with the teeth, eaten, and sent down into the Stomach, as in a Sepulchre; and that as the Flesh of Christ overcame corruption, so in like manner the Bread becomes incorruptible, and passes into the Substance of the Soul; which shews that his sence is, that the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ, not Substantially, but Mystically, and consequently this pretended E∣vidence of Mr. Arnaud is no more than one of his Whimsies.

IN effect, suppose that Zonarus believed Transubstantiation, and that

what he calls Bread is the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, is it possible his extravagancy has lead him so far as to believe that this Flesh is at first corrup∣tible, and afterwards becomes incorruptible; that it is cut and chewed with the Teeth, and in fine reduced into the Substance of the Soul? Mr. Arnaud say's, 'tis probable that Zonarus abuses the word corruption and extends this * 1.375 Term to all the changes that happen to the Body of Jesus Christ, not in it self but in respect of the Vayl which covers it. But this evasion will not serve his turn, for Zonarus say's, that the Bread is subject to corruption, as being the true Flesh of Jesus Christ. Now 'tis not in respect of its Accidents, or Vayl, that 'tis the true Flesh of Jesus Christ according to the Hypothesis of Transub∣stantiation. It is so by the change of Substance. Not to take notice that to eat and chew Accidents with the teeth (that is to say, Figures and Colours stript from their Substance) is a singular Fancy.

THIS Passage of Zonarus which I now examin'd puts me in mind of another of the same Authors, who was a Grecian, and famous amongst his own People and lived about the Twelfth Century, which shall be my Eigh∣teenth Proof. The Passage is taken out of his Commentaries on the Can∣nons of the Apostles and Councils. See here what he writes on the 32. Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo; The Divine Mysteries, I mean the Bread and Wine, do represent to us the Body and Blood of our Lord, for in giving the Bread to his Disciples, he said to them, take eat this is my Body, and in delive∣ring the Cup, he said, drink ye all of it, this is my Blood. Seeing then the Lord in his Divine Passion, after he had poured out his Blood, caused to flow from his Side pierced with a Spear, not only Blood, but likewise Water, the Church has therefore thought it necessary to mingle Water with the Wine in the Holy Myste∣ries.

THERE may be made two important Reflections on this Passage; First, he say's, the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which cannot agree with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, unless forced by several Interpretations unknown to the Greeks, as that by the Bread we must understand the Accidents or Appearances of Bread; and by the word represent an inclusive Representation of the thing it self. Secondly, that grounding as he does this Representation of the words of Christ, This is my Body, this is my Blood, it is clear that he has taken them himself in a sence of Representation, and believed that 'twas as much as if our Saviour had said, This Bread represents my Body, this Cup my Blood; for otherwise he could not ground as he has done his Proposition, that the Bread and Cup re∣present the Body and Blood of our Lord, on this reason, that our Saviour said, This is my Body, this is my Blood.

THIS Passage seeming to determine the Question in our favour, it will not be amiss therefore to consider, what may be opposed against it; to avoid its force, Zonarus makes use of the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may be sayd to be better rend'red, not represent, but present, give, communicate; and that the sence of this Author is not, that the Bread and Wine do represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as Signs and Pictures represent their Original, but that they present and communicate them to us in effect, inas∣much as they contain the Substance of them, and that 'tis to confirm this Pro∣position he alledges the words of our Saviour, This is my Body, this is my Blood. But this evasion will not serve turn, if the sence and sequel of Zo∣narus his Discourse be never so little consider'd. His Design was to confute

the Armenians, in shewing that there ought to be Water mingled with the Wine in the Chalice. To prove this, he asserts, we must represent in the Mystery the Water and Blood which ran down the pierced Side of our Sa∣viour when on the Cross, and to confirm this Proposition, he has recourse to this general Maxim, that the Mysteries, which is to say, the Bread and Wine, do represent the Body and Blood of our Lord. Which plainly shews then we must not translate the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, present, or give, for why, say's he, the Bread and Chalice give us the Body and Blood of Christ; but because Jesus Christ has said, This is my Body, this is my Blood. We must then put Water into the Cup, because Blood and Water issued out from our Saviour's Side. The Armenians have said on the contrary there must be none put in, because the Lord only made mention of his Blood; that 'tis very uncertain, whether the Mysteries give us this Water which ran down from our Lord's Side; and that supposing they do give it us, yet does it not hence follow we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Cup, the Wine alone being suffici∣ent to be transubstantiated into the Blood and Water which accompanies the Blood. We must then necessarily (if we suppose Zonarus speaks sence) un∣derstand the Term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the sence of Representation, and then his Discourse will appear rational; The Mysteries represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as they were upon the Cross. Now in this State there issued from the pierced Side of Jesus Christ Blood and Water, we must then express in the Mystery this Circumstance, and to express it we must mingle Water with the Wine in the Sacred Chalice, to the end that as the Wine re∣presents the Blood, so the Water may represent this Divine Water which gushed out together with ••e Blood from our Saviour's Side. And this being thus cleared up, it is hence evident that Zonarus understood these words of our Lord, This is my Body, this is my Blood, in a sence of a Mystical Represen∣tation.

CHAP. X.

The Nineteenth Proof, that, we do not find the Greeks do teach the Do∣ctrines which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation. The Twen∣tieth, is, the Testimony of sundry Modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion. The One and Twentieth, from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forc'd to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins.

I Did affirm in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that we donot find the Greeks do teach any of those Doctrines which necessarily follow the Belief of the change of Substances, whence I concluded, there was no likelyhood they were in this Point agreed with the Latins. This Consequence has disturbed Mr. Arnaud, and as he makes his own Dictates and those of Reason to be one and the same thing, so he has not scrupled to affirm, That Reason re∣jects this as a silly extravagancy. But forasmuch as we have often experienced * 1.376 that in matters of Reason, Folly and Extravagancy, it is no sure course abso∣lutely to rely upon Mr. Arnaud's words, therefore will we again lay aside the

Authority of his Oracles, and examine the thing as it is in it self.

FIRST, The Greeks do not teach the Existence of the Accidents of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist without any Subject, or Substance which sustains them. Now this is so necessary a Consequence of Transubstantiati∣on, that those which believe this last, cannot avoid the teaching and acknow∣ledging of the other, supposing they are indued with common sence. In ef∣fect it would be to charge the Greeks with the greatest folly, to suppose they imagin'd that the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, even the very same Body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, does really exist on the Altar being the same in all respects, as the Bread of the Eucharist does appear to us to be, that is to say, white, round, divisible into little pieces, &c. and that the same things which, (as they speak) did qualifie and affect the Bread before, do qualifie and affect the same Body of Jesus Christ. We must not charge the whole Greek Church with such an absurdi∣ty. Whence it follows we must not attribute to her the belief of Transub∣stantiation; for did she make profession of believing and teaching it, she would teach likewise the existence of Accidents without a Subject; these two Doctrines being so closely linked together, that 'tis impossible to sepa∣rate them unless they fall upon this fancy, that the Accidents of Bread do exist in the Body it self of Jesus Christ, or this other, namely, that which appears in the Eucharist is not really the Accidents of Bread, but false appearances, and pure Phantasms which deceive our sences, which is no less absurd, nor less contrary to the Doctrine of the Greeks.

SECONDLY, Neither do we find that they teach what the Latins call the Concomitancy, which is to say, that the Body and Blood are equally contained under each Species; but we find on the contrary, that they esta∣blish the necessity of communicating of both kinds, and ground it on the necessity there is of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter; which is directly opposite to this Concomitan∣cy. Yet is it not to be imagined but that those People who believe the Con∣version of Substances, do at the same time establish this other Doctrine. For if we suppose as the Church of Rome does, that we receive with the mouths of our Bodies, this same Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which he had when on Earth, and has still in Heaven, it is not possible to se∣parate in such a manner his Blood from his Body, and his Body from his Blood, as to reckon the Body to be contain'd in the only Species of Bread, and the Blood in the only Species of the Wine, seeing 'tis true that this Se∣paration cannot be conceived without breaking the Unity of the Life which is in Jesus Christ.

THIRDLY, Neither do we find the Greeks have ever applied them∣selves to shew, how 'tis possible for our Lord's Body to exist in the Eucharist, stript of its proper and natural Figure, deprived of its dimensions, impalpa∣ble, indivisible, without motion and action, which is moreover another Con∣sequence of Transubstantiation.

FOURTHLY, We do not find the Greeks do in any sort trouble themselves, touching the nourishment, our Bodies receive when they partake of the Eucharist, and yet is it certain that if we suppose they believed Tran∣substantiation 'tis impossible for them to obtain any satisfaction touching this matter. For should they deny this nourishment, they may be convinced of

it by experience, and if it be referred to the proper Substance of Jesus Christ, they plunge themselves into an Abyss of Absurdities and Impieties. If it be said the Accidents nourish, besides that common sence will not suffer us to say that Colours and Figures nourish, they that affirm this do expose them∣selves to the derision of all the World, who know our nourishment is made by the Addition of a new Substance to ours. To affirm that God causes the Bread to reassume its first Substance, or that he immediately creates another, this is to make him work Miracles when we please, and to be too free in our disposals of the Almighty Power of God. And therefore the Latins have found themselves so perplexed, that some of 'em have taken one side, and some another. Some have boldly denied this nourishment, whatsoever ex∣perience there is of the contrary, as Guitmond, and Algerus, others, chosen rather to affirm the Accidents do nourish, as Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmin. Others have invented the return of the first Substance of Bread, as Vasquez; and others the Creation of a new Substance, as Suarez and others. Mr. Ar∣naud has chosen rather to affirm, That we are nourished, not with the Body of * 1.377 Jesus Christ, but after another manner known only to God, which shews his per∣plexity to be so great in this particular, that he knew not on which side to turn himself. Whilst the Greeks possess so great Tranquility in this Point, that it does not appear they ever found the least difficulty in it. They assure us the Eucharist does nourish our Bodies; but they see none of those inconvenien∣cies which disturb the Latins; which clearly shews they do not believe the Conversion of Substances. For did they believe it, they would not fail to see what common sence discovers to others; and seeing it, how is it possible they should express no astonishment, nor any difficulty therein, or at least not take that side which Mr. Arnaud has taken, which is to leave these difficulties to Almighty God?

NEITHER do we find that the Greeks do trouble themselves about the alteration, or corruption which frequently happens in the Substance of the Eucharist, as the Latins do, altho the former of these have more reason for it, than the latter. For the Latins take all possible care to keep their Hosts from corrupting; but the Greeks on the contrary take none at all. And keeping as they do the Sacramental Bread sprinkled with consecrated Wine, the space of a whole year, for the use of the sick, it often happens that 'tis corrupted and full of Maggots, as it is observ'd by Sacranus, and the Archbishop of Gnesne, and consequently are more exposed to these inconveniencies than the Latins. Yet do they not seem to be concerned, nor inform themselves whence come these Worms, which being as they are Substances, it cannot be said they generate from bare Accidents. Neither can it be said without blas∣phemy, that they are made of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ.

THIS Proof may be extended farther; for 'tis certain we do not find a∣mongst the Greeks any of these kind of things which depend on Transub∣stantiation. I mean which necessarily and wholly depend thereon. They are in this respect in a most profound silence. But it's worth our while to hear Mr. Arnaud. It is indeed, say's he, a real truth, that the Greeks take lit∣tle * 1.378 notice of these Philosophical Consequences. Samonas speaks occasionally of a Body in two places, and of Accidents without a Subject, the Archbishop of Gaza does the same, but both one and the other of these do this by constraint. What signifies this tergiversating, for he ought not to say the Greeks speak but little hereof, seeing they speak not at all of it. This Samonas and this Archbishop of Gaza are not Authors to be quoted, seeing we shall make it appear in its

place, that the Book which bears the name of the first of these is deserved∣ly suspected to be counterfeit, and that the other is a Roman Proselyte wed∣ded to the Interests of the Court of Rome. It is evident that to establish a restriction of this Consequence, Mr. Arnaud should have better Proofs. But that we may do him right, we will not conceal what he adds afterwards. I drew from the silence of the Fathers touching the Miracles of Transubstanti∣ation, and its Consequences, an Argument to conclude they believed it not. He answers, that instead of Fathers, I should substitute the Greeks, Armeni∣ans, * 1.379 and Copticks of those times, for, say's he, 'tis certain that all these Christi∣ans believed Transubstantiation, as we do, and yet take no notice of all these diffi∣culties which Mr. Claude's head is full of. This acknowledgment is sincere, and we need desire no more. The Greeks take no more notice of the diffi∣culties arising from Transubstantiation than the Armenians and Copticks, and Mr. Arnaud grants this to be so undeniable a Truth, that he makes it the ground of an Answer.

OUR present business then is to know whether the Consequence I hence draw be just and good. Which he contests me, and first he say's, that all these Eastern Churches profess to believe original sin, and yet their Divines trouble not themselves about explaining this Doctrine. He adds, that they observe * 1.380 the same silence in all the Questions and difficulties which the Socinians propose against the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the satisfaction of Christ, altho these difficulties are as obvious and sensible as those alledged against the real Presence.

BUT 'tis his prejudice, and not his reason that has dictated to him this Answer. For first, there is a vast difference betwixt the incomprehensible Mysteries respecting the Divinity, which being above the natural light of reason require a profound submission, and the Doctrine of Transubstantiati∣ation. The nature of the Sacraments is well known, and the matter and signs thereof are better known, which are Bread and Wine. Even the thing signifi'd, to wit, the natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not only the natural Object of Reason, but likewise of Sence, and both one and the other of these Faculties can judge of it, nay, they do judge of it by a spontaneous motion, even when we would not our selves. Secondly, besides this infinite difference, which yields no room for Mr. Arnaud's comparison, the Point in hand concerns not the difficulties touching Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, but the Doctrines which necessarily attend them, and Questions which immediately arise thence of themselves. There is a great deal of difference between these two Particulars. The difficulties which are raised against a Truth, are commonly false Consequences which the Adversaries draw thence; and I confess it would not be to reason aright, absolutely to conclude that a Church holds not a Doctrine, because she troubles not her self in answering all the Objections which may be made against it. To al∣low these kinds of Arguments, there are distinctions to be made, and parti∣cular circumstances to be observed, without which there can be nothing con∣cluded. But we speak here of real Consequences of a Doctrine, of Conse∣quences, I say, which immediately shew themselves to the ordinariest capaci∣ty, without any great Meditation and Study. Now altho the Greeks do not apply themselves to answer the Objections of the Socinians, against Original Sin, against the Mystery of the Trinity, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and Satisfaction of Christ, being perhaps not acquainted with them, yet do we plainly see amongst them the Consequences of these Doctrines. They baptise

little Children, and baptise them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial; they adore the Person of the Holy Spirit, they put their trust in the death of Jesus Christ, and such like things. Wherefore should it not be the same in respect of the Consequences of Transubstantiation? Is it possible to hold this Doctrine, without thinking at the same time at least on some one of these Consequences, on the actual existence of a humane Body in several places, the existence of this Body without its usual Dimensions, the concomitancy of the Body and Blood, and on the Accidents of Bread which remain after Consecration.

THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and o∣ther Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, are for the most part false Conse∣quences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines. It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences. They do not spring up naturally: For 'tis passion and blindness that produces them. For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not. But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transub∣stantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine, and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome. Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences, I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural, appearing to be so, even to the light of common sence. It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be, to think on the Accidents which remain. It is very na∣tural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Blood to be substantially therein, to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is, there must the Blood be also, which is called in one word the concomitancy. It is most natural, for him that believes that 'tis not the Substance of Bread that nou∣rishes, to consider what should cause this nourishment. It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body, to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature. It is natural, when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist, to inquire whence they take their matter. It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them, and not to illustrate them. And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks, and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity, that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things, which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable, yet it must be ac∣knowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins, who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time.

NEITHER is it true, that 'twas mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist, or discover'd these Con∣sequences we speak of. Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it, but we know the contrary, and that 'tis the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantia∣tion which has produced them. For they take their birth from what our eyes see, and hands touch, and experiences, which cannot but be acknow∣ledged. In effect, they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists, more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Prote∣stants.

THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, supposing they be∣lieved

it, that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end. * 1.381 He turns himself on another side, and tells us that 'tis the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties. But this is very absurdly answered again. For were it thus, the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it. I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort, that they know well all these Consequences, and are not so stu∣pid, but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conver∣sion of the Substances, but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed, or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression, That they stifle and * 1.382 drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God, and in∣fallible Authority of his Church. They would give some reason for their si∣lence, and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence. They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility, and observe, that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the La∣tins. And this is what the Greeks would do, did they believe Transubstan∣tiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them. Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties, they take no notice of their own silence in this respect. But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them. He tells us his Conceptions, and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century, but not a word of the Greeks. The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject, that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines, which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation, do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences.

AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason. Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be * 1.383 meer Folly and Extravagancy. And to shew it to be so, he tells us, That rea∣son it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pre∣tence, they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures; but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties. It is, adds he, as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be, that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation, and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds, if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine. This is another Truth, that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences. Whence he con∣cludes, that these two Truths being equally certain, they cannot be contrary, and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence.

IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud. I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Tran∣substantiation, because they make no mention of its Consequences nor diffi∣culties. He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe. Transub∣stantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory. It costs little to make such kind of Answers, and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth (as he affirms it is) that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances, he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Argu∣ments. For the Question being decided, there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us. I believe I established the Negative, which I defend a thousand times more solidly, than he has proved his Affirmative; but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying, I deny the Consequence, because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, I should be an imperti∣nent

Disputer. It seems to me I should make it appear, either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud proposes are not true, or that he takes them in a contrary sence, and draws from them false Conclusions; but bare∣ly to say I deny the Consequence, because it opposes my Thesis, which I hold for a certain Truth, this would be to make my self ridiculous. I know that a man that answers, supposes always his Thesis to be true, and that he has li∣berty to draw thence, if he can, where withal to solve the Arguments of his Adversary, but he must do it in another manner, than by saying, I deny the Consequence, because my Thesis is true. For otherwise his Adversary will tell him, and I prove that your Thesis is false by the very Argument I offer; so that this would be always to begin again. Mr. Arnaud will re∣ply, he does not barely propose his Thesis for an Answer, but proposes it, as having already solidly established it by a great number of Proofs, and pre∣tends that his Proofs surmount mine. I confess, that if this be his sence, he has right to oppose Proof against Proof, and require a comparison to be made of them, before the Reader passes his final Sentence. But I demand likewise for my part that there be comprehended in this comparison, not on∣ly one o•• my Proofs, but all of them together, with the Answers which I shall return his to shew their weakness and insufficiency. Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Dispute, in the mean time each Proof in particular should have his force, neither must he imagine to elude them, one after another, by barely opposing against them those which seem to establish the contrary. If I pretended by the only force of my Ar∣gument drawn from the silence of the Greeks on the Consequences of Tran∣substantiation to acquit my self of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs, and end the Dispute by this means alone, he might reasonably bring me back to this Discussion. For this would be to err in the same manner as the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity has done, who would decide the whole Controversie of the Eucharist, by an Argument drawn from the pretended Consequences of a change, without any regard to our Proofs of Fact, which conclude di∣rectly the contrary. It would signifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Prescription, and not of Discussion; for this would be meer wrangling. But this is not my design. I proposed to my self, (having first established by divers most solid Reason, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation,) to answer in its due order whatsoever Mr. Ar∣naud has offered to shew that the Greeks do believe it. And yet this Proof, which I here treat of, comes with the rest into the order of the Dispute. It hath then, as I said, its particular force and weight, and Mr. Arnaud must not imagine to overthrow it by barely opposing his Proofs against it, for be∣fore the Dispute be ended, I hope to shew, that what he terms Proofs, are but meer Paralogisms and Delusions.

TO the end the Reader may better judge of the solidity of my Proof, * 1.384 he must observe, that I offered it in my Answer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground, that there is no Law amongst the Greeks, or general determina∣tion, that establishes Transubstantiation, that none of their Councils have decided it, none of their Confessions of Faith comprehended it, nor any of their publick Catechisms asserted it. Now when men differ touching a mat∣ter of Fact, they usually have recourse to the place where they may most reasonably expect satisfaction, and if it does not appear there in it self, sence obliges 'em to address themselves to its Consequences, and if the Consequen∣ces do not manifest themselves any more than the Fact it self, they draw thence a negative Argument, which in its place, has all the force that can be

desired. This method have I followed in this Answer to Mr. Arnaud, for I produce not this Argument drawn from Consequences, till I manifested that the Fact it self here in question, that is to say, Transubstantiation, does not appear any where amongst the Greeks, neither in respect of the Terms, nor thing which the Terms signifie, and to justifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary.

IN effect, if you set aside the Latiniz'd Greeks, such as Bessarion, Emanuel Calecas, Plusiadenus, the counterfeit Greeks, such as the Baron of Spartaris, and the Archbishop of Gaza, whom I can prove to be a Pensioner of the Court of Rome, and others that are notoriously suspected, such as the pretended Samonas, the Monk Agapius, the six Priests of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with some Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us, all the rest consists only in Ar∣guings and Consequences, which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty, as will appear hereafter. For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting, that he has shewed Transubstantiation, hath been defined by Councils, that it is expressly contain'd in the profession of Faith sign'd by the Sarrasins, and in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks, is what he ought not to affirm on such slight Grounds, seeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of these pretended Councils of Cyrillus, Berrhea, and Partenius, and Passages he produces as well of the profession of Faith of these Sarrasin Pro∣selytes, as Ecclesiastical Writings; for 'tis certain we find Transubstantiation neither defined, nor expresly taught therein.

THIS Belief then appearing not of it self in the Greek Church, and the expressions she makes use of being lyable to sundry Interpretations, a prudent man will consider the Doctrines which depend thereon, and which are the inseperable Consequences of it; for if these Doctrines do no more appear than the Substantial Conversion, this must be granted a new Proof which confirms the first, and very much helps us to make our final Judg∣ment. For as I said, it is not possible that the Greeks can be in this Point a∣greed with the Latins, without believing at the same time with them, that the Accidents of Bread which remain, subsist without being upheld by the Substance of Bread, that the Body of Jesus Christ is substantially present in several places at one time, that it exists in the Eucharist void of these natural dimensions, and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Spe∣cies by vertue of the concomitancy, &c. These are the necessary dependan∣ces on Transubstantiation, and the Greeks are so much the more obliged to explain themselves, in as much as the Terms by which they are said to ex∣press their Belief touching this last particular are equivocal, and capable of several sences, for they ought at least to shew hereupon what is their mean∣ing. So that having not done it, it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome on the principal Point of the Conversion. And yet not∣withstanding all this, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, my Proof is but a foolish and extravagant one. He may say what he pleases, but it seems to me by this, that for the most part there is no agreeing with him under any other Terms than the renouncing of our Reason. But to proceed.

I shall add to what I have already represented, the Testimonies of some Modern Greeks, who have given us exact descriptions of their Religion, and yet not a tittle of Transubstantiation, altho their design and occasions which set them on writing, obliged them not to be silent on so important an Arti∣cle.

I might begin with Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople; for let a man read over never so many times his Answers to the Divines of Wittem∣berg, yet cannot he find the least intimation of a substantial Conversion, un∣less he suffers his mind to be corrupted by Mr. Arnaud's Declamations, but it will be more proper to refer this examination to the following Book, where∣in, the order and sequel of this Dispute will oblige us to mention it.

WE have Christopher Angelus his Letter, given us by George Felavius a Lutheran Divine of Dantzic; which Angelus was a Greek, a man both pious and learned. He greatly suffer'd amongst the Turks for his Religion, and at length came into England to end there his Days in peace and quietness. His Letter contains a large Account of the Customs of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, wherein he is so far from asserting the substantial Conversion of the Latins, that he expounds on the contrary these words of Body and Blood by them of Bread and Wine. The Priest, say's he, carrying in his hands * 1.385 the Holy Things, draws near to the People and stops at the door of the Sanctuary, where at once he distributes to every one the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is to say, Bread and Wine mixed, saying, this Servant of God receives, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the Remission of his Sins, Amen.

WE have a Confession of Faith Compiled by Metrophanus Critopulus at * 1.386 Helmstat in the Year 1625. He was not long after made Patriarch of Alex∣andria. There is a whole Chapter in this Confession, the Title whereof is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Lord's Supper. In which having established the use of leavened Bread, the Unity of this Bread to represent our Unity with Jesus Christ, and one another, he adds. That the consecrated Bread is truly the Body of Christ, and the Wine undoubtedly his Blood, but the manner, say's he, of this change is unknown and unintelligible to us. For the Under∣standing of these things is reserved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain the more favour from God by a Faith void of curiosity. Those that seek after the reason of all things overthrow Reason and corrupt Knowledge, according to the Observation of Theophrastus, seeing then this Mystery is really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 'tis therefore very pertinently called by Saint Ignatius, a remedy against Mortality, a Medicine that purifies us, and an Anti∣dote which preserves us from Death, and makes us live in God by Jesus Christ.

HERE we find the Bread to be really the Body of Jesus Christ, and that it suffers a change, but we find not that the Substance of the one is re∣ally changed into that of another, which is precisely the Transubstantiation of the Latins. But on the contrary that the manner of this change is un∣known to us whilst on Earth, which is to say, in a word he would have us in∣deed to believe a change, (for the Bread is not naturally the Body of Christ) but will not suffer us to determine the manner of it, which what is it, but a plain rejecting of Transubstantiation, seeing that it is it self the Determi∣nation of this manner. It will be replied that they of the Church of Rome, do likewise acknowledge Transubstantiation to be an unaccountable change, that we must believe it without troubling our selves how 'tis possible, and Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to produce in this sence, the Passage of Metropha∣nus, which I now mention'd according to his usual Custom, which is to turn to his advantage, even those things that are most against him. But there is a great deal of difference between saying, there is a change which makes the Bread become the Body of Christ, altho we know not the manner there∣of, and affirming there is a substantial change which converts the Substance

of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, altho we know not how this comes to pass. By the first we keep our selves in the general Idea of a change without descending to a particular determination. By the second we deter∣mine what this change is, to wit, a change of one Substance into another. In the first, the expression is still retain'd which supposes the Bread remains, to wit, That the Bread is the Body of Christ; but in the second, this expressi∣on is willingly laid aside, because it cannot be admitted but under the bene∣fit of Figures and Distinctions. The first is the Language of the Greeks, the second that of the Latins.

BUT before we leave this Confession of Metrophanus, it will not be amiss to make two reflexions thereon, the one, that when he establishes the necessi∣ty of the Communion, in both kinds, he grounds it on the necessity of par∣taking as well of the Body as Blood of Christ, and alledges for this effect that saying in the sixth Chapter of Saint John, If you eat not the Flesh of the Son * 1.387 of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you. Now this reason manifestly opposes the pretended concomitancy of the Latins, and Transub∣stantiation it self; for if there be made a conversion of the Bread into the proper Substance of the Body of Christ, such as it is at present, that is to say, living and animate, those that receive the Species of Bread do partake as well of the Blood as Body, and it cannot be said, there is any necessity of receiving the Cup, by this reason that we must partake of the Blood, without falling into a manifest contradiction, which is likewise the reason wherefore in the Church of Rome it is believed to be sufficient to communicate of one kind.

THE second Consideration concerning Metrophanus, is, that this Author discoursing, towards the end of his Chapter, of the Sacrament which the Greeks reserve for the sick, say's, That they believe, according to the Doctrine of the first * 1.388 Oecumenical Council, that the Mystery being reserved, remains still a Holy Mystery, and never loses the vertue it once received. For as Wool, say's he, being once dyed, keeps its colour; so the Sanctification remains in these Mysteries ever indelible, and as the remains which are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last, altho kept several years, so it cannot be but that the re∣mains of this Holy Mystery, are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation, and whether he himself would call that which is re∣served of the Sacrament, the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ, and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed. Whether he would say, that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries, and is indelible. For 'tis certain this gives us the Idea of Bread, which, so remaining, yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holi∣ness, which resides in it as in its Subject, and makes it to be the Body of Christ, but no wise transubstantiated Bread. If we were to understand by the vertue, not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread, but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ, it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action, or Conversion, remains, that is to say, that 'tis ever the Substance of the Body of Christ. But it could not be said, as Metrophanus does, that the Action it self, that is to say, the Sanctification, always remain'd, because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action, which ceases to be, assoon as the Conversion is made. Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives, seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance. In fine, if Metrophanus means no more but that the My∣stery

remains still what it has been made, to wit, the Body of Christ, in Sub∣stance, there can be no reason given, why, being able without doubt to ex∣plain himself easily, and clearly, he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms, which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind, and need a Com∣mentary and Distinctions, than to use clear and natural expressions; for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible, that this indelible San∣ctification which the Bread receives, and is like to the dye which Wool takes, signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour?

I will finish this Chapter with another Proof, taken from the Form of Ab∣juration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman. One of the Articles they are made to confess is this, That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity, are really, tru∣ly, * 1.389 and substantially, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body, and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood, which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation. The Greek runs thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

HERE's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Transubstantiation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for thus do the Greeks speak when they be∣come Latins, and 'tis thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine. But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion, if they held the same Language before? Is it usual, when Proselytes are re∣ceived to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake, and that which they embrace? Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them, and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome? For 'tis to be ob∣serv'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque, which the Greeks do not receive. Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council, which the Greeks reject, and in fine the Articles de∣termin'd in the Council of Trent, and in respect of this last part, 'tis the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome.

IT will be perhaps replied, that amongst these Articles there are two, to wit, that of the Invocation of Saints, and worshipping of Images, which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess, seeing they practised them already in their Religion, whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation, altho found expressed in this Form of Confession, for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this, as of the other two Articles. But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud, I will tell him 'tis of no weight. For as to the Invocation, the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome, which they do not acknowledge. When I enter into a Church of the Latins, say's Gregory the Confessor * 1.390 in the History of Syropulus, I adore not the Image of any Saint, because I know not any one of them that I see. They blaspheme, say's Sacranus (speak∣ing of the Russians) against the Churches Saints, who lived in the Communi∣on, and Obedience of the Roman Church. In the Invocation of Saints, say's the * 1.391 Jesuit Scarga, they are guilty of several absurdities. This Article then was not

needless, but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary. And as to that of Images, we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins, and therefore call their Worship in this re∣spect Idolatry.

THE Greeks, say's William Postel, call the Western People that are subject * 1.392 to the Church of Rome, grand Idolaters, because we have Statues erected. They have no other Images in their Churches, say's the Sieur Benard, than the Cruci∣fix, the Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist, and Saint George which are Painted in Tables. They teach, say's the Jesuit Richard; that carved Images are Idols, and that 'tis unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours. That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches. And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing, viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls, their reason being, that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law; which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms, telling us, They suffer no carved Images in their Churches, only Table-Pieces.

IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Ar∣ticle of Images. But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation. There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes, unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left, and therefore they must change their Faith as well as their Communion. In effect the Terms of the Greeks, are for the most part of 'em general, and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes, to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conver∣sion, yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute, they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of * 1.393 this Conversion, seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent. This is so true, that when they send into the East, those that have been educated in their Semina∣ries, they make 'em sign this same Formulary, to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine. It is no longer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Change, Mutation, Conversion, there is not e∣nough in this to make a good Catholick, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Change of Substance, Transubstantiation. Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks. But that he may avoid this trouble hence for∣ward, let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled.

CHAP. XI.

The Two and Twentieth Proof, taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus, to some Questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck. The Three and Twentieth, is, another Answer in Ma∣nuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus, and Hieroteus, Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia. The Four and Twentieth, is, the Testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church. The Five and Twentieth, is the Testimony of Zacharias Gerganus.

WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth against the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud, I hear, that several pious, and learned men, who cannot indure the World should be thus imposed on, do interess themselves in this Dispute, and having read this Famous Book I examine, they have wonder'd its Author should with such confidence affirm, that the Greeks believe the Transubstan∣tiation of the Latins. Some of 'em have sent me some Manuscripts, which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Question. I will produce them then here, naming the Persons from whom I receiv'd them, to the end if any doubt arise, they may address themselves to them, from whom I had them for their satisfaction.

MONSIEUR Spanheim, a Reverend Minister, and Divinity Profes∣sor, in the University of Heydelberg, sent me an extract of a Manuscript he has by him, containing Seven and Twenty Answers, made by the same Me∣trophanus Critopulus, whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter, to so ma∣ny Questions that were put to him by Monsieur Oosterwieck, who was then in the East, and was so curious as to inform himself, not concerning the par∣ticular sence of Metrophanus touching these Articles, but of the whole Greek Church, in which he then held a very considerable rank, being Patriarch of Alexandria. One of these Questions was thus expressed in Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I desire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching these Articles of the Christian Faith. The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass, to wit, whether Christ be corporally present in the Sacra∣ment. The Answer is this; We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice that is spiritual and commemorative; spiritual as having nothing of carnal in it, according to that of our Saviour, the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life. Commemorative, as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Cross, according to that other expression of our Saviour, do this in re∣membrance of me. Which is what is taught by Saint Chrysostom, and the whole Church, saying, this is done in remembrance of what was done then, do this say's our Saviour in remembrance of me. We offer not any other Sacrifice, as did heretofore the High Priest, under the Old Testament; but we offer every day the same, or to speak better we commemorate this Sacrifice. But we never believed Christ was bodily present in the Mystery. Had the Greek Church believed Transub∣stantiation, it was here a fit place to declare it, and to reply yes, we do believe

that Jesus Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, inasmuch as that the proper Substance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread, or some such like equivalent thing. It will be to no purpose to alledge that Metrophanus means Christ is not corporally in it, that is to say, after the man∣ner of visible and sensible Bodies with all their Dimensions; for this would be to make him return a captious Answer, and such a one as is unbecoming an honest man, seeing he well saw this was not the Question askt him, and that the Term of corporally in the Question propounded, respected the proper Substance of his Body. So that the force of this Testimony cannot be eva∣ded. This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642.

THE said Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Answer of Meletius Metropo∣litan of Ephesus made some twenty years since to the Divines at Leyden; touch∣ing some Questions they proposed to him. They askt him amongst other things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whether we may pray to Angels, or the Virgin Mary, and religiously worship them; and whether we must believe the Bread to be tran∣substantiated in the Sacrament. Observe here what he answers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I declare, say's he, there are none of these things to be believed, for I may not believe the Doctrines of men, before those of Christ and his Apostles. The Superscr••••tion is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania, am of the same mind in all things here above contained with the most holy and prudent Metropolitain of Ephesus, and all Asia, according to what he has decla∣red.

DR. Benjamin Woodroff, an Eminent Divine in the Church of England, and Chaplain to the Duke of York, has favour'd me with an Extract, whose Original he has by him, and which was given him by its Author, being then at Oxford. It is a Declaration of the sence of the Greek Church, drawn up by a Greek Doctour, named Jeremias. Observe here its Contents. The dif∣ferent use of the Mystery of the Eucharist having produced different Senti∣ments, some celebrating it with unleavened Bread, others with that which is lea∣vened and kneaded, some believing it to be only a Sign, others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word. Those that believe the change are the Western People, which administer this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and all the rest hold the Sign except the Eastern People; For the Eastern Church differs from both these, and yet teaches a Doctrine that is easie, full of pi∣ety, and free from contradiction. She affirms then that the Bishop, or Priest, in the Divine Service holds the place of Christ, making the Propitiation for the sins of the People, and that by the Holy Invocation of God's Name, and mention of the Divine Words of our Saviour, the spiritual Grace descends that sanctifies the Bread and Wine, and changes them, not into the sensible, but spiritual Body of Jesus Christ. And as to those that assert the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Jesus Christ, if they understand hereby a super∣natural change after a spiritual manner, those that do thus speak, concur in their Opinion with the Eastern Church. But seeing they will have this to be sensibly

effected, our Church does therein disagree with them, altho they have recourse to another way of speaking, in telling us of Accidents and Species, and such like things, which none of the Ancients ever thought of, much less mention'd. For the Fathers of the Eastern Church have been ever averse to Novelties and Con∣tentions, which tend to the ruine of Souls, not only detesting those Doctrines which are heretical, and divide the Church, but which, in disturbing its Peace, e∣clipse its Glory. The Superscription is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jeremias Doctour of Divinity in the Eastern Church.

ALTHO we learn no new thing from the Testimony of this Author, yet does it confirm, and illustrate several matters. First, that the Sentiment of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, is not in any thing the same with that of the Church of Rome, but a middle way betwixt the Doctrine of the La∣tins and Protestants. Secondly, That although the Greeks do use the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, change, yet do they not understand thereby a real change of one Substance into another, which the Latins have invented, but a spiritual change wrought by the Grace of the Holy Spirit which sanctifies the Bread and Wine. Thirdly, That when 'tis said the Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ, this must be understood in a sp••ri∣tual manner to be conformable to the Sentiment of the Eastern Church. Fourthly, That those of the Church of Rome understanding it (as they do) in a sensible manner, the Greeks reject them and their Communion. Fifthly, To the end there may be no pretence left for cavilling on the Term of sensibly, in saying the Roman Church understands not that the Body of Christ is visi∣ble and palpable in its natural form, in the Sacrament, he declares that he well knows she makes use of other expressions, namely, of Accidents and Species; meaning that this is still to understand it sensibly to assert our Saviour's pro∣per Substance is in this Mystery, although covered with the Species and Ac∣cidents of Bread. And that this is a Novelty the Greeks have ever rejected, and of which the Ancients have not made the least mention. If Mr. Arnaud likes this let him make the best use he can of it, in the mean time we will pass on to another Proof.

MATTHEW Caryophilus, titular Archbishop of Iconia, a Latinised Greek, and almost of the same stamp and temper, as Arcudius and Leo Alla∣tius, has published a refutation of some Propositions taken out of a Cate∣chism made by a Greek Gentleman whom he calls Zacharias Gerganus; Alla∣tius say's he was a Bishop. But be he what he will, Caryophilus uses him after a dreadful manner, terming his Propositions Blasphemies, and calling him Serpent, Basilisk, Wolf, the Devil's Instrument, worse than the Devil him∣self, a Lutheran. But 'tis a usual thing with these Gentlemen to load mens Persons with Injuries, when their Doctrines agree not with theirs. They thus begin, continue, and end their Refutations. It cannot then be taken ill, if laying aside their Injuries, I only affirm, that Caryophilus very imperti∣nently charges this Greek with his being a Lutheran; for it is apparent from the Propositions he recites, and what he say's in his Preface, that he was a true Greek, and maintain'd the Maxims of his Religion and Church; and moreover a real lover of his Country. He opposes (amongst other things) the addition of the filioque, in the Symbol, and attacks the Azuma of the La∣tins. He affirms there is but one Holy Church, which is the Catholick, A∣postolical, and Eastern; which does not well agree with the Title he has given him of a Lutheran; and 'tis plainly seen he has given it him only to make him suspected by his own Countrymen, and hinder us from any ad∣vantage by his Testimony.

SO that the single Authority of Caryophilus, being not sufficient to hin∣der us from considering this Author's Testimony, notwithstanding his pre∣tended Lutheranism. I shall therefore produce here some of his Propositi∣ons, which he himself has taken out of his Catechism. The LXI is this. * 1.394 The Holy Communion consists of two Substances, the one visible, and th'other invi∣sible, the visible Substance is the Bread and Wine, the invisible Substance is the Word of Christ, This is my Body, this is my Blood. The Question in this Dis∣pute being only, Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation, it will be therefore sufficient for me to show by this Testimony, that the visible Sub∣stance of Bread and Wine remain, so that I am not concerned to know in what sence this Author calls the Words of Christ the invisible Substance of the Sacrament. Yet will I affirm his sence is clear enough; for in respect of the Bread and Wine which are in effect Substances, it is plain we must take the Term of Substance in its natural signification; but in respect of the Words of Christ, which in effect are not Substances, it is likewise appa∣rent we must understand this expression in a metaphorical sence, seeing by it is meant no more, but that the internal and mystical virtue of this Sacra∣ment is contain'd in these words, This is my Body, because these words shew us we must not take these things as mere Bread and Wine, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, of which they are the Mystery. Which is what he under∣stands by this invisible Substance, that is to say, the force and efficacy of the Sacrament; for had not our Saviour said of the Bread, This is my Body, it would be no more than Bread, proper to nourish our Bodies, whereas the Faith we have in these words shews us in it another spiritual Substance, which nourishes our Souls.

THE LXV. Proposition does no less oppose the substantial Conversion; * 1.395 for it contains these words, That the Laity which communicate but of one only kind, receive an imperfect Communion, which is directly opposite to one of the necessary Consequences of Transubstantiation; which is the Concomitan∣cy. And to prevent any cavilling touching the sence of this Proposition, as if he would say only, that this Communion is imperfect in respect of the In∣stitution of Christ, who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds, and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self; which we fully receive under one, he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition. This is an * 1.396 impious Doctrine of the Papist, say's he, and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author, that where the Body of Christ is, there is likewise his Blood, and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds. So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown, and con∣sequently Transubstantiation, inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the o∣ther. This Author lived about the Year 1630.

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 * 1.397 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 * 1.398 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 * 1.399 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, * 1.400 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 * 1.401 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 * 1.402 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 * 1.403 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 * 1.404 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 * 1.405 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 〉 * 1.406 〈 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 * 1.407 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 * 1.408 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 * 1.409 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 * 1.410 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, * 1.411 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, * 1.412 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 * 1.413 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 * 1.414 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, * 1.415 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 * 1.416 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 * 1.417 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 * 1.418 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 * 1.419 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, * 1.420 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 * 1.421 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 * 1.422 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 * 1.423 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 * 1.424 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 * 1.425 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 * 1.426 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 * 1.427 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 * 1.428 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 * 1.429 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 * 1.430 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, * 1.431 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 * 1.432 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 * 1.433 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 * 1.434 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 * 1.435 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, * 1.436 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?

CHAP. XIII.

The Real Belief of the Greeks, touching the Eucharist.

BUT what do the Greeks then believe, if they believe not Transub∣stantiation? The Bounds of this Controversie oblige me not to an∣swer this Question. For it concerning us here only to inquire, whe∣ther the Greeks do, or do not believe the Conversion of Substances, it is sufficient that we show they do not believe it, seeing as I have already said, we pretend not, that their Faith must be the rule of ours; yet will I en∣deavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular. I do also hope, that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question, between Mr. Arnaud and my self, because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe, I do at the same time shew what they do not believe. I shall do then three things in this Chapter, the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist; Secondly, describe in what they agree, and differ from the Church of Rome. And thirdly, likewise, wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them, and in what parti∣culars we do not.

AS to the first of these Points, to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks, it will be necessary we make several Articles of it, and reduce them into these following Propo∣sitions.

FIRST, in general, the Eucharist is, according to them, a mystical repre∣sentation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ. They express by it his coming into the World, his being born of a Virgin, his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Ascension into Heaven, and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature. Were it necessary to prove this Proposition, we could easily do it, by the Greek Ly∣turgies, and Testimonies of Cabasilas, Germain, Simeon Thessaloniensis, Jeremi∣as, and several others; but this not being a matter of contest, I shall not in∣sist upon it.

SECONDLY, They consider the Bread in two distinct respects, ei∣ther whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis, or on the great Altar. Whilst 'tis on the Prothesis, they hold 'tis a Type or Figure. Yet do they

sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ, sometimes, the imperfect Body of Christ, sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ, although they do not be∣lieve the Consecration is then compleated. This is confirmed by what I re∣lated in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book, and it is not likewise necessa∣ry to insist any longer thereon, because this particular concerns not the mat∣ter in hand.

THIRDLY, When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar, they say that by the Prayers of the Priest, and Descent of the Holy Spirit, the Bread and Wine, are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. To express this change, they use these general Terms I already noted, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. which signifie a change. They say the Bread is the Body of Christ, and that it is made the very Body it self, or the proper Body of Christ, and hereunto re∣fer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact, Euthymi∣us, Nicholas Methoniensis, Cabasilas, Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias. We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions, it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them, and what kind of change they mean thereby.

I say then, that when we come to examine this change, and deter∣mine in what manner the Bread and Wine, are made the Body and Blood of Christ, they curb our curiosity, and remit this knowledge and determination to God, and for their own parts keep within their general Terms. Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century, when they imbraced the Greek Religion; I believe, * 1.437 say's the Proselyte, and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians, and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments. I be∣lieve likewise that this Bread and Wine, are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ, being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception, he alone knowing the manner of it. And upon this account it was, that Nicetas Choniatus complains, that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine * 1.438 of the Divine Mysteries was divulged, and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk, who proposed this Question (to wit) whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or in∣corruptible Body of Jesus Christ. He should have been condemned, say's he, for an Heretick that introduced Novelties, all the rest silenced by his example, to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery. John Sylvius in his Cathe'me∣rinon * 1.439 of the Greeks recites a Prayer, wherein it is said, That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched, and changed on the Altar, after a supernatural manner, which must not be inquired into. We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus, the Patriarch of A∣lexandria, who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Je∣sus * 1.440 Christ, and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood, he adds, That the manner of this change is unknown to us, and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven, to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity. And thus acquits himself.

ANOTHER Greek Author, cited by Allatius, under the name of John * 1.441 the Patriarch of Jerusalem. You see, say's he, that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread. But be it so if you will, that it be no longer called Bread, and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened, you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification. But before this dread∣ful

Sacrifice, when you offer it to sanctifie it, shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme? Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves; but that which happens in this admirable change, is not from us but God. It appears by this passage recited by Allatius, and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manu∣script, wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him, that this Controversie was vain, seeing that after the Conse∣cration, it is no longer Bread, but the Body of Jesus Christ, and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him, that 'twas still Bread, and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul, who so calls it. It seems likewise by what he adds, that he would say, that supposing it was no longer called Bread, and lost this name, yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration, because God only knows that, and not men.

ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved, restraining them∣selves within their general Terms, yet for the most part they shew more par∣ticularly their thoughts, touching the nature, and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine, and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ: And they do it likewise in such a manner, that 'tis no hard matter to find out their meaning: Which is what we have now to de∣monstrate. But before we enter into this Deduction, it will not be amiss to observe, that the Bread and wine may be conceived to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ two ways. First, by a real conversion of the whole Substance of Bread and Wine, into the Substance of the Body and Blood, I mean into the same numerical Substance (as the Schools speak) so that the Substance of Bread subsists no longer after the change, which is what is held in the Roman Church. Secondly, by the addition of a new quality, or form in the Bread and Wine, so that their first Substance re∣maining, they receive that which they had not before, and by this reception become that which they were not. In this first manner of conceiving the change, the Substance of Bread, and that of the Body are considered as two Terms, or two different Subjects, the first of which does not subsist, but pas∣ses over into the other. In the second, the Bread is considered as a Subject that always subsists, but which receiving into it that which it had not, by this means becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, after the same man∣ner as the paper which receives the Characters and Seal of a Prince, be∣comes the Princes Letter, or Wax receiving the Impression of a Seal, is made the Seal it self, or Wool dyed in Scarlet, becomes a scarlet colour, or Wood receiving the impression of fire, becomes fire it self, or in fine, as the nourish∣ment we take, receiving the form of our Flesh, and being joyned thereunto, becomes our Body. By which it appears that to proceed faithfully, and in∣genuously, in our Inquiries after the real Belief of the Greeks it must first be acknowledged, that these expressions; The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is made the Body of Christ, the Bread is the Body it self, or the proper Body of Jesus Christ, are in themselves general expressions, and that they may be simply taken in this their generality, or applied to several particular, sences. Now if Mr. Arnaud would have us take these expressions in the sence of Transubstantiation, he must produce some solid and real passa∣ges out of Greek Authors, by which it may appear that 'tis in this sence they understood them, and that they cannot admit of any other. Which is no more than what he ought to have done, but he has been far from under∣taking it, knowing it to be a thing absolutely impossible.

AS to my own part, had I only intended to shew the insufficiency of Mr.

Arnaud's Proofs, I might content my self with alledging this generality, for it alone is sufficient to hinder him from drawing any Conclusion. But seeing I have taken upon me, to shew in this Chapter, what the real Sentiment of the Greek Church is, I find my self obliged to bring, not Arguments, or Di∣stinctions from my own Head, but good and solid passages of the Greeks themselves; which plainly demonstrate what kind of change they mean.

FOR this effect I shall reduce what they say concerning it, to this Propo∣sition; They believe that by the Consecration there is made a kind of compo∣sition or mixture of Bread and Wine, and Holy Spirit; that these Symbols keeping their own proper nature, are joyned to the Divinity, and by the im∣pression they receive from the Holy Ghost, are changed (for the Faithful on∣ly) into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ, being made by this means not a Figure, but the proper, and real Body of Jesus Christ, and this by way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ. To which they apply the Comparisons I already mentioned, concerning the nourish∣ment which becomes our proper Body by Assimilation and Augmentation, of the Wood which is put to the Fire, of the Wool which receives the dye, of Paper that is made the Princes Letter, and Wax, or other Matter which re∣ceives the Impression of the Seal.

This Proposition having several parts, and each of them of great impor∣tance in this Question, it is therefore necessary to establish them one after an∣other distinctly and solidly.

FIRST, They believe there is a composition or mixture made of the Bread with the Holy Spirit. Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria, shews us, that this is their Doctrine. For observe here what he say's in his Confes∣sion of Faith of the Eastern Church in his Chapter of the Sacraments, God, say's he, has communicated his Grace to the Elect, not only after a spiritual man∣ner, * 1.442 but likewise by some sensible signs, as most certain pledges of his promise. For as we are composed of two parts, so likewise the manner of communicating his Grace must be double, to wit, by a sensible matter, and by the Holy Spirit, seeing the Per∣sons that receive these things are made up of a sensible Body and intelligent Soul; Now these Pledges are that which we call the Mysteries, to wit, Baptism and the Holy Communion, which consist of visible Matter, and of the Holy Spirit. These Words are so plain, that they need no Comment. He affirms there are two things in the Sacraments, and particularly in the Eucharist, to wit, the sensible Matter, and the Holy Spirit. Now the sensible Matter in the Eucharist can be nothing else but the Bread and the Wine.

METROPHANUS, affirms moreover the same thing in his Chap∣ter, touching the Lord's Supper, wherein he say's, that the Mystery never loses * 1.443 the Sanctification it has once received, and that it is indelible. It is here where he compares the Sanctification the Bread receives, to Wool when 'tis dyed in any colour, which includes apparently this Idea of the Composition of Bread, and the Holy Spirit almost after the same manner as Wool that is dyed is a composition or mixture of Wool and dye.

THIS Greek Patriarch has only followed in this, the Doctrine of Jere∣mias the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Answer to the Divines of Wittem∣berg, Consisting, say's he, as we do of two Parts, that is to say, of a Body and a * 1.444 Soul, our Saviour Christ has therefore given us these things doubly, (he means the Sacraments) he himself consisting of two Natures, being both God and Man.

He spiritually sanctifies our Souls by the Grace of his Spirit, and sanctifies like∣wise our Bodies by sensible Matters, namely, with Oyl, Water, Bread and Wine, and other things sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and thus gives us a compleat Sal∣vation. He not only say's, that the Sacraments in general are things that are double (as he terms them) consisting of things sensible, and the Holy Spi∣rit, but say's, this particularly of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist.

WITH this agrees the expressions of the Greek Liturgies, and those of the most famous Authors of this Church, who call the Sacrament the Holy Bread, the Consecrated Bread, the Divine Bread, the Gifts sanctified by the Holy Spirit, for these Expressions do naturally denote that composition or duplicity aforementioned.

NOW if we would know how it has come to pass, the Greeks of latter Ages have thus expressed themselves in relation to this part of their Belief, we need only look back to the foregoing Ages, for we shall there find Senti∣ments and Expressions on the same Subject, if not wholly conformable to the Expressions of the Modern Greeks, yet which come very near them, and which have served for a Foundation to 'em, as will appear by the fol∣lowing Passages.

WE may then here mark what the Fathers of the Council of Constanti∣nople in the Eighth Century asserted. As the Body of Jesus Christ is Holy, * 1.445 because 'tis deified, so likewise, that which is his Body by Institution, to wit, his Holy Image is made Divine, by a Sanctification of Grace. For as by virtue of the Hypostatical Union, our Saviour deified the Flesh he took on him, by a Sancti∣fication naturally proper to him, so in like manner he will have the Bread in the Eucharist (which is the real Image of his Flesh) to become a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it, the Oblation being, by means of the Priest, transferred from a common State, to a State of Holiness. And therefore the natu∣ral Flesh of Jesus Christ endued with Soul and Understanding, has been anointed by the Holy Spirit, being united to the Divinity, and so likewise his Image, to wit, the Divine Bread, is filled with the Holy Spirit. Who sees not in these words the Union, and Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit? The Bread, say they, is made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace, it becomes a Divine Body by the Descent of the Holy Spirit into it; the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit, in like manner as the natural Flesh of our Lord has been sanctified, deified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the Hypostatical Union. All this plain∣ly favours the Composition of the Modern Greeks. Now this Testimony is the more considerable, in that the second Nicene Council having been held on purpose to overthrow whatsoever had been determined in that of Constanti∣nople, touching the Point of Images, they censured the name of Image, which their Adversaries had given the Eucharist, but left untouched the other Clauses, I now mentioned. Which shews that these kind of Expressions, were received by both Parties, and that this was the common Doctrine of the whole Greek Church.

IN effect if we ascend higher, we shall find, that Saint Ephraim Bishop * 1.446 of Antioch, who lived about the Sixth Century, thus expressed himself, That the Body of Jesus Christ, which the faithful receive, does not leave its sensible Substance, nor is seperated from the spiritual Grace. Which does moreover fa∣vour the Duplicity, or Composition of Bread with the Holy Spirit.

THEODORET, who lived about the Fifth Century, expresses him∣self * 1.447 after the same manner. Jesus Christ, say's he, has honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their naturee, but in joyning his Grace thereunto. Chrysostom said the same thing in the Fourth * 1.448 Century, That the Bread becomes Heavenly Bread, by means of the Holy Spirit's coming down upon it.

THEOPHILUS of Alexandria in the same Century wrote, That the * 1.449 Bread and Wine placed on the Lord's Table are inanimate things, which are san∣ctified by Prayer, and Descension of the Holy Ghost.

SAINT Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century, spake to the same * 1.450 purpose, That the Eucharist consists of two things; the one Earthly, th'other Heavenly. It is plain by the sequel of his Discourse, that he means by these two things the Bread, and sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit. But it is also manifest, that all these Passages have occasioned the Belief of the Com∣position.

THOMAS a Jesu tells us of an Errour wherewith almost all the Ea∣stern * 1.451 Christians are infected: which is; That Jesus Christ soaked the Bread he was to give to Judas, that he might thereby take away its Consecration. I con∣fess 'tis a great absurdity to imagine the Consecration can be taken away by this means; but 'tis easie to perceive, these ignorant People have fallen into this Errour, by conceiving the Consecration under the Idea of a real impres∣sion made on the Substance of Bread, for thereupon they have imagined this impression might be effaced in washing the Bread, or soaking it.

AND thus far concerning the first part of my Proposition. The se∣cond, is, That they believe the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity. Which is the same thing as the first, only, other∣wise expressed. They will then mutually assist and strengthen each other. For this effect I shall produce the Testimony of Nicholas Methoniensis, who lived in the Twelfth Century. This Author in answering those that doubt∣ed whether the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they saw neither Flesh nor Blood, but Bread and Wine, resolves the difficul∣ty in this manner. God, say's he, who knows all things, and is perfectly good, has wisely ordered this in respect of our weakness, lest we should have in horror the Pledges of Eternal Life, being not able to behold Flesh and Blood, he has there∣fore appointed this to be done by things, to which our nature is accustomed, and has joyned to them his Divinity, saying, this is my Body, this is my Blood.

MR. Arnaud pretends to make advantage of these Doubts, which Nicho∣las * 1.452 Methoniensis treats of, but we shall answer this Point in its due place. It suffices at present that we behold this Author laying down on one hand, the things to which our natures are accustomed, that is to say, Bread and Wine, and on the other, he assures us, that the Divinity is joyned to them. Which is ex∣actly what I was to prove, whence it follows, that according to the Greeks, the Bread and Wine remain in Union with the Divinity. Mr. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage, has endeavoured to avoid it by a frivolous evasi∣on. God joyns, say's he, his Divinity to the Bread and Wine. 'Tis true, but * 1.453 he has joyned it as the efficacious cause of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, so often repeated, by Nicholas Methoniensis, but

not as a means of Union between the Bread and Wine, and Body of Jesus Christ. He has joyned it to the Bread, not to conserve it in the Substance of Bread, but to transform it internally into his Body.

I say this is a frivolous evasion. For according to this reckoning we must understand by the things familiar to our natures, the Bread and Wine, as the matter to which the Divinity is joyned to change it. But were this the sence of Nicholas Methoniensis, what would this contribute to the clearing up the doubt proposed to him? The Question is, whether the Flesh and Blood would not appear, if they were in the Sacrament, and Nicholas Methoniensis an∣swers, that the Bread and Wine are the matter changed by the Divinity, which effects this change. This is certainly a very strange way of speak∣ing, to say, he joyns his Divinity to them, to signifie that he transubstanti∣ates them. We see few People thus express themselves. But supposing this, what relation has this to the Doubt he pretends to resolve? If the Flesh of Christ were in the Sacrament, say these Dubitants, it would appear, we should see it. I answer, say, Nicholas Methoniensis, (according to Mr. Ar∣naud's Comment) that the Bread and Wine are the matter which is changed, and that the Almighty power of God changes them. Can any Answer be more ridiculous? This Author must certainly lost his Wits to make such a Reply. They do not ask him, what the matter is that is changed, nor what the efficient cause of this change, but, why, if it be use Body of Christ, it does not appear to be Flesh, but Bread; Matter, Cause, efficacy con∣tribute nothing to the solving of this Doubt. This Gloss then of Mr. Ar∣naud's is absurd, and if we suppose Nicholas Methoniensis spake sence, it must be granted, that his meaning is, that the Bread and Wine, remaining Bread and Wine, are yet notwithstanding made the Body and Blood of Christ, by reason of their Union to the Divinity, and not otherwise. Whence it fol∣lows, that it must not be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood, because they are not so in respect of their Matter, or Substance, but only by their Union to the Divinity, which makes them in some sort to be the same thing, with the Body and Blood.

THIS Opinion seems to be derived from Damascen, whose expressions I desire I may have leave to mention, altho we must use them also in another place. For 'tis certain, that to judge aright of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks, we must ascend so far. Mr. Arnaud has himself observed, that, John Damascen is another Saint Thomas amongst the Greeks, and has been ever the rule of their Doctrine touching the Eucharist. Elsewhere he assures us, That we need only read the Treatises of the Modern Greeks, to find that they * 1.454 wholly conform themselves to the Sentiment and Expressions of this Father. This then is a Principle with Mr. Arnaud, so that to convince him touch∣ing the Belief of the Greeks, there is a kind of necessity lying upon us to consult this Father.

OBSERVE here then what he say's in his Fourth Book of the Or∣thodox Faith, The Bread and Wine are not the Figure of the Body and Blood of * 1.455 Christ; God forbid; but they are the deified Body it self of Jesus Christ, the Lord himself saying unto us, this is, not the Figure of my Body, but my Body, not the Figure of my Blood, but my Blood: He had said before to the Jews, if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you, for my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed. And then again, He that eateth me shall live. Draw we near then with trembling,

with a pure Conscience, a firm Faith, and it will be unto us according to the constan∣cy and firmness of our Faith. Honour we it with a perfect purity of Body and Soul. For it is double. Approach we towards it with a fervent desire, and placing our hands in manner of a Cross, receive we the Body of him that was crucified for us. Let us put it on our Eyes, Lips, and Forehead; and take we thus the Divine Coal, to the end our Devotion being inflamed thereby, our sins may be consumed, and our hearts inlightned, and that by the participation of this Divine Fire, we may our selves become inflamed and deified. Esaias saw a Coal. Now a Coal is not meer Wood, but Wood in conjunction with Fire. So the Bread of the Com∣munion is not mere Bread, being it is united to the Divinity. Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature, but two, one being that of the Body, and th'other that of the Divinity annexed thereunto. So that to take them together, it is not one only nature, but two.

THESE Words clearly shew, that Damascen means, that the Bread in the Eucharist, which is the Body of Jesus Christ, is double, because 'tis joyn∣ed to the Divinity, that 'tis not mere Bread, but Bread united to the Divinity, consisting of two natures, one of Bread, and th'other of the Divinity which is joyned to it; in like manner as Esaias his live Coal was not meer Wood, but Wood in conjunction with Fire. Now this is what is exactly contained in my Proposition, that the Bread, and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity, according to the Greeks.

MR. Arnaud, who saw the force of this Passage, that he might get clear off it, has bethought himself, to say, that the Duplicity which Damascen men∣tions must be understood as meant of Jesus Christ himself, who consists of two Natures. He rehearses the Passage in hand to these Words, Duplex * 1.456 est enim, and then adds, it is plain that hitherto these Words relate to Jesus Christ, and his true and real Flesh, and that 'tis of him it is said, Duplex est enim, which is to say, that he is composed of two Natures, and a little farther, It plainly appears that Saint John Damascen's Design is to exhort us to a double * 1.457 purity of Soul and Body, to honour the double Nature of Jesus Christ, and to show that we receive in the Communion this double Nature. So that these Words, non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati, corpus autem unitum divinitati non est una natura sed duae, una quidem corporis alter a conjunctae Divinitatis, are the Exposition of what he said before, that Jesus Christ was double. And that which he shews us, is, that this double nature of Jesus Christ has been signified by the Coal which Esaias saw, and that we receive this Divine Coal.

BUT all this is but an Errour, and cunning Evasion of Mr. Arnaud, who was not willing to consult the Greek Copy of Damascen, for 'tis true indeed these Latin Words, Duplex est enim, may refer to Jesus Christ, or his Flesh, because the Latin word, Duplex, is of all Genders, so that being taken in the Masculine it relates to Christ himself, and in the Feminine to his Flesh. But had Mr. Arnaud been willing to consult the Greek Text, he would have found no pretence for this evasion. For there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now who knows not, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is of the Neuter Gender, which by consequence can neither agree with Jesus Christ, nor his Flesh, but with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Body which the * 1.458 Bread is, and which we receive in the Communion, of which he spake in the beginning of his Discourse? He might have found also that these words, Honour we him, are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which can only refer to the Body, and not to Jesus Christ, nor his Flesh.

MR. Arnaud methinks should take more care another time of what he writes, and not give us so many of his; It is clear, it manifestly ap∣pears, for there is nothing so clear as the contrary of what he say's. Damascen speaking of the Bread of the Communion, say's, that 'tis not a Figure, but the deified Body of Jesus Christ, he would have us honour this Body, that is to say, that Body which we receive in the Communion, with a double purity of Body and Soul, externally and internally, because 'tis double. He shews what ought to be our inward disposition, to wit, a fervent desire, he passes to our external Actions, which are, to hold our arms cross-wise, and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes, Lips, and Forehead. After∣wards, to explain how this Body is double; he compares it to the Coal Esaias saw, which was not bare wood, but wood and fire together. Then apply∣ing immediately his comparison, he adds, Thus the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread, being it is united to the Divinity. Now a Body united to the Divinity, is not one single nature, but two, one of the Body, and th'other of the Divinity, which is joyned thereunto. Who sees not then, that this double Body, of which he speaks, and which he compared to Esaias Coal, is the Bread of the Communion, that it is double, being Bread united to the Divinity, and that the effect of this Union is, not to change the nature of the Bread, but to make a composition of two Natures. Whence it manifestly follows, that one of these Natures being the Divinity, th'other is the nature of Bread. It is then true, as Mr. Arnaud has observed, that these last words, Sit panis com∣munionis non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati, are the exposition of what he said before, Duplex est enim, for it is double. But because duplex re∣fers not to Jesus Christ, but to the Body we receive in the Communion; it is therefore likewise true, that they expound what we must understand by this Body, to wit, the Bread united to the Divinity.

BUT I must puruse the other parts of my Proposition. The Greeks be∣lieve, That by the impression which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit, they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and made by this means this Body and Blood. Which is apparent, first, from all those Passages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book; the result whereof, is, that the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ, in asmuch as 'tis made capable of sanctifying us, and that this is exactly what the Priest prayes for in the words of Consecration. Now what is this, but the Bread's being made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue?

SECONDLY, This appears likewise by what we have seen from Si∣meon Thessaloniensis, who tells us, that the unconsecrated Particles being mixed with those that are consecrated, and partaking of their Sanctification, be∣come in some sort, the Body of Christ, and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful. For this necessarily supposes, as I shewed in the Fifth Chapter, of this Third Book, that the consecrated Particle it self is the Body of Jesus Christ, in asmuch as it receives this Sanctification.

THIRDLY, This moreover appears by the Passages of Cabasilas, which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter, by which we see that he takes for the same thing, to receive Sanctification, and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ. Which likewise necessarily supposes that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, only in Sanctification and virtue.

FOURTHLY, Euthymius Zigabenius, a Greek Monk, that lived in the * 1.459 Twelfth Century, confirms the same thing. We must not, say's he, consider the nature of things which are offered, but their virtue: For as the word deifies (if it be lawful to use such an expression) the Flesh to which it is united after a supernatural manner, so it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body, which is a Spiring of Life, and into his precious Blood, and into the virtue of both one and the other.

MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Passage, Euthymius, say's he, say's that Jesus * 1.460 Christ changes after an ineffable manner, the Bread into his own Body. This sig∣nifies, say's Mr. Claude, that he changes it, not into his Body, but into the virtue of his Body. Euthymius say's, that he changes the Wine into his Blood. This signifies, say's Mr Claude, that he changes it, not into his Blood, but into the vir∣tue of his Blood. Euthymius adds, that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other, in gratiam ipsorum. This Addition has perplexed Mr. Clau∣de, and therefore he has thought good not to mention it. But in adding it, be∣cause 'tis there in effect, the whole expression of Euthymius expounded in the Cal∣vinists sence will be, that Jesus Christ changes the Bread into the virtue of his Bo∣dy, and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood, and into the virtue of both one and the other. Who ever heard of such a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term, and the exposition of the Metaphorical Term, as two distinct and separate things? Do we say, for example, that the Stone is Jesus Christ, and the Sign of Jesus Christ; that the Ark was the Church, and the Figure of the Church; that the Paschal Lamb was Christ, and the representation of Christ; that Anger changes men into Beasts, and into the fury of Beasts.

ALL this is but vain Rhetorick. Euthymius say's, We must not consider the nature of the things offered us, but their virtue. This is not the Language of a man, that would say, that the nature of Bread and Wine ceases to be, and that we must consider the proper Substance of Jesus Christ under the Vail of Accidents. This Expression on the contrary supposes that the nature of these things subsists, altho we must not consider it, but raise up our minds to the Consideration of the supernatural virtue they receive. When then he adds, that Jesus Christ changes the Bread, and Wine into his own Body and Blood, it is true that this signifies, according to my Interpretation, that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood, and not into their Substance. But what he say's afterwards, and into the virtue of both ••••e and the other, is not another distinct thing, or different from what he had said, being only the ex∣plication of it. This Et is an explicative Particle, which has the force of an as much as to say, as if he said, They are changed into the Body and Blood, that is to say, into the virtue of both one and the other. Mr. Arnaud must not think to blind us, by his, who ever heard? For there is nothing more common in Authors than the use of this Particle Et, in a sence of explication, which joyns not two several things, but two several expressions, which signifie one and the same thing, and one of which is the explication of the other. Thus Saint Paul say's, That God created Meats to be received with Thankfulness by the * 1.461 Faithful. AND by those that know the Truth. Again, Peace be unto those that walk according to this Rule, AND on the Israel of God. All these Ets * 1.462 are put for, that is to say's. Thus. Cyrillus of Alexandria speaking of the ef∣fect of the Communion, the least Eulogium, say's he, mixes or confounds in it * 1.463 self our whole Body, AND fills it with its efficacy. Saint Chrysostom, and whereas we were men, he has made us Angels and Children of God. Saint Au∣gustin,

he that could change Water into Wine, is able to change Grass into Gold; * 1.464 AND make of Flesh an Angel. All these ETS, are explicatives, and are put for that is to say's. Mr. Arnaud need not contend about a thing so well known as this is; I say then Euthymius having first said, That we must not consider the nature of things which are placed on the Altar, but their virtue, and afterwards adding, that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood, AND into the virtue of both one and the other, the first Proposition which respects only the vertue, in supposing that the nature of Bread and Wine subsists, leads us to the understanding of the second, and makes us easily comprehend, that 'tis as much as if he had said, that he chan∣ges them into his Body and Blood, which is to say, into the virtue both of the one and th'other. For 'tis of the virtue not the substance, which his Dis∣course treats of. Had Euthymius meant by his change into the Body and Blood, a change of Substance, what could move him to add, that they are likewise changed into the virtue of both one and the other? Besides that to speak properly, it would not be true, that the change was made into the vir∣tue, seeing it would terminate it self only in the Substance, and that the vir∣tue would be only as a sequel of the Substance, and not as a Term of the change; besides this, I say, wherefore should he speak of this change of vir∣tue? To inform us that the Substance is not alone; but who doubts that the sanctifying virtue of the Body and Blood is every where, where their Sub∣stance is, and what need is there of informing the Readers of this?

FIFTHLY, When Euthymius his expression were ambiguous, yet would they be cleared up by those of other Greek Authors, that better explain them∣selves, and shew that the common Doctrine of this Church is, that the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, inasmuch as they are changed into their virtue.

THEOPHYLACT, who lived in the Eleventh Century, thus ex∣presses * 1.465 himself, Because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us, and we are not able to endure Flesh and Blood to be set before us, God therefore who is full of pitty, accommodating himself to our weakness, conserves the Species of Bread and Wine; but changes them into the VIRTUE of his Flesh and Blood.

WE must observe, he makes this answer, to People, that doubted, whether the Bread was the Flesh of Jesus Christ, because they saw no such thing as the latter of these. When then he tells them, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the virtue of the Flesh and Blood; it is clear he means, that the Bread and Wine are changed only in virtue, whence it follows, 'tis not to be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood, for otherwise he would not satisfie the dif∣ficulty he had proposed. Were they changed into the real Substance of Flesh and Blood, as well as into their virtue, the doubt would still remain, to wit, that they must still appear Flesh and Blood. The change of Virtue would not decide the Question. We shall examine in their due order, all the frivo∣lous exceptions, which Mr. Arnaud opposes against the evidence of this Pas∣sage, and likewise hope to give a satisfactory account to whatsoever he alled∣ges from this Author. I must not now interrupt my Proof by a Digression which would carry me too far. It is sufficient to shew, that Theophylact ex∣presly affirms, that if the Bread and Wine appear not to be Flesh and Blood, 'tis because God changes them into the virtue of this Flesh and Blood.

VI. IF we ascend higher than the Eleventh Century, we shall find the same belief and expressions amongst the Greeks of those times, which will

give us greater light into the belief of the Moderns. Observe here how Ely Archbishop of Candia, the Commentator on Gregory Nazianzen expresses himself. Saint Gregory having called the Eucharist an external Sacrifice and an Antitype. By this external Sacrifice, say's Ely, he means that which is cele∣brated * 1.466 with Bread and Wine, which being placed on the Holy Table, are really changed by the power of Almighty God into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Were there no more said but this, Mr. Arnaud would be sure to triumph; but hear what follows, For, adds he, to the end we might not be struck with horrour in seeing Flesh and Blood upon the Holy Table, God condescending to our weakness indues the Elements, set before us, with an enlivening quality, and changes them into the efficacy (or operation) of his Flesh. This Author lived about the Eighth Century, and was present at the Council of Nice.

VII. WE have already seen in the Quotations of Nicetas Choniatus, a Passage of Eutychus, which asserts the same Doctrine as the rest. This Au∣thor lived (if I be not mistaken) towards the end of the Sixth Century, for I believe he is the same Eutychus against whom Gregory the Great, being at Constantinople, disputed touching the Resurrection. But howsoever, he say's, * 1.467 according to the Relation we have from Nicetas, That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being applied to the Antitypes, by Consecration, imprint on them, Their proper Powers (or proper virtues) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It was he from whom we had the comparison of the Seal, which applied to Wax, imprints its Character thereon, which does moreover represent this impression of vir∣tue, we now speak of.

VIII. IN the Fifth Century, lived Cyrillus Alexandriensis, and Victor of Antioch; which latter relates these Words of Cyrillus, not to contradict, but to approve them. Lest we should conceive horrour at the sight of Flesh * 1.468 and Blood on the Holy Table, God in regard to our weakness, indues the things thereon offered with a VIRTUE of life, and changes them into the efficacy of his Flesh, to the end they may be to us a vivifying Communion, and that the Body of life may be found in us as a living Seed.

IX. IN the Fourth Century Saint Epiphanius held the same Language. * 1.469 They that come, say's he, to the Baptism, receive the virtue which Jesus Christ brought to it when he descended into it, and are illuminated by the communication of his light. Thus, is the Oracle of the Prophet, accomplished, which say's, that there shall happen in Jerusalem a change in the virtue of Bread and Water, and there shall be given to them a saving virtue. For here, to wit, in Jesus Christ, the virtue of Bread and force of Water are made strong, not that the Bread is thus powerful to us, but the virtue of the Bread: For as to the Bread, it is indeed an Aliment, but there is in him a VIRTUE to inliven us.

X. GREGORY of Nisse, in this same Century, spake to the very same * 1.470 effect. You see, say's he, that Water is made use of in the Holy Baptism, but you must not therefore despise it, for 'tis of great virtue and marvellous efficacy. Do you see this Holy Altar where we attend? As to its nature, 'tis a common stone, which differs in nothing from others with which we build our Houses. But when it has been sanctified by the Divine Service performed thereon, and received the blessing, it becomes a Holy Table, an impolluted Altar, which all the World can∣not touch, the Sacred Ministers alone touch it, but yet with respect. So the Bread is at first common Bread, but after the Mystical Consecration, it is called, and is the Body of Jesus Christ. I affirm the same concerning the Mystical Oyl

and Wine, these are things of small value before their Consecration; but when bless'd by the Holy Spirit, both the one, and th'other operate after an ex∣cellent manner. His Design, is to shew, how mere Water, such as is used in Baptism, comes to have such great virtue, and produces such admirable effects. For this purpose he alledges divers Examples of mean and despica∣ble things in themselves, which by their Consecration, acquire an excellent virtue and efficacy. Amongst which, he especially reckons the Bread, and Wine, in the Eucharist. As to the Wine, he makes use of the Term of, ope∣rate, but as to the Bread, he say's, 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ; which plainly shews, that in his sence, to be the Body of Jesus Christ, and to have an excellent operation, is but one and the same thing.

XI. WE find at the end of Clement Alexandrinus his Works, a Treatise * 1.471 of a Greek Author, named Theodotus; who lived in the Third Century, wherein he asserts this same change of virtue, The Bread and Oyl, say's he, are sanctified by virtue of the Holy Spirit. They are no longer then, what they were before, notwithstanding their outward appearance, but are changed, INTO A SPIRITUAL EFFICACY.

WE have here then, the Doctrine of the Greeks, cleared up, by express Testimonies, both from Modern, and Ancient Authors. So that methinks Mr. Arnaud has no reason to turn into sport, and raillery, as he has done, this change of virtue, in calling it our Key of Virtue. Every man sees 'tis no in∣vention of ours, and that we alledge nothing concerning it, but what is au∣thoriz'd, by good and real Passages, and by the Sentiments and proper ex∣pressions of the Greeks of greatest account in all Ages. When Mr. Arnaud shall produce as many and solid Testimonies for his change of Substance, we will give him leave to deride our change of virtue, as he is pleased to term it. But till then, I have reason to desire him to stop his Laughter.

I should now pass on to the proving my Proposition, That, the Greeks be∣lieve the Bread and Wine only thus become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Faithful; but having already established this Article, in the Sixth Chap∣ter, and drawn from thence an Argument, to shew they believe not Transub∣stantiation, I shall therefore for the avoiding needless Repetitions, refer the Reader to it.

I come then to the last Article, which, contains, that the Greeks hold the Bread, is made the proper and real Body of Jesus Christ, by means of the addition of his Natural Body. This Point calls for a particular considera∣tion, for not only, it will further discover to us, what the real Opinion of the Greeks is; but likewise shew us, whence come these emphatical expressi∣ons, which they sometimes use, in saying 'tis the very Body of Jesus Christ, and no other Body than that which was born of the Virgin Mary, and like∣wise shew us in what sence we must understand them.

I. I say then, among other Comparisons, the Greeks use, for the explaining the manner of this change, which happens to the Bread and Wine; they especially imploy, that of Food, which being received by us, is changed into our Bodies. Now, every man knows, that the Matter or Substance of Food, is not changed, into the first Substance which we had before we take it, in such a manner that the one must be absolutely the other, and by a Numerical Identity; on the contrary, each substance conserves its proper being, and

that of the Food, is joyned to that of our Body, and receives its Form, it aug∣ments it, and by way of Union, Augmentation, and Assimilation (as they speak) becomes ours, and makes but one and the same Body, and not two, with that which we had before. And this is the Comparison, the Greeks do most often urge, whereby to express their Conceptions touching the Holy Sa∣crament. Theophilact, in his Commentaries on Saint John's Gospel, having told us, the Bread we eat in the Mysteries, is not an Antitype of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, but the very Flesh it self, immediately adds these Words, The Bread is changed into the Flesh of Christ, by the Ineffable Words, the Mystical * 1.472 Benediction, and coming of the Holy Spirit. No man ought to be troubled, in being obliged, to believe, that Bread becomes Flesh. For when our Lord was con∣versant on Earth, and received his nourishment from Bread, this Bread he eat, was changed into his Body, being made like unto his Flesh, and contributed to aug∣ment and sustain it after a humane manner. And thus, now, is the Bread changed into our Lord's Flesh.

THEODORUS Abucara, Bishop, and Metropolitan of Carie, and con∣temporary with Photius, according to Gretzer the Jesuites conjecture, bor∣rowed the same Comparison, whereby to explain, how the Bread is made the Body of Christ. He introduces in one of his Dialogues, a Saracen dispu∣ting * 1.473 with him on this Subject. The Saracen. Tell me, Bishop; why do ye Priests so impose on other Christians? Of the same Flower, you make two Loaves, the one for common use, and th'other you divide into several pieces, distributing 'em to the People, which you call the Body of Jesus Christ, and perswade them it confers remission of sins. Do ye deceive your selves, or the People, whose Guides you are? The Christian. We neither abuse our selves nor others. The Sara∣cen. Prove me this then, not by Scripture, but by reason. The Christian. What do ye say? Is not the Bread made the Body of Jesus Christ? The Sa∣racen. I know not what to answer to that. The Christian. When your Mother first brought you forth into the World, was you then as big as you are now? The Saracen? No, I was born a little one, and became bigger by means of Food, God thus ordering it. The Christian. Has the Bread then been made your Body? The Saracen. Yes. The Christian. And how was this done? The Saracen. I know not the manner thereof. The Christian. The Bread descends into the Stomach, and by the heat of the Liver, the grossest parts separating themselves, the rest are converted into Chyle, the Liver attracting them to it, and changing them into Blood, and afterwards distributes 'em by means of the Veins, to all the parts of the Body, that they may be what they are, bone to bones, marrow to mar∣row, sinew to sinews, eye to eyes, hair to hair, nail to nails, and thus by this means the Child grows, and becomes a Man, the Bread being converted in to his Body, and the Drink into his Blood. The Saracen. I believe so. The Christian. Know then that our Mystery is made after the same manner, the Priest places Bread and Wine on the Holy Table, and praying, the Holy Spirit descends there∣on, and the efficacy of its Divinity changes them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, neither more nor less, than the Liver changes the Food into the Body of a Man.

THEODORUS Graptus, a Greek Monk, who lived in the Ninth Cen∣tury, * 1.474 uses likewise the same Comparison; We do not call, say's he, the Holy Mysteries, an Image, or Figure, of the Body of Jesus Christ; altho they be a Symbolical Representation thereof, but the very deified Body of Jesus Christ, he himself saying, if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. And this is what he taught his Disciples, when he said

to 'em, take, and eat my Body, not a Figure of my Body; for thus did he form his Flesh, of the Substance of the Virgin, by the Holy Spirit. Which may be ex∣plained likewise by things familiar to us: for as the Bread, Wine, and Water, do naturally change themselves into the Body and Blood of him that eats and drinks them. So by the Prayers of the Priest, and Descent of the Holy Spirit, these things are supernaturally changed into the Body, and Blood of Jesus Christ. And this is done by the Priest's Prayer, and yet we understand not that this is two Bo∣dies, but one and the same Body.

NICEPHORUS, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Contempora∣ry * 1.475 with Theodorus Graptus, say's the same thing, in a Passage which Allatius, and Mr. Arnaud after him, has related. If it be lawful, say's he, to explain these things by a humane Comparison, as the Bread, Wine, and Water, are natu∣rally changed into the Body and Blood of those, that eat and drink them, and be∣come not another Body, so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that officiates, and descent of the Holy Spirit, are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. For this is what is contained in the Priest's Prayer, and we under∣stand not that this is two Bodies, but one and the same Body.

THIS way of explaining the change of the Bread and Wine, is not pe∣culiar to these Authors alone, whom I now alledged. Damascen, who accord∣ing to Mr. Arnaud, is to be esteemed as the common Oracle of the Greeks, made use of it, in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith. As in Baptism, * 1.476 say's he, because men are wont to wash and anoint themselves, God has added to the Oyl, and Water, the Grace of his Holy Spirit, and made thereof the Laver of our Regeneration: so in like manner, because we are wont to eat Bread, and drink Wine and Water; he has joyned to these things his Divinity, and made them his Body and Blood, to the end that by things familiar to our nature, he might raise us above nature. This is really the Body united to the Divinity, the Body born of the Virgin. Not, that the Body which ascended up on high, descends from Heaven; but because the Bread, and Wine are changed, into the Body and Blood of God. If you ask how this comes to pass; it will be suffi∣cient to tell ye that 'tis by means of the Holy Spirit; and after the same man∣ner as he became Flesh in the Virgin's Womb. All that we know of it is this, that the Word of God is true, efficacious, and Almighty; and that the manner of this change is inconceiveable. Yet we may say, that as naturally the Bread we eat, the Wine and Water we drink, are changed into the Body and Blood of him, that eates and drinks, and yet become not another Body than that which he had be∣fore, so after the same manner the Bread and Wine, which are placed on the Al∣tar, are supernaturally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by Prayer, and Descension of the Holy Spirit; and these are not two Bodies, but one and the same Body.

IT is probable, that Damascen, and the others aforementioned, who use this Comparison, have taken it out of the Catechism of Gregory of Nysse; wherein we find almost the same Conceptions. For, he say's, that as the * 1.477 Bread which Jesus Christ eat, was changed into his Body, and received thereby a divine virtue; the same likewise comes to pass in the Eucharist. For there, it was the Grace of the Word, that sanctified the Body, which was nourished with Bread, and was in some sort Bread; and here after the same manner, the Bread is sanctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer; not being in truth made the Body of the Word, by Manducation, but by being changed in an instant by the Word into the Body of Christ, according to what he said himself, this is my Body.

THIS Comparison does already sufficiently enough declare the Doctrine of the Greek Church; to wit, that the Substance of Bread conserving its proper being, is joyned to the natural Body of Jesus Christ; that it is made like unto it, that it augments it, and becomes by this means one and the same Body with him. For 'tis thus the Aliment we take, (altho it conserves its own Substance and proper being) becomes one with our Body, by way of Addition, or Augmentation.

DURANDUS a Bishop, and Famous Divine, amongst the Latins, who * 1.478 lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, acknowledged the force of this Comparison, and made it be observed by those in his time, and also used it himself, to strengthen his Opinion, which was, that the Substance of Bread remains, and losing its first form of Bread, receives the natural form of the Body of Christ. Bellarmin answers, that these Comparisons must not be * 1.479 strained too far, that they are not in all things alike, and that the Greeks only use that of Food to shew the reality and truth of the change, which happens in the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; and not to signifie that this change is made in the same manner. And this is in my mind as much as can be said with any shew of reason. We must then see here, whether in the sence of the Greeks, we may extend the Comparison of the Food, so as to understand thereby, that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by way of Augmentation of this Body, for if it appears they take it in this manner, Bellarmin's Answer signifies nothing; and our Proof will be compleat and undeniable.

DAMASCEN, decides the Question himself in his Letter to Zacha∣rias * 1.480 Bishop of Doare, and in the short Homily which follows it. Observe here, what he say's in his Letter. Touching the Body of our Lord, of which we partake, I declare to you, it cannot be said there are two Bodies of Jesus Christ; there being but one alone. For as the Child assoon as he is born is compleat, but receives his growth from eating and drinking; and altho he grows thereby, yet cannot be said to have two bodies, but only one, so by greater reason the Bread and Wine, by Descent of the Holy Spirit, are made one only Body, and not two by the AUGMENTATION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.

BUT to the end it may not be thought this Discourse slipt from him una∣wares, observe here how he explains, his mind in the following Homily. This Body, and Blood of our God, of which we partake, is subject to Corruption, being broken, spilt, eaten, and drunk, and passes thro all the natural Oeconomy of the In∣carnation of the Word, which comes to pass in the same manner, as the GROWTH of our Bodies. For as to our Bodies, the first thing supposed, is the matter of which the Embryo consists, afterwards the Mother furnishing it with the Aliment of her Blood, this matter is changed by little and little, and becomes an organised Body, by means of the virtue which our Creature has given to nature. In the same manner is formed the Flesh, Bones, and rest of the Parts, by the assist∣ance of the Faculties destini'd for Attraction, Retention, Nourishment and Growth. So likewise the Food we take, increases and augments the mass of our Body, by the ministry of these same Faculties, designed for nourishment; which attract, retain, and change the Food. And therefore our Lord shews us the whole divine Oeconomy of his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection, and State of Cor∣ruption in this GROWTH of his Body. For the Body of our Lord became not immediately incorruptible, but corruptible, and passible, till his Resurrection; and

after his Burial became incorruptible, by this same Divine Power, by which he raised himself, and makes us also incorruptible: But how comes this to pass? The Holy Virgin has been as it were the Table whereon was the Substance of Bread, when ac∣cording to the saying of the Angel, the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the virtue of the most High overshadowed her, that is to say, the Divine Word, the Divine Person who took Flesh of her. So likewise here the Substance which is Bread, and Wine mingled with Water, is placed on the Mystical Table, as it were in the Womb of the Virgin, for even the Virgin was nourished with these things, and distributed the Substance of them to the Body of the Child. In fine, the Priest, he say's, in imitation of the Angel, let the Holy Spirit come upon, and sanctifie these things, and make the Bread, the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ; and the Chalice his precious Blood. Then there is made not by the virtue of nature, but supernaturally, and by the AUGMENTATION of the Body and Blood of Christ, there is made, I say, one only Body, and not two. After this, it is lifted up by the hand of the Priest, as he was lifted up on the Cross, it is distri∣buted, broken and buried in us, to make us thereby incorruptible. And thus the Oeconomy is finished.

AND this is the Doctrine of the Greeks, the Bread, and Wine, are made the Body and Blood of Christ, in the same manner the Food we receive be∣comes our Body, and this Example or Comparison exactly comprehends three things. The first, that as Nature observes the same course, and performs the same Operations in the Food we receive, as it does in the first matter of which our Bodies are composed; so Divine Grace keeps the same measures, and does the same things in the Bread and Wine, as in the Body our Lord took of the Virgin. This is in all respects the same Oeconomy. They re∣ceive the same Holy Spirit; are corruptible, raised up as it were on a Cross, buried in us, and in fine become incorruptible. The second, that as the Food increases, and gives growth to our Bodies; so the Bread and mystical Wine, are a Growth or Augmentation which the Body of Jesus Christ recieves. The third, that as the Food makes not another Body, but becomes one and the same Body with that which it augments; so the Mystery is not a new Body of Jesus Christ, but the same which was born of the Virgin.

MOREOVER, altho the Greeks use the Simile of Food, (whereby to explain the manner after which the Bread in the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ) yet we must not imagine, they believe the Bread receives the phy∣sical or natural form of our Lord's Flesh in the same manner the Food re∣ceives that of ours; whether we understand by this physical Form, the Soul of Jesus Christ, or some other substantial Form subordinate to the Soul: This is not at all their Belief; for they only mean, that as the Food we eat receives the physical or natural Form of our Body, so the Bread in the Eucharist re∣ceives the impression of the inlivening and sanctifying virtue, residing in the natural Body of Christ; and that as the Food in receiving the physical Form of our Flesh, becomes an Augmentation of our Body; so the Bread in the Eucharist receiving the impression of the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ, becomes an Augmentation. This is a Comparison, wherein there is some proportion of one thing with another, but not an intire resemblance. The Greeks conceive the sanctifying virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ, as its su∣pernatural and oeconomical Form, which belongs to it not so much for that it is a mere Body, as that it is the Body of the Word, the Principle of our Spi∣ritual Life and Salvation.

THERE is made then according to them, not a Communication, or an extension of the natural Form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread; but a communication or an extension of its virtue.

WHICH plainly appears by what we have already alledged. For first, hereto relates this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit; and Union of Bread with the Divinity which they assert. Secondly, hitherto expressly re∣late, all the Passages we have seen touching the change of virtue, to which the Greeks so strictly keep themselves; never mentioning the impression of the physical Form, but ever that of virtue. Thirdly, we gather the same thing from their comparing the Bread in the Eucharist with the natural Body, whereby to establish how the Bread is made an Augmentation of the Body, they say not that the same physical Form of the one is communicated to the other; but only that the same Oeconomy, which is observed in the natural Body, is likewise observed in the Bread. And explain∣ing in what consists this same Oeconomy; they say, 'tis in that the Bread receives the Holy Spirit, as the natural Body receives it, that 'tis raised up (as it were) into a Cross, in the like manner as the natural Body, that 'tis buried in us, and becomes in fine incorruptible, as the natural Body does. Now this is quite different from the impression of the physical Form; and gives only the Idea of an impression of virtue. Fourthly, the same thing appears from a great part of the Proofs I produced in this third Book, as from what they teach touching the unconsecrated Particles; that they be∣come in some sort the Body of Jesus Christ, by connection with that which is consecrated; and that the People may receive them as well as the Sacra∣ment; for this shews they mean the consecrated Bread becomes only the Body of Jesus Christ by the impression of this sanctifying virtue of which we speak. And that which they believe touching the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday, that 'tis of a more excellent virtue than that of other days; for this would have no sence, did they hold the impression of the na∣tural Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ on the Bread. And all the Clauses of their Liturgies, by which it appears, they restrain the effect of the Conse∣cration, to the Bread's becoming the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification, and Virtue. And what they say touching the dead; that they receive the same as we do in the Communion; which would be absurd if they meant the physical Form of the Flesh of Christ was imprinted on the Bread, for the dead receive not this physical Form. And their not adoring the Sacrament, with an absolute Adoration of Latria, as do the Latins, and as the Greeks would do without doubt, if they held the impression of the physical Form. And that which the Greeks of the Twelfth Century mentioned touching the Eucharist, namely, that 'tis not indued with a Soul, or Understanding; which shews clearly, they do not mean the Bread in the Sacrament receives the im∣pression of the Soul of Christ. And in fine, that they take so little care to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament; using it after such a negligent manner, as would be highly criminal and impious, or to speak better, after such a manner as is not conceivable, did they believe the physical Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ.

BUT to finish the justification of my Proposition touching the Belief of the Greeks, there only remains to be proved, the Comparison of the Paper, which becomes the Princes Letter, when it receives his Characters or Seal. For as concerning that of the Food, we have already sufficiently treated on

it; we have likewise considered that of Wood in conjunction with Fire; that of Wool which takes the dye, and that of Wax or Matter which re∣ceives the impression of the Seal. As to that of Paper, Nilus Abbot of Mount Sina, (an Author of the Fifth Century, and who was Saint Chryso∣stom's Schollar) furnishes us with it, in one of his Epistles. Paper, say's he, consists of a certain Matter, and is called only Paper, but when the Emperor puts thereunto his Seal or Name, it becomes Sacred. In the same manner must our Mysteries be conceived. Before the Words of the Priest, and Descent of the Holy Spirit, 'tis mere Bread and Wine, which are offered; but after the Holy Prayers, and coming of the holy and enlivening Spirit, 'tis no longer mere Bread and Wine, but the pretious and immaculate Body of Jesus Christ, who is God o∣ver all, and therefore those that receive them with fear and reverence, are clean∣sed from all filthiness.

HAVING thus historically and sincerely shew'd, the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist, it will be no hard matter to ob∣serve wherein they agree with the Latins, and wherein they differ; which is the second thing I proposed to do in this Chapter. First, They agree with them, in the general Terms, which denote the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Secondly, They agree in those other expressions, which bear, that the change is made into the real Body of Christ, into his own proper Body born of the Virgin Mary, and that he has not two Bodies, but one alone. Thirdly, They agree in that both of them attribute this change to the Holy Spirit, who descends on the Bread, and makes it the Body of our Lord. Fourthly, They agree in fine, in that they both assert, this change to be an effect of the Almighty Power of God, above all the Laws of nature. So far the Greeks and Latins agree.

BUT they differ in several things. First, In that the Latins believe, that the Substance of Bread ceases, the Greeks on the contrary believe its ex∣istence. Which we plainly gather from the Proposition I now established, and the Proofs I offered: For seeing they make the Eucharist to consist of the composition of a sensible Substance, which is the Bread, and the Holy Spirit, as we have already observed, seeing they joyn the Bread to the Divinity, be∣lieving that what results thence is double, that is to say, that it has two Na∣tures, it is clear the Greeks hold that the Nature or Substance of Bread re∣mains. This same truth appears likewise, concerning what they hold touch∣ing this Augmentation of the Body of Christ. For if the Bread in the Eu∣charist augments, or gives growth to our Lord's Body, as they believe, it ceases not to be, being certain, that to make an Augmentation, we must add one thing to another, joyn them together, conserve them both, and destroy neither of them. To this we are moreover led by all those Comparisons we find they used, of Wool dyed, of Paper that receives the Emperors Signet, of Wax that receives the impression of the Seal, of a burning Coal, or Wood in conjunction with Fire, and Food by which we are nourished; for in all these Examples, the subject matter looses nothing of its first Substance. Moreover seeing they will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ, that 'tis first corruptible, then incorruptible, this sufficiently denotes they mean the Bread remains, whereby to receive all these changes.

SECONDLY, From this difference there arises another, which is, that the Latins believe that in the change which happens in the Eucharist,

the Substance of Bread, and that of the Body of Jesus Christ, are (as they speak) the two Terms of the change, and that of the Bread passes intirely in∣to that of the Body by a Conversion, not only mystical, but really, and which destroys the Existence, or matter of the Bread, which the Greeks do not be∣lieve. Which appears by this Augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ, of which they tell us, and which they confirm by the Simile of Food. For common sence plainly shews us, that that which augments a thing is not re∣ally changed into the thing augmented, as the Latins understand their change. For there must always be reckoned a real difference between the thing augmented, and that which augments. The Opinion of the Greeks then can in no wise agree with that of the Latins, for according to the La∣tins, the Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ receives neither more, nor less, by the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into it, and according to the Greeks it is augmented by it.

THIRDLY, It must then be granted, the Greeks do not acknowledge this conversion, specified by the Roman Church; and differ from it in re∣spect of the nature or kind of this change, admitting only that of an Object, which receiving a new Form, remains what it was before; and yet becomes what it was not, which is to say, that the Bread remaining Bread, receives the supernatural and oeconomical Form of the Body of Christ, that is to say its virtue, and is thereby made this Body. And this is what is meant by this change of Sanctification and Virtue, which they establish, and by which they pretend the Bread becomes our Lord's Body. Their whole Doctrine centers in this, and 'tis not possible to see what I alledged from them in this Chapter, and not make this Conclusion, that their Opinion is, there only happens in the Eucharist a change of virtue, and that 'tis only thus, the same Substance, which is Bread, is likewise the Body of Jesus Christ.

FOURTHLY, The Latins hold that the Substance we receive in the Sacrament is absolutely the same numerical Substance which our Saviour had when he was on Earth, and which he still retains in Heaven. The Greeks hold not this, their Hypothesis manifestly opposes it. For altho they say the Body born of the Virgin Mary, and the Bread in the Sacrament, are not two Bodies, but one, yet the manner after which they explain this Unity, and the reason they give for it, do clearly denote they mean not thereby an absolute Unity, nor an intire or numerical Identity, (as the Schools speak) such as the Latins establish. They say, that as that which a Child eats and drinks makes not another Body, but the same, altho he receives growth thereby; so the Bread in the Sacrament, which augments the Body of Christ; makes not two Bodies, but one. Now this necessarily supposes, that this Substance which we receive with the mouths of our Bodies in the Eucha∣rist, is different from that which our Saviour had on Earth, and which he still has in Heaven. For a Body that is augmented is the same it was before; but the Augmentation can never be absolutely the same thing, as that which re∣ceives Augmentation. In effect, if the Latins be asked, and all those that fol∣low their Hypothesis, why the Bread in the Eucharist, and the Body born of the Virgin, are not two, but one only Body, they will answer, 'Tis because they are but one and the same Substance in number. But instead of this the Greeks take a different course, saying, 'tis because the Bread is an Augmenta∣tion of the Body of Christ, which puts a real difference between the two Substances. Whence it follows, that that which they believe they receive in the Sacrament, is not the same Substance as that of our Lord's natural Body.

FIFTHLY, Hence it appears, the Greeks do not believe the Real Pre∣sence of the Latins. For the Latins by the Real Presence, mean a Presence of Substance; which is to say, that this same Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ, in which he lived and died, and rose again, and which now ex∣ists in Heaven, the same I say in Number, really likewise exists, substantially, and by it self in the Eucharist. Now this the Greeks do not hold, as I al∣ready shewed. They on the contrary believe that this Substance we receive in the Eucharist, and that of the natural Body of Christ, are two Substances really different, one of which is the Augmentation, and th'other the thing augmented, the one a true Substance of Bread, and th'other the Substance of the natural Body of Christ: The one, to wit, that of Bread, receives accord∣ing to them the impression of the virtue of th'other, and the other communi∣cates this to it. They do not then believe, that this same natural Body of Christ, this same numerical Substance in which he died, and rose again, and which now exists in Heaven, does likewise really exist in the Eucharist, which is exactly, as I already said, the real Presence of the Latins. They hold the Bread, becomes by Consecration, not a Figure of the Body of Christ, but an Augmentation, inasmuch as it receives its Virtue and Efficacy. If this must be called a kind of Real Presence, I say, this is but a mere amusement of Words, not worth our consideration. In short, the Presence of the Greeks, is a Presence of Virtue, that of the Latins a Presence of Substance; so that upon this account they are at a great difference. In effect, if the things I alledged, as well in this Chapter, as in this whole Third Book, be exactly considered, it will appear, that the most part of the Proofs I produced to ju∣stifie, that the Greeks believe not Transubstantiation, do equally conclude a∣gainst the Substantial Presence; and that they also believe not, there is made any impression of the physical Form of Christ's Body on the Bread.

SIXTHLY, These principal and essential differences, produce others. For it hence appears, that altho they agree with the Latins in these general expressions, which bear, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, into his real Body, into his own proper Body, yet they differ from them in the sence of these expressions, understanding them in a quite different man∣ner. For the Latins mean the Bread is changed into the Body by a real Transubstantiation, which making the Substance of Bread cease, becomes the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, the same in number which it was before. The Greeks on the contrary mean, that the Bread, remain∣ing Bread in its proper Substance, is changed into the proper Body of Christ, in asmuch as that 'tis made an increase or augmentation, by the impression it receives from its virtue. So that when both one and the other say, the Bread is the Body of Christ, they in no sort agree, in the sence of this Pro∣position; the Latins understanding it in a divided sence (as they term it) which is to say, that that which was before Bread is now no longer so, but the Body of Jesus Christ; the Greeks on the contrary, that that which is still Bread, is also this Body.

VII. THE Latins following their Hypothesis, are forced to admit the Existence of Accidents without a Subject, the Greeks are not. Whence it is, they never mention this pretended Existence, and we find no such thing in their Authors.

VIII. THE Latins are obliged to give a reason for several natural Ex∣periments,

which denote, that the Substance of Bread remains, and which seem incompatible with their Belief, as that our Bodies are nourished with the Eucharist, that it breeds Maggots in it, &c. in which they are extreamly puzled. The Greeks are not so, neither do we find the least hint thereof in their Books.

IX. THE Latins cannot but admit the Existence of the same Body in several places at once; The Greeks know not any thing of this, neither are they concerned at it.

X. THE Latins are forced to make the Body of Christ exist in the Sacra∣ment, void of his natural proportion and properties. The Greeks do not so, and therefore we see them never troubled at these difficulties which follow the Doctrine of the Latins.

XI. THE Latins by an unavoidable consequence of their Doctrine, a∣dore with a Sovereign Adoration the Eucharist; which is according to them the proper Substance of our Lord's natural Body, separate from any other Substance. The Greeks do not so, as we observed in the seventh Chapter.

XII. THE Latins, believe the wicked receive the Body, and Blood of Christ, with the mouths of their bodies, altho to their condemnation. The Greeks hold that the Bread and Wine are made this Body and Blood, only to the Faithful.

NOT to insist on several other differences, which do not precisely relate to our Question, as that the Greeks do all of 'em communicate of both kinds, whereas the Latins give only to the People that of Bread; that the Greeks hold the Consecration is performed by the Prayer of the Priest, and the La∣tins on the contrary by these Words, This is my Body; that the Latins use Wafers, or unleavened Bread, whereas the Greeks abhorring the Azymes use only that which is leavened. There are likewise several other differences which I shall not here repeat, because the Reader may find them, in what has been already said in the foregoing Chapters.

AND here have I represented, as exactly as I could, the Differences and Agreements of the two Churches. If it be now demanded in what Points we agree with the Greeks, this may be easily collected from what I have al∣ready said.

WE agree almost with them in all Points wherein they differ from the Latins. 1. In that we do not believe the Conversion of Substances, any more than they, nor admit, the substantial Presence of the Natural Body of Christ, under the Species of Bread and Wine, that we adore not the Sacrament, nor acknowledge any of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiati∣on. 2. We agree with the Greeks, in that they conceive the change which is made in the Bread and Wine, to be a change of virtue by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, God not destroying the Nature of Bread and Wine, but adding his Grace to Nature. 3. In that, we do not believe any more than they, that the wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ. 4. In that we believe with them, that we ought to communicate of both kinds. 5. In our holding the Consecration is performed by Prayer. 6. In fine, that we deli∣ver the Sacrament in leavened Bread, altho we hold the use of the Azyme an indifferent thing.

YET it must not be imagined, we pretend there's no difference in the O∣pinion of the Greeks and ours. I do not believe any of our Doctors ever asserted such a thing. Mr. Arnaud would make the World believe I maintained this, and has triumphed thereupon in several places of his Book, as if I supposed the Greeks were Berengarians or Calvinists. But this is a groundless charge. I only denied that the Greeks (which are called Schis∣maticks) believed Transubstantiation, and the Adoration. It belongs to him therefore to see whether he had reason to accuse me in this of rashness and in∣conceivable boldness, or whether he himself rather was not guilty of this, when he bragged of confounding Ministers with the number of his Proofs. Perhaps he would have hit better on it, had he said he had confounded his Readers. But to let this pass, I shall here truly denote the principal differences between the Doctrine of the Greeks and ours.

I. THE Greeks, since the Eighth Century, rejected the Terms of Type and Figure, in reference to the Eucharist, altho they use them of Symbol and Re∣presentation. We admit equally both as the Fathers of the first six Ages e∣ver did.

II. THEY seem willing to keep in some sort the literal sence of these Words, This is my Body, which we do not. For we understand 'em in this sence, this Bread is the Sacred Sign, or the Sacrament of my Body; or which is to the same effect, the Bread signifies my Body. They on the contrary, taking the Term est in some sort according to the Letter, will have the same Substance, which is Bread, to be also the Body of Jesus Christ; and there∣fore they so often say, that the Bread is, not the Figure of the Body, but the Body, not the Figure of the Flesh, but the Flesh it self, because the Lord did not say, this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body. Whereunto relates that saying of Theophilact, we already cited, which is, we must not be troubled to believe Bread is Flesh.

III. 'TIS likewise to keep this pretended literal sence, that they would have the Bread to be made one with the Body by its Union to the Divinity, by the impression of the Holy Spirit, and by a change of virtue. And there∣fore they bring the comparison of Food, which becomes one with our Bodies; and invented this way of Growth or Augmentation of a natural Body: for all this ends only in establishing a Unity between the Bread, and the Body, which may make us say literally, and without recourse to a Figure, that the Bread is the Body. As to what concerns us, we need not take such a great circuit, be∣cause the Question, concerning a Sacrament, we believe we may take the Words of Christ in a sacramental and figurative sence.

IV. IT seems likewise, that the Modern Greeks understand some real or physical impression, of the Holy Spirit, and inlivening virtue of Jesus Christ, on the Bread, with some kind of inherency; yet I will not positively affirm this was the general Belief of their Church, altho their expressions intimate as much. But howsoever, this is not our Opinion. We do indeed believe, that the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and virtue of Christ's Body accompany the right use of the Sacrament, and that in the Communion we participate of the Body of Christ by Faith in as great a measure; and more really than if we received him with the Mouth of our Bodies, but we hold not this im∣pression, or real inherence of virtue, which it seems the Greeks admit;

whence it happens that our expressions are not so emphatical as theirs.

AND this is what I had to say touching the real Opinion of the Greeks, with its principal Circumstances, and in reference to that of ours, and the Church of Rome's. I do not doubt but several People reading this Chapter, will say, I charge the Greeks with a very foolish and unreasonable Doctrine. They'l make Objections touching this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit, this Union of the Symbols with the Divinity, and especially concerning this manner of being the Body and Blood of Christ, by way of Growth or Aug∣mentation. But to this I need say no more, than that it concerns me not to justifie the Opinion of the Greeks. Our business here is to know what it is, and not whether it be justifiable, nor to answer the Objections may be made against it, because we adopt not either their Expressions or Opinions. Yet I shall endeavour to solve two difficulties, which may trouble the Readers; the one is, that according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks, it seems as if it might be said in some sence, that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, after the same manner we say the Bread we eat is changed into our Substance. Th'other is, that by this Union of Bread to the Divinity, it seems they understand a real hypostatical Union, like unto that which joyns the natural Body to the Word.

TO the first I answer, the Greeks mean not the Bread receives the natural or physical form of the Flesh of Christ, as we have proved; neither do they say, the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ, because this way of speaking, which we use in respect of the Bread we eat is ground∣ed upon the Food's receiving the Substantial or physical form of our Flesh. Now they mean no other impression on the Bread in the Eucharist, than an impression of the inlivening virtue of Christ's Body by means of the Holy Spirit. And thus the Bread keeps its proper and natural Substance wholly intire, and yet is augmented by an Augmentation of the Body of Christ, in asmuch as the supernatural virtue which is proper to this Body is communi∣cated to the Bread. As to what remains, altho this pretended Augmentati∣on of the Body of Jesus Christ, by means of the Bread is absurd enough, yet we may give it a plain sence, in saying 'tis not necessary for this that the Bread and Body be locally joyned, it being sufficient to conceive the Holy Spirit is the mutual link which unites them together, and the Bread receiving only the virtue of the Body, by a dependance thereon, and in asmuch as 'tis the Mystery of it, this is a kind of Growth and Augmentation, a Mystery being as it were an Appendix, or Circumstance to the thing of which 'tis the My∣stery.

TO the second Question, I answer, that altho the whole Hypothesis of the Greeks, and especially some of their expressions, seem to induce us to at∣tribute to 'em the Belief of the hypostatical Union of Bread to the Divinity, yet their Authors not plainly expressing themselves in this matter, and it not appearing elsewhere by their practice, that they hold this Opinion, there is more justice in not charging them with it, than in imputing it to 'em, and so much the more, because there is none of their usual expressions, how empha∣tical soever, but may agree with a simple Union of efficacy. The Term of Assumption used by Damascen, Panis & Vinum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, assumuntur, induced me to believe at first with Mr. Aubertin, he meant thereby a real hy∣postatical * 1.481 Assumption, but having since carefully examined this Passage, it seemed to me this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be easily referred not to the foregoing

Words in the same Discourse, but to that which follows in the simple sence, That the Bread and Wine are used in the Eucharist, because they are things fami∣liar to us.

BUT howsoever, we may here observe, that ever since both Greeks and Latins deviated from the simplicity of the Gospel; and natural Ex∣position, which the Ancients gave this Mystery; how they have fallen, I say, into vainand idle Speculations, both of 'em wandring from the Truth. Which commonly happens to such as love rather to follow their own imaginations, than the Word of God. Our Saviour tells us concerning the Sacrament, that 'tis his Body, and added, that it was for a remembrance of him; and Saint Paul thus commented on it, This is a Declaration of the Lord's death till his coming. What could be more easie than to keep here, and to judge thereof by the very nature of a Sacrament, by the expressions of our Saviour, and his Apostle, and other parts of Christian Religion? But instead of this, we have abused several excessive expressions of the Fathers, taking no notice of divers others, by which they explain themselves; these have been extended, and altho innocent, yet are made a Rock of Offence. The Latins proceed to a real Presence, a real Transubstantiation, and Acci∣dents without a Subject, and all the rest of those Doctrines unknown to the Ancients, which they heap up without number. The Greeks on their side have imagined a Union of the Bread with the Divinity, a kind of real im∣pression of supernatural virtue of Christ's Body on the Bread, a Growth, or Augmentation of this Body.

I hope I shall have this Justice done me, that it will be acknowledged, I have produced nothing touching the Doctrine of the Greeks, but what has been taken out of their best Authors, from them I say that are of greatest account amongst them. And 'tis in fine from their proper Testimonies, I have clearly shown, that that which the Greeks hold touching the Eucharist, is not the Transubstantiation of the Latins; which is the chief and only thing I had to do. Yet shall I answer in the following Book all Mr. Arnaud's vain Objections; as briefly as I can; for considering what I already established, 'tis easie to judge, that his Arguments will not prove invincible Demonstrati∣ons, as he would perswade the World.

BOOK IV.

Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted.

CHAP. I.

Mr. Arnaud's First Proof, taken from Cerularius his Silence, exami∣ned. The rest of his Illusions discovered.

AFter what I have established in the two former Books, it will be no difficult matter, to answer, Mr. Arnaud's Objections, and shew as I promised, that all his endeavours to demon∣strate the Greek Church ever believed Transubstantiation are ineffectual, and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends. And this shall be the subject of this Book. Which I shall divide into two Parts; in the first, I shall examine what Mr. Arnaud has alledged, to prove his supposition since the Eleventh Century to this present; and in the second, consider what he has alledged for the same purpose from the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Centuries.

IN the first Part of this Book, I shall handle four principal Heads, under which I shall exactly gather whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has dispersed in his Se∣cond, Third, and Fourth Books, and part of his Twelfth Book, wherein he has treated on some Particulars, respecting this Question.

OUR first Remark shall be touching some of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions, besides those we already discovered, in the former Books. It is certain we may justly so term all the Parts of his Work, but more especially, what he has written touching the Greeks; for 'tis all delusory. But at present we mean to apply this Term to certain things only, wherein his Artifice plainly appears, and which are wholly inconsistent with that sincerity, wherewith Controversies ought to be managed.

THE second Head contains the Testimonies of some Protestants, whom Mr. Arnaud has alledged; which seem in effect to attribute to the Greeks the Belief of Transubstantiation.

THE Third, shall contain the Negative Arguments, drawn from the Si∣lence of both Greeks, and Latins; that is to say, they never disputed one a∣gainst another, on this Article, of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucha∣rist.

IN the Fourth, we shall explain, all the Passages Mr. Arnaud has taken out of Greek Authors, and from which he would infer by dint of Argument, that the Greeks hold this Conversion of Substances.

TO begin at his Delusions, the First, or to speak better, the Twelfth, (after those we already discovered) consists, in that he would have us upon the account of his own bare word, without any Proof, suppose, that when Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo Archbishop of Acrida, wrote their Letter against the Church of Rome, Leo the Ninth, the then present Pope had already condemned Berengarius; and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of this censure. But 'twill not be amiss to hear him speak himself, To shew, say's he, the consent of the Greek Church with the Ro∣man, * 1.482 in the Subject of the Eucharist; we have made use (in the refutation of Mr. Claude's Answer) of the contest which arose in the year 1053. between Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo Archbishop of Acrida on one hand, and Pope Leo the Ninth, and the whole Latine Church on the other. For these Persons altho such passionate adversaries against the Western Church, upon the account of the Azymes, yet never reproached her as erring in the Mystery of the Eucharist; altho they wrote against the Latins, AT THE SAME TIME, AND AFTER, Pope Leo had censured Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verseil; whence we conclude they were agreed with the Latin Church in the Doctrine of the real Presence, which she so loudly asserted at that time. This is Mr. Arnaud's first Proof, which he has set forth to the life, in the best colours wherewith his Eloquence could furnish him; having turned it several wayes by his usual dexterary, in am∣plifying, and exaggerating the Subjects he handles.

IT is certain that to make this Argument valid, he must clearly esta∣blish before all things, that, Berengarius his Condemnation preceded Ce∣rularius, and Leo of Acrida's Letter, and preceded it to, a very conside∣rable time; to shew that these Prelates were well informed of it, and had reason to mention it in their Letter; for without this, we can conclude nothing from their Silence. Yet Mr. Arnaud has not troubled himself with the clearing up this matter of Fact; contenting himself in saying only, that Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins at the same time, and a little after Pope Leo condemned Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy. A man would then think, this was a Point out of doubt, and at which Mr. Ar∣naud has no need to stop a moment, having judged it evident (beyond con∣tradiction) in his Chronology. But he will be much startled to find, there is nothing more uncertain, than his supposition; and moreover, that there is nothing more unlikely than what he say's.

TO be ascertained in this Matter, we must know, that Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida's Letter was written in the Year, 1053. as Mr. Arnaud and all the World grants. We must moreover know, that although Baronius, and Binius attribute the two Condemnations of Berengarius, to the Year, 1050. 3 Years before Cerularius his Letter was written, yet there are Authors that are better informed in this Matter than Baronius, and Binius; who refer these two Condemnations to the Year 1053. being exactly the same Year wherein the Letter was written. And these are such Authors, whose Testi∣mony will go far with Mr. Arnaud. Being those that published the Office of the B. Sacrament, that is to say, this same Office, to which, the first Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity, in its primary Design, was to serve as a Preface; as

a Preface; as we have been already twice informed. Observe here, what they say, Neither Malmesbury, nor Baronius, have exactly observed all the * 1.483 Councils, which were called touching this Heresie of Berengarius. The first of them, was held at Rome, by Pope Leo the Ninth; the second at Verseil, in the Month of September, in the same Year, under the same Pope. We cannot doubt, (after the Testimony of Lanfranc) in his Book against Berengarius, but that these two Councils were held both in the same Year. But some, (as Baroni∣us and Binius) will have this Year to be 1050. others the Year, 1053. First, because Sigibert say's, that Pope Leo held two Councils, in 1050. but he immediate∣ly observes likewise this was only to reform the abuses of the Ecclesiasticks; and speaks not of the Troubles raised by Berengarius his Heresie, but only as hapning in the Year, 1051. Secondly, because Durand Abbot of Trorand in Norman∣dy, who lived about that time, refers the Council of Verseil, to the Year 1053. on∣ly. And there is no reason to pretend, as a Learned Lawyer of Angers does, that there is a mistake, in this Passage of Durand; and that we must read 1050. see∣ing that according to the judicious Observation of Mr. de St. Beuve, the King's Professor at Sorbornne; in a Manuscript on this Matter, the same Durand te∣stifies, that in the Year he speaks of, Alfred was Abbot of the Abby of Preaux in Normandy, which was not founded till the Year 1053. according to Du Bec's Chronicle.

HERE then we have upon good Grounds, and undeniable Authority, the two Condemnations of Berengarius, referred to the same Year, in which Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida wrote their Letter. It remains only to know, whether Mr. Arnaud may suppose without Proof, that the Letter was writ∣ten after Berengarius his Condemnation; and whether 'tis not a plain Delu∣sion, thus slightly to pass over a Point of this importance, on which depends the greatest part of his reasoning. For, if this Letter was written, before the time wherein Berenger was first condemned; what can be then concluded from Cerularius, and Leo de Acrida's Silence? Wherefore must they ground an Accusation, against the Church of Rome, on a Condemnation which was not then in being. Now this is a matter of Fact, which I affirm to be very un∣certain; and which Mr. Arnaud must demonstrate, and not suppose, without Proof. They wrote, say's he, against the Latins, at the same time, and a little after, Pope Leo had condemned Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verseil. There being but one Letter, from both Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida; we must conceive, 'twas written to the Council at Rome, after Be∣rengarius his first Condemnation, and near the time they were about calling th'other Council at Verseil. Now this has no likelihood, for as Baronius has well * 1.484 observed, Leo answered this Letter in the same Year, namely, 1053. whence it follows, if we reckon right, we shall find, that Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida could not have written their Letter, but in the beginning of the Year, at farthest, and consequently before there was any mention at Rome of Berengarius his Con∣demnation; and especially before the news thereof came to Constantinople. In effect it must not be imagined, that this Patriarch, and Archbishop, indi∣ted their Letter without mature and deliberate advice, and consideration, nor that they sent it without communicating the Contents of it to some of their Clergy, to bring them to take part with them, and engage 'em in their Interests; seeing the matter concerned the censuring of a Church, such as that of the Latins, and which, they were sure would highly resent it; Affairs of this importance are not wont to be precipitated. It required also some time, before this Letter could come from Constantinople, to Tranys in the Kingdom of Naples. John Bishop of Tranys, to whom 'twas directed, must likewise

have some time, to send it to Cardinal Humbert, and he, must get it translated out of Greek into Latin. Humbert must go to Rome, for he carried it himself to Pope Leo, after he received it from the Bishop of Tranys. In fine, Leo must examine it, and answer it; For all which Mr. Arnaud allows but three Months. Cerularius, say's he, and Leo of Acrida, wrote against the La∣tins, * 1.485 and at the same time, and not long after again, Pope Leo condemned Beren∣garius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verseil. This not long after, can only relate to the Council at Rome, which was the first, and consequently this, at the same time, must relate to the Council of Verseil, which being not called till September, as appears by Lanfranc, who positively affirmeth it; and the Pope having wrote his Answer at farthest in December, * 1.486 it must needs be, (if we believe what Mr. Arnaud supposes) that is to say, if the Letter was written in the Month of September, that all that which I come now from observing, was transacted in three Months time. And thus does Mr. Arnaud hasten the time, that it may answer his necessities.

TO this Delusion, we may add another, which will be the Thirteenth. It consists in supposing, without Proof, that Leo the Ninth in condemning Berengarius, precisely established Transubstantiation, and the real Presence. For if we take not this Fact for a certain Principle, there can be no Pretence for demanding, wherefore Cerularius reproached not the Church of Rome, about her erring in the Doctrine of the Eucharist.

YET is there nothing more uncertain, for, there are none of the Decrees of this Council extant, and I think not one Author that relates the proper Terms of these Condemnations. They tell us, that Berengarius was condem∣ned, that John Scot's Book was burnt, but this is not sufficient to conclude, that Transubstantiation, and the real Presence were established, in Terms which might offend Cerularius, and the Greeks, and give them occasion to form an Accusation against the Roman Church. Sober men are not wont to accuse People upon confused Reports, and equivocal Terms. And it will be to no purpose to say, we must not doubt, but that Leo's intention was, to assert the substantial Conversion, against Berengarius; seeing Lanfranc as∣sures us, that he himself having declared in full Council his Belief touching the Eucharist, in opposition to that of Berengarius, it was approved, and the other rejected as erroneous. For he that states an Opinion contradictory to that of Berengarius, does not necessarily assert Transubstantiation, there being several other ways and means of opposition. It concerns us not here to in∣form our selves from Lanfranc, what was the sence of the Synod, but whe∣ther what came to Cerularius his knowledge concerning that matter was suf∣ficient to make him say, those People established a real Conversion of Sub∣stances. Now to imagine, as Mr. Arnaud does, that a Patriarch which is at Constantinople, can make such a Judgment with Discretion, it will not be suf∣ficient to inform him of the intention and secret design of the Latins (altho even this is not to be supposed without Proof) but he must have before him the distinct and express Terms relating to this Affair, and this Mr. Arnaud cannot prove, seeing there is no such matter extant.

HE will say without doubt, that this is a very strange thing (for whatso∣ever falls not under his sence is strange) to affirm that a Pope and Council that intended to establish Transubstantiation in condemning Berengarius, yet have not done it in intelligible Terms. Neither will he forget to censure me here a little (as he is wont at every pinch) saying, I consider the matters I

write in a superficial view only, not penetrating into the bottom of things, and that occasions my falling into such idle fancies; that I multiply my may-be-so's; and am one of the boldest and fruitfullest men in the World, in Hypothesises and Systems. To which I have nothing to answer, but that in the Year, 1059. * 1.487 six years after the Synods held by Pope Leo, Nicholas the Second, condem∣ned likewise Berengarius, in another Synod held at Rome, and made him sign a Formulary of Abjuration, and that according to Lanfranc, they earnestly desir∣ed * 1.488 to establish the real Conversion of Substances in this Formulary; that Cardinal Humbert, who drew it up, did firmly believe this Doctrine, as Mr. Ar∣naud protests for him, and yet for all this, it was asserted only in ambiguous Terms, which might be expounded in a sence that does not at all contradict the Doctrine of the Greeks; seeing Berengarius himself turned them to his own ad∣vantage. And in effect, the Formulary bears, That the Bread and Wine are after * 1.489 Consecration, not only the Sacrament, but likewise the real Body and Blood of Je∣sus Christ; and are sensibly touched and broken by the Priest's hands, and chewed with the teeth of the Faithful; not only sacramentally, but really and in truth. It cannot be denied, but these words need a Commentary to make them signi∣fie Transubstantiation; seeing the natural sence of them is, that those very things which are Bread and Wine, are also the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; which is the Opinion of the Greeks, as I already shewed in thefore∣going Chapter. How comes it to pass, that what was done under Nicholas, was not done likewise under Leo, who preceded him; and wherefore were the Terms of Leo more expressive and determinative than those of the Pope that came after him? Is it the Custom in the Court of Rome to recede from, and diminish Doctrines? But howsoever, if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius his Silence, he must shew us, that Leo decided the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in such Terms, that the Patriarch of Constantinople could not, when he saw them, expound them in another sence. But to suppose this without proving it, is a mere Illusion.

SO far is Mr. Arnaud from shewing us that this formal decision was car∣ried to Cerularius, that he does not so much as undertake to inform us whe∣ther the Decrees of these Synods at Rome and Verseil (be they what they will) came to the hands of this Patriarch. He contents himself with say∣ing, That it had been already eighteen years since Berengarius his Heresie, be∣came * 1.490 famous in the World; that Dedowin the Bishop of Liege, and Adelman Bishop of Bresse testifie, that the report of it o'respread all Germany; and that there is no likelihood, but the Latins at Constantinople, and the Greeks in Italy were informed of it, and that a Patriarch should be ignorant of so famous an occurrence.

FIRST, he has forgot what his Friends observed in their Office, that Sigibert speaks not of the troubles Berengarius his Heresie raised, till 1051. which is to say, that his eighteen years must be reduced to two, even by his own Friends consent. And as to what he say's of Deadwin, 'tis true, his Let∣ter produced by Baronius under the name of Durand, has these Words, That there was a common report throughout all Germany, that Bruno Bishop of An∣gers and Berengarius renewed the Ancient Heresies, in teaching that the Body of Jesus Christ, was not so much a Body as a Shadow and a Figure; and that they annulled the Sacrament of Marriage, and that of Baptism of Infants. And this was it according to this good Bishop, which disturbed all Germany. As to Adelman he expresses himself more to the purpose, for he say's, the re∣port was, that Berengarius deviated from the Catholick Faith, touching the Body * 1.491

and Blood of our Lord; and to use the words of those that accused him, they said, he taught the Sacrament was not the real Body and Blood, but a Figure or resem∣blance of them. Does Mr. Arnaud believe, that these Reports, when they should come even to Cerularius his ears, were capable of making him take the Field in favour of Berengarius? On one hand they represented his Do∣ctrine in Terms very different from the usual expressions of the Greeks; which assert the Bread to be the real Body of Jesus Christ, and not a Figure, and on the other hand he had things laid to his charge, which were mere Fal∣sities and Calumnies. Why will he needs have a Patriarch that was always at Constantinople, and held little or no communication with the Latins; to know better what Berengarius did in France, than Dedowin Bishop of Liége; or Adelman, who had been Berengarius his School fellow, and who by this long acquaintance might have some interest in his Affairs? Why must it needs be that during these pretended eighteen years, Cerularius has been bet∣ter informed by his Spyes or Inquisitors, than the Pope by his? For it does not appear that the Court of Rome concerned themselves at the matter till 1053. which is as we observed the same year in which Cerularius wrote his Letter. Nay 'tis probable they had not so soon taken notice of it, had not an Ecclesiastick of Rheims brought along with him to Rome some Letters which Berengarius wrote to Lanfranc. If the Popes remained silent eighteen years, notwithstanding this great disturbance in the West, I see no reason why a Patriarch of Constantinople should be any more concerned. I could wish Mr. Arnaud would tell us, why since the year 1053. (to which Baronius refers the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman) Bennet the Ninth; Gregory the Sixth; Clement the Second; Damasus the Second, have taken no notice of so considerable a matter; and why Leo the Ninth concerned not himself in it, till the fifth year of his Popedom. All Italy was full of French and Dutch, France and Germany of Italians, and yet no body all this while could think of waking these sleepy Popes; and cautioning them against this damnable Heresie; which over∣threw the Faith of the whole Earth. Let him tell us, why the Patriarchs, that preceded Cerularius, or Cerularius himself reproached them not with this scandalous neglect: For if on one hand they believed Transubstantiation, as Mr. Arnaud supposes; and on the other, that there was nothing else al∣most talkt of in the West, and being so probable, that the Patriarchs of Con∣stantinople were informed of so famous an occurrence, how came they to be so mute in such an important Affair, and prodigious neglect of the Popes? Of this he must give us an account, before he can require a reason of us, for Cerularius his silence. But to speak plainly, Mr. Arnaud devises matters in his Closet, and having clothed them with all the rhetorical colours, wherewith the power of his invention can furnish him, he delivers them to us as the ex∣act Rules of humane Actions; without considering, that what he offers agrees no better with his own Hypothesis than ours. But be it as it will, he makes it not appear, that the Acts of the Synods at Rome and Verseil came to Ceru∣larius his hands, that he might make a right Judgment of them; and this is one of his illusions, for how can he expect we should satisfie him touching the Conduct of this Patriarch, if he does not before-hand shew us, that Cerulari∣us had all necessary information, to make a right Judgment concerning Be∣rengarius his Affair.

I answered the Author of the Perpetuity; That 'tis possible, Cerularius * 1.492 knew nothing of what passed in France under Leo the Ninth, touching Berenga∣rius; or if he did, the account given him might be very confused and imperfect. And that 'tis likewise possible, matters might be misrepresented to him; and Be∣rengarius

charged with that which was not his Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud to avoid the force of this Answer, turns it into ridicule. Mr. Claude, say's he, must make the best advantage he can of his may-be-so's. He thinks he has sufficiently acquitted himself by these three may-be so's, &c.. I am not troubled at Mr. Ar∣naud's diverting himself; but I am not willing the truth should suffer preju∣dice thereby. Had he been willing to examine seriously my Answer, he could not but find I meant, that the Argument drawn from Cerularius his Si∣lence, could not be conclusive, till these three things are shewed us; First, That he knew what passed in France; Secondly, That he had a more cer∣tain and distinct knowledge thereof, than a meer flying report could furnish him with; And Thirdly, That Berengarius his Doctrine was truly represented to him. In effect, if either of these three things be wanting, the Argument drawn from Cerularius his Silence is invalid. There was no great reason than for charging my Answer with Drollery, and affirming my Hypothesises to be fantastical, and that I use too often my priviledge of supposing. For thus does he shrowd the absurdity of his Answers under two or three lines of piti∣ful raillery. The matter concerns not my Suppositions; but those of the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity. For this Author's Argument is grounded on these three Suppositions, already mentioned; not one of which he either does, or can prove: 'Tis he then and Mr. Arnaud that argue on groundless imagina∣tions. Whence have they this priviledge of establishing their Arguments on uncertain matters of fact, or what can hinder me from calling their unproved Suppositions meer may-be-so's? I have not used this expression, but seeing Mr. Arnaud imputes it to me, I see no ill conveniency in adopting it; may be then Cerularius knew nothing of what past in Berengarius his Affair; may be he had only a general and confused account of it; it may be Berengarius his Doctrine was misrepresented to him. When Mr. Arnaud shall put these three may be's out of doubt, he shall see what answer we will make him, but till then I shall have reason to say, that his Proof is grounded on chimerical Suppositions.

BUT, say's he, the Question being once opened, there could be no mistake a∣bout it. For every one knew the Catholicks held the real Body of Christ, was pre∣sent in the Eucharist; and that Berenger denied this. First, the Question was so little known, that it came not to the ears of four following Popes, or at least they pretended not to have heard of it. Moreover, granting it to be as publickly known as he pretends it was, yet People might be as well deceived in Italy and Constantinople, as at Liége; where Dedowin was grosly mistaken. In the third place, who told him, 'twas then held, that Christ's real Body was present in the Eucharist, and not rather that the Bread of the Eucharist was Christ's real Body? This was the Language of Nicholas, and his Bishops six years after; why was it not likewise that of Leo and his Church. 'Tis not likely Mr. Arnaud should know better the Style of those times, than the Ro∣man Church her self, assembled in full Council, in the year 1059. Every one, say's he, know. It seems to hear him thus speak, as if this particular had been proclaimed in every corner of the Streets, and was the common matter of Entertainment; all other business over the whole World being suspended and laid aside; and only that of Berengarius his contest attended to. Mr. Arnaud falls into the same humour, as those that have Quarrels or Law-Suits; for they thinking of nothing else both Day and Night; it seems to them, that others are concerned in like manner as they. His mind at present is so taken up with the Thoughts of Transubstantiation, the real Pre∣sence, and Berengarius his Controversie; that he imagines both East and West

were in the same manner affected with it then, and that the Ecchoes of it were heard throughout the whole World. But this is a meer fancy. There is in the World almost an infinite number of little Worlds (if I may so say) which divide and multiply themselves according to the number and diffe∣rence of Professions and Interests. Every Affair makes a noise in its Circle; yet there are scarcely any but Historians, and some curious People, that inform themselves in each particular circumstance of Affairs, wherein they are not personally concerned; and yet they are often deceived in these Matters. I confess indeed Matters of Religion, are usually more publickly known than other things; but besides that they require time for this, it is moreover cer∣tain that these reports have their bounds in respect of places, and that some∣times they shall make a great noise in one Country, and yet be little or not at all heard of in another. We may presume this Affair of Berengarius was of this number; for after the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman, there passed eighteen years; as we have seen, without any mention of it in the Court of Rome; neither is there, as I know of, any Greek Author that takes notice of it. If, what Mr. Arnaud supposes touching this great report, which passed over from Italy to Greece, was true, the silence of all the Greek Authors would be every whit as astonishing as that of Cerularius. For why should not they mention it, being as much interessed as the Latins in Berengarius his Condemnation; supposing they believed Transubstantiation? Why did they not complain of the Church of Rome's so long bearing with him, or do the said Church so much right as to commend it for suppressing him? Peter the Patriarch of Antioch held at that time a correspondence with the then Pope, he wrote to him, and desended the Latins against the reproach∣es of the Greeks, as appears by his Letter to Cerularius; yet mentions not a word of this Condemnation, altho this offered it self very pertinently to shew the care the Church of Rome took to preserve Orthodoxy, and stifle Heresies, supposing the Eastern People believed Transubstantiation.

MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Business, be∣takes himself to another Artifice. It concerns us not to know, say's he, whe∣ther * 1.493 Cerularius, and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Con∣demnation. Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument, But, whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Eucharist, which was then by the Calvinists own Confession most clear, distinct, and determinate for the real Presence. But let the Matter concern what it will, his Proof will be never the better. But instead of saying, for the real Presence, he should say, for Transubstantiation; for our Question touching the Greeks, being only on this Point, if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida's silence, he must establish that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief. There is a great deal of ambiguity in these Terms of real Presence; the Greeks do, and do not believe it, they believe as we already observed, a real Presence of Virtue, but not areal Presence of Substance. And even we our selves, who deny the real Presence Mr. Arnaud means, profess to believe another, which we hold not only for real, but a thousand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends. If then he designed to explain himself clearly and to the purpose, he must say, that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and distinctly for Transub∣stantiation.

BUT 'tis not enough to say so, it must be proved, for endless and imper∣tinent Stories will never satisfie our Reason. He tells us, that Cerularius

having sent his Letter, caused the Latin Churches at Constantinople to be shut * 1.494 up, and took away from the Latin Abbots, and other Religious Persons their Mo∣nasteries. That in the following year, Pope Leo sent Cardinal Humbert, and the Bishop of Blanche Selve, and the Archbishop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Constantinople, with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch. Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us.

HE adds, That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue, and amongst the rest, that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity, the real and individual Body of Christ. There are so many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation, that a man scarce knows where to begin to refute it. Were his Translation as it should be, it would appear these words do not so clearly assert Transubstantiation, as to give Cerularius an occa∣sion to reproach the Latins with it. For may we not understand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Christ, in as much as he has not two Bodies, but one, only? in the same sence Saint Chrysostom say's, that * 1.495 although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body, Yet do we not say, that the Son of God has two Bo∣dies, but one. And in the same sence Damascen say's, also, That when the Bread * 1.496 and Wine pass into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood, it becomes not two Bodies but one. Moreover Humbert say's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him say, viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body, his words are, Corpus Singulare, the Singular Body, that is to say, the Body which singly and only belongs to Jesus Christ, and not to the Father and Holy Spirit; and there is so great blindness, or rather unfaithfulness in this Translation, that I cannot suppose it to be Mr. Arnaud's. He has published it without doubt from the Collection of some of his Friends, and not from Humbert's Text; For how great soever his prejudice may be; I do not believe he would ven∣ture his reputation for so small an advantage as might be expected from this false Translation. Observe here what Humbert say's, The Azyme being thus prepared, is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity, the real and single Body of Christ. Not as the Theopaschites would have it, the Body of the Fa∣ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. Which it seems you believe likewise, seeing you say the Azyme does not participate of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit▪ as the Leavened Bread does. Leave this wicked Opinion, unless you will be condemned with the Theopaschites. In the Commemoration of our Lord's Passion, the Ho∣ly and Impassible Trinity has nothing in common except the single Consecration, wherein all the Persons co-operate: For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this visible Sacrament, the Apostle saying, every time ye cat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shew the Lord's death till he comes. Our Lord himself in this particular Commemoration, delivering the Bread to his Disciples, said to em, this is my Body which was given for you. Mine, say's he, which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, I who am the Wisdom of the Father, have built as a Temple in 46 days, in the Womb of the unspotted Virgin. It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Christi, which is to say, the Body which the second Person only assumed, and not the Father, nor Holy Spirit. To make of this the individual Body of Jesus Christ, to conclude from thence Transubstantiation, is so gross and ridiculous a mistake, that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings; in the humour he seems to be of, he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter. I shall only advise him to take more care another time; and not labour so confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories. This first Passage is attended by another almost of the same kind. He say's, say's he,

that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth, that is to say, the Body of Christ, made of an Azyme, and in the Azymes, taste with their Mouths and Heart how sweet the Lord is. This, adds he, is clear enough, and a man must be very dull, not to understand this Language. I confess I am not quicker of apprehension than another, yet I understand very well Humbert's Discourse without Transubstantia∣tion. We say, say's he, that the Azyme of the Christians is very different from that of the carnal Jews, who observed and pursued the shadow of Truth, invited hereunto by the promise, and desire of a Terrestial Felicity, such as a long Life, Riches, a numerous Off-spring, and such like things. But as to us, honouring and retaining the Body of Truth, which is of the Azyme, and in the Azyme we taste with our mouths and heart, how sweet the Lord is, desiring of him no more, but that he may dwell in us, and we in him eternally. Is not this to deride People, to alledge such a Passage as this, whereby to establish Transubstantiation, and that so clearly too, that Cerularius ought to reproach the Latins with it? Had Mr. Arnaud minded, he might have comprehended that this Body of Truth, is nothing else but the Truth it self, which is called the Body in opposition to the Shadow of the Jews, that it is of the Azyme, and in the Azyme, because the Azyme is the Mystery of it, that in partaking of it with our mouths and hearts, we taste the sweetness of the Lord, because his Grace thereby is commu∣nicated to us, and that in fine this Truth, of which he speaks, is our Spiritual Communion with Christ; as he explains it himself, in saying, that he dwells in us, and we in him, in opposition to the Terrestial Felicity, which the Jews expected in the participation of their Azyme.

MR. Arnaud adds that Humbert believed Transubstantiation; but it con∣cerns us not to know whether he did believe it or not; but whether he did sufficiently explain it to the Greeks, whereby to move Cerularius to make it the head of an Accusation against the Roman Church.

THE Pope's Legats, say's he, excommunicated the Patriarch, and departed from Constantinople: I agree with him in this; The Patriarch would have them return to the end they might be torn in pieces by the People. This may be. He stirred up a Sedition against the Emperor that upheld them. I grant it. They sent the Emperor a true Copy of the Excommunication they had read, in which they say, that as to the Pillars of the Empire, and its Honourable and Sage Citizens, they were most Christian and Orthodox. All this concludes nothing. They blame not Cerularius in any sort touching the Eucharist; which shews they had not the least thought that Cerularius differed from them in his Opinion about this Mystery. Why must they blame him touching this Point, when both the Greeks and Latins at that time, used the same Expressions? Cerularius, say's he, afterwards, giving way to his Passion, wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch to animate him against the Latins; and makes no mention of their Belief touching the Eucharist. I believe it. But this still concludes nothing, unless it be shewed that Transubstantiation was then established in the Romane Church. This is the Point that ought to be proved, without any more words. For all these Narrations serve only to inform us, in what perplexity Mr. Arnaud finds himself to make out his first Proof. He carries his Readers backwards and forwards, from East to West, and from West to East again: when the Question concerns the Opinion of the Greeks, he goes to seek it at Rome, a∣mongst the Latins: and when touching the Opinion of the Latins, he goes to seek it at Antioch and Constantinople amongst the Greeks; and all this a∣mounts to nothing at last, but mere Delusion; for it proves nothing. Was ever such Confusion beheld in the entrance of a Controversie, and especially considering the noise there has been about it?

BUT it will be perhaps said; How can we deny that Transubstantiati∣on was established, and commonly held by the Church of Rome in Leo's time; that is to say, about the middle of the Eleventh Century? I answer, we can be no otherwise informed, than by the Expressions of the Council held under Nicholas II. which I already related, and which contain not Transubstantiation. I believe there were then several particular Persons that believed it; and took this way whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Christ; but howsoever the Roman Church had not yet declared her self otherwise than in general Terms; which could not offend either Cerularius, or his Greeks.

THIS is then another of Mr. Arnaud's Artifices, to perswade us as he would do, that he is not, moreover obliged to prove, the Greeks believed Transubstantiation, and that 'tis sufficient to shew, that all the Patriarchal Churches were linkt in Communion with the Roman, when she condemned Be∣rengarius; and were not parted asunder upon this occasion; This, I say, is a gross Delusion, for not to mention here, that the Rupture was already made before the time of Berengarius his first Condemnation, or at least be∣fore his Condemnation could be known in the Patriarchal Churches, as ap∣pears by what I alledged in the beginning of this Chapter, we must further observe, that of all those Condemnations (which the Authors of the Office make to amount to Eight) there is never a one, but the last (which was made by Gregory VII. in the Year 1079.) which can be said to establish express∣ly, Transubstantiation; so that the Separation of the Greeks being made since the Year 1053. that is to say, Twenty six Years before, this Presumption (which Mr. Arnaud say's, is clearly on the side of the Roman Church) is void and fantastical, and cannot acquit him from giving us that Proof which we require of him.

CHAP. II.

Mr. Arnaud's Second Proof, taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus, examined. His Third Proof from the Testimony of Lanfranc, and Silence of the Berengarians examined. The rest of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions considered.

MR. Arnaud's Second Proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dis∣pute with Nicetas Pectoratus, consists of Delusions as well as the former. He immediately tells us, this Dispute, does invin∣cibly * 1.497 prove these Four Points. 1. That the Roman Church held at that time the Doctrine of the real Presence and Transubstantiation. 2. That this Doctrine was declared to the Greeks in such a manner, that they could not be ignorant of it. 3. That Cardinal Humbert positively believed the Greeks held the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation. 4. That the Greeks did in effect believe this Doctrine, and elearly expressed the same. But

having thus distinguished these Four Propositions, and assured us they are the plain result of Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas, his first Delusion consists in leaving them, and expressly proving neither of 'em. He contents him∣self with alledging to us a Passage of Humbert's, wherein there is not the least mention of the Conversions of Substances, nor so much as one Clause, but what is expressed in such Terms as may be well understood without Tran∣substantiation. Which will plainly appear, if we take the pains to read over again this Passage, as Mr. Arnaud has produced it, in the Sixth Chapter of his Second Book.

I confess, he endeavours to infer it thence by way of Consequence, Be∣cause, say's he, that Humbert, denying as he does, that the Eucharist is digested, * 1.498 and breaks the Ecclesiastical Fast, he can therefore acknowledge no other Substance, but that of Christ's Body.

BUT, besides that, this is not clearly to prove the Church of Rome then believed Transubstantiation, and that her Belief on this Point was declared to the Greeks in such a manner, that they could not be ignorant of it, but must perceive it to be the Consequence of Humbert's Terms, seeing on one hand we may still doubt whether Humbert spake his own Sence, or that of the Church which sent him, and so much the more, because Mr. Arnaud acknow∣ledges this Cardinal was very hot in this Dispute, and on the other, 'tis very uncertain whether the Greeks went so far as this Consequence. Besides this, I say, the Consequence it self is neither demonstrative nor unavoidable; for it does not follow from a mans denying the Eucharist is digested, and breaks ones Fast, that he acknowledges no other Substance than that of the Body of Christ. He may believe, the Substance of Bread becomes incorruptible as soon as 'tis in the Stomach, and that it passes immediately without Digestion into our Substance, according to the Opinion of Damascen, Zonaras, and al∣most all the Eastern Churches, as we shall see hereafter. For in Humbert's sence, all Food that breaks our Fast is digested, and passes into Excrements, as the common nourishments do. Whence I conclude that Mr. Arnaud de∣ceives us, when he say's, this Dispute does invincibly prove the Roman Church then believed Transubstantiation, and that her Belief was sufficient∣ly made known to the Greeks; for neither one nor the other of these do hence necessarily follow.

NEITHER can it be thence concluded she believed the real Presence, I mean this local and physical Presence of the proper Substance of the natu∣ral Body of Jesus Christ, as she does believe it at this day, nor that Humbert thought the Greeks believed it, and this Mr. Arnaud's last Consequence is moreover found defective, altho this is not the Point in question betwixt us. For supposing the Bread remaining Bread, becomes the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body, being united to the Divinity, and re∣ceiving by the Holy Spirit the impression of the inlivening virtue, which is Jesus Christ, according to the Sentiment of the Greeks, Humbert might (without being thought senceless or extravagant) tell Nicetas that in teaching the Eucharist breaks our fast, he exposed the Body of Jesus Christ to the con∣dition of common Food. For altho on this Hypothesis, the Bread is not the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance, yet is it his Body in such a manner, that seems to exempt it from the quality of other Food; which is sufficient to occasion Humbert's Reproach, and render ineffectual all these little Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud.

I replied, in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that this Dispute of Humbert * 1.499 and Nicetas furnished us wherewith to shew that, the Greeks did not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins, forasmuch as Nicetas maintains there∣in that, the Eucharist breaks our Fast; which supposes it conserves its first na∣ture of corporeal Aliment, and that, he believed it descends into the Stomach like other Food, which moreover shews, he held it still for real Bread. I strengthened this Proposition by the Testimony of Humbert, Algerus, and Cellot the Jesuit. I added likewise that Durand Abbot of Troarn, tells us, that those heretofore called Stercoranists were the Berengarians, which is to say, those held the Bread keeps its first nature, and I confirmed my Proof by several weighty Considerations, as that it was not to be imagined men that were Christians would expose the proper Substance of the Son of God to these Accidents of Corporeal Food, that this Opinion would be inconsistent with that State of Glory, wherein we all believe it to be, as also with that Sacramental State wherein 'tis made to be in the Eucharist.

MR. Arnaud finding he could not establish his own Proof, applies him∣self to the refuting of mine, and immediately making use of his Priviledge, he singles out what he pleases, and leaves the rest. He takes no notice of Cellot the Jesuit's Testimony, for what reason he best knows. He passes o∣ver in silence what I said touching the State of Glory, wherein the Son of God now is, and so likewise what I mentioned concerning his Sacramental State. And from the remaining part of my Proof he is pleased to make this Argument. The Greeks are Stercoranists according to Humbert and Al∣gerus. The Stercoranists are Berengarians according to Durand. The Greeks * 1.500 then are Berengarians. But seeing my Proof is to be modelled, I crave leave to take it out of his hands, and state it my self. Observe here then how I reasoned. Those that believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast, and give cause to charge them with Stercoranism, hold the Substance of Bread remains. But the Greeks believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast, and yield occasion to accuse them of Stercoranism. They hold then the Substance of Bread remains. And thus do I reason; but by misfortune Mr. Arnaud can neither deny the major, minor, nor Conclusion of this Argument. He was constrained therefore to new mould it, and then knew not how to give it a direct Answer.

IT is true, say's he, that Humbert charges Nicetas with believing the Body * 1.501 of Christ was digested; but this is only as a Consequence of what he offered, touch∣ing the Eucharist's breaking our Fast, and not as a Doctrine which he expresly as∣serted. It is all one to me whether he attributes to him this Opinion, either as a Doctrine or a Consequence, either of 'em being sufficient to establish the solidity of my Proof. Mr. Arnaud may dispute this Point with Cellot or Algerus, it not lying upon me to prove it. When it should be true this Con∣sequence were not well drawn from the Principle which Nicetas lays down from the part of the Greeks, and that the Greeks might reply thereunto, there would be still enough in the Principle it self, to make my Conclusion just and necessary. For those that absolutely and sincerely believe the Eucha∣rist breaks our Fast, cannot but likewise believe that it nourishes after the manner of Food, which is to say, that it distributes it self through all the parts of our Body, being added to our Substance, and consequently that 'tis still real Bread. And it will be to no purposE to say, the Greeks might believe, That the troublesomeness of fasting is effectually eased thereby, and that we are re∣ally * 1.502 nourished, not with the Body of Christ, but by some other means known only to

God. For there being in the Eucharist only the Substance and Accidents, those that believe 'tis in Substance the proper Body of Christ, and yet affirm it nourishes, must attribute this nourishment either to the Body of Christ, or to the Accidents. As to the Body of Christ, it is absurd to affirm that a Substance which exists after the manner of an invisible and insensible Spirit, can nourish our Bodies, that is to say, augment the Substance of them. And as to the Accidents, besides the absurdity there is in supposing Accidents a∣lone nourish us, the Greeks know not what belongs to the existence of Acci∣dents without a Subject, which Mr. Arnaud himself grants, when he say's, they trouble not themselves with these Phylosophical Consequences. To affirm likewise, as Mr. Arnaud does, that the Greeks, perhaps only asserted the * 1.503 Eucharist broke our Fast, because they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice, did not belong to the Fast, and that they were permitted to eat after they had commu∣nicated, is a mere Evasion, which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity. For the Greeks accuse the Latins, not for their eating so soon after the Com∣munion in Lent, for this Accusation would be false and slanderous, seeing they know the contrary. But he accuses them in that they break their Fast, by receiving the Eucharist. Whence have you this Custom, say's Nicetas, to ce∣lebrate * 1.504 the Oblation of the Paschal Mass every day, even on the Holy days of fast∣ing, as well as on Saturday and Sunday? What Doctors thus taught you? Were they the Apostles? No; For the Apostles made a Canon, to this effect, that if a∣ny Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Reader, or Chanter, that is in health, fasts not, on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent, he ought to be degraded; Seeing then you celebrate Mass at nine of the Clock; which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered, how then keep you the Fast till three in the Afternoon, breaking it as you do, in the time of the Administration? You do not at all observe it, and therefore you are accursed. It is plainly seen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist, and that he means it breaks the Fast, for he say's they break it, in tempore ministrationis Missae. Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Eva∣sion, that the Greeks say the Eucharist breaks the Fast, only because they be∣lieve, the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Fast, and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion? This is, say's he, the conjecture of a very Learned man, who has taken the pains to read over this Trea∣tise. Is Mr. Arnaud so tired with his Work, and his time so mightily taken up, that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatise himself, for it requires no more? These Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures, and when a Person makes a Book which he designs to render famous throughout all Europe, in sending it to all the Courts in Christendom, it is absolutely requisite, not to trust all sorts of People. He say's in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope, that his Friends have laboured with him. In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Dissertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Case, and that of Bertram. More∣over, he tells us, he has desired some Persons to translate for him, that Pas∣sage of Herbert's, about which we have made such a noise, here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous. I am afraid some indiscreet Per∣son or other will judge hereupon, that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments. As for my part I do not thus judge, but I wish Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digested himself, what others have furnished him with, and not been like the Sea in this particular, which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers, communicates only to them its bryni∣ness.

HUMBERT never thought of giving any of these Sences, to the

Passage proposed to us out of Nicetas. He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Fast, either because they were permitted to eat immediately after, or because our Bodies receive the same impressions, and the same strength by receiving of the Eucharist, as by any other com∣mon Food. But he only understood they taught that the Eucharist does re∣ally nourish us, in the same manner, as other Food, which changes it self into our Substance, and 'tis thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoranism. Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouses, know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas, than Humbert who lived in that time, and was at Constan∣tinople with this Religious, Leo the Ninth, having affirmed the latins have the same Faith as the Greeks? Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occasion to in∣sult over me, and tells me, he will be judged by my self, Whether 'tis likely * 1.505 Leo that lived amongst the Greeks, did not know better than I their Opinion, who now come six hundred years after, assuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary, without any Proof or Testimony. And ten or twelve Pages further, he would perswade us, that Humbert, who was Contemporary with Nicetas, and in the same City with him, did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning; and that himself, Mr. Arnaud, and Mr. his Anonymous under∣stand it better than Humbert. Whence comes this partiality?

BUT, say's he, Nicetas asserts Transubstantiation, as fully as Humbert * 1.506 could do. Which we must examine. Those, say's Nicetas, who walk in the Light, eat the Bread of Grace, which is the Body of Christ; and drink his im∣maculate Blood. In the Bread, say's he, moreover, that is to say, in our Savi∣our's Body there are three living things, which give life to those that eat worthily thereof, to wit, the Spirit, the Water and Blood, according to that saying, there are three that bear witness, and these three are in one. He proves the Wa∣ter and Blood are in our Saviours Body, by the Water and Blood which gushed thence in his Crucifixion, and as to the Spirit, observe here what he say's; The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Flesh; and we eat this Flesh in the Bread, which is changed by his Holy Spirit, and made the Body of Jesus Christ. We live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh. Could Nicetas, adds Mr. Arnaud, more plainly shew his Opinion touching the Eucharist, and more posi∣tively exclude Mr. Claude's vain Conjectures?

AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is precise and posi∣tive. I answer, that by the Bread of Grace, Nicetas means the Bread of the New Testament, in opposition to the Azyme of the Law, and that his Sence is, that this Bread is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which the Azyme cannot be, which he proves. 1. Because the Azyme is not Bread till it re∣ceives the perfection of Leaven. 2. Because the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it; whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven, which is to it as it were Life and Soul; whence he concludes 'tis proper to become the Mystery of the Body of Christ, seeing there is in this Body three living things, the Spirit, the Water, and Blood, the Water and Blood, because they run down from his pierced side, and the Spirit, because his Flesh was ever joyned to his Divinity. Whence he inferrs, 'tis in the Bread; and not in the Azyme we eat this Flesh, and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit, and made Christ's Body, we live in him, by eat∣ing his living and deified Flesh. And this is Nicetas his reasoning, which I confess is a little odd; but howsoever, 'tis as I relate it, as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings, his drift being only to shew, that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life, which is in Jesus Christ,

it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body. He himself ex∣plains his own meaning in these Terms, Saint Peter, say's he, tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature, and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God. Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme, or the un∣leavened Bread of the Jews, a Divine Nature? and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice, and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ. How have you Communion with Jesus Christ, who is the living God? eating dead and un∣leavened Bread, which appertains to the shadow of the Law, and not the New Te∣stament. If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme, to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread, we shall find his aim is only to shew, that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ, and to become the Figure and Representation of it, th'other on the contrary to be most proper. 1. Because 'tis Bread, which th'other is not. 2. Be∣cause 'tis in some sort living, whereas th'other is dead. 3. Because it re∣spects Grace, and the New Testament, whereas the other respects the Jews, and Shadow of the Law, there is not one word in all this that savours Tran∣substantiation. It appears on the contrary, that he takes for one and the same thing, to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature, have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist, and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ.

BUT we have had enough of this Illusion, let us then pass on to the nine∣teenth, which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc, whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation. What can, (say's he,) Mr. * 1.507 Claude say to this Witness, who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist? I may truly say, that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned; and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate, he was interressed to suppose, that all the World was on his side, and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony. I may also affirm Mr. Ar∣naud's word signifies nothing without Proof, altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's. I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabu∣lous History (touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time, and Pope Celestin's) and to make thereof a good Proof. Whether through Ignorance, or want of Sincerity, I know not, but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony, who has so grossly deceived us. He was, say's Mr. * 1.508 Arnaud, an Italian by Nation, where there was a great many Greeks. Italy cer∣tainly would be a very happy Country, if it produced none but faithful Wit∣nesses. Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there, what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversi∣on, he would have told us so himself, and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses. It appears, adds he, by his way of writing, that he was a Person worthy of Credit. It appears by his Writings, that he was a passionate man, and extreamly car∣ried away with vain glory, which are not the best marks of Sincerity. But after all this, I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimo∣ny. For Lanfranc only say's, that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sa∣crament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ, which he took of the Virgin. That this is the Faith of the Greeks, Armenians, and all the rest of the Christian World. Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks, which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body; and that it must not be said, he has two Bodies, but one alone. Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression, namely, that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition, as the Food we eat becomes our Body, which is very different from Transubstantiation.

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable. I answer, this is another of his wilful mi∣stakes. For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opi∣nion, never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances? We have scarcely any of their Writings, we have no more of their Argu∣ments and Answers, than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us. It is true that Lanfranc say's, when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures, and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church, they answered the Church had erred, and all its Members perished, except themselves. But it does not hence follow, that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation. They might say the Church had erred, and was perished from the Face of the Earth, meaning the Western Church. They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation. And then again, who can as∣sure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject?

IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius, and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes. Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange, that People who were every where persecuted, and afflicted, and had e∣nough to do to preserve themselves, should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks? Berengarius, say's he, was thrice at Rome, and had opportunity to * 1.509 inform himself, and we need not doubt but 'twas one of his principal cares. Why not doubt of it? Because Mr: Arnaud say's so? Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word, will still doubt of it: For he is not infalli∣ble, and I my self am one of those that doubt of it, till he proves it. The In∣terest * 1.510 of his Cause, adds he, speaking of me, is so prevalent in him, that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments, what were those of his fol∣lowers. I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life, and Mr. Arnaud does me right here; But yet 'tis certain, that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer, I should not much trou∣ble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks; for the discovery of Truth, which ought to be the aim of us all, does not depend on what the Greeks do, or do not believe, and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition, had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle.

BERENGARIUS had the Word of God, which was enough, they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have this. But supposing his curiosity had moved him to inquire after the Sentiments of the Greeks, I know not whether he was in a capacity to satisfie himself. For as far as I un∣derstand, he was a Person that gave all he had to the Poor. I no where find he was one of those that had great mens purses at command. And living as he did in the Eleventh Century, wherein there were no other Books than what were Manuscripts (the Art of Printing not being then found out) nei∣ther I suppose so free a Commerce betwixt Constantinople and Angers, as at present; and having moreover neither Consuls nor Emissaries his Friends to help him in that Country, he may be well excused if he did not exactly know their Doctrine.

BUT in fine, supposing, Berengarius and his Followers, were not igno∣rant of the true Opinion of the Greek Church, where lies the necessity, that they ought to make this an Argument whereby to defend themselves, seeing

'twas never yet pretended that the Opinion of the Greeks was the same with that of Berengarius.

CHAP. III.

Mr. Arnaud's Twenty first Illusion, is, his charging me with maintaining the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation. His Twenty second, consists in offering the Formulary of the Re-union proposed to the Greeks by the Latins. Twenty third, in that he produces the Passages of Latiniz'd Greeks. Twenty fourth, in alledging supposed Authors, or at least doubtful and justly suspected ones. The Twenty fifth, is his producing the Testimonies of several false Greeks link't to the Interests of the Latine Church.

HAD Mr. Arnaud left out of his Dispute, touching the Greeks, the Illusions I already observed (as it was very reasonable he should) he would have suppressed several whole Chapters, and abridged others, and by this means, we should not have had such just cause to complain of his prolixity. And we should have had yet less, had he been pleased to retrench all that he has written to prove, the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Latins, in reference to Transubstantiation. This is the most reasonable thing in the World, for his charging me with at∣tributing to them this ignorance, and the whole Sequel of his Histories, Ar∣guments, and Reflections, whereby to shew the absurdity of this Supposition, all this I say is but a meer Illusion. I never pretended the Greeks knew not what the Latins held on this Article; and he that shall read with a little more Equity than Mr. Arnaud has done, what I wrote in my Answer to the Perpetuity, will find, that I have been so far from asserting this Proposition, that I have on the contrary, in several places, supposed they knew it. The Author of the Perpetuity having told me the Greeks and Latins lived together in several places, and yet 'twas never known, there was any Dispute raised amongst them on this Point; I answered, that the Greeks content themselves with their own Belief, without making it a matter of contest with Strangers. Now this Answer supposes, that they are not ignorant of what the Latins hold. I likewise mentioned upon this account a Passage of Phaebadius, who tells us, that an humble Conscience contents it self with keeping its own Opinion, and sup∣poses 'tis better to preserve its own Faith, than to trouble it self with examining the Belief of Strangers, which also supposes they knew the Opinion of the Ro∣man Church, but did not trouble themselves about it. This Author alledging afterwards the Re-union of the two Churches made in the Council of Flo∣rence, I expressly acknowledged, that the Greeks seem, to have tacitly suffered the Transubstantiation of the Latins, which does still moreover suppose, they were not ignorant of it, for men are not ignorant of what they tolerate. The same Author producing the Answer of the Greeks of Venice, to the Car∣dinal de Guise's Questions; I said, that 'twas an Answer contrived on purpose

not to provoke Strangers; ever supposing, as 'tis evident, that they well knew the Doctrine of the Latins.

WHAT could then induce Mr. Arnaud to charge me with a thing I ne∣ver so much as imagined, and the contrary of which appears throughout all the Sequel of my Discourse? The Author of the Perpetuity, told us, that * 1.511 Breerwood, who wrote a Book touching the diversity of Religions; and exactly denotes all things in which he pretends they differ from the Church of Rome, yet dared not affirm, the Greek Church differed from the Latine in the Point of Tran∣substantiation. That he neither does pretend it of the Assyrians, or Melchites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Eutychites, Copticks, Egyptians, nor Abyssins, but on∣ly * 1.512 Armenians. These are his Words, and this my Answer, As to other Churches, the Author of the Perpetuity alledges only the Silence of Breerwood, in a Treatise he wrote of Religions, wherein he does not observe, that either the Greeks, Assyrians, Melchites, Nestorians, Jacobites, Eutychites, Copticks, E∣gyptians, nor Abyssins, do differ from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the Point of Transubstantiation. But certainly our Author is very bare of Proofs, that he must have recourse to the Silence of a man that transiently observes the most noted Differences of Religions, contenting himself with saying, what Points such a People hold, or positively reject, without proceeding to things which they do not believe by way of Negation, as not having heard of them.

THESE last Words, as not having heard of them, have it seems given occasion to all this coyl. But first, Mr. Arnaud may consider, if he pleases, that my Answer refers to other Communions, which are called Schismaticks, and that the Greeks are mentioned only accidentally and occasionally. Which appears from my own Expressions, for having seperately handled what con∣cerns the Greeks, passing to another Subject, I immediately add, As to what concerns People of other Communions, the Author alledges to us only, &c. Whence it is evident, that my intention respects only those other Communi∣ons, that I name the Greeks only, because they are comprehended amongst the rest in the Author of the Perpetuitie's Objection; but yet my Answer primarily respects only the other People. If it be said, that the Objection including the Greeks amongst the rest, my Answer must include them also; that in effect it is general, and that otherwise I should have left the Objection relating to the Greeks, without an Answer. I reply to this, that my Answer cannot be extended beyond the other Schismatical Communions, to the pre∣judice of my own expressions, which restrain and determinate it. A man would think People might be so just, as not to charge Persons with those things which are contrary to their express Declarations. Mr. Arnaud might accuse me for leaving the Objection drawn from the Silence of Breerwood, in relation to the Greeks without an Answer. He might have brought it again into the Dispute, if he would, but he could not apply my Words to the Greeks, seeing I mentioned them in reference to the other Communions, in opposition to the Greeks, of whom I came from treating. What I said before, and what I said even there touching the other Communions, sufficiently shewed what might be answered in this respect to the Objection taken out of Breer∣wood, it not being necessary to make thereof a particular Article, nor to com∣prehend them amongst the rest. I confess the sence of my Answer in gene∣ral may be extended as far as the Greeks, in observing the differences of them with other People, but to apply them to even the very least of my Terms, and make the World believe that 'twas of them I spake, is that which Justice and Equity cannot suffer, having positively said, as I have done, that I spake of other Communions.

BUT supposing my Answer was to be understood of the Greeks them∣selves; could not Mr. Arnaud understand, that I spake of People in general, and not of particular Persons, and meant that the Doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation has made no noise amongst the People; that their Pastors, never proposed it to 'em in order to its being received by them, nor declaimed a∣gainst it, to make them reject it; and in a word, that they never made of it an Article of Faith, nor Controversie. My Sence appears by the bare reading of my Answer. Breerwood, said I, has only transiently observed the common differences of Religions, contenting himself with telling us what People imbrace, or what they positively reject, without proceeding to the things they do not believe by way of Negation, as not having heard speak of them. It is clear I distinguish three sorts of Points, some which these People profess positively to believe, others which they profess likewise positively to reject, and the third which they do not believe, or expresly reject. 'Tis in this third Rank, I put Tran∣substantiation in respect of them. They never heard of it, as a Point they ought to believe, or an Errour they ought positively to reject. They meet not with it either amongst the Articles their Religion teaches, nor amongst those which it opposes, and expresly condemns. And this is what I call in respect of this People, the not believing a thing by way of Negation, as not having heard speak of it. I ought not for this to be charged with an abso∣lute denial, that the Greeks never heard the Latins believed Transubstantia∣tion, for there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two things. I speak of People in general, and not of particular Persons, and I speak moreover of Points which are not found either amongst the Articles, which are to be be∣lieved, nor amongst those that are actually to be rejected; and not of those concerning which we may be historically informed that other People hold them.

LET any man judge then of Mr. Arnaud's Character, and with what kind of Person I am concerned. Besides what I come from observing, we shall immediately see how he abuses what I said, touching the Halcyon days of the Church. He catches at the least expressions, and if he can turn any of 'em into a counter sence, he makes thereof a matter of Triumph. This proceeding seems wholly unworthy a Person of his Reputation. Had he designed to inrich himself with the Spoyls of Allatius and Raynaldus, and to transcribe as he has done their Histories, could not he find a juster occasion than this to introduce them into his Volum? Or if he could find no better, must the love he has to Stories, and the pleasure he takes in imposing on us, prevail over his Conscience, which forbids him to charge me with a false meaning, with a Sence (as is apparent) I never had, and which has no relation to the Sequel of my Discourse.

AND yet 'tis on no better Grounds than these, that he makes me draw Systems and build Machines; that he makes general Divisions of the World, assembles Councils, sends out Ambassadours, transports Armies, fills Jerusa∣lem with Pilgrims, preaches Croisado's, and conquers the Holy Land, Con∣stantinople and the Grecian Empire; that he fills the East with Bishops, Ab∣bots, Religious, and Latin Inquisitors; that he introduces Princes, Kings, Em∣perours, and Popes, and sets on foot Negotiations, makes Treaties of Peace, and Re-union between the two Churches; and all this to prove the Greeks were not ignorant the Latins held Transubstantiation, which is to say, to prove a thing I never denied. Who could think that all this costly and state∣ly

Pageantry should be carried about to so little purpose; and all these great Figures be put upon their motion without any necessity, to con∣vince us of a thing we never denied? Yet is it true that 'twas only a false equivocation that has occasioned all this preparation and bustle, an equivoca∣tion, which had he but been pleased to consult me about for a fuller meaning of it (supposing there were need of it) I could have saved him all this trou∣ble of Translating Allatius and Raynaldus, and several other Passages from the Greek of Pachimerus and Anne Comnenus.

I would have told him I never intended to deny, but 'tis possible the Greeks knew what was the Opinion of the Latins concerning the Substantial Conversion. But withal, that since the Eleventh Century to this present, this Nation has been so prodigiously ignorant and careless in matters of Re∣ligion, and so perplexed with their Temporal Affairs, that 'twould be no Paradox to affirm the greatest part amongst them knew little of what the Latins believe in this particular, seeing 'tis certain they scarcely know what they believe themselves. That which I asserted in the beginning of this Con∣troversie touching their ignorance, confirms what I say. But observe here moreover what Thomas à Jesu has written. The Greeks, say's he, since their * 1.513 Separation from the Catholick Church, are faln into a most desperate ignorance, which will more plainly appear, if we cast our eyes on the Ages which preceded the Separation, wherein Greece was the Mother of all Arts and Sciences. He after∣wards relates a Passage taken out of Bozius, in these Words. Since the Six∣teenth Century, when the Greek Church began to separate from us, there has scarce∣ly any Person been found amongst them, excelling in any Science: 'Tis certain Gre∣gory relates, that in the Emperour Andronicus his time (which is about 250 years since) there was not a Person in all Greece that was able to dispute with our People about Religion; and now there is not one that can be truly said to be in∣differently learned. If any amongst them desire to learn any thing, they must leave Constantinople, and come to the Colledge at Rome, which Gregory the Thirteenth built for the Greeks. All the Bishops amongst them are taken out of the Order of Monks, who have a Law amongst them to this effect, that all those that study Philosophy shall be excommunicated, as testifies Belon in the first Book of his Observations. Now there is nothing more useful to men for the finding of the Truth than solid Philosophy. And therefore, the Devil to keep the Greeks in this ignorance, has so ordered it, that the Bishops are still elected from amongst the Monks, and that moreover the Monks should lay this necessity upon them∣selves of being ignorant.

'TIS likely Persons in these Circumstances do not trouble themselves with Inquiries into the Opinions of the Latins touching the Mystery of the Eucharist; and in effect amongst all those that have written since the Ele∣venth Century to this present, (excepting the Latinizing Greeks) there will be found very few that mention the Belief of the Roman Church, touching the Conversion of Substances, which shews that they are not well instructed in it.

YET do not I believe this ignorance has been so Universal, but that there have been some from time to time, who sufficiently understood the Opinion of the Latins, and especially those that have had most Commerce with them; as for instance, such as negotiated the Re-unions, those that conferred with the Emissaries, and were Assessors at the Council of Florence, and such as were forced to live under the Jurisdiction of Latine Bishops. Mr. Arnaud

needed not trouble himself with proving this, for 'tis a thing we grant him.

SO that here are already several of Mr. Arnaud's Illsions, and yet we are not at the end of all those he has imposed on us, touching this single Article of the Greeks.

WE may moreover reckon into this number the perpetual Quotation of this Form of a Re-union, which was so often offered to the Greeks, and which the Greeks have sometimes received when they were at accord with the La∣tine Church. He tells us, that the Emperour Michael Paleologus his Deputies * 1.514 being arrived at the Council of Lyons, presented the Emperours Letters to the Pope, containing in express Terms the Confession of Faith, which was sent them by Clement the Fourth, and Gregory the Tenth, wherein Transubstantiation is ex∣pressly inserted in these Terms. Sacramentum Eucharistae ex Azymo conficit Ro∣mana Ecclesia, tenens & docens quod in ipso Sacramento, Panis verè transubstan∣tiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini Jesu Christi. He adds, that this Profession of Faith was sworn to on the Emperour's part by George Acro∣politus, and that the Legate of the Council of the Greeks presented likewise a Let∣ter to the Pope, as from the Metropolitain of Ephesus, and thirty Greek Bishops, and that he swore in their name, after the same manner the Ambassador had done to imbrace intirely the forementioned Confession of Faith, wherein Transubstanti∣ation was expressed. He tells us moreover, that in the Confession of Eaith, which * 1.515 John Veccus inserted in his Letters aswell in his own Name, as in the Name of the Greek Bishops, that Transubstantiation was expressly contained in it, altho occasionally upon account of the Azymes; credentes & nos ipsum Azymum panem in ipso Sacro Officio Eucharistae verè transubstantiari in Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, & Vi∣num in Sanguinem ejus per Sanctissimi Spiritus Virtutem & Operationem. That they likewise do believe the unleavened Bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. He afterwards observes, this Confession of the Greek Bishops was not ex∣pressed in the same Terms, as that which was sent thence by Clement the Fourth, and Gregory the Tenth; but that this difference has no after effect in respect of the Article of the Azymes, and that of Transubstantiation, but that 'tis expressed more plainly than in the Confession of Faith compiled by Clement.

SO that if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, we have here Transubstantiation formally received and acknowledged by the Greek Church. But all this is but a meer Delusion. This Confession of Faith in the Latin of Raynoldus, from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed whatsoever he has alledged concern∣ing it, has indeed these Words, Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vi∣num in Sanguinem, but as I alreay observed, in the Greek which Allatius cites * 1.516 touching the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus, there are these Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Changed, is not transubstantiated. I have already shown there is a great deal of difference between these two Terms. The Greeks hold that the Bread is changed into the Body, which is not the Point in question; but whether they believe 'tis transubstantiated. Mr. Arnaud was not ignorant of the difference between the Latine and Greek Copy of this Confession of Faith, for he has taken notice of it himself else∣where upon the Subject of the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus, and has no better defence for it, than saying, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, and the Transubstantiatur of the Latins are Synonimous Terms. Why did he not mention this difference in this place, and wherefore has he

grounded his Proof on the Latin Expressions? The Doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation, say's he, is expressly inserted in this Confession of Faith. I will shew Mr. Claude Transubstantiation solemnly approved by the Greek Church in the * 1.517 same manner as men approve things they ever believed, and of which they have not the least doubt. And a little after. And thus I obliged my self to shew him the Doctrine of Transubstantiation signed and sworn to by the Greeks. And this in∣deed he does shew us, if we only consider the Latin Text; but if we consult the Greek, we shall find quite another thing, than what he pretends. We shall find indeed the Latins do believe Transubstantiation, and endeavour to insinuate it amongst the Greeks; but we shall likewise find that the Greeks depart not from their general expressions. For to tell us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and transubstantiatur are Synonymous Terms, is what I deny, and have refuted already, and shall again refute in the following Discourse. This whole Proof which Mr Arnaud has been so earnest upon, reduces it self to a thing which we do not deny him, which is, that the Greeks hold the Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood. This Confession of Faith in∣forms us of no new thing, but that which I already acknowledged is to be found amongst the Greek Authors. Why then must this be made a matter of Triumph? It remains still to inquire whether they understand it of a change of Substance, which is our only Question. Moreover Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw advantage from John Veccus the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople's Letter in that the Confession of Faith contained therein is not expressed in the same Terms, as that sent by Clement and Gregory, which was signed and sworn to by the Emperours Ambassadour, and by the Greeks Le∣gat in the Council at Lyons, for it appears by reading this Letter, and com∣paring it with the Formulary of Clement and Gregory, that in respect of the Articles of Pennance, Purgatory, and the Sacraments, 'tis the same thing, and the same expressions, excepting some slight alterations which were ne∣cessarily made, either to make the Greek Church speak in its own name, or to reserve as they do the Custom of Confirmation by the Priests, or else moreover to apply to their leavened Bread, what is not said in the other, but only of the Azyme. But as to essential Terms, and those that respect the Doctrinal Part, they are absolutely the same, and we must make the same Judgment of them.

WE may likewise justly rank amongst the number of Mr. Arnaud's Illu∣sions the Testimonies of several latinizing Greeks, who left their Religion to embrace the Roman. He cites Passages out of Emanuel Calecas, concerning * 1.518 whom he say's himself, That he was of the Order of Fryar Preachers, and wrote four Books against the Errour of the Greeks touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. He quotes Cardinal Bessarion, and one Gregory, who both of 'em wrote against Marc of Ephesus in favour of the Latins to defend what passed in the Council of Florence. He alledges several Passages out of John Plusia∣denus, Gennadius, Scholarius, and a certain Religious man named Hilarion, all zealous Defenders of the same Council, all of 'em openly engaged in the Defence and Propogation of the Roman Doctrines. Every man sees that such kind of Persons as these are no more fit to decide our Question, than Thomas Aquinas would be, or the Trent Fathers, and that 'tis not fair to bring in such Persons for Witnesses in this Controversie.

MR. Arnaud will say without doubt he has alledged them only, because they reproached not the Greeks with their not believing Transubstantiation. But if he proposed to himself no other advantage, it was not necessary for

this to cite their Passages at length, as he has done, nor mark in great Cha∣racters the places wherein they assert the change of Substance, to dazle the Reader's Eyes. It were sufficient to rank these Authors in general amongst the Latins, and reduce the advantage he would draw from their Silence to this negative Argument, which we will examine in the sequel of this Discourse; which consists in that the Latins never accused the Greeks for their not be∣lieving the substantial Conversion. But howsoever it were a just thing to lay aside all these Passages, as absolutely fruitless and impertinent, and if there be any reflexion to be made on their Silence, it shall be taken notice of in its proper place.

NEITHER is it less just to retrench from this Dispute all doubtful Authors, which is to say, such concerning whom we have no assurance, whe∣ther the Works attributed to them are theirs, nor indeed whether there were ever any such Authors in the World. I put immediately in this Rank Samo∣nas the pretended Bishop of Gaza. Mr. Arnaud bestirs himself to prove con∣trary to Mr. Aubertin's Conjecture, that in the Thirteenth Century, which is to say, in the time wherein this Archbishop of Gaza is reckoned to have lived, there were Greek Bishops in Palestine. But he does not undertake to shew that Samonas was of this number, nor that any Person ever mentioned him. There are, say's he, five hundred Treatises of the Fathers, which must be rejected, if it were sufficient to respect them as Apochryphal, that they were not cited by others. His five hundred Treatises I grant; but there are not five hundred Fathers of whom no body ever made mention, and which are not named by others. When a name of an Author is unknown to Authors that lived in the same Age, and those that follow, this is certainly a sufficient rea∣son to make his Book suspected. Mr. Arnaud then needed not find it strange, if we place his Samonas in this order, till such time as he has more clearly proved his Authority. Supposing Mr. Aubertin was mistaken in his Conje∣cture, and that there were indeed Greek Bishops in Palestine, when the Sara∣cens possessed it, this does not conclude that Samonas was of this number, nor that his Dispute against Achmet was real. Mr. Arnaud's Custom is, that when he finds any trivial matter, altho of never so little importance to our Controversie, to stick at it, and use his utmost skill thereon, to the end, that under the favour of these vain Triumphs, he may conceal his weakness in Matters of greater moment. Which is what he has done in this occa∣sion; for seeing he could not give any colour to the Testimony of this Samo∣nas, he therefore falls upon Criticising; and heats himself to shew there were in the Thirteenth Century Greek Bishops in Palestine, under the Empire of the Saracens, and by this pretence would obtrude on us this Passage of Samonas.

WE may likewise reckon amongst this Rank of suspected Authors, One Agapius, whom Mr. Arnaud say's was a Monk of Mount Athos, from whom * 1.519 Mr. Arnaud has taken some Passages. I believe his Collections are true, and that he has faithfully translated them. But what assurance have we this was not a counterfeit Author? Mr. Arnaud tells us, that he lately met with this Book written in Vulgar Greek. This accidental meeting does already disgust me, as if 'twere meer chance that brought him acquainted with this Author. And yet we know well enough how careful those of the Roman Church are, to gather up these kind of pieces that are favourable to them; and which may serve them as well against the Greeks as Protestants, especially such as this, which expressly denotes Christ's Substance under the Accidents and Appear∣ances

of Bread and Wine. They could find nothing so emphatical in any o∣ther Author; how then comes it to pass they neglected this Agapius, and that in such a manner, that, Mr. Arnaud who has his Correspondents every where, in Italy, Greece, Sweedland, Moscovia, and Syria, yet should light of this Book on∣ly by Chance? He tells us this Book, was perhaps wrote during the time where∣in Cyrillus was Patriarch, for Cyrillus dyed but in the Year 1638, and this Re∣ligious's Book was Printed at Venice till 1641. If this be all that can be said in this Matter, every one will judge this is not sufficient to give Credit to a Book. The Printing Presses at Venice are no more free from Fraud and Fiction, than those of other Cities.

Tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri.

CYRILLUS his Confession, offended the Latins sufficiently enough to Oblige them to Oppose against him a Testimony so Express and Authentick as this is. Being an Author, a Religious of Mount Athos, of this Mount which accord∣ing to Mr. Arnaud is the Seminary of Religious for the whole East, and whose Faith he says, is that of all the Greek Churches, how then has it hapned they have so much slighted him, as not to produce him against Cyrillus: Caryophy∣lus wrote a Treatise on purpose to Refute this Patriarchs Confession; but he * 1.520 makes no mention therein of Agapius. Leo Allatius has outragiously used the same Patriarch in his Book, de Perpetua Consensione, and has not fail'd to de∣scribe at length the Councils of Cyrillus de Berrhaea, and Parthenius; but he mentions not a word of Agapius. The aforesaid Allatius wrote a Book against Dr. Creygton, wherein he indeavours to prove the Greeks believe Transub∣stantiation. He has made a Collection of whatsoever favours his Cause out of all Authors, whether Prints or Manuscripts. Mr. Arnaud knows it very well, seeing 'tis from thence he has taken his most specious Arguments; but he tells us not a Word of Agapius, which makes me justly Suspect, that 'tis the Work of some Imposture: But be it as it will, 'tis silly to Triumph with it, till 'tis proved Authentick.

IN fine, to clear the Dispute of all Impertinencies, and Illusions with which Mr. Arnaud has pestered it, we must retrench the Testimonies of the false Greeks, that is to say of those, who having bin brought up in Latin Semina∣ries, (and being in their Hearts Romanists) yet Live in the Communion of the Greek Schismatical Church, and even sometimes Possess the highest Dig∣nities. Gerganus Bishop of Arta in the Epistle before his Catechism complains * 1.521 very much against these sort of People. He says they are secret Enemies, outwardly seem to be Greeks, but are Latins in their Hearts, and Caryophi∣lus that relates this Complaint of Gerganus, agrees in this Particular. We have already seen by Report of the Jesuits themselves, that one of the chief∣est Employs of the Missionaries in the East, is to gain privately the Bishops and Priests, to make use of them upon Occasion, or insensibly to insinuate the Romish Faith into the Minds of the Greek Youth, under Pretence of teach∣ing them Languages and Philosophy, that by this means they may fill by de∣grees the Ecclesiastical Charges with their Creatures. We have already seen even by the Testimony of Allatius and Thomas a Jesu, that this is the Ad∣vantage received from the Seminary at Rome, wherein Greek Children are brought up in the Opinions and Maxims of the Roman Church, and from whence they are sent into their own Countries, to receive Orders from Schis∣matical Bishops, to the end they may be promoted to Bishopricks by the Schismatical Patriarchs, and carry on the Latin Interest under this false Pre∣tence.

I do not pretend to decide here the Question whether this way of Pro∣ceeding be justifiable or not, this being not my Business: Let every Man judg thereof as he pleases. But I Affirm, 'tis not possible for People to be more disingenuously dealt with, than we are by Mr. Arnaud, in making use of the Testimony of these Persons, whereby to decide the Question between us. If this be his way of Confounding Ministers, and Triumphing at their De∣feat, his Victories indeed will be easy, but his Triumph neither Honourable nor Just: Is it not a disingenuous Artifice thus to make use (as he hath done) of the Mystery of the Missions and Seminaries to blind the World, imagining his indirect Dealing will scape being taken Notice of.

AND thus does Mr. Arnaud gloriously retayl out to us the Testimony of Pay∣sius Ligaridius together with the Letters of Mr. de Pompone his Nephew. He first produces some Collections out of him, Translated into our Language, and in fine has Translated his Treatise into Latin, and inserted it in his 12th. Book. Would we know who this Paysius Ligaridius is, observe what Mr. Pom∣pone has writ of him in his Letter. He is a Greek, say's he, by Nation, and a Religious of the Order of St. Basil: He was sometime a Student at Rome and Pa∣doua, and being returned from thence to Constantinople, was made Archbishop of Gaza in Palestine. Mr. Pompone seems to make this Acknowledgment with some kind of Constraint. I the rather tell you, say's he, whatsoever I know of this Archbishop, because I do not doubt, but some Calvinists here, have given notice of this Treatise to Mr. Claude, and informed him he ought to be Suspected, seeing he was Educated at Rome, and went out Doctor at Padoua, so that he may think his Testimony ought to be rejected, being brought up in our Religion. Should we not have known then of Mr. Pompone, what kind of Man this Archbishop was, were it not for that he feared some Calvinists at Stockholm would give an Ac∣count of him to Claude the Minister? Alas, we are not beholding to him for his Account, for we can be informed elsewhere, by a Latiniz'd Greek at Ve∣nice, who goes under the Name of Signor Gradenigo; observe what he late∣ly Wrote concerning him. Paysius Ligaridius studied at Rome, and when he left that City, was a Zealous Defendor of the Latins, but I heard since he has publick∣ly abjured the Romish Religion, when made Metropolitain of Gaza.

TO give the World a more particular Character of this Person, and such as are like him, it will not be amiss to relate at large this Abjuration menti∣oned by Signor Gradenigo. Observe here then what Dr. Bazire an English Divine, (whose Testimony I have already Cited) wrote to me, who was pre∣sent at Jerusalem, when Paysius was made Archbishop of Gaza. In the Year 1646, say's he, during the Troubles in England, King Charles the first of Blessed Memory, sent me over from England to France, to his Son then Prince of Wales, my now gracious Sovereign Charles the Second, whom God grant long to Reign. After an abode of two Years in France, I resolved to make a long Voyage, and to visit all Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, which I did in five Years time. Be∣ing in the Year 1652 at Jerusalem in the Temple of the Sepulchre, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pray and behold the Holy Places, in Imitation of that Alex∣ander mentioned by Eusebius in the sixth Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Pay∣sius Ligaridius, came to me from the Patriarch of Constantinople, (whose Name likewise was Paysius,) to present me with a Cake, on which was described the whole History of our Saviour from his Annunciation to his Ascension, and in leaving me, Invited me to be present on the Morrow at his Spiritual Marriage; these were his Expressions, meaning his Installment into the Dignity of Metropolitain of Gaza. The next Day being the fourteenth of September 'twas performed, and I was pre∣sent

at the Ceremony. The Patriarch sat upon his Throne, which was hung with rich Turky Carpets, and under him sat the Metropolitains, and a little lower the Bishops, Archimandrites, &c. Whilst the Office was Celebrating, Ligaridius rehearsed a Confession of Faith, a Copy of which he afterwards gave me: Before his Consecration, he twice or thrice, trampled under his Feet a Picture which repre∣sented a City scituated on seven Hills, with a two headed Eagle, soaring over it: The Latins there present were extreamly offended thereat, for they knew well e∣nough this City represented Rome. After the Consecration was ended, I with∣drew into a publick House of Entertainment in the City, where the Latins usually resorted, where being at Dinner, I shared my Cake amongst the Company, giving part of it to the Popes Vicar, the Gray Fryers and Priest that dined with us, who kindly accepted it. But when I would have done the like to the Laity there pre∣sent, they refused it with the greatest Detestation, saying 'twas the Cake of that Schismatick Ligaridius, who even now trampled under his Feet the City and Church of Rome. After Dinner the Popes Vicar, who was a learned and honest Man, began a Discourse with me touching the Invocation of Saints, and especially of the Holy Virgin; and as I was about alledging to him a Passage out of St. Epipha∣nus, Ligaridius came in and interrupted our Discourse. He began immediately to desire the Company not to be offended at what he had done: his Excuse was plea∣sant, for he told us he thought of nothing less than the City of Rome in this Acti∣on, but by this Ceremony practised in the Greek Church, he meant the trampling under his Feet the Vanities of the World represented by this City, and the renounc∣ing of them; Yet this Excuse was not well taken by the Vicar, who was a wiser Man than to be content therewith. When he was gon, he told me that he was a notorious Hypocrite, and received an Annual Pension from the Pope, which he had paid him for several Years, but he should have it no longer for the future. And this is this Paysius Ligaridius, of whom I shall say no more, but leave the Reader to judg of the Validity of such a Mans Testimony.

ANY Man may likewise judg of the Writings of a certain Moldavian Gen∣tleman, called the Baron of Spartaris, whom Mr. Arnaud Cites together with Mr. Pompone his Nephews Letter. In which amongst other things there are these Expressions: He agrees in general with us in all things, excepting one Par∣ticular, namely the Procession of the Holy Ghost. He comes every Holyday to my House to Mass, and excepting the Creed wherein he forgets the Filioque, there is not a better Catholick in the World. Is not this the exact Character of one of those false Greeks already mentioned by us, who are Greeks with the Greeks, and Latins with the Latins? Who knows not that the Greeks, I mean the Re∣conciled ones, as they are called, differ from the Latins, not only in that they omit the Filioque in the Creed; but likewise in the use of Leavened Bread, in the Communion under both kinds, and in abundance of Ceremonies? That those called Schismaticks abhor carved Images, and Invoke not the Latin Saints, nor Believe Purgatory, reject the Primacy of the Roman and Bishop, and will not Communicate with the Latins, and so greatly abhor their Sacri∣fice, that when a Latin Priest says Mass on one of their Altars, they Wash and Purify it several times, as having bin Polluted? Mr. Pompone was deceiv'd when the supposed the nearer his Barons Religion approached to that of the Latins, the more his Uncles Cause was advantaged, when on the contrary by this Means, the Quality of this Witness is discovered, and his Testimony appears plainly Invalid. An Excess of Zeal made Mr. Pompoue go too far, but thus it pleased God to order it, to the end our Innocency and Simplicity might not be Surprized with these kind of Delusions. As to what remains, I shall only here Observe the Imprudence of his Witness, who assures us, that

every Year on the first Sunday in Lent, which the Greeks call the Orthodox Sun∣day, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicates in his Patriarchal Tem∣ple in the Presence of the Archbishops, and Bishops, and also of the Ambassadors of Christian Kings and Princes, all Hereticks, and especially those, says he, that Op∣pose Transubstantiation; Mr. Arnaud has caused to be Printed in great Charact∣ers these Words, Maxime vero qui Transubstantiationi adversantur. Not Remembring that he himself related the Terms of this Excommunication, wherein there is not a word said touching Transubstantiation, nor those that Oppose it. Were what the Baron Spataris says true, Mr. Arnaud has bin Treacherous to his own Cause in suppressing so important and decisive a Clause, and has bin at a great deal of Pains to no purpose in all this Dispute, seeing he might have produced this Excommunication and stuck to it.

THAT which we have already seen touching Paysius Ligaridius, and the Moldavian Gentleman, may serve as a Rule whereby to judge of the Testimo∣ny of some Greek Priests, under the Patriarchate of Antioch. The Care the Emissaries take to make Proselytes in this Country, will make us cease won∣dering that there should be six Greek Priests found ready to acknowledg and sign whatsoever was offered them. Moreover they live near the Maronites, who have bin (as it is well known) long since Reunited to the Church of Rome, and governed by Persons who favour the Propagating of the Latins Doctrines. Cyrillus when Patriarch of Alexandria, seems to have foretold what has now hapned, in his Letter to Wytemboyard; The Principal, says he, of the Maronites professes the Roman Religion, and the Patriarchate of Antioch lying near them, I am afraid it will be Corrupted, altho they are advertised of this Danger by that Patriarch, and also by my self. As to the Synod held at Cyprus in the Year 1688: 'tis well known this Island has bin under the Direction of the Roman Prelate and Latin Bishops, since the thirteenth Century to the Year 1571, in which time the Turks took it from the Venetians. We need not then wonder if the People thereof follow the Doctrine of the Latins, especial∣ly considering the Pope has still kept up his Emissaries there from that time. The two Treatises mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, carry with 'em such Marks as will easily discover them: For the first of them begins thus, some generous * 1.522 French Priests have addressed themselves to us, and requested our Opinion touching the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. The other, that it was Transcribed from the Acts of the Synod, at the Request of the Reverend Father Francis de Brisac a Capucin and one of the Emissaries of the Holy Mission of Larnece. All this is only an Effect of the Missions; and Mr. Arnaud would have bin never the less esteemed, had he made no use of these Testimonies, for such kind of Proofs as these will never terminate the Difference betwixt us, seeing there are on the other side solid Reasons, and authentick Testimonies against him.

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 * 1.523 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 * 1.524 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 * 1.525 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 * 1.526 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 * 1.527 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.

CHAP. V.

Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of the Greeks and Latins, on the Article of Transubstantiation Exa∣mined.

ALTHO the third order of Proofs which Mr. Arnaud has made use of, consists to speak properly, only in one single Argument, yet this Argument takes up as much room as all the rest of the Dispute. Mr. Arnaud has so great love for this Proof, that he is never wea∣ry with offering it us. He concludes all his Histories with it, he makes it the matter of most of his Chapters, and the perpetual Subject of his Reflecti∣ons: If he explains to us the Sentiments of Theophylact, Euthymius, Cabasilas, Simeon Thessaloniensis, he forgets not to observe they did not Believe that the Greeks had any other Faith than the Latins, touching the Eucharist, seeing they made no mention of it: If he relates to us the Conquests which the Latins made in the East during the twelv'th Century, he fails not to con∣clude thence, that the Greeks and they, not reproaching one another on this Subject, 'tis a Sign they were agreed in it: If he reckons up to us other Greeks who wrote against the Roman Church, or Latins that wrote against the Greeks, 'tis only to draw this Consequence thence, that there having never bin any Controversie touching Transubstantiation, 'tis a Sign these two Churches were agreed in that point: If he has Occasion to mention the tak∣ing of Constantinople, and the Establishment of the Latins in the Greek Em∣pire, one of the Uses he makes thereof, is besure to let's know, that seeing there was no publick Dispute on the Article of the Substantial Conversion, they all equally Believed it. 'Tis for this purpose he relates the Treaties of Agreement, Formularies of Reunions, and what passed in the Council of Lyons and Florence. In fine, this is his dearly beloved Argument which he Repeats a hundred times over, without any Alteration but that of the Terms, and Circumstances he represents it withal.

IT must be acknowledged Mr. Arnaud has some reason to please himself in this Proof, and to bring it in again so often as he does, for this is the most specious and best coloured Pretence in the whole Dispute, altho at bottom, there will be found no Solidity in it. Which I shall demonstrate in this Chap∣ter, in which I hope to shew clearly the Nullity of his Consequence drawn from the Silence of the Greeks. For this effect, I shall make use of two sorts of Means, the one shall shew that there is not only a great deal of Weakness, but Falsity in his Argument, the rest discover wherein this Weakness and Falsity do consist, the one shall be more General and less Direct, the others Particular and Direct.

I. FIRST it may here seem strange that Mr. Arnaud who so strictly urges the Silence of the Greeks and Latins, does not remember what the Author of the Perpetuity answered to my Proof drawn from the Silence of the Pagans, who upbraided not the Primitive Christians with Transubstantiation, and the Consequence I drew from the Silence of the Fathers, who mention not a

word of the many Miracles which Transubstantiation Includes in it. Who knows not, says he, in general how weak these kind of Probabilities are, and that * 1.528 there are abundance of things which might be said by the Pagans, or Fathers, which never came to our Knowledg? And a little farther, Books contain the least part of Mens Thoughts and Discourses. 'Tis Chance, or some particular Ac∣cident which determines them to conserve to Posterity some one of their Thoughts, suffering abundance of others to be lost, which were more common to them, and many times more important. Perhaps, says he, the Pagans never discoursed of the Eucharist, and perhaps again they did. How comes it to pass that in so short a time the negative Argument, which was in my Hands but a weak Probability, becomes in those of Mr. Arnaud a puissant Demonstration? The things which were said by the Greeks or Latins during three or four hundred Years, are no more come to our Knowledg, than the Discourses of the Pa∣gans, or those of the Fathers, and the Books which have bin written touch∣ing these two Churches the Latin and the Greek, contain no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans, or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion.

IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest: When any Authors savour them, they are worthy of publick Praise, and when they do not, they deserve to be Contemned, and their Arguments become strong or weak, good or bad, accordingly as they are serviceable, or otherwise. It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form, they are equal; for we suppose the same Principles, and draw thence the same Consequences; but if they be compared in respect of the matter, the Advantage is wholly on my side, for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument, whereas they weaken his. The Pagans were Learned, they had the Power in their Hands, they needed not dissemble with the Christians: They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity. The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars, and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion, to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World. There can be nothing said like this, concerning the Greeks, as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter: And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment, and Mr. Arnaud's Argument, if we believe himself, is undeniably Evident; that is to say, these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments, when they are pleased to make use of them, the Title of good ones, but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones. This partiality proceeds only from prejudice.

BUT in the second place, without wandring from the Subject in Hand, I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof, several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book, which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his, and consequently deserve to be preferred before them, according to the Rules of right Reason. The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist, do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject, nor the Concomitancy, or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits, nor his Existence in several places. They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bo∣dies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament, nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist, nor several other Questions. In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation, which a man cannot but consider, and

which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy; as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book.

ALL that I now desire is, that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins. The Greeks, say's he, have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins, they neither opposed nor condemned it; therefore they believed it as well as the Latins. The Greeks, say I, have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance, they neither handled this Point, nor so much as made mention of it, therefore they do not believe it, nor consequently Transubstantiation. Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his, for 'tis a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases, and yet and tast behold all the Qualities, and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist, or at least to speak in some sort of it, than 'tis natural to those that do not be∣lieve Transubstantiation, to reproach them with it, that do believe it. If we weigh all Circumstances, we shall find, the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people, or with themselves, in reflecting on what fell under their Sence, has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins. That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them, than what the Latins taught, or Gregory the VII, or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils. The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds, must needs be more prevalent with them, than that of quarrelling with the Latins. The occasions of satisfying themselves, and instructing their people oftner presented themselves, than those of condemning strangers, with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters. The reasons of their Si∣lence, in respect of the Latins, are easilyer found out, than those which would oblige them to be silent, in respect of themselves. For what signifies the tel∣ling us the Glory of God, and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject; For this same Glory of God, and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to de∣clare the reasons of their Silence, to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge, and to exhort them to the same Silence. Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example, who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Ar∣gument, I should tire my Readers Patience, for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see, and administer the Eucharist, to dis∣course, and partake of it, the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate, touching the Sick that desire it, and received it, the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it; and in general touching whatso∣ever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents, and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantia∣tion, seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject.

'TIS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversi∣on. A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ, accord∣ing to the Sence of the Latins, it is not in the usual form of a humane Body; whence there immediately arises this Consideration, how it can be without this Form. How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner, neither palba∣ble,

nor divisible, thus more like a Spirit than a Body, and yet without Mo∣tion, Sense, or Action, and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit. A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend, that if the Substance of Bread ceases, there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attribu∣ted the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence. Neither needs there much Study to find out, that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament, he is then in several places at the same time, to wit, in Heaven, and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery; Yet do they make no mention of these things.

WE have seen that one of their Opinions is, that the Wicked do not re∣ceive Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Now every Man sees this Doctrine does not well agree with Transubstantiation, in as much, as that on one Hand, 'tis held the Bread is made the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Sub∣stance, and on the other, that the Wicked in receiving it, eat not this Body. Whence it follows according to all Rules of Sence, that they are obliged to endeavour to make these two Opinions agree, and remove the contrariety which appears betwixt them. Yet so far are they from troubling themselves a∣bout this, that we find not this Contrariety, (whether real or imaginary) ever entred into their Thoughts.

NOW let any Man compare the Arguments we draw from their Silence touching all these Consequences, with that of Mr. Arnaud's; and faithfully tell us, whether ours are not more Conclusive and Evident than his. We have proposed several things which the Greeks might know without any Study, Reflection, Attention of Mind, Legats, and Interpreters, only by the sight of their Eyes, and help of common Sence; Affairs which were neither carried on by Intrigues, Negotiations, nor publick Respects; and wherein the Silence of the Greeks is certain, there being no likelyhood but if they spake of 'em, we should be soon made to know it, and concerning which, in fine, they could not be silent as they are, without doing a notable Prejudice to Religion, and an extraordinary Violence to Nature. Whereas Mr. Arnaud only offers us one thing, which can scarcely be known by any but the Learned, and which requires also great attention of Mind, and reading; a matter which for the most part was in the hands of some Deputies, and mannaged by the help of Interpreters, wherein Intrigues and Interests, Complacency and Fear, and other humane Passions have great share, and touching which we cannot be assured whether the Silence of the Greeks be truly such as 'tis represented to us, seeing we have no more of their Writings but what the Latins were plea∣sed to give us. A matter in fine, in which the Greeks might be silent with∣out offering any Violence to themselves, and without believing they did any Wrong to their Religion. I shall show this more largely hereafter, what I now mention'd being only to facilitate the comparison of my Proofs with that of Mr. Arnaud's, to the end the Readers may more clearly and exactly judg of them.

III. IN the third place, it is necessary that my first Proofs which I offe∣red in the foregoing Book, be remembred, which were taken from that the Greeks do not teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in express terms, I mean the substantial Conversion asserted by the Latins; that they receive not the Councils which have determined it, that they will not use the term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they explain themselves only in general Terms, which may be understood in another Sence, and which at farthest can admit only

of a general Sence; and that Mr. Arnaud is constrain'd to betake himself to Consequences and Arguings to render their Expressions favourable. It is likewise requisite that the Reader call to mind the solid Grounds on which my Proofs are built, and the Testimonies I have produced on this Subject, and on the other Hand, the Illusions I discovered in Mr. Arnaud's Dispute, as well in the formulary of the Reunion with which he has made such a noise, as the Testimonys of Samonas, Agapius, the Baron of Spataris, Paysius Ligari∣dius, the Synod of Cyprus, and that of some Priests in the Patriarchate of An∣tioch; for the Truth of my Principle results from the Examination of all these things, the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs consisting only in Arguings and Con∣sequences. I would likewise desire the Reader to compare his negative Ar∣gument with mine, and judg which of the two Consequences is the better. The Greeks (say I) when they explain the Mystery of the Eucharist, use not the Term of Transubstantiation, nor teach the thing which this Term sig∣nifies, they own not the Councils that have determin'd it; and in the rejecti∣on of them never except this Article, nor shew by any thing else they are a∣greed in it. They do not then believe the substancial Conversion of the La∣tins. Mr. Arnaud say's on the contrary; the Greeks reproach not the Latins with Transubstantiation, they make not a Dispute thereof, they condemn it not as an Errour; they then Believe it. I say that my Consequence is evident, certain, immediate, and necessary, whereas Mr. Arnaud's has none of these Qualities. My Consequence is evident, for 'tis evident a whole Church that believes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ, and would have her Children Believe it, must needs teach it them in clear and distinct Terms, and such as are able to form the Idea which she would have them conceive of it; But the Greek Church does not do this; therefore she does not believe it. For it would be prodigiously strange that a Church had, concerning the Change which happens in the Eucharist, a Belief as distinct and determinate, as is that of the Conversion of one Sub∣stance into another, and yet, could not, or would not explain her self in clear and distinct Terms, altho she finds them already made to her Hands, in the Language of a Church with whom she agrees in this Point. But this the Greek Church does not do; She does not thus explain her self, She has not then this Belief. My Consequence is immediate; for the first and most immedi∣ate Obligation, the first and most immediate Effect which arises from the Belief of Transubstantiation in a Church that holds it, is that of teaching it, and explaining how she believes it, that is to say distinctly, for it cannot be believed otherwise than distinctly: But the Greek Church does not explain her self distinctly; She does not then believe it. I say in fine, that 'tis neces∣sary: For there is nothing that can hinder the Greek Church from expound∣ing clearly and plainly this Opinion, if she held it: Not the Ignorance of pro∣per Expressions, for besides that they are easily met with, the Roman Church furnishes her with them, not the Fear of scandalizing her People, for the Church of Rome asserts these People have held this Doctrine ever since Chri∣stianity was first planted amongst them, not the fear of scandalizing the In∣fidels, for the Turks amongst whom the Greeks live, suffer all sorts of Religi∣ons, and the Latins who were mixt with them, and who scruple not to explain themselves clearly on this Doctrine, have long since taken away this Pretence from the Greeks; the fear of offending their Emperors, when they had 'em, could not withold them, for the Greek Emperors as we have already seen, have almost all of 'em favoured the Latins. Much less moreover can it be said they were hindred by the Fear of the Roman Church, and its Power, for this was a means on the contrary to obtain her Favour. And yet notwith∣standing

all this the Greeks do not assert this Doctrine in clear distinct Terms; therefore they hold it not.

NOW let a man reflect on the Consequence Mr. Arnaud draws, and he will find that it has none of these Qualities which I come now from observing in mine. It is not evident, for what Certainty is there that if a Church does not imbrace a Doctrine, she must therefore immediately condemn it, and make thereof a matter of Controversy? This Proposition taken in its gene∣rality is not only unevident, but false, and contrary to the Principles of Rea∣son and Scripture. Being applyed in particular to Transubstantiation, it has no Evidence, for it must be supposed that a Church which does not believe it, considers it in a due manner, whereby to judg that 'tis a damnable Error, and that she wants not Knowledg for the making of this Judgment; and supposing she wants not Knowledg whereby to make this Judgment, we must farther suppose that she believes her self obliged to pass this Censure, against a Church from which she is actually separated. We must besides this, sup∣pose she has Courage enough to do her Duty, and that no humane Respect can withold her from it. Now it cannot be show'd that these three Suppositi∣ons are evident in respect of the Greeks, whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud's Consequence is of no certainty; for what Certainty is there in a Consequence that depends on three Suppositions, which are not only very uncertain, but false, as will appear upon Examination. Neither is it likewise immediate, for 'tis certain there is no medium between believing Transubstantiation, and clearly explaining it, in respect of a Church which is at full liberty to speak on it what she thinks: But betwixt not believing it, and making thereof a point of Controversy with Strangers that do believe it, there's a vast diffe∣rence. In fine, I say this Consequence has no necessity, for it might bin hindred by a thousand things, through want of learned Men able to mannage this Controversy, by the temporal Interests of their Empire, and Church, and fear of provoking the Latins, who have bin almost continually their Masters, by the Intrigues of their Emperours, and several of their Patriarchs and Bishops; but especially by a Spirit of Superstition which has occasioned long since the turning of Religion into childish Ceremonies, neglecting the Essentials of Christianity to apply themselves to Fopperies.

TO Illustrate more clearly this Comparison, which I desire the Reader to make, between Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments and mine, it will be convenient to make here a general Reflection on the state of our Controver∣sy. The Question between us is to know whether the Greeks believe Transub∣stantiation, or not; Mr. Arnaud has undertaken to prove the Affirmative, and I the Negative. Now this being so, it is evident I am only obliged to prove my Thesis by negative Arguments. The Greeks teach not Transubstantiati∣on, nor its necessary and natural Consequences: therefore they do not believe it. This concludes very well according to the nature of the Thesis which I defend, and this Proof is sufficient to satisfie a mans Mind, and decide the Question. But 'tis not the same with Mr. Arnaud, for he is obliged to prove his Proposition, not so much by the Silence of these People, as by their Words, not so much by negative Arguments, as by positive ones. The Greeks say's he, believe Transubstantiation; which is what he ought to shew by affirma∣tive Arguments: Were then the Conclusion he draws from the Silence of the Greeks, more probable than 'tis, yet could it not perswade by it self any rea∣sonable Person. Our Minds might be perplexed with it, but yet 'twill be still said, we must examine what the Greeks positively teach touching the Eucha∣rist,

and see how they explain themselves concerning it, because this is the just and only means of deciding the Question. In effect, if it be true the Greeks teach Transubstantiation, the negative Arguments drawn from their not making a Controversy of it with the Latins, are superfluous; the matter is decided, and we need go no farther; but if it be true on the contrary that they do not teach it, the negative Arguments are of no Consequence, we must keep to what we find contained in their form of Doctrine. It is then certain there is more show than real solidity in this part of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute, and that 'tis more likely to divert the Fancy, than satisfy the Judgment. It may dazle our Eyes by a false appearance, but cannot instruct us, for it de∣cides nothing, a man still remains in the desire and necessity of knowing what the Greeks teach. If he satisfies this Desire, 'tis sufficient, but if not, his negative Arguments signify nothing. Mr. Arnaud then might well have spa∣red all those Histories, Accounts of Reunions, and the enumeration of all the Authors that have treated on the Differences between the Greeks and Latins. All which has bin to no purpose, seeing that when we have bestowed never so much time on the Discussion of these things, we must return again to the principal Point, which is to know positively what the Greeks teach concern∣ing the Eucharist. For as I now said, Mr. Arnaud's Proposition being affirma∣tive, to wit, that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation, he must clearly e∣stablish it by affirmative Proofs; for 'tis on these alone, whereon depends the decision of the Question, and not on negative Arguments, drawn from what they do not do.

AND thus far touching my general means: Come we now to Particulars. Mr. Arnaud pretends that if the Greeks have not heretofore believed Tran∣substantiation, nor yet still believe it, they ought to make it a point of Con∣troversy with the Latins. I answer, the Greeks contented themselves with keeping their own Belief concerning the Sacrament, and held to their usu∣al Expressions, and have not admitted the Determinations of Gregory the VII. or Innocent the III. nor the Doctrine of the Council of Trent; and yet never proceeded to a formal Condemnation of the Sentiment of the Latins, nor made it a matter of Dispute and Controversy. In a word, they do neither believe, nor oppose Transubstantiation: They do not believe it, for it is not to be seen in the Doctrine of their Church; in their Confessions of Faith, Books of Divinity, Decisions of their Councils, Liturgies, Catechisms, nor Sermons; neither do they oppose it, for as far as we can find, they never dis∣puted this Point with the Latins, nor formally debated it in their ancient Dif∣ferences. I say, as far as we can find, for 'tis impossible but some have Dis∣puted on it, altho all Records thereof have bin lost, or suppressed, seeing none of them ever came to our Knowledg. But be it as it will, at worst, it only concerns us to know whether my Answer is reasonable, and whether in effect the Greeks not believing the Conversion of Substances, 'tis possible they have not condemned this Opinion in the Church of Rome. Now I maintain this is not only possible, but most probable: whence it follows that Mr. Ar∣naud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili (as the Schools speak) when we nearly examine it.

I. To shew this, I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self, which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by par∣ticular Persons, and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction, and yet does not receive them, nor approve of them. She keeps Silence in their respect, for Reasons best known to her self, yet would not have it argued from

her Silence, so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks. The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope, or Council, has re∣main'd hitherto undetermined, several Persons still debate it, and we know which side the Court of Rome favours; yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned, or opposed as an Error, the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope; and yet, they will be loath men should argue from their Silence. How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin, with∣out opposing or condemning it, altho she does not approve of it? This Con∣sequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid, and if I may say the Truth, so captious, that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons; for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings, he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions, yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book. If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles, never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins, much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion, I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Exam∣ple, and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself.

IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now in∣stanced, the one, that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the ve∣ry Bosom of the Roman Church, between Persons that belonged to it, and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way; and 'thother that she had just cause to fear, lest under the Favour of this Toleration, the Error would communicate it self to several Persons, and in fine, the whole Bo∣dy of the People be infected with it. Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks, for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church, but in a forrain and separate one, and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction. As to the second thing, I confess, had the Greeks reflected, as they ought, on this their Silence, they could not but perceive that the Latins (who make advantage of every thing) would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece, under the benefit of this Silence, and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular. But how mani∣fest soever this Danger was, it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self, in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom, is yet more evident; and yet notwithstanding she re∣mains Silent: Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence. For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her, which she does not approve, why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance to∣wards an Opinion of the Latins, and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine, that she holds it, or teaches it, why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks?

II. IN the second place, I instance in several other important Articles, wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins, and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation. For Example, the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned, are eased by the Pray∣ers of the living. They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers, that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments, and rescue them from Damnation. They are, say's Allatius, ex∣treamly

found of this Opinion, that the Prayers of good People profit the Infi∣dels * 1.529 and those condemned to eternal Misery, and that they are eased, and some∣times wholy delivered by them. Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode (which is one of their ecclesiastical Books) and other their most fa∣mous Authors. The Latins are of a contrary Opinion. It is certain, say's Bellarmin, that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed * 1.530 in Heaven, nor Damned in Hell, but only to the Souls in Purgatory: Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin's Opinion. Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof, or charged one another with Errour, about it. We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand, whether in the Council of Flo∣rence or elsewhere, nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them, in order to an agreement.

THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks, which has some Relation with that I now mention'd. For they believe that when * 1.531 our Saviour descended into Hell, he preached his Gospel to all the Dead, as well to the Damned as Saints, and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word, and raised them up. It appears from the Passages pro∣duced by Allatius, as well out of their Pentecostare, (which is one of their Church Books,) as other Writings, that this is their Opinion: Whereas on the contrary 'tis evident, this is not the Opinion of the Latins, for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical. None of the damned Souls, say's Bellarmin, were delivered: For Philastrius and St. Augustin, say 'tis Heretical, to assert * 1.532 that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell. Allatius adds, that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion, and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century, censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and The∣odorus, * 1.533 the one a Priest, and th'other a Deacon of the Church of Constanti∣nople. Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest, yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy, or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject, nor any mention of it in the Reunions.

WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Church∣es, the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible, which they esteem Apocryphal, whereas the Latins receive them, as Canonical Scripture. For 'tis certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea, and the Authority of John Damascen, as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus, who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books, which he say's are thirty three in all, has these Words. As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture, as the Books of * 1.534 Toby, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, of Jesus Son of Sirach, Baruc, and the Maccabees; We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected, seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts. But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings, is what the Church of Christ never did, as several Doctors testify, and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine, St. Amphilocus, and after them St. John Damascen. And therefore we ground not our Do∣ctrines on their Authority, but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books. So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins, and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference, nor any mention of it in their Reunions.

WE can give another Instance to the same purpose, and that touching the Eucharist too. The Greeks since the seventh Century, reject the terms of Type, Figure, and Image, but the Latins use them, and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them. It cannot be said they slighted this Point; for when they explain themselves thereon, they add to their Re∣jection a form of Detestation. God forbid, say's Anastasius Sinaite, that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body. God forbid, say's Damascen, we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body, and Blood. Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking, they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins, nor accused them of Error in this matter.

WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches, about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins; but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nul∣lity of his Consequence, and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition: For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence, as well as other Articles? Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars, be good in that of Transubstantiation? If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions, and keep their Belief to them∣selves touching the Damned, and Christ's preaching to them, touching the number of Canonical Books, &c. without entring into Debate with the La∣tins, and charging them with Error in these Points, why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist.

MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt, the Doctrine of Transubstantiati∣on is a Point of greater Importance, than those I now mentioned, and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of; but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion, which holds a higher rank in Re∣ligion. I answer, first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance. For as to the first of them, it is of great Importance to Chri∣stian Piety, not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked, that live how they will, they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell. As to the second, it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies, by St. Ireneus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Austin, and Gregory the great. The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures, which ought to rule our Faith, and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks. These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters. But in the se∣cond place I answer, to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiati∣on, we must consider it, not in it self, nor in relation to our present Disputes, but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins; which is to say, we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance, could make of it, and whose whole Religion, almost wholly consists of Grimaces and super∣stitious Ceremonies; who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions, and have had the Latins continually to deal with, and bin for∣ced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible, who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning, and separated afterwards, in fine, Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article, but agreed with them in certain general Terms. Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opini∣on of the Latins, and examining the Importance and Weight of this Diffe∣rence,

which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches. Let any Man judg whether 'tis impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy, and content themselves with their own Opinion, and Expressi∣ons, without concerning themselves with other People's.

III. I produce in the third place, Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks, touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians, who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins, and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions, nor dispute with them about 'em. The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest. They hold ano∣ther * 1.535 Error, say's De Vitry, which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children, which is, that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest, but to God alone in Secret. They confess not their Sins to any Man, say's Villamont, but * 1.536 to God alone in private: They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession, say's Boucher, but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences, they confess themselves to God alone. They do not allow of the sacramental Confes∣sion, * 1.537 say's Cottoric, altho 'tis admitted by both the Greeks and Latins, saying we must confess our Sins to God, who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine, Syria, Egypt and all the rest of the East. One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo, and they have an apartment, as well as the other Christians, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem, and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks. And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession, nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof, as if it was an Error, Dama∣scen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies. He remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature, but mentions not a Word of Confession. Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiasti∣cal History, their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature, but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession.

THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East, and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place, where their common Devotion brings them, do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession, nor that of Confirmation, as ap∣pears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch, which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can, that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject; he I say that believes these latter, are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sa∣craments.

THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites, and purging their Books from some * 1.538 Errors, which were common to them, say's he, as well as to other Eastern Nati∣ons, that is to say other Christians in that Country, they found they misunder∣stood some Passages of Scripture, and especially that touching the Instituti∣on of the Sacrament, this is my Body. They affirm, say's he, that we must read, this is the Sacrament of my Body. Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live. For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins, 'tis the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption, or such an Interpretati∣on of the Words of Christ, seeing 'tis only on the literal Sence of these

Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded.

I shall prove in its place, as clearly as 'tis possible to prove a thing of this na∣ture, that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation, nor the substanti∣al Presence. This Truth will be plainly manifest, and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion, or made thereof a Point of Controversy. Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks, might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter, that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines, and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence, than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it, be∣cause they do not make thereof a Controversy.

AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument, and discover the weakness of his Consequence. But we must proceed farther, for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable, to wit, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstan∣tiation, altho they never disputed against it, I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down, whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity, but even no Probability.

I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Igno∣rance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century, till this pre∣sent. For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre, James de Vitry, Belon, Cottovic, Anthony Caucus, Francis Richard, Allatius, du Loir, The∣venot, and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter. I moreover pro∣duced the Testimonies of Bozius, and Thomas a Jesu. All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn. Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam, who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century. There are, * 1.539 say's he, few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning: And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures, preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it, to which they willingly apply themselves. All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Sal∣vation; So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith, there are Millions ignorant of it. Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris (the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book) writes. I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People, for I know their Ig∣norance * 1.540 and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith, whom they Combat not with Arms, but Patience, and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ. But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops; and therefore I continually upbraid them with it, but to no purpose. The Jesuits making their advantage thereof, have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth, and are like Foxes amongst Geese. It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading, written since Photius's time, ex∣cepting some few Histories, and Collections of the antient Canons, the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy, and some pittiful Treatises, wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word, without any Art, or Sence almost.

II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present, for there can be nothing imagined more

dreadful and miserable. Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate, continually accompanied with Misfortunes, or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion, or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers, by means whereof Greece became divi∣ded into Factions and horrible Confusions. In the Year 1034, Romanus Argi∣rus * 1.541 the Emperor having lost Syria, was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife, who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael. Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit: He lost Sicily and Bulgaria, and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopt∣ed one Michael Calaphatus, and made him Emperor; but four or five Months * 1.542 after, she caused his Eyes to be bored out, and gave the Empire to Constan∣tin Monomaque whom she espoused. He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens, who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054, and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him, who Reigned but one * 1.543 Year. After her came one named Michael Stratiotique, who Reigned also but one Year. Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place, wherein he re∣mained * 1.544 orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months. He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull * 1.545 and mean Spirited Prince, who suffered the Barbarians to wast Greece by their Incursions. Romanus Diogenes succeded him, who was taken by the Turks and afterwards released, but being returned, his Subjects put out his Eyes, and made him dye a miserable Death. Michael Parapinacius who came after him, * 1.546 was not more fortunate. Nicephorus Botionatus having Dethroned him, put * 1.547 him into a Monastery. Nicephorus having ill Reign'd was treated after the same manner by Alexius Comnenus, who took the Empire in the Year 1081: Alexi∣us * 1.548 Reign'd thirty seven Years, and dishonoured his Reign by a thousand perfidious Actions and Wickednesses; The French beat him several times, and in fine, he dyed forsaken by all the World.

HIS Son John Comnenus succeded him, and after him Emanuel, a wretch∣ed * 1.549 and perfidious Prince who delighted to disturb the Peace of the Church by his curious Questions and new Decrees, and who in fine, to crown his Life with the most horrible Impieties, designed to bring in Mahometism into his Empire. Emanuel left his Crown to his Son Alexius, who kept it but three * 1.550 Years, for he was miserably put to Death by Andronicus who seized on the Throne as the Reward of his Crime: Yet did he not enjoy it long, for two Years after Isaack Angelus stirred up the People against him, who cut him in pieces. Alexius Angelus a while after caused his Brother Isaac's Eyes to be put out, and took from him the Empire. His Nephew whose Name also was Alexius, addressing himself to the Latins, they drove out the Usurper from the Throne, and setled him in it, against whom arose one Mursulphus, and both one, and the other, having undone themselves by their Perfidiousness, the Empire fell into the Hands of the Latins in the Year 1204.

THE Latins held the Empire fifty eight Years till 1261, wherein Mi∣chael Paleologus took the City of Constantinople from them. Which Michael obtained the Empire by Murther, he caused the lawful Emperors Eyes to be put out (who was John Theodorus Lascaris's Son, being but twelve Years of Age, and seated himself in his Throne. He was both a cruel and crafty Prince, and abused his Subjects in a thousand manners, being ever ready to Sacrifice the Church and Religion to his Interest. Andronicus his Son succeded him, a∣gainst whom his Grandson named likewise Andronicus arose several times, and at length took from him his Crown, and reduced him to the condition of a

private Person. His Successors were all of 'em effeminate Persons, under whom the Greek Empire retain'd not the least Shadow of its first Dignity, till such time as at length in the Year 1453, Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and every one knows how since that time the Greeks have lived un∣der the Domination of those Infidels.

A Man may easily imagine Greece could not be long happy nor quiet under such Emperors. There were nothing but Seditions, Monopolies, Revolts, and civil Wars within, and unfortunate Wars without, sometimes against the Saracens, otherwhiles against the Turks, and Latins.

Peteau the Jesuit discoursing of the State of this Empire under the Paleo∣logues, * 1.551 did not stick to compare it to a Sea Monster, whom the Element had thrown on the Shore, deadly wounded, yet still strugling with Death; or a Poy∣soned Body that with much difficulty sustains it self, and crawls along, till such time as the Poyson strikes into the Heart, and then it falls to the Ground and gives up the Ghost.

III. IT already appears to be no wonder, if a Church amids such dreadful Confusions and Circumstances, and orespread with such Clouds of Darkness, never exactly discussed the Difference betwixt its Doctrine and the Latins, but contented her self with keeping her own Belief. But con∣sider we moreover the Influence the Latins had on the Greeks, and the man∣ner after which they handled them, wheresoever they got the mastery. We have seen in the second Book how they drove the Greek Bishops from Syria, and Palestine, as soon as ever they setled themselves, as likewise in Greece. We have also observed that the Greek Emperors instead of encouraging their Patriarchs and Bishops, and upholding the Interest of their Church, have on the contrary favoured to the utmost of their Power the Latins, and under pretence of an Union endeavoured to subject the Greek Church to the Ro∣man. Not that these Emperors had any kindness for the Religion of the Latins, but feared their Power, and therefore used all possible Complyance with the Court of Rome. They would not suffer its Doctrines to be ill spoken of. We have seen that in Leo the ninths Quarrel with Cerularius, Constan∣tin Monomaque fail'd not to take Leo's Part, countenancing his Legats, and constraining Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his own Book, which he wrote a∣gainst the Latins. We have likewise observ'd that John Veccus Library keep∣er of the Church at Constantinople, saying one day in the Emperor's hearing, that altho the Latins were not termed Hereticks, yet they really were so. Michael Paleologus was thereupon so inraged, that he resolved to ruin him, causing him soon after to be imprisoned, and had effected his Resolution, had not Veccus changed his Mind. Moreover 'twas not two or three of these Empe∣rors that were of this Temper, but almost all of 'em, as appears by what I already related in the second Book. We must then add to the second Preced∣ing Considerations this third Remark, that the Greeks were forc'd to be si∣lent for fear of the Latins, and their own Emperors. It may be perhaps re∣plyed, this hindred them not from Disputing on the Procession and Azymes. I grant it, but there is a great deal of Difference betwixt maintaining old Con∣troversies, and raising new ones, which commonly beget Hatred. The Latins and the Emperors laboured to make them silent in the old Controversies, how then could they suffer without the greatest Punishment, there should be o∣thers begun, which would render the Design of a Reconciliation more dif∣ficult?

IV. BUT besides what I already mentioned, it is requisite to observe for what end the Emperors endeavoured this Reconciliation, seeing this will give us a great deal of light into the Question. Pachymerus relates that Michael Paleologus used this only Argument with his Bishops, namely, that notwith∣standing the Agreement, there should be no alteration made in their Religi∣on. Do not doubt, say's he, but after this Peace the Church shall remain in its * 1.552 former state; It shall not be my Fault if it does not: And again, You need not be told by me how ready our Forefathers have been to comply, as often as the publick Good required it. They considered that even God himself has not disdained to ac∣comodate himself to our Weaknesses, in taking upon him our Flesh, and Suffering the Pains of the Cross, by which he hath purchased the Salvation of the World, so ready was he to comply with our Exigencies; no man can then blame us if from the like Intention we endeavour to avoid the Dangers that threaten us, but on the contrary we shall be the better approved of, by those that understand the na∣ture of Affairs. And again, You must not affright the People by telling 'em, we design to proceed any farther in this Reconciliation than we ought, and as if we intended to change our ancient Customs and Ceremonies for those of the Latins, and make the same Confession of Faith as they do. Which Discourse does ma∣nifestly shew us three things. First, that there is a great deal of Difference between being silent in the Doctrine of the Latins, not Disputing and Charg∣ing them with Error, nay proceeding so far as a Union with them, and the Imbracing of their Doctrines; let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases. For Mi∣chael desires but the first of these, and protests he intends not thereby to pro∣ceed to the other. The second thing that appears from the Discourse of this Emperor, is that the Principle on which I ground my Answer, and by which I pretend to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument, is not a Proposition forged in my own Brain from the necessity of my Dispute, but a Principle not only well known by the Greeks, but approved and practised in an Occasion, far more important than that now in question betwixt us. For 'tis far less im∣portant to lay aside one of the Doctrines of a Church, and not Dispute on it, than to be united with her, and yet 'tis certain the Greek Church consented to this Reunion, in hope she should keep her Religion Intire, and not receive any of the Doctrines of the Latins. In fine, I gather from Michael's Dis∣course, and the Effect it had on the Minds of his Clergy, that the only care the Greeks took was to keep their own Religion, being willing to be silent, and Imbrace the Union, provided they were not forced to Imbrace the Re∣ligion of the Latins. If it be replied that this was indeed the Disposition of Michael Paleologus, but not that of his Church; I answer that Michael en∣gaged 'em to consent to the Reunion upon this Regard, that each of the Churches should keep its own Opinions, and not contend and charge one a∣nother with Error. Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Princi∣ples which they do not acknowledg to be good, and therefore plausible Pre∣tences and fair Colours are made use to win them. Whence it follows, that the Greeks were far from imagining, 'twas the same thing not to dispute against the Latins on an Article, and to receive and own it with them. Whence it likewise follows, that if this Reason or Hope which Michael proposed to them was sufficient to make them do a thing in which they feared he would de∣ceive them, (as indeed he did) a matter which was contrary to their Duty and Conscience, and against which they had moreover the greatest Aversion, it might likewise be sufficient to withhold and hinder them from doing ano∣ther thing, to which they did not believe they were obliged, and from which they might refrain without the least Violence to their Inclinations.

THIS Reflection will be strengthened by considering after what sort Veccus the Patriarch justified himself when he became a great stickler in the Union, which he endeavoured to promote as much as in him lay. I never * 1.553 design'd, say's he, by any thing I either thought, said, or did to disparage any of the Ceremonies or Doctrines of the Greeks, but only to establish the Peace of the Church. If any Person in imbracing this Peace has despised our Rites and Cere∣monies, and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church be∣fore them, let him be excluded the Kingdom of Heaven, and have his Portion with the Traytor Judas and his Companions, who Cracified our Saviour. We see here this Patriarch supposes a great deal of Difference between the not Con∣demning the Latins, and letting them alone with their Doctrines; Nay so far is he from granting Mr. Arnaud's Consequence, that he makes this a Prin∣ciple whereby to justify himself to the Greeks, which is a Sign that this Propo∣sition agreed with the Genius of that Nation. For People are not wont to justify themselves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred; if Michael Pa∣leologus, Veccus, or the Greeks in general, have displeased Mr. Arnaud by this their Deportment, they are excusable: For in those Days the World was not acquainted with the Secrets of his Reasoning: The Rules of his Logick were not then published. They may henceforward become a Rule to Posterity, but he must not expect they should be more priviledged than the Edicts of Princes which have no retroactive Virtue.

V. TO convince Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks are averse to Controversies; I need only represent to him what Anthony Eparkus of Corcyra wrote to Phi∣lip Melancthon. For having told him how careful the Turks are to establish their Religion every where, and to extend the Limits of their Empire. It * 1.554 would be very absur'd, adds he, for us to Dispute of sublime Matters, in the Condition we are in. It behoves us to watch and apply our selves diligently to the avoiding the Danger threatning us, lest we lose our Possessions here on Earth, whilst we idly and over curiously inquire into the things of Heaven. 'Tis cer∣tain the Greeks do not care to concern themselves overmuch about the things of the next Life: Their Thoughts being wholly taken up with their worldly Interest, this being the Key that opens and shuts their Mouths.

POSSEVIN the Jesuit distinguishes the Greeks into three Ranks, the first of People who are very Ignorant: The second, of those that having some * 1.555 Experience, and beholding on one hand the Majesty of the Roman Church, and on the other the Misery of the Greek one, the Pomp of the Sacrament of the La∣tins, and the Neglect wherewith the Greeks treat theirs, conclude that the Roman Church is better beloved by God almighty than the Greek one. The third is of those who having some knowledg of the World, are yet transported by an ha∣bitual Hatred against the Latins, altho their Bishops and most prudent Persons a∣mongst them are of another Temper, and not knowing for the most part, what they say or would have; they Compare the Greek and Roman Church together, their Ceremonies with ours, and prefer their Priests to our Latin Priests, suppo∣sing them not so vicious as ours. Yet they dare not affirm we are in an Error, or that what we believe or practise touching the Sacrament is unwarrantable. But they affirm as to themselves, that they are in the right Way, and do not doubt of Sal∣vation in their own Religion. Observe these two things, first that the Greek Bishops and prudentest Persons in their Church, are averse to Controversies. And secondly, that those that are not, content themselves with maintaining their own Doctrines, without condemning those of the Latins.

VI. BUT it will be demanded why then did they Dispute on the Pro∣cession of the Holy Spirit, and the Azymes? I answer because these two Points first occasioned the Separation of the two Churches. Photius adhered especially to the first of these, and Cerularius to the latter. The reason why the Greeks have so earnestly stuck to these two Particulars, seems to be out of a Principle of Constancy. They have followed the first and original Cau∣ses of their Quarrel with the Latins, treading in the Steps of their Predeces∣sors. Had they found the Article of the substantial Conversion in their way, they had without doubt stumbled at it, but not meeting with it, 'tis no mar∣vel if they took no notice thereof, no more than of other Doctrines. But why was not this point at first comprehended amongst those that caused the Separation of the two Churches? The Answer is easy; because Transub∣stantiation was not then established in the Roman Church. Photius began the Separation towards the end of the ninth Century: Cerularius renewed it about the middle of the eleventh, and the first that determin'd the substanti∣al Conversion was Gregory the VII, in the Year 1079, so that 'tis no marvel if they disputed not about it.

VII. NEITHER do I understand the Greeks could have just Cause to dispute this Point against the Body of the Latin Church in general, before the Council of Constance, that is to say, before the fifteenth Century: For altho Gregory the VII made his Determination in the Year 1079, as I already said, and Innocent the III had done the same in the Council of Latran, in the Year 1215, yet there were several People that did not esteem these kind of Decisions as legitimate and authentick Declarations of the Church. Every body knows that Rupert who lived in the twelveth Century, publick∣ly * 1.556 taught that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist, and becomes the Body of Christ by an hypostatical Union with the Word. Anselm wrote against him, and Algerus disputed against his Opinion, but he was never Condemned for an Heretick. We know likewise what Durand of St. Porcien taught, who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth Century, to wit, that the Substance of Bread remains, and that losing its first form of Bread, it receives the form of the Body of Christ, in the same manner the Food we take receives the form of our Body. * 1.557 Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opi∣nion, may be called a Transformation, but not a Transubstantiation. Yet was not Durand Prosecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick, nor his Doctrine Cen∣sured. We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Or∣der of Fryar Preachers, and Divinity Professor at Paris, who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century. That altho he approved of the common Opi∣nion touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ, yet he durst not affirm this to be an Article of Faith, necessarily to be believed as de∣termin'd by the Church, and that there was another more popular Opinion, and per∣haps more rational and conformable to the true Doctrine of the Sacrament, namely the Assumption of the Substance of Bread by the person of the Word. We know in fine, what Peter Dailly, Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray wrote, who li∣ved about the beginning of the fifteenth Century, namely, that it does not follow (in his Opinion) from the Churches Determination, that the Substance of Bread ceases.

BUT to the end it may not be said, these are the Opinions of particular * 1.558 Persons who might be mistaken, I will here produce the Judgment of the Divines at Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth Century, that is to say, about the Year 1304, touching John of Paris, and concerning the Assumpti∣on of the Substance of Bread, as is contained in a Manuscript of the Libra∣ry of St. Victor in these Words. The Opinion of the Faculty in Theology, in the Presence of the Masters of the Colledg, touching both the Ways whereby the Bo∣dy of Christ may be said to exist on the Altar (to wit, that of the Conversion of the Substance of Bread, and that of the Assumption of this Substance by the Word) both which Opinions it holds and approves by—and by the Te∣stimonies of the Fathers. Yet it says that neither of these two ways has been de∣termined by the Church, and therefore never a one of them is an Article of Faith, and if it said otherwise, it would not have said so well, and those that express themselves otherwise, say not so well, and he that positively asserts that either one or the other of these Modes is an Article of Faith, incurs the Sentence of an A∣nathema. I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuscript accord∣ing as they lye under this Title, Judicium Facultatis Theologiae.

JOHN of Paris met with Opposition from William of Orillac Bishop of Paris, and several other Bishops. Yet did they not condemn his Sentiment, nor contradict what the Faculty of Theology said, but silenced him, and forbad him the Chair; Whereat he made his Appeal to Rome, where he came himself, and had a Committy appointed to hear him, but John dying before his Affair was ended, the Court of Rome proceeded no farther in it. Mr. Arnaud who will needs have the Greeks not to be ignorant of what pas∣sed amongst the Latins, and supposes all Greece to resound with Berengarius's Condemnation; and Peoples Italy with Greeks, and Greece with Latins, with order to give one another account of whatsoever concerned the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, who will have the very Soldiers entertain themselves with it in the Army, as well as the Pilgrims in their Voyages; can he I say find in his Heart to tell us, that the Greeks knew not what such famous Au∣thors as Rupert, Durand, John of Paris and Cardinal Dailly publickly main∣tained in the twelvth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Century, that they knew not what passed in one of the chief Cities in the West, and in a Faculty so illustrious as that of Paris, that they knew not an Affair that was carried to Rome, and touching which that Court made no Decission? In truth if they knew nothing of this, and that neither the Pilgrims, nor Ambassa∣dors, nor Soldiers, nor Inquisitors, nor the Greeks in Italy, nor the Latins in Constantinople, gave them no Notice thereof, they may have been ignorant as well of other things, and Mr. Arnaud's Assurance signifies nothing, that their Curiosity made them search into all things. For altho that in some of these Centuries there were no more Croisado's into the Holy Land, nor Latins that held the Greek Empire; yet the Commerce between the Greeks and Latins was frequent, and both one and thother were often together in Italy, and se∣veral other places; and it was a very easy matter to send Notice to the Greeks of what passed in the West, concerning these Doctors. Should Mr. Arnaud say they knew this, he must not take it ill, if they made this a Reason for their Silence and Reservedness; For why should they accuse a Church wherein it is permitted to affirm, that the Substance of Bread remains, wherein it is affirm∣ed that there is nothing to be positively asserted concerning the Subject of Transubstantiation, and Appeals made to Rome it self thereupon, and yet this Court does not so much as declare the contrary.

VIII. SUPPOSING the Greeks believed Transubstantiation, how came it to pass they were not scandaliz'd at the boldness of all these Authors? Why would they not satisfy themselves in so considerable a Point as that which these Authors handled, namely that the Church had not yet determi∣ned any thing touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread? Why did they not reprove the Latins for this, and especially the Roman Church for be∣ing silent in a Particular wherein her Belief and Practice were concern'd. Let Mr. Arnaud give us a Reason for this Reservedness of the Greeks, who makes them such great Disputers? And let him also shew us a Reason for the Church of Rome's Silence? That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not an Article of Faith, and that the Church has not yet determin'd it so to be, we find John of Paris ready to justify within the Walls of Rome it self, and yet she takes no notice of it. She suffers a Person to dye in this Error, neither Con∣demns his Opinion, nor Memory, and that which is moreover worse, is, that she leaves the whole World in suspence about a Point wherein the Faith of all her Children are concern'd. For if a man doubts whether the Conversion of Substances be a Point of Faith, he cannot believe it as a Point of Faith. And if a man cannot believe it as a Point of Faith, how will he be perswaded of the Truth of it? And if it must be held only as a probable Opinion of Learned men, what will become of it when we shall find it so improbable, and so lit∣tle agreeable to right Reason? Yet does not the Church of Rome mention a Word of this, but lets the Question ly Dormant, so that should we argue from her Silence, as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks, we might conclude she approves John of Paris his Opinion, seeing she does not con∣demn it. Yet will I not go so far; It suffices me that the Church of Rome has not condemned the Proposition in Question. This is enough to hinder the Greeks from Reproaching the Latin Church with Transubstantiation.

THIS Affair of John of Paris, together with the Judgment of the Facul∣ty in Theology, and Silence of the Roman Church, is of such Importance, that this alone is sufficient to decide the Question, and manifest to Mr. Arnaud that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation has not been perpetual in the Church. For that a Faculty so considerable as is that of Paris should assure us this man∣ner of the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, is not determined by the Church, nor is an Article of Faith, and whosoever shall assert that it is so, ought to be Anathematiz'd. That the Affair having been carried to Rome, and that Court be silent therein, and determine nothing about it; I say this is enough to refute this pretended Perpetuity, which Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to defend.

BUT return we to the Greeks. We may add to what I already mention∣ed this considerable Remark, which is, that the Latins never raised a Dis∣pute with the Greeks about the general Expressions which these last make use of touching the Eucharist.

BUT before we carry on this Consideration any farther, it is necessary that I put the Reader again in mind, that the Question is not to know whe∣ther the Greeks have the same Opinion with us touching the Eucharist, much less whether they explain themselves after the same manner. This is Mr. Ar∣naud's perpetual Illusion, to suppose we make them Berengarians; and 'tis on this wrong Ground whereon he builds his whole Discourse. We scarcely meet with any other but these kind of Arguings in his Dispute, viz. Whe∣ther

the Greeks were Berengariens? Whether they Believed the Bread in the Sacrament to be only a Figure? Whether they understood our Saviour's Words in the Sence of Significat, &c. To the end then the Reader may not be deceived, I do here again acknowledg that the Greeks believe a great deal more touching the Eucharist than we do, that they express themselves otherwise a∣bout it, and follow neither the Sentiments nor Expressions of Berengarius. Neither have we given Mr. Arnaud any Occasion to assert what he does. We only affirm'd they do not believe the Transubstantiation of the Roman Church, nor worshipped the Sacrament with a sovereign Adoration; and 'tis upon this Mr. Arnaud ought to argue to deal sincerely.

AND therefore I say the Latins never disputed with the Greeks touch∣ing their Expressions, how general soever they have been; They have indeed done what they could whereby to introduce insensibly amongst them the Terms of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transubstantiation, change of Substance. They have for this purpose made use of their Proselytes, and Scholars of the Seminaries, to whom they have given the Confession of Faith which we observed in the preceding Book, in which those Terms are found. They have set 'em down in Latin in the Acts of the Reunion. But in the Greek of these same Acts, they have contented themselves with the general Expres∣sions of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as we have already seen. They have not quarrelled with them about 'em, for Reasons not hard to be understood, and which we shall see hereafter, and when the Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries found their Terms were not receiv'd, they became angry thereat, but on the contrary accomodated themselves to others. We cannot then won∣der if this Conduct has kept the Greeks from discussing any farther the Diffe∣rences which separate the two Churches. They agreed in the general Expres∣sions, that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis changed in∣to his Body, and the Latins required no more.

THE Snare lay hid under this Complyance, and this Conduct kept off the Greeks from all Inquiries. For, for to find the Difference there is between the Doctrine of the Greeks, and that of the Latins, and make a right Judg∣ment thereon, we must not lightly and superficially examine them, seeing they require an application of Mind and Study. We must read Latin Authors, compare them with the Doctrine of the Ancients, and with that of the Greek Church, and not suffer our selves to be surprized with false appearances, but consider the two Doctrines themselves, and especially their Consequences, to find wherein they differ; For at first Sight the Difference seems not great. They explain themselves sometimes in the like manner, but their Consequences infinitely differ, as has been observed in the last Chapter of the preceding Book. Now how few amongst the Greeks have been able to go thro with this Discussion; and of those that were capable, how few were in a condition to make a right Judgment? We have seen what Bozius said of 'em from the Relation of one Gregory, that under the Empire of Andronicus, (he means I suppose Andronicus the younger, in whose Reign the Re∣union of the Churches was again proposed) there was no Person to be found in all Greece, that was able to Dispute with the Latins about Religious Matters. Can it seem strange, that People (who could not maintain their ancient Con∣troversies, so greatly insisted on by their Fathers, and which are as it were hereditary to them,) should neglect to discuss those new Doctrines I speak of, and content themselves with keeping their own Belief, without concern∣ing themselves with that of Strangers?

X. MOREOVER we must consider that the Greeks have ever referred to almighty God, the knowledg of the Change hap'ning in the Eucharist, without offering to determine it. This appears as well by their general Terms, as by what I already related, concerning the Confession of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the profession of Faith compiled for the Sarra∣cen Proselytes, from the Prayer in their Euchology, the Judgment which Nicetas made on the Conduct of the Patriarch Camaterus, and the Dispute of John the Patriarch of Jerusalem. When then they hear the Latins who de∣termine the manner of this Change, saying 'tis a real Conversion of the Sub∣stance of Bread and Wine; we must not find it strange, if they contain them∣selves in their generalities, and neither Receive nor Condemn this Doctrine. Whether they do well or ill in this, I shall not here determine: But howso∣ever, 'tis in no wise strange that People of that Temper the Greeks are of, should thus deport themselves. I have already observed elsewhere that he that shewed himself most forward amongst them, was the Patriarch Cyrillus; for he proceeded so far as to a positive Rejection of Transubstantiation, and yet he rejected it only under the Title of Rash, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say's he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transubstantiation rashly invented.

ALL which things being considered, let any Man judg whether what I say (concerning the Greeks not expresly opposing the Doctrine of the Con∣version of Substances, altho they did not believe it) be not grounded on all ima∣ginable Probability, and whether on the contrary Mr. Arnaud's Consequence, how surprising soever it may seem at first, is not in effect void of all kind of Probability. They have lived time out of mind in most stupid Ignorance; They have been overwhelmed in Confusions, and oppressed with domestick Misfortunes: They have been continually urged by their Emperors to com∣ply with the Latins, that they might thereby avoid their Displeasure, and procure their Favour; They have been perswaded that this Complyance will bring no Prejudice to their Religion. They are moreover a People that were ever noted to be naturally more than others fixt to their temporal Interests, preferring the Preservation of their Estates, before their Religion. They are not ignorant how the Roman Church resents it, when accused of Error, as appears by the Complaint of Cyrillus, who speaking of the Latins, say's that they obstinately defend whatsoever they do, right or wrong, let their Errors be made * 1.559 never so apparent. That they maintain they can neither Err in Belief nor Practice, and that which is yet worse, they fly in the Faces of those that Christianly admo∣nish them, and shew them their Errors. That they persecute such with Fire and Sword, as if it were not lawful to repel the Injury they do to Christianity, and to guard and defend our selves against the Evil. It appears in their ordinary Con∣versation, how reserved and fearful they are of offending the Latins. The Question of Transubstantiation is not to be found amongst their primitive and original Disputes. They might likewise reasonably doubt whether the Roman Church determin'd it before the Council of Constance. The Latins have not disputed with them about it, but accommodated themselves to the form of their Expressions. It is no easy matter for them to penetrate as far as the real Differences which distinguish the Doctrines of the two Churches. And in fine, one of their Maxims is, that they may very well leave the Knowledg of the Change which happens in the Eucharist, unto God, without troubling them∣selves any farther about it. Is it not nearer to Truth to say as I do, that it does not follow these People believed Transubstantiation, altho they have not made thereof a Point of Controversy, and kept themselves in a kind of

Medium, neither Believing it, nor Condemning it; than to say as Mr. Ar∣naud does, that if they have not opposed it, nor disputed on it, nor reproach∣ed the Roman Church with it as an Error, it inevitably follows, they have, and do still believe it.

CHAP. VI.

A farther Examination of Mr. Arnaud's Negative Arguments. A particular Reflection concerning what past in the Treaties of Reuni∣on, and especially in the Council of Florence, and afterwards.

THE more we consider the Principles on which Mr. Arnaud Rea∣sons, the plainlier appears the Nullity of the Consequence he pre∣tends to draw thence. He say's for Example that Theophylact, re∣duces all the Differences which separated in his time the two Churches * 1.560 to the single addition of the Filio{que} in the Symbol. So that if this Principle be true, the Greeks and Latins agreed in all other things but this one of the Filio{que}. He say's that Basil the Archbishop of Thessalonica, writing to Pope Adrian the IV, Protests to him that the Greeks differ not from the Latin Church. If this be true, Theophilact has deceived us, when he tells us they differ in the Filio{que}. He tells us that the sharpness of Balsamon, who was very much a∣gainst the Church of Rome, would not suffer him ••o dissemble this Accusation, (to wit, to believe Transubstantiation) which would be the most specious of all others, and the most proper to alienate the Affections of the Greeks, and hinder their Reconciliation with the Latins. But if we must refer our selves in all par∣ticulars to Balsamon's Silence, in how many Points shall we establish Peace, wherein there was a real Division? He tells us Eutymius wrote a Book against * 1.561 the Latins, in which he only treats of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, that Chrysolanus the Archbishop of Milain reduced to this single Article, all what∣soever he upbraided the Greeks with; that John Phurnius wrote against * 1.562 Chrysolanus, and mentions only the Procession; and that this same Phurnius * 1.563 disputed against another Archbishop of Milain named Peter, on this Article alone. But if Mr. Arnaud goes on after this rate, what will become of the Controversy touching the Azyme. He tells us that Nicolas Methoniensis an∣swers Chrysolanus, and that he wrote another Treatise concerning the Azy∣mes, that Eustratius Bishop of Nice, Theodorus Prodromus, Nicetas Seidus, and several other Authors of the twelveth Century that wrote against the Latins, applyed themselves only to the Controversies touching the Holy Spirit, and the Azymes. He makes an exact Computation of all the Greeks of the four∣teenth Century, that wrote against the Roman Church, and assures us they * 1.564 all of 'em restrain••d themselves to these two Points. He farther shews us * 1.565 that in the Treaty of Agreement, which was begun in the Year 1232, be∣tween Gregory the IX, and Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople, there * 1.566 were no more mentioned than these two Questions; and that the Patriarch Veccus having been condemned under Andronicus, for favouring the Latins, his whole charge consisted only of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. So that

if we stop here, we may restrain the differences of the two Churches to these two Articles, and establish an intire Conformity in all the rest.

AS fast as Mr. Arnaud produces each of these things in particular, he fails not to conclude that the Greeks and Latins had but one and the same Faith touching Transubstantiation. But how happens it he has not seen, that if his Consequence be good, it may be likewise concluded they have the same Opinion touching other Articles, wherein yet is found a manifest Difference? His Proofs have this Property, that if we take each of 'em in particular, they overthrow one another. For if the Greeks and Latins taught only, one and the same thing, why are they made to dispute touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit. If all their Differences may be reduced to the Article of the Holy Spirit, why do they dispute on the Azymes? If they be divided only in these two Points, wherefore in the Council of Florence was there mention∣ed the Doctrine of Purgatory, the beatifical Vision of the Saints, and prima∣cy of the See of Rome? What certainty is there in all these negative Argu∣ments, seeing that each of 'em in particular overthrow one another?

HE will tell us we must take them all together, and conclude from thence in general that the Greeks and Latins are not at all at Variance touching Tran∣substantiation, seeing that in all their Disputes agitated since so long a time, by so many several Authors, and so many several Occasions, we do not find any Contest touching this Point. I answer, we have taken them thus in the preceding Chapter, and found they conclude no better in general than in particular. I consent they be taken in any sort; for if they be examined each of 'em apart, their weaknesses will soon be discovered, being contradictory to one another, and if joyned together, they can produce no greater effect by their Union, than to perswade us the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a Point of Controversy with the Latins. But this is no more than what we al∣ready granted to Mr. Arnand. But that it follows hence the two Churches held this for an Article of both their Faiths: This we deny, and have given our Reasons why we do so.

BUT the more to facilitate the Judgment which ought to be made of these things, it will not be amiss to examine some particular Circumstances, by which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to give Colour to his Argument. He tells us then, first, that the Greeks have been often together with the Latins in Councils, and yet there was never any mention made of Transubstantiation * 1.567 therein: That they were together at the Synod of Barris where Anselm dis∣puted against 'em: That the Abbot Nectairus was an assessor at the Council of Latran under Alexander the III. That the Emperor Emanuel assembled a Council at Constantinople in order to a Reunion, wherein the two Parties fail∣ed not to appear: That there was one held at Nice upon the same Occasion: That Michael Paleologus called several Assemblies in Greece for the same pur∣pose: * 1.568 That he sent his Legats and Deputies from the Greek Church to the Council at Lyons, in which the Reunion was concluded, and that in fine, they met together in the Council of Florence.

I answer, there was never any Council held, either in the East or West, by the Greeks alone, or Latins, nor by Greeks and Latins both together, wherein all the Differences of the two Churches were proposed to be examined. There were never any Points handled in them, but those which were ever openly and expresly controverted, and even not all of them neither. In the Synod

of Barry, there was only handled the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Does this argue they agreed in all the rest? There was not, say's Mr. Arnaud, any other Difference in the Doctrines of Faith. But what matter is it whether the other Differences were concerning Articles of Faith, seeing the Greeks made them the occasion of their Separation, and stuck to 'em with all possible earnestness? Moreover, who told Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks esteem not the Article of the Azymes as a Point of Faith, and likewise those of Purgatory, and the Pope's Supremacy, &c? Neither the Greeks nor the Latins, say's Mr. Arnaud, supposed there were any other Differences between them in Points of Faith, than that touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Yet did they not agree in their Opinions about Purgatory, nor the Pope's Supremacy, and yet according to Mr. Arnaud the Latins of those times reck∣oned not these Doctrines amongst the Articles of their Faith. Sure I am there are People of his own Communion who will not justify him in this Asser∣tion.

'TIS the same in reference to the Council of Lateran. He is willing to make use of it, because he finds it amongst his Collections, but it will be a hard matter for him to shew what past therein touching the Greeks, for all that he can know of it, is contained in the Letters of George Bishop of Corcy∣ra to the Abbot Nectairus, and from the Abbot's Letters again to George, * 1.569 mentioned by Baronius, and which relate not a Word to the purpose.

TO refute what he tells us concerning the Council of Constantinople un∣der Emanuel Comnenus, I need only mention what he himself relates. That the Latins require no more of the Greeks, than that they should mention the * 1.570 Pope's Name in their publick Offices, acknowledg his Supremacy, and right of Ap∣peals. Which is as much as to say, that all the rest signified nothing, provi∣ded the Pope be satisfied.

AT Nice were only examined the Procession of the Holy Spirit, and the Azymes, other Differences were laid aside. And as to what passed under Mi∣chael Paleologus touching the Reunion of the two Churches, Mr. Arnaud for∣gets to put us in mind of that Violence, Deceit, and Tyranny which that Em∣peror used to accomplish his Design, as we already observed, which was man∣naged by Cruelty, Imprisonments, Punishments, and Banishments, and which drew on Michael such a deadly Hatred from the Greeks, that they refused him Burial after his Death; an Affair wherein after all he cheated the Greeks, in making them believe that each Church should keep its Doctrines and Ce∣remonies, and that it signified nothing to amuse the Pope with granting him his Supremacy, right of Appeals, and commemoration of him in their Liturgy.

AS to what concern'd the Council of Florence, the Author of the Per∣petuity having already made use of it, I believ'd 'twas sufficient to answer him that whatsoever passed in it, was a meere politick Intrigue, as well in respect of the Latins, as the Greeks, that Pope Eugenius and his Court acted therein with Violence, and the Greek Emperor mannaged his Business after a very timerous and interessed manner, and the Greek Bishops bewrayed * 1.571 a most pittiful Ignorance and Weakness, several of 'em being won by the Latins, the rest signing the Act of Reunion without any Consultation held first together, whence I conclude there must not be advantage taken hence, as if the Greeks and Latins were agreed in the Point of the substantial Con∣version

under pretence it was not debated in that Council, and that the ra∣ther because the Greeks upon their return into their own Country openly renounced this pretended Reunion.

BE my Answers never so reasonable, yet do they not relish well with Mr. Arnaud, wherefore it must not be expected he was satisfied with this. Much less inquire whether 'twas with or without a Preface, that he offered his new Objections; For 'twould be a kind of Miracle if he who reproaches me with my Prefaces, should so much as once enter upon Examination of a thing, with∣out preparing the Readers by long Discourses. Mr. Claude, say's he, here, * 1.572 who can speak when he pleases, Court Language in his Books of Divinity, pleasant∣ly reproaches in the Preface of his Book the Author of the Perpetuity, that he decides Questions like a Soldier. I examine not at present whether he had Reason for his application of this Expression, I reserve this for the Discourse wherein I design to treat of his personal Differences with this Author. But seeing he has in∣troduced this term in a serious Dispute: I think I may borrow it of him, where∣by to express after what sort he gets clear of some considerable Difficulties, and touching which we may say with great reason, that never Man fought his way thro them more Soldier like than he did. And a little further; I cannot pro∣duce a better Instance of Mr. Claude's Soldier like Humour, than the manner in which he treats of whatsoever passed in the Council of Florence.

IT sufficiently appears Mr. Arnaud design'd to censure the use I made of the Term of Soldier-like, and the Author of the Perpetuity likewise Criticiz'd on another of my Expressions, viz. Fly in a mans Face. But if I may speak my Thoughts of these Censures: It seems to me these kind of dealings become not Persons, that profess a more profound Literature, and consequently should mind things, more than Words, not to say these Remarks are far Re∣mote from the Subject we handle, and contribute little to the clearing up of our Question. Moreover what have we to do with the Court, and its Lan∣guage in our Dispute. I pretend not to speak the Language of the Court, my Condition and Profession keeps me at such a Distance from it, that I know not what Language is spoke there. I do not question but they express them∣selves politely and rationally, but passing my Life as I do out of the Palaces of great Personages, and far from the Honour of their Commerce, their ways of Expressing themselves are unknown to me. I am not perhaps sufficient∣ly in Love with the Age I live in, to leave my common Expressions, to ac∣commodate my self to that of the Court. In short, I pretend not to speak so neatly, as to suppose my Style is without Fault. I leave to others the Clo∣ry of becoming Masters of Language; to discredit received Expressions, and introduce new ones, whether justly or not, I refer my self to others to judg, that understand them. In the mean time methinks Mr. Arnaud should not so greatly find fault with this Term of Soldier-like, considering the use I made of it. I believed, said I, I ought much less to make use of this new Me∣thod which that Author has found out whereby to refute Mr. Aubertin's Book, and in effect this is to do like Alexander, who cut the knot he could not untye, and to Dispute Soldier like. This Term thus used in a Preface seemed supportable: Yet I am sorry it has offended Mr. Arnaud, if it be because we made his Friend a common Soldier, let him consider likewise, we represented him also as an Alexander.

BUT howsoever let's see whether my Answer concerning the Council of Florence, is so Soldier like as he pretends. Policy, say's he, has its Bounds,

it has not a part in every Affair, nor effects all things: Who doubts it? All that I attribute to the Effects of that Policy which reigned so much in that Council, was, that it obliged the Greeks to Reunite themselves with the La∣tins, without a Pre examination of all the Differences between the two Churches, in hope each of 'em should keep their own Doctrines, and suffer no Innovations. This was the same Policy Michael Paleologus inspired his Bishops with, as we already observed, and made them consent to the Union at the Council of Lyons, under Gregory the X. Now this is called in my Dicti∣onary, (for Mr. Arnaud tells me too of Dictionaries of my own making) this is called, I say, a plastered Union, an external Agreement which has no more than the Shadow and appearance of a Union, seeing that within there is a real Separation.

THE Judgment which ought to be made of my Answer, depends on two Questions, the first, whether in effect Policy had any share in this Affair, or not: the second, whether we may justly say that it so far prevail'd on the Greeks as to make 'em silent in the Point of Transubstantiation, altho they did not believe it.

FOR the deciding of the first Question, I desire no other Person than Mr. Arnaud himself, 'tis no great Mystery, say's he, to tell us that in this Design of an * 1.573 Union, touching the Differences which divided the Greeks from the Latins, there should be politick Respects, and humane Interests; this is neither marvelous nor un∣just. But whether Just, or Unjust, is not the Question, it is sufficient to me there were such Respects in this Affair. The Turks, say's he likewise, made great Progresses, and reduced the Emperor to the greatest Extremity. And a little lower, The Emperor chose rather to treat with the Pope and Cardinals, as being more able to procure him that Assistance, he needed and hoped to obtain by means of the Union, than with the Council of Bale. Here then we have the Policy and Interest of the Greeks described. The Fathers of Bale, say's he moreover, were very desirous to raise up the Dignity of their Council, by an Union with the Greeks, and therefore they made the most advantagious Offers they were able, to the Deputies of the Emperor John Paleologus Emanuel's Son and Successor. But Eugenus the IV intending to transfer the Council from Bale to Ferrara, he made use of the Reunion of the Greeks for a Pretence of this Translation, and so orde∣red it with the Greek Emperor, that he engaged him to send word he could not come to Bale. So that here we have again the political Interest of Eugenus and his Bishops. We might here relate several matters touching the misera∣ble State of the Greeks, and of the Negotiations of the Council of Bale, and of Pope Eugenus with the Emperor and Patriarch, touching the Reasons why the Pope was preferred, and several other Circumstances. But it is needless to prove a Point that is granted.

COME we then to the second Question, whether it may be truly said that Policy so far prevail'd on the Greeks as to make 'em silent on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, altho they did not believe it. For the clearing up of this Point, the Reader must here remember what I proved in the foregoing Chapter. 1. That there are two sorts of different Opinions between the Greeks and Latins, some of which broke out into open Disputes, and others not. 2. That altho the Doctrines of the two Churches touching the Change hap'ning in the Eucharist, are in the main infinitely different, yet is their Difference concealed under a Vail of Expressions common to 'em both. On these two Principles I say we must not imagine there was made in this Coun∣cil

a general Discussion of all the Points wherein these two Churches differ'd, nor that the Union was carried on upon this Account. It was indeed at first the Sentiment of George Scholarius who told the Emperor, that to make a so∣lid and lasting Union, it was needful to examine all the Doctrines on both sides, * 1.574 without omitting any. But for the making of a politick temporary Union, the sending of three or four Deputies was sufficient, which would produce the same, if not a better Effect, and would be more beneficial to their Country, than if the Em∣peror and his whole Clergy were present. This Advice was presently liked of, but not taken. For there was neither mention in the Council of Christ's de∣scent into Hell, the Salvation of the Damned, Apocryphal Books, nor of a∣ny other Points but what had been openly controverted, and of them how ma∣ny were passed over in Silence? There was no mention of the Communi∣on in both kind, altho the Greeks hold the necessity thereof, nor of the Priests Coelibacy, altho this had been formerly debated, nor use of carved Images, which the Greeks esteem Idols, nor Ministry of Confirmation, which the Latins hold belongs only to the Bishop, whereas the Greeks administer it by their Priests, altho Photius made it a Cause of Separation. Neither was there any mention of the use of Blood, and Creatures strangled, which the Greeks hold unlawful, altho Cerularius made it his chief Accusation, nor of the vi∣sible Light which shined about the Body of our Saviour on Mount Tabor, which the Greeks hold to be a Beam of God's eternal Light, nor several other Errors broached by Palamas which the Greeks have embraced, nor of the Pope's Power to grant Indulgencies, which the Greeks deride, nor of the three Immersions they believe necessary in Baptism. There was only mention of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Azymes, Purgatory; the beatifical Vision of the Saints, and papal Supremacy. And yet there were but two of these five Points discussed neither, namely that of Purgatory, and that of the Holy Spirit; the others passed into the Decree without Examination, as ap∣pears by the Acts of the same Council. And now would Mr. Arnaud make us believe that Policy could not so far prevail on the Greeks, as to make 'em silent in the Point of Transubstantiation? It made 'em silent in Points expresly set down in their Books, in others which were publickly controverted betwixt them and the Latins, and agitated in the time of their Separation, and yet it could not shut their Mouths, in Reference to an Article on which they saw nothing determin'd in their Church, neither for it, nor against it, on which neither they nor their Fathers had yet Disputed, and of whose Importance they could not judg, being hindred by their Ignorance.

MOREOVER, had Transubstantiation been proposed to have been ei∣ther approved or rejected, Mr. Arnaud's Argument would have some Colour perhaps. I say perhaps, for after all, if their Policy was so prevalent as to make 'em sign a Decree against their own Consciences, wherein they re∣nounced their ancient Opinions touching the five Articles, and received those of the Latins; who sees not that it might as well obliged 'em to receive the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion? But howsoever they were not put upon to acknowledg it, and their Silence signifies no more on either part, but that both were quietly permitted to enjoy their own Opinions. We must not imagine they pretended to approve by Virtue of this Union all the Do∣ctrines of the Latins, and there could be no more concluded thence at far∣thest, than a simple Toleration, as of other Points which were not discussed; Now if humane Interest was so powerful over the Greeks as to make 'em abjure their own Opinions, and embrace in appearance others, can it be thought strange they should pass over in Silence an Article of that kind. It

seems on the contrary that Zeal for their Religion, if they had any spark of it yet left, should oblige 'em to restrain the Dispute to a few Points, for they would lose as many of 'em as they proposed. The necessity of their Affairs forced them to make a Sacrifice of 'em to the Latins, so that all those they could smother by their Silence, were as so many Points won, because they were not lost.

MR Arnaud tells us, that their politick Interests were not so prevalent over * 1.575 'em, as to take away from 'em all kind of Liberty, and carry them forth to the betraying of their own Judgments without resistance; that on the contrary they managed their Pretensions, and that the Question touching the Holy Spirit was discussed in this Council, with as much exactness as ever any was in any Council. That if they betrayed their Conscience, it was thro humane Weakness, having first rendred to their Opinions all the Testimonies which could be expected from weak Persons: But what could be alledged to less purpose? All this is true in respect of the Doctrines which they were forced to abandon, to subscribe to contrary ones; but this signifies nothing to others they mention not, and which consequently they were not obliged to receive, amongst which that of Transubstantiation was one, and moreover this Resistance and Management he speaks of, only appeared in the Doctrine of the Procession, and not in o∣ther Points contained in the Decree, for they passed them over without Ex∣amination and Discussion, except that of Purgatory, which was slightly regarded.

MR. Arnaud sets himself to show afterwards that the Latins did not su∣spect the Greeks held not Transubstantiation; that they betrayed not their own Sentiments, nor were wilfully ignorant of those of the Greeks. We shall hereafter consider the Conduct of the Latins; But make we first an end of examining that of the Greeks. Does Mr. Claude, say's he, know what he say's when he makes such unreasonable Suppositions? Does he consider into what absur∣dities he plunges himself. Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongst them∣selves before they parted from Constantinople, to conceal their Opinions on this Point from the Latins, and carried on this Design so dexterously, that amongst so many Greeks there were not one of them that discovered this Secret to the La∣tins? There are certainly judicious Persons enough still in the World to de∣termine which of us two seems to consider most what he say's. I do not pretend that either the Greeks plotted together at Constantinople, or that they carried it so closely at Florence, but that the Latins might know (if they would) what was their Belief touching the Eucharist; Their Books speak their Minds. These Complots and Conspirations are Phantasms which appear to Mr. Arnaud in the heat of his Study. I pretend no more than what is true, to wit, that the Greeks passed over in Silence several Articles on which they had not the same Sentiments as the Latins, and I believe Transubstantiation was one of them. If Mr. Arnaud pretends the contrary, it lies upon him to produce his Reasons. Let him tell us what Complot there could be between the Greeks and Latins, in reference to their Silence in so many other Points, which were not discussed. Let him tell us at least why in the Acts of the Council, and other Writings, wherein is mentioned the Eucharist, when the Latins say, Transubstantiate, the Greeks on the contrary say only Consecrate and Sanctify. Wherefore in the Decretal of the Union, whether we read it in Latin or Greek, we find no mention there of the substantial Conversion. Why the Article of the Sacrament was expressed in these general Terms, Corpus Christi veraciter confici, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Was it Policy or

Ignorance, or Complot, or Conspiration which made them reject the Terms of Gregory the VII. The Bread and Wine are changed substantially into the true, proper and living Flesh, &c. or those of Innocent the III. The Bread is tran∣substantiated into the Body, and the Blood into the Wine? For, for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a true and real Transubstantiation, be∣cause 'twas thus the Latins understood their Confici, is a frivolous Pretence which I have already refuted.

MR. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Latins could not be Ignorant of the Sentiment of the Greeks, nor the Greeks of the Latins; But to no purpose. It signifies nothing to me whether they did, or did not know one anothers Opinions. We will suppose if he will, they made this their par∣ticular Study, but then what signifies this to our Question? I am satisfi'd they were reunited without any formal Declaration of their Agreement in this Point, for as it cannot be concluded from their Silence on other Points, that there were no difference betwixt them, so is it the same concerning Transub∣stantiation. Mr. Arnaud reasons ill, because he argues from this Principle, that the Greeks disputed on all Particulars wherein they knew they differed from the Latins. This is a false Principle, as appears by the Instances I already pro∣duced. It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wea∣ried with the Debate, hastned to Expedients whereby to conclude the Union. We have left, (say's he to his Greeks) our Families in danger, exposed to the * 1.576 Fury of the Infidels. Time slips away, and we advance nothing, let us lay aside these Disputes, and betake our selves to some Medium. And therefore we find * 1.577 the Greeks telling the Latins: That they were not for Disputing, because Dis∣putes generally ingendred Trouble. But they should indeavour to find out some other means of Union. We have already told you, say's the Emperor to Cardi∣nal Julian, that we are not for any more Disputes, for Words are never wanting * 1.578 to you. Your Dialect will never suffer you to acquiesce in any thing, being ever ready at a Reply, and to speak the last. Let us I pray then lay aside these tedious Con∣troversies, and betake our selves to some other means for reuniting us.

BUT the Greeks assisted at the Service of the Latins, and adored the Mass in the same manner as the Roman Church, say's Andrew de St. Cruce. I answer * 1.579 they were present at the Service of the Latins, not to show they approved their Doctrine touching the Conversion, but only in token of their Union, each Church keeping its own particular Belief. Who will wonder if People who could against their Consciences sign a Decree wherein they expresly ab∣jured five of the Articles of their Faith, whereby to reconcile themselves with the Church of Rome, should yield to be once present at its Service? Yet this was not without offering Violence to themselves, for Syropulus observes, that the Pope having sent them word that on the morrow they must celebrate Mass, and consummate the Union, and that if there were any amongst them would par∣take of the Mysteries of the Latins, they should prepare themselves; at these Words the Greeks were seized with Horror, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. * 1.580 Moreover I know not whether what Andrew de St. Cruce says be true, that they adored the Mass in the same manner as the Latins, for the same Syropulus relates that they stood all the time of the Office; We stood, say's he, in our * 1.581 Vestments during the Liturgy. But supposing it were true they used the same external Ceremonies as the Latins, it would not hence follow they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, nor gave the Eucharist a sovereign Ado∣ration. For to kneel before an Object is not in the Sence of either Greeks or Latins, a token that a Man adores it; neither with an absolute Adoration, nor that of Latria.

I am so far from excusing this Action, that I believe it is on the contrary inexcusable both before God and Men; But how great soever their Fault was in assisting at the Service of the Latins, which they so greatly abhorred, it appears that what they did, was not to testify they believed the same things as they, but that the Union after a sort was accomplished. For they were present at their Service, only in hope the Latins would likewise assist at theirs, and in effect the Emperor was very urgent with the Pope for this. To which the Pope replied, he would first examine their Liturgy, and particularly con∣sider in what manner they celebrated it, and see whether he could satisfy their Demands. Whereupon the Emperor finding himself abused, thus expressed * 1.582 himself. We hoped the Latins would have amended several Errors, but I find them not only Innovators and Blame worthy in several things, but that which is worse, they take upon them to reform us. It is worth while to observe what kind of Union this was, which being perfected, the Pope declares on his side, that nei∣ther he nor his Latins had considered the Liturgy of the Greeks, and the Em∣peror on the other hand, protests the Latins are Innovators, and guilty of se∣veral Errors.

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, supposing Policy hindred the Greeks from opposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, what end could Syropulus have in concealing from us this Mystery? Why discovering to us as he does, his Countrymens weak∣ness; he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Sub∣ject of his History? Why does he not blame the Ceremonies of the Latins? Wh•• has he not detested in his History the Adoration of the Host, and Feast of the Ho∣ly Sacrament, of which he was a Witness? Why did he not deplore the Abomina∣tions of those of his Nation, that were present at the Popish Mass, who shewed it the same Respect as the Latins, which is to say, adored the Eucharist. To all these Wherefores, I shall oppose others: Why didnot Syropulus take notice of the Silence of the Greeks and Latins, on the Article touching the Salvation of the Damned, and Christ's descent into Hell, and offering them his Gospel? Why did he not censure the Neglect of both one and th'other, in that they mentioned not a word concerning the Marriage of Priests, nor communion under both kinds, nor of all those other Articles I denoted in this Chapter? These kind of Questions which Mr. Arnaud makes, are good for nothing but to impose on inconsiderate Persons? Syropulus is an Historian that contents himself with relating what passed of moment in this Affair, and sometimes to give his Opinion in general thereupon; but it plainly appears he never in∣tended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd. A History is not a Dispute: Wherefore then should he Discourse of Transub∣stantiation in it? Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins, or detest the Ado∣ration of the Sacrament, and its Feast? Why tell us of the Adoration which the Greeks rendered to the Host of the Latins, seeing he assures us on the con∣trary, that they stood bolt upright during the Liturgy? Mr. Arnaud who calls upon others so much, to think upon what they write; has he I say, conside∣red what he saies concerning the Feast of the Holy Sacrament? Wherefore, say's he, has not Syropulus detested the Feast of the Holy Sacrament, of which he was a Witness? For I shall only tell him: He has not mentioned a word of it, and yet 'tis certain the Greeks do not approve it, but on the contrary con∣demn it, as I already show'd in the foregoing Book. It does not then follow the Greeks hold Transubstantiation, altho Syropulus speaks not of it.

AND thus much concerning the Council of Florence. Mr. Arnaud like∣wise

draws some Arguments from what passed after the Greeks had renoun∣ced this Union. And first he takes for granted, that Transubstantiation was established in this Council, and that the Greeks solemnly approved of it. On this Principle he runs on arguing beyond all bounds, that those that violated the Union, should inveigh against this Doctrine of the Latins, and those that approved it. He introduces again Syropulus, and alledges Marc of Ephesus, and describes his Hatred against the Latins: He tells us of a Synod held at Je∣rusalem, against the Patriarch Metrophanus, and those of his Party. This was the time, say's he, if ever, to reproach those with Transubstantiation that had consented to the Union, and approved this Doctrine in it. He takes Occasion * 1.583 hence to bless God the Greeks had renounced this Union, acknowledging the Divine Providence therein, which permitted it thus to come to pass, to the end he might not want matter for his Book. Whatsoever we related, say's he, touching the Greeks approbation of Transubstantiation would have less force, had * 1.584 this Agreement subsisted. It would have been alledged that politick Interest having made the Greeks consent to the receiving of this Doctrine, they were afterwards withheld by Fear from condemning it, and being insensibly accustomed to it, dared not immediately reject it, by reason of the bad estate of their Affairs. But to the end their real Belief might appear in this Subject, it was necessary this Agree∣ment should be disturbed, and their Passion at liberty to break out, that they should indeavour to make void whatsoever they had confirmed at Florence: That they should attack the Union in all possible manners, and denote whatsoever they could gainsay, reproachfully charge and caluminate the Latins with whom they had treat∣ed, and the Greeks who had consented to the Union, that their Hatred and Rage should discover it self-without Disguise and Constraint.

ADMIRE I beseech you this flight of Fancy, and vast extent of Thought. The Good and Evil which befel the Christian World two hundred Years ago, appears design'd for the Glory of Mr. Arnaud's Book, with this only Difference, that the Evils contribute to it more than the Good; for 'tis the Schism, Passion, Hatred, and Rage of the Greeks which give him a com∣pleat Victory. It was necessary, say's he, they should be thus furious, which is as much as to say, it was necessary half of the World should be damned, according to him, that God should be dishonoured by a thousand Crimes, and his Church torn to pieces by a dreadful Division. And why? For to furnish Mr. Arnaud with an Argument, and that he might have Matter for one Chapter more.

BUT he will be much amazed to find this Argument so dear bought, to conclude nothing, being grounded on a false Supposition. For 'tis false the Greeks approved Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence: That they Disputed not of it, I acknowledg, but that they approved it I deny. Bessa∣rion speaking in their Name, say's, that the Bread is Consecrated, and made the Body of Christ; and the Decree bears, that the Body of Jesus Christ is truly Consecrated: Therefore they approved Transubstantiation. What a Consequence here is? Mr. Arnaud has a Secret above my Apprehension, for he can change the very Nature of things, he can diminish and augment them as he pleases. But the Misery on it is, this appears contrary to Reason. Why will he have the new Schism of the Greeks, to have hapned meerly for the furnishing him with an Argument? It was not known in those days he was to make a Book. Why will he have the Greeks approve Transubstantiation at Florence? See∣ing there was not the least mention of it? Why must those that broke the Union, reproach the others with approving the Doctrine of the Latins?

Why will he have Syropulus, Marc of Ephesus, and the Council of Jerusa∣lem, to declaim on this Point, seeing they had no reason to do so. Certain∣ly such gross Illusions as these, deserved not such Exclamations.

IT only remains for the finishing of this Chapter, and this matter of Ne¦gative Arguments, to show a Reason for the Silence of the Latins, and that will be no hard matter to do. The Latins have innovated in the Doctrine of the Eucharist: They have grounded their Innovations on certain Expressions of the Fathers, which bear that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ. They have made it their Business for some Ages, to make the World believe these Terms signify a true and real Conversion of the Substance of Bread, into that of the Body of Christ, to defend themselves by this means from the Reproach of Innovation. Ob∣serving then that the Greeks do commonly use these kind of Expressions, and even added to 'em some others which seem more emphatical; as for Instance, that the Bread is not a Figure, that it is the true Body of Jesus Christ, and that the Body born of the Virgin, and the Bread, are not two things, but one and the same; they well knew it was their Interest to rest satisfied with these general Expressions, altho in effect they signify nothing less than Transub∣stantiation. Had they condemned them as insufficient, and urged the Greeks to admit of theirs, they would at the same time condemned themselves as In∣novators. They chose then rather to pass over softly this Article, than to ven∣ture near a Rock against which their Cause ran a risk of being dashed to pieces. And this obliged them in their Dealings with the Greeks, to content themselves with their Expressions, and accommodate themselves to 'em, that they might not move 'em, as appears by the Formulary of the Reunions al∣ready mentioned, and Decree of the Council of Florence, wherein was used only the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, and Confioi in Latin.

YET we must not imagine but that judicious Persons amongst the Latins, and especially those that had the Government in their Hands, saw well enough the Difference, between these general Expressions of the Greeks, and the pre∣cise and determinate ones of the Roman Church. That learned Man I men∣tioned in the seventh Chapter of the foregoing Book, (who was consulted on the Articles which the Russians in Poland, proposed in order to their Reunion with the Roman Church, amongst which was this, that they should not be obliged to Celebrate Corpus Christi Feast, nor carry about the Sacrament in Procession) answered, That as to what concern'd the Procession, it was not a * 1.585 matter to stick at, but there were things of greater Importance to be considered touching the Sacrament. De processione infesto corporis non laborarem, multa ta∣men circa hoc Sacramentum examinanda sunt. And therefore when particular Persons amongst the Greeks imbrace the Roman Religion, the usual terms of their Church are not counted sufficient, but they are made to understand di∣stinctly the substantial Conversion, and to receive the term of Transubstanti∣ation, as we already offered in the Procession of Faith they are obliged to make. Hence proceed all those Efforts since so long a time, to introduce in∣sensibly amongst the Greeks this Belief, by means of false Greeks, as appears by the Example of that Monk mentioned by Mr. Basire, who had slily insi∣nuated the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his Catechism, and was censured for it by the rest. When the Scholars of the Seminaries are sent into Greece, to live a∣mongst the Schismaticks, and procure the establishment of the Roman Reli∣gion, they are made to sign the Confession of Faith I now mentioned, which expresly denotes Transubstantiation: So likewise is their Language far diffe∣rent

from that of the real Greeks, as appears by the Example of the great Paysius Ligaridius, and the terrible Baron of Spartaris. And this is evident in the Greeks that imbrace the Romish Religion, for they speak not as others, nor as they did themselves before their Conversion, as I already instanced in Bessarion, Emanuel Calecas, and John Plusiadene.

IT is the Latins great Interest not to dispute against the Greeks on all the Points wherein the two Churches differ; And therefore they give in charge to the Emissaries, to use the greatest Caution in handling Controversies. It is sometimes expedient to fall upon Controversies, say's Possevin, but they must be * 1.586 warily and moderately handled: Neither must a Man mention any of these five Articles which were heretofore the principal ones, and which the Synod of Florence and Gennadius handled. For now the Controversies of the Azyme and Eucha∣rist are no longer agitated, neither in Candia, nor any other of the Eastern Parts. And therefore these Points cannot again be received, without giving just Offence. As to the Article of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, there are few that under∣stand it, and should it again be controverted, 'tis likely 'twould happen that those who were ignorant of it before, would after Inquiry into that, pass over to other things.

THE Latins greatest Interest then, consists in two things; the first, to subject the Greeks by any means to the Roman See; and th'other, insensibly to change the ancient from of their Religion, and slily introduce amongst them the Doctrines and Rites of the Latin Church. To accomplish the first of these, the Latins act and yield every thing as far as the Honour of their Church will permit them, and according as they find fewer or more Difficulties. Mr. Ar∣naud himself has discovered something of this, when he told us that in the Council of Constantinople held under Emanuel Comnenus, The Latins only re∣quired * 1.587 of the Greeks that they should mention the Pope's Name in their publick Prayers, acknowledg his Supremacy, and the right of Appeals to him; the rest at that time being not regarded. We have likewise seen that Michael Pale∣ologus perswaded his Bishops to Imbrace the Union, seeing there were no more required of them than these three Points. Yet the Article touching the Holy Spirit, was so ancient and famous a Difference between them, that 'twas a hard matter to reunite therein, and take no notice of it, and we find the Greeks themselves mentioned it, because it had been one of the chief Cau∣ses of their Separation. The Latins then not being able to pass over this Point in Silence, offered the Greeks sometimes, that provided they received this Doctrine in their Belief, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they might keep their Symbol as it was, without expresly adding the Filioque. And this the Popes Legats who were at Nice after the taking of Constantinople, told them as from him, according to Mr. Arnaud's Relation. * 1.588 The Pope, say they, will not constrain the Greeks to add this Clause expresly in the Symbol, when they shall sing it in the Church. And it was upon this Con∣dition that the Reunion was made in the Council of Florence: But when the Latins saw a more favourable Occasion, they extended their Pretensions far∣ther, and changed their Custom, as will appear by what I am now going to say. Nicholas the III sent Legats into Greece to the Emperor Michael Pale∣ologus to solicit him, to oblige his Patriarch and Prelates to make their Profes∣sion of Faith, which they had not yet made, and renounce their Schism. The Emperor earnestly besought the Pope to leave the Symbol untouched, and not oblige the Greeks to sing it with the addition of the Filioque, to prevent all Tumults: But Michael being known to be a Prince devoted, (for his inte∣rest)

to the Roman Church, and therefore might be easily prevailed on, the Pope gave order to his Legats to answer him touching this Article, as follows. That the Unity of the Catholick Faith permits not Diversity in its Confessions, ei∣ther in the Act of Profession, or in the Chaunt, or any particular Declaration of * 1.589 Faith. Much less was this to be suffered in the publick singing of the Creed, where∣in Uniformity ought especially to appear, in as much as this Chant comes often in their Service. Wherefore, adds he, the Church of Rome has determin'd, and re∣solved that the Creed shall be sung in Conformity as well by the Greeks as Latins, with this addition of the Filio{que}. The Greeks were not so rigorously dealt with∣al at Nice, nor Florence: The Unity of Faith suffered under Gregory the IX, and Eugenus the IV, what it could not bear under Nicholas the III: Which is as much as to say, that the Faith yields as oft as need requires, to this great In∣terest of submitting the Greeks to the See of Rome. The Greeks are com∣plyed withal, when it cannot be helpt, and the Spirit of Domination becomes Master of that of the Dispute.

AS to the second Interest, which consists in changing insensibly the Religi∣on of the Greeks, and slily insinuating the Doctrine and Rites of the Roman Church in its stead, it appears from the Course they take, that this is the De∣sign of the Latins. It is for this purpose that Seminaries have been set up at Rome, and other places, and the whole East long since orespread with Emissa∣ries. It is in order to this, that the Emissaries apply themselves to the con∣verting of the Greek Bishops, and instructing of Youth in the Roman Religi∣on, under pretence of teaching them the Tongues and Philosophy. And 'tis for this end likewise, that the Scholars of the Seminaries are entertained and sent into Greece; they have the Liberty to receive Orders from the Hands of schismatical Bishops, and the Bishopricks are indeavoured to be filled with them, and they are sometimes promoted to Patriarchates. It is clear that in taking this Course, they have no need to dispute it out with 'em.

IT will not, I suppose be amiss to observe here what Thomas a Jesu (who wrote a Book touching the means for the Converting of Infidels, Hereticks, and Schismaticks) tells us, is the ready way to convert all Greece to the Ca∣tholick Faith. His Holiness, say's he, who is so vigilant for the Salvation of Souls, * 1.590 must take care, that as soon as ever the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople be∣comes void, to pitch upon one of the Scholars of the Seminaries, or Monks who have taken upon them Ecclesiastical Charges in Grece. He must choose one whom he thinks most fitting, and give him notice thereof, but as privately as may be, lest the Greeks come to know 'tis he that gives him the Patriarchal Church of Con∣stantinople, Elects and Confirms him Patriarch. For this effect his Holyness must order him to betake himself to Constantinople, where he will find Ambassa∣dors already prepared by his Holyness, who by the Presents they shall make the Turk, (on whom the Election and Confirmation of the Patriarch depends, altho unjust∣ly,) will obtain, by adding something to the usual Tribute, that he command the Greeks to choose for their Patriarch, him whom his Holiness shall design. They will no sooner demand this, than obtain it; for Mony will make the Tyrant do any thing, as appears by the little Difficulty he makes of taking away the Patriar∣chal Dignity from those that have it already. Moreover there ought to be no scruple made of this, as if it were a kind of Simony: For this is not a setting the Patriarchate upon Sale, seeing his Holyness has already given it, Money is only made use of to remove some Difficulties. Now Divines are unanimous in their Opinions, that we may free our selves from Vexations and Obstructions, by means of Money. Neither can it be alledged that hereby the Metropolitains

will be deprived of their right of Election; for 'tis clear their Elections are inva∣lid, being as they are Schismaticks, and consequently have have no Jurisdiction: Moreover it seems to be rather the Turk that makes the Election, than they, for they Consecrate him whom he Presents. So that here will this Advantage redound from this aforementioned Election. 1st. That as fast as the Schismatical Bishops dye, the Scholars of the Seminary, or others, of whose Judgment there is no cause to doubt, will take their places. 2d. The Reformation of the Schisma∣ticks may be happily undertaken and effected in particular Synods. But his Holyness must never despair nor be weary, or think it sufficient that he has elected one Patriarch. He must on the contrary substitute another again and again, ever putting Scholars of the Seminary into the places of the Deceased, until all the old Schismatical Prelates be dead, and their places filled with Catholicks. And see∣ing that the Election of Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch depend likewise on the Turk, because they are Greeks; and that the Government of these Churches is in the Hands of Greeks, the same Measures must be taken in respect of them, by means of Ambassadors. It is certain that this Affair will be successful, for Money does all things in this Country. So that all the Patriarchs being Roman Catholick, and their Duty obliging them to establish Catholick Bishops and Curats according as their Wisdom shall direct them; nothing will hinder us from saying in a short time, behold one Flock, and one only Shepherd. The Schismatical Pre∣lates will be rooted out, and those who from their Infancy have been piously brought up in the Bosom of the Catholick Church, will take their places. These new Pre∣lates by the uprightness of their Lives, and soundness of their Doctrine, may go∣vern a People who are only Erroneous upon the account of their natural Facility and Proneness to believe what their Bishops tell them. And this is the Course Thomas a Jesu would have taken, and not that of Disputes and Controver∣sies.

CHAP. VII.

Several Passages of Greek Authors (Cited by Mr. Arnaud) Ex∣amined.

THAT which remains to be examined of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute touching this matter of the Greeks since the eleventh Century, will not long detain us. He produces some Passages out of Theophy∣lact, Euthymius, Nicholas Methoniensis, Cabasilas, Simeon de Thessa∣lonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and several of the Greek Books of Divinity. They are the same we find in all the Controvertists in Bellarmin, Cardinal Perron, Coccius, Father Noüet, and especially Allatius, from whom it seems Mr. Arnaud has taken them, rather than from their Originals. It will be a needless Labour to relate them at length, one after another, toge∣ther with Mr. Arnaud's Commentaries on them: It will be sufficient I exa∣mine as much as is necessary to give the true Sence of them, and to discover Mr. Arnaud's Errors; which I hope to do so clearly, that the Readers will remain satisfied.

FIRST, Theophylact, Euthymius, Cabasilus, and Jeremias, assure us that the Bread of the Eucharist is not an Antitype, that is to say a Figure, or Re∣presentation, but the very Body it self of Jesus Christ, because he did not say, this is the Antitype, but this is my Body. I grant all this, and I joyn all these four Authors together on this Head, that I may thereby avoid Mr. Arnaud's Pro∣lixity, who having proposed them one after another, could not avoid the oft repeating of the same Inductions and Arguments: One Answer shall serve for all. Theophylact, say's he, keeps to the propriety of Words, he excludes * 1.591 whatsoever varies from 'em: He overthrows and absolutely rejects all metaphori∣cal Significations, and keeps close to the literal Signification of the Word EST. * 1.592 Euthymius, say's he, excludes the Key of Figure, and plainly shows he has not taken the Word EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT. He has then taken it in a Sence of Reality. From whence he concludes that these Authors could not mean that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue, seeing they would argue contrary to their Intention; For as our Saviour said not, This is the Fi∣gure, nor that the Bread he would give should be the Figure; so neither has he said, that he would give the Virtue of his Flesh, or that the Bread he would give, should contain the Virtue of his Flesh.

I answer, Mr. Arnaud need not trouble himself with shewing us that the Greeks admit not the figurative Sence in our Saviour's Words, neither take the Term EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT. We grant it him: And we grant likewise that we agree not with them in this. But the Questi∣on here is to know, whether it thence follows they believe Transubstan∣tiation. Now I maintain that not only this does not follow, but that the con∣trary does; for they hold a kind of middle way between the Sence of Figure and that of Transubstantiation. In a word, they believe that the Bread re∣maining Bread (as to its Substance) is yet the proper Body of Christ, by Augmentation of the natural Body, as we already shewed in the last Chap∣ter of the foregoing Book. What does Mr. Arnaud desire more? Would he have us shew, that the Greeks believe the Bread is made the Body of Christ by this means, in the same manner the Food we eat becomes our Body? They say so in express terms. Would he have us shew him, that by this means, the Substance of Bread loses not its Existence, nor is changed into the pro∣per Substance of the Body that 'twas before? The thing it self speaks as much, and we have shewed it in its place, as clearly as a thing of this Nature can be shew'd. Does he doubt that the Greeks believe by this means, to keep the precise and literal Sence of our Saviour's Words? They do themselves de∣clare that they understand them no otherwise. Would he have this, in fine, to be but a bad way of keeping the literal Sence? The Greeks maintain the contrary, and alledg for this Effect the Instance of Food which is made one with our Body, by this same way of Assimulation and Augmentation, and that it cannot be said these are two Bodies, but one and the same Body.

BUT as, say's he, our Saviour said not, this is the Figure, so neither did he say, this is the Virtue of my Body, but this is my Body. 1st. This is to dis∣pute against the Greeks, and not against us, who never undertook to war∣rant the Truth of their Opinions. 2d. They will answer him this Im∣pression of Virtue is sufficient to make the Bread our Lord's Body without a Figure, and there is no need of a change of Substance, because the Substance of Food is not precisely changed into that which we have already, but only added to it, to make a Growth, or Augmentation, yet becomes our

Body in a proper and literal Sence, not a Figure, but our Body it self, not another Body, but the same we had before. Besides they will affirm that the Sence of the Roman Church is not a literal Sence: For the literal Sence of our Saviour's Words must retain two things. First, that 'tis Bread, and second∣ly, that 'tis the Body of Christ, which Transubstantiation does not.

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood, and yet we do not say, Baptism is not the Figure of it, but the Blood it self of Christ. * 1.593 I answer, that this is still to dispute against the Greeks, and not against me. For supposing it were more true than it is, that the Water of Baptism is not mentioned, like as the Greeks speak of the Bread in the Eucharist; yet still these two things are certain; First, that they affirm the Bread to be the Body of Christ by this Impression of Virtue; and secondly, that 'tis thus they Un∣derstand the Words, This is my Body. Ely de Crete having told us that God * 1.594 changes the Oblations, into the Efficacy of his Flesh. Immediately adds, and doubt not of the Truth of this, seeing he himself plainly say's, this is my Body, this is my Blood. It is apparent he grounds this change of the Bread into the Ef∣ficacy of Flesh, on the express Words of our Saviour; Whence it follows that 'tis thus he understands them. Cyrillus of Alexandria, having likewise said in the same manner, that God changes the Oblations into the Efficacy of his * 1.595 Flesh, adds, that we must not doubt of the Truth of this, seeing he has said it, which evidently shews that according to him, these Words, this is my Body, signifies no more, than that this has the Efficacy of my Body, or is my Body in Efficacy. Yet should we take upon us to reply in behalf of the Greeks, to the Instance or Example Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Baptism; We might tell him that the Reason why they express not themselves in the same man∣ner in reference to the Water, as they do to the Bread, is because our Savi∣our never said of it, this is my Blood, as he said of the Bread, this is my Bo∣dy; and that the Holy Scripture having differently explained it self touching Baptism, and the Eucharist, we must not think it strange, if Divines have ex∣pressed themselves about them in a different manner. He may be moreover answered, that the same Oeconomy observed touching the Body and Blood of Christ, is not observed in the Water of Baptism, as it is observed in the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and therefore it cannot be so well said that the Water becomes the Blood by this way of Growth and Augmentation, as may be said of the Bread, altho it receives the Impression of the Virtue of Blood.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud adds that the Ministers acknowledg these Words, this is my Body, must be either understood in a real, or figurative Sence, whence it follows according to him, that Theophylact understood them in one or the other of these. I say this Reasoning is false, as well in its Principle, as Conse∣quence: For the Ministers do not acknowledg either that we ought, or can understand these Words, in this Sence of Reality the Church of Rome gives them. We all hold that this is an absurd and impossible Sence, and that none but a figurative one can subsist. But supposing the Ministers should say what he makes them, why would he have us regulate thereby the Sence of Theo∣phylact and other Greeks. They have argued on their own Hypothesis, and not on that of the Ministers: Whether their Hypothesis be justifiable, or not, is not to be disputed with the Ministers, for Mr. Arnaud was never yet told that the Greeks were agreed in all things with us. It is sufficient that on one hand, he be shewed in what manner the Greeks pretend the proper Sence of our Sa∣viour's Words is observed, and on the other, that this manner, whatsoever it

be, Good, or Bad, Justifiable, or Unjustifiable, Conformable, or not Conforma∣ble to what the Ministers say, is directly opposite to Transubstantiation, for our only Question is, Whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not.

THIS is then a mere Illusion to explain Theophylact by what the Mini∣sters say or not say, and it is yet a greater, to tell us as if it were a thing ear∣nestly Disputed between him and us, that Euthymius excludes the Key of Figure, and does not take the Word EST in the Sence of Significat; that 'tis not like∣ly we would borrow Euthymius his Words to instruct a Man in our Opinion, and * 1.596 that we are not wont to say, that Christ gave us not the Figure of his Body, but his Body, because he said, this is my Body. And thus do Men argue that impose on the World, which Mr. Arnaud never fails of doing.

HAVING produced these Arguments, which in my Mind have not proved very successful to him, he offers us others, drawn from the Doubts or Difficulties, which the Greeks propose to themselves, as arising from their Sen∣timent, and which they endeavour to resolve in the best manner they can. The∣ophylact, say's he, testifies there arises naturally a Doubt from what Faith teaches concerning this Mystery, that the Bread is really the Flesh of Christ, which dif∣ficulty * 1.597 he expresses in these Words. Quomodo, inquit, neque enim caro videtur; How can this be? For this Bread does not seem to me to be Flesh: Whence he observes the natural Consequence of this Change must be, that the Bread being Flesh must appear to be so, and seeing it does not, 'tis astonishing. Et quomodo, inquit aliquis, non apparet caro sed Panis? Now, say's he, let a man take Au∣bertin's, or Mr. Claude's Gloss, to expound Theophylact, and we shall find no∣thing can be more Extravagant. For this is as much as to say according to them, if it be true the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body, how comes it to pass, that it does not appear to us to be Flesh? Whence is it we see only Bread and not Flesh? Is it not ridiculous to make People reason after so absurd a manner. And why must this Bread containing only the Virtue of Christ's Body appear Flesh, when it is not so? Does it follow from the Breads partaking of a spiritual Quality of the Flesh of Christ, either morally or physically, that it must appear Flesh? Would it not be on the contrary a dreadful Prodigy, if the Flesh of Christ being only in Virtue in the Bread of the Eucharist, should appear Flesh.

AND this is Mr. Arnaud's Reasoning, set forth with its usual Sweetness, that is to say, of Extravagancies and Absurdities, with which he charges both me and Mr. Aubertin. I answer he is under a Mistake, and such a kind of Mistake too, wherein his Reputation is deeply concern'd; for he takes for the Ground of Theophylact's Doubt, that which is on the contrary the Solu∣tion of it, as will appear by what follows. Now a Man cannot fall into a greater Error, than to take for the cause of a Doubt, that which is the So∣lution thereof, and which makes the Doubt cease. To Dispel then this vain Shadow, under which he has disguised the Passage of Theophylact, we need only examine the several Parts of this Author's Discourse, and show their mutual Dependence. Immediately treating on the Words of Christ, he rejects the Sence of Figure. Jesus Christ, say's he, in his Commentary on St. * 1.598 Mathew, by these Words, this is my Body, shows us that the Bread which is Con∣secrated on the Altar, is the Lord's own Body, and not an Antitype. For he did not say, This is the Antitype, but, this is my Body, this Bread being changed by an ineffable Operation, altho it appears to us to be still Bread. He say's the same thing on the sixth Chapter of St. John, and the fourteenth of St. Marc. So far he asserts that the Bread is the Body it self, and Flesh of Christ; but he

does not explain after what manner it is so. Now because from this Proposi∣tion thus generally conceived, and not explained, there may arise two diffi∣culties; one, how the same thing can be Bread and Flesh; th'other, how it does not appear to us to be Flesh, but Bread; Theophylact proposes 'em both, * 1.599 and resolves 'em. He proposes the first in these Terms: The Bread is changed into our Lord's Flesh by mystical Words, by the mystical Blessing, and coming of the Holy Spirit: And let no body be troubled that he must believe the Bread is Flesh. He resolves it by the Example of the Bread which Christ eat, and which was changed into his Body, and became like unto his Flesh in augmen∣ting it, and nourishing it. The Lord, say's he, when as yet in the World, re∣ceiving * 1.600 his Nourishment from Bread, this Bread he took, was changed into his Body, and became like unto his Flesh, and contributed to augment and sustain it af∣ter a natural manner, so in like sort this Bread is now changed into our Lord's Flesh.

IT is plain, this Answer supposes that the Bread is made the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation, and by a kind of Assimulation, as the Bread which he eat whilst on earth, became his Body. Now first we see that this is not the Romane Transubstantiation: The substance of Bread which the Lord eat, was not changed into the same Substance which he had before, it was joyned unto it, and made like it: But moreover what relation has this with the Diffi∣culty which Theophylact proposed to himself? Is it not evident that it must be solved after another manner, supposing he believed Transubstantiation. For it must be said that the Bread is not Flesh, but only as it is really and substan∣tially converted into the same Substance of this Flesh. The Romish Hypothesis would unavoidably lead him to this; but instead of this, he answers by an Example wherein Transubstantiation is not concern'd, and this shows clearly that he had not this Transubstantiation in his Thoughts.

AS to the second Difficulty, which consists in that if the Bread were Flesh, it would appear Flesh, as it may equally spring both from the Solution which he came from giving to the first Doubt, to wit, the Comparison of the Bread which Christ eat, which was changed into his Flesh; and from the general Proposition he established in the beginning, to wit, that the Bread is the Flesh and the Body it self of Jesus Christ, not his Image; he considers it likewise as coming from both one and the other of these two Principles. He propo∣ses it in his Commentaries on St. John, as arising from the Solution he had given it: For having related this Comparison of the Bread Christ eat, which became his Body, he adds, how then can it be said? Why does it appear to us to be Bread, and not Flesh. In effect, if it be the same with the Bread of the Eu∣charist, as that which Christ eat, it seems it ought appear to us, to be Flesh as the other did. To this Theophylact answers, that if it appeared Flesh to us, we should be struck with Horror at the sight of it. It is, say's he, to the end we may not conceive Horror in the eating of it: For if it appeared to us to be Flesh, we could not but abhor the Communion. It is then by an effect of God's Condescen∣tion to our Weakness, that the Mystical Food appears to us to be such as we are used to. This Answer suffers us to conclude that 'tis not the Physical or Natural from of Flesh, which is communicated to the Eucharistical Bread, but the other; For if it received the Physical Form, as the Bread Christ eat did, it would appear Flesh as well as that Bread did. All this agrees still very well with the Greeks Hypothesis.

BUT some will reply, this Answer is short, for it does not sufficiently ex∣plain

what is this other Form which the Eucharistical Bread receives, and which makes it the Body of Christ? I reply, the Answer would be short in∣deed, had not Theophylact clearly explained himself thereon in his Commen∣tary on St. Marc, wherein he proposed the same doubt, as arising from the general Proposition, that the Bread is Flesh. This Bread, say's he, is not a Fi∣gure of our Lord's Body, but it is changed into the Lord's Body: The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh. He does not say 'tis the Figure of my Flesh, but my Flesh. And in another place, if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man. But it will be replied; how does it not appear to be Flesh? O man, 'tis because of thine Infirmities: For because the Bread and Wine are Food familiar to us, and that we are not able to suffer Blood and Flesh before us; God full of Mercy, in Con∣descension to our Weakness, conserves the Species of Bread and Wine, but changes them into the VIRTUE OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD. It is clear he means that our Weakness not suffering us to eat Bread which re∣ceived the natural form of Flesh, God conserves the Bread and Wine in their proper Species; but to make them his Flesh and Blood, imprints on them this supernatural Virtue. Who sees not that the whole Scope of his Discourse tends to this; The Bread is the real Flesh of Christ, not its Representation, because there must a proper Sence be given to our Lord's Words? But if it really be this Flesh, why does it not appear Flesh? It is by an effect of God's Condescention, which seeing we are not able to bear the sight of Flesh and Blood, makes the Bread his Flesh, not by an Impression of the substantial Form of Flesh; but by an Impression of Virtue.

IT appears then from the Explication which I now gave to Theophylact's Discourse. 1st. That Mr. Arnaud has been strangely mistaken when he ima∣gined that to expound him according to our Sence; he must say, if it be so that the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body, why does it not appear Flesh to us? For this Doubt does not arise from the Bread's being Flesh in Virtue; on the contrary, 'tis that which dissipates the Doubt, and makes it vanish: It comes either from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh, and not the Figure of Flesh; or from this other Proposition, that it is Flesh even as the Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Flesh; but the Doubt re∣solves it self by this last Proposition, that it is changed into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood.

SECONDLY, It appears likewise from thence, that Theophylact had not Transubstantiation in his Thoughts: For if he had it in his Thoughts, he must have solved the Difficulty in another manner: He must have said that the appearance of Bread remains; but that its Substance is changed into the Flesh of Christ, and for this Reason does not appear Flesh, but Bread. But yet notwithstanding the Doubts would not have ceased as they do now, for it might be demanded, how this appearance of Bread subsisted alone, with∣out its natural Substance, how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread, which was not Bread; and by a real substance of Flesh, which ap∣pears not Flesh; how this same Substance of the Flesh of Christ can be in Hea∣ven, and on Earth at the same time; and several other such like Questions, which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly. It appears likewise that Theophylact believed, that if the Bread was Flesh otherwise, than by an Im∣pression of Virtue, it must needs appear Flesh. For in saying that 'tis in Con∣descention to our Weakness, that God changes it into the Virtue of his Flesh; he leaves it to be concluded that otherwise our Infirmities would not be suc∣coured, and we must unavoidably behold Flesh in its natural Form.

MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue, which is found thus descri∣bed in proper terms in Theophylact's Discourse, endeavours to give three dif∣ferent Explications of them, and leaves us at liberty to choose either of them. First, that by the virtue of Flesh, we must understand the Reality, the inter∣nal Essence of this Flesh. The second, that this is a way of speaking, which is usual with the Greeks to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Force, or Power of Flesh, to signify Flesh full of Efficacy. The third, that when two things are joyned together in Truth, and in the Mind of those to whom we speak, it often hap∣pens * 1.601 that in expressing them, we denote but one, without excluding the other, and with a design to make the other understood, which we do not express by that which we do. Which he afterwards explains in these Terms. It is certain that the Consecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Christ: It is certain likewise that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy. These two Truths are joyned, and are the Consequences of each other: And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly express them, as does Euthymius, who tells us in express Terms, That as Jesus Christ deified the Flesh he took by a supernatural Operation, so he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body, which is the Fountain of Life, and into his proper Blood, and into the Virtue of both one and the other. But as these two changes are still joyned in Effect, and the Fathers supposing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful; It sufficed them to ex∣press the one, to make the other understood: And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, without expressing it is filled with its Virtue, because one follows the other, and Theophylact having told us se∣veral times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, tells us once, that 'tis changed into its Strength, as the sequel of a Mystery which makes it conceived wholy entire, because the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the virtue of Christs Body, from the Body it self, nor his Body from its Virtue, it never having entred into their Minds, that Christ's Body was in Heaven, and that we have only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue, whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue, upon the account of its being really and truly present in our Mysteries. And 'tis by these Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Tran∣substantiation from the Passage of Theophylact.

BUT in general, all these three Explications appear to us to be forced, and neither of 'em to be chosen: There needs not this great stir to find Theophy∣lact's real Meaning. He means no more than what his Expressions plainly in∣timate, to wit, That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and he means nothing else. Had he believed a change of Substance, he would have said so: as well as a Change of Virtue, and so much the rather as I observed, that the Difficulty which he proposed to resolve, obliged him to explain himself clearly about it. Why does not the Bread be∣ing Flesh, appear to be so? Because its Substance is only changed, and its Ac∣cidents remain. A Man that believed Transubstantiation must needs say thus.

THE first Explication especially, can have no grounds, because that when we speak of the Virtue of a thing to signify its Truth, Reality, and inward Es∣sence: It is only when the Question concerns this Truth, or this Reality in re∣spect of its Operation or Effects, and Mr. Arnaud's Instances confirm what I say. For when St. Paul said, speaking of Hypocrites, that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but that they denied the Power, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he means, they have only a false Appearance of it, a vain Shadow, but not the Reality of it, which is seen by its Effects. So when Hesychius say's

that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly, not to know the Virtue and Dig∣nity of it, and to be ignorant that 'tis the Body and Blood of Christ according to Truth: That this is to receive the Mystery, and not know the Virtue of them; he did not mean that the Mysteries were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sub∣stance, but according to the spiritual Understanding, which is what he calls the Truth of the Mystery, it is the Body and Blood of Christ, because what offers it self to our sight, is only the Shadow and Vale of the Mystery; but that the Divine Object represented by these sensible things, is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Mystery, because its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them: As to what he alledges of Paschasius, besides that he is an Author who affects Obscurity, as is usual with Innovators, and that there is a great deal of Injustice in regula∣ting Theophylact's Sence, by his Expressions, besides this I say, there is no∣thing can hinder us from saying that when he called the internal Essence of things their Virtue, it was in respect of their Operation and Effects. But this cannot be said of Theophylact, for his Discourse does not concern the Ef∣fects of the Eucharist, but only to know, why the Bread being the Flesh of Christ, yet does not appear Flesh. If then he would say, it is because the ap∣pearance of Bread remains, and that its Substance is changed into the Sub∣stance of the Body of Christ, to what purpose should he explain himself in this manner, it is changed into the Virtue of the Body. Why should he say Virtue for Substance, seeing that here there was no Question raised about the Efficacy of the Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud's second Explication, is no better than the first. He tells us tis an usual way of speaking amongst the Greeks, to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Strength, or Power of Flesh; to signifie the Flesh full of Efficacy. But not to enter into the Discussion of his Criticism, concerning which much might be said, did he only pretend to prove it by two Verses of Horace, by a Passage of Paschasius Ratbert, and another of St. Bernard's. I say that when Authors express themselves in this manner, the Virtue of a thing, to signify a thing full of Virtue or Efficacy, 'tis only when they consider this thing under the Idea of its Virtue or Efficacy, and not otherwise; Thus when Horace say's, The Virtue of Scipio, and the Wisdom of Lelius: It is because he considered them under the Quality of Virtuous and Wise, as we call the King his Ma∣jesty, then when we are filled with the Idea of his Greatness. It is the same in these Expressions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Force or Rapidity of the River, for a swift River, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the strength of Hercules, for the valiant Hercules, for then they are considered under the Idea of their Strength. Our Saviour say's, the Virtue of the Holy Spirit, when he meant the Effects of the Power of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. St. Bernard say's likewise in the same Sence, that the wise Men acknowledged the Virtue of God in the weak Body of a Child, because he designed to oppose the eternal Power of the Divinity, to the weak∣ness of Childhood. But there is no such thing in the Passage of Theophylact, for he does not consider the Flesh of Christ in respect of the Effects which it displays on the Faithful, but simply considers it in Reference to the Bread which is changed into it, and the Point is not to know, as I have already said, why this Bread produces so great Effects; but only why being Flesh, it does not appear Flesh, but Bread. So that these two pretended Explications of Mr. Arnaud's are but mere Evasions, being Groundless and Improbable.

AS to the third, did ever any man see any thing more forc'd, and Illuso••y, than this whole Discourse he makes to establish it. When the Bread, say's he,

is changed into the Body of Christ, it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy. What means Mr. Arnaud by this? If the Bread be changed into the Substance of Christ's Flesh, it ceases to be Bread: Now that which ceases to be, is no lon∣ger filled with any thing, because 'tis absolutely no longer in being. There remains only the external Figure, and when we understand that 'tis this ex∣ternal Figure that is filled, we cannot say that that which is changed is filled, for 'tis not the Figure that is changed. It is certain when a Mans Head is o∣very full of Philosophical Notions, they make him forget himself.

IT sometimes happens, adds he, that Authors express these two Truths joyntly together, as Euthymius has done. But I already shewed that Euthymius in say∣ing the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood, and into the Virtue of both; never designed thereby to express two different things; but only made use of two different Expressions, to signify one and the same thing; the latter of which is only the Explication of the former, his Et, being to be taken, for a that is to say.

MR. Arnaud goes on and say's that Theophylact having said several times the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, tells us once 'tis changed into his Strength, as an effect of the Mystery, which makes it conceived intire. But it is easy to answer him, that when Theophylact say's the Bread is changed in∣to the Body, and that it is changed into the Virtue of the Body, these are neither two distinct things, nor two parts of the Mystery, but two Expres∣sions which signify at bottom but one and the same thing; with this Diffe∣rence, that the one is general, and th'other particular, the one more confused, and th'other more distinct, the one, which gives way in some sort to the Doubt by its generality, and th'other which resolves it. It is certain he has said several times the Bread is changed into the Body, and only once, 'that 'tis changed into the Virtue of the Body, but it is also true, that he never said it is changed into the Substance of the Body. If he only once spake of the Change of Virtue, this once is sufficient to shew his meaning. Others have mentioned it as well as he, as Theodotus, Cyrillus of Alexandria, Victor of An∣tioch, Eutychius, Euthymius, Ely de Crete. Who could ever be perswaded all these Authors (who lived in divers times) have conspired together to say al∣ways Virtue, and never Substance, altho they had in their Thoughts a Change of Substance, and not of Virtue.

THE Language of the Greeks is Conformable to that of Paschasius his Adversaries, as he shews us himself in his Commentary on St. Mathew. They said the Bread was changed into the Virtue of the Flesh of Christ, and Pas∣chasius is not so nice in his Language as Mr. Arnaud. He neither say's the Virtue signifies Verity, Reality, internal Essence, nor that the Virtue of the Flesh, signifies the Flesh full of Virtue, nor that 'tis only one part of the My∣stery which signifies the other. All these Turnings were not in fashion in his time: He very honestly takes this Term in the true Sence of those that used it. I am astonished, say's he, at what some say now, viz. that the Eucharist is not * 1.602 the Flesh and Blood of Christ really, but Sacramentally; a certain Efficacy of the Flesh, not the Flesh itself, the Virtue of the Blood, but not the Blood itself. In this manner did they understand it, who spake of a change of Virtue, and thus was it taken by Paschasius: But Mr. Arnaud has found that according to the Rules of his Grammar it must be taken otherwise, and as if he were the sole Judg of mens Thoughts, and Interpreter of their Sence, he assures us that this Change of Virtue, signifies a Change of Substance, by three Explications, of which he gives us the Choice.

MOREOVER I know not why he should tell us, that the Faith of the * 1.603 Eaithful never separates the Virtue of Christ's Body, from the Body itself, nor his Body from its Virtue. For if he means this generally, as his Expressions intimate, he should remember what he said just before, That Baptism contains the Vir∣tue of Christ's Blood, in the same manner the Ministers imagine this Virtue to be * 1.604 contained in the Eucharist. He should have observed that in his Chapter on Nicholas Methoniensis, he positively asserts, that the Virtue of Christ's Body is * 1.605 communicated to the Water of Baptism, and the Oyl of Confirmation. It seems to me here's a manifest Contradiction, for if the Faithful do not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body, from the Body it self, that is to say according as he understands it from the Substance of his Body: How does the Water of Bap∣tism, and the Oyl of Confirmation contain the Virtue of this Body, seeing 'tis out of Doubt that they contain not the Substance of them? But whence has he learned such a profound kind of Doctrine, that the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body, from the Body it self? Does not this Virtue accompany the Word of God which St. Paul calls the Power of God to Salvation, and in which, notwithstanding there is not to be imagined a Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body? Does he not know that the Fa∣thers teach, We eat our Saviour's Flesh, as well in the hearing of the Word, as in the Participation of Baptism, which can only be understood of the Vir∣tue separated from the Substance? If Mr. Arnaud say's that he understands this as meant only of the Eucharist, besides that his Terms are general, and in manner of a Principle, which he afterwards applies to the Eucharist; be∣sides this I say, this does not at all resolve the Question, seeing our Debate is, Whether the Virtue of the Body is in the Eucharist together with the Sub∣stance, or whether it be in it alone, and without the Substance. Wherefore must not the Faithful who acknowledg in other Particulars this Virtue with∣out the Substance, acknowledg the same thing in the Eucharist?

AND this is what I had to say to the Passage of Theophylact, and which may likewise serve for an Illustration to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Ni∣cholas Methoniensis. This Author wrote a Treatise which is inserted in the * 1.606 Bibliotheca Patrum, under this Title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Against those that doubt, and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

MR. Arnaud, say's he, finds the Ministers very much perplexed touching this Doubt. But this is only an imaginary Difficulty: For what Perplexity is * 1.607 there in it? These People doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ: But did they doubt that the Bread and Wine were the Signs or Representations of the Body and Blood of Christ? No, this was not the Cause of their Doubt: Did they doubt that 'twas the Body of Christ in Virtue? Should we take their Doubt in this Sence; 'twould not be such a strange Matter as Mr. Arnaud makes it. He may declame if he pleases, Why could not they believe Christ might morally communicate to the Bread, the Virtue of his Body? Is it a harder matter to communicate to the * 1.608 Bread the Virtue of Christ's Body, than to communicate it to the Water of Bap∣tism, and the Oyl of Confirmation? This is but a Flourish, for Palladius tells us that a Monk doubted of this very thing, having had no Respect to Mr. Ar∣naud's Remonstrances. He doubted touching the Gifts, and said, how can the * 1.609 Gifts sanctify me. St. Ambrose in his Treatise de Initiatis, combats the same

Doubts touching the Virtue of Baptism: Is this then this great Mystery which Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, nor yet hath entred into the Heart of Man to conceive? I see the same Water which I see every Day, is this that which must cleanse me? Mr. Arnaud must not imagine it is so easy a matter for weak and prophane Persons, to believe a supernatural Virtue to be communicated to the Bread and Wine. We have already seen that Cyrillus of Alexandria, and Ely de Creté, having told us that God changes the Bread into the Virtue of his Body; add, that we must not doubt of it, seeing Christ himself say's it, which shows that this is as much a Subject of Doubt, as any thing else.

BUT there is no necessity of expounding in this Sence the Doubt of those of whom Nicholas Methoniensis speaks: His Expressions must not be altered. They doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ, and this Doubt arose from the general and usual Expressions of the Greeks, who positively affirm it. What can be concluded hence? The Greeks then understand these general Expressions in a Sence of Transubstantiation, or real Presence. I deny it, and that with Reason; for this does not follow: But it will be replied, these Doubters at least believed their Church, took them in this Sence, and 'tis likely this was the Occasion of their Doubt. Which I also deny, for if these were their Thoughts, why did they not tell us so? Why could not they say they doubted of the Truth of this Doctrine, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. To what purpose so many Words? This Proposition, the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, offended them; and which way soever they turn'd it, it could not seem to them capable of a rational Sence. Whether this Doubt arose thro want of a thro-Consideration, or whether in effect they had exa∣mined the matter, or had considered the Proposition, either confusedly in it self, or in the Exposition, the Greeks gave of it, is more than we know, for Nicolas Methoniensis say's nothing of it, and we cannot inform our selves elsewhere. This is a matter of Fact, on which every Man may make his Con∣jectures, but yet this Principle must remain undenyable, that their Doubt a∣rose from this Proposition, the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ; and not from this other, the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ.

LET Mr. Arnaud shew us if he pleases, how it happens that between these two Doubts which Theophylact and Nicolas Methoniensis propose, there arises never a one touching the substantial Conversion; for supposing the Greeks believed it, it could not be, but some must doubt and say, how is the Substance of Bread changed into that of the Body of Christ; even as they say'd, how is Bread Flesh? How is Bread the Body? The Languages, which * 1.610 according to Mr. Arnaud, are not so barren but they can furnish us with Expres∣sions to say, I doubt whether the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body, I doubt whether it is the Figure of the Body of Christ? Can they not likewise sup∣ply them with proper Terms, who would say, I doubt whether the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body?

THERE is nothing then in the Doubt of these People which Nicholas Methoniensis handles, which can favour Mr. Arnaud's Cause. Neither is there any thing in his Answer which will do him any Kindness. Nicolaus Methoni∣ensis says, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ. That this Mysti∣cal Sacrifice takes its Original from our Lord himself: That we must not despise what has been taught us by this Divine Mouth which cannot lye: That 'twas he himself told us, this is my Body, this is my Blood, and if you eat not the Flesh of

the Son of Man, nor drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. That we must not charge him with want of Power, seeing he is Almighty: That his Body was born of a Virgin above the course of Nature, and above the Thoughts and Ap∣prehensions of Men. Mr. Arnaud is so well satisfied with these Expressions, that he cries out in a Transport of Joy, that they are just, natural, and befitting * 1.611 a Bishop to Utter, that believes Transubstantiation, and Refutes those that do not! But what is there in all this, which does not agree with the Sentiment of the Greeks, being such as I have represented it, in the thirteenth Chapter of the foregoing Book? The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, by the Im∣pression of his supernatural Virtue, and is made this Body by way of Augmen∣tation: This is an Effect of his almighty Power, which acts above the Course of Nature; But it does not follow that this is a Transubstantiation. Had Nico∣laus Methoniensis meant a Change of Substance, why could he not say so, the Tongues which Mr. Arnaud has so inriched when the Virtue of the Body was in Question, must they immediately become so poor again, when the Questi∣on concerns that of Substance? Could not they furnish this Bishop with pro∣per Terms, to say that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Bo∣dy? Which is what he ought to find in Nicholas his Expressions to bear him out in his Exultations. But Mr. Arnaud can find matter of Triumph when he pleases.

NICOLAUS Methoniensis continuing his Discourse, adds, perhaps you doubt of this Mystery, and do not Believe it because you do not see Flesh and Blood. He means according to Mr. Claude, say's Mr. Arnaud, perhaps you do not be∣lieve * 1.612 the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of Christ's Body and Blood, because you do not see Flesh and Blood; as if there must appear Flesh and Blood, that we may believe the Bread and Wine contain the Virtue of them. These Peoples Rea∣soning, adds he, would consist according to Mr. Claude in a very pleasant Argu∣ment, if the Bread and Wine Contain'd the Virtue of Christ's Body, there would appear Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, but there does not appear Flesh and Blood; Therefore they do not contain the Virtue thereof. He enhaunceth this Remark by an Example taken from my Book, which contains, say's he, morally my Virtue, so that it may be demanded why my Person does not appear in all the Chambers wherein my Book is read.

THIS Discourse is so full of Error, that I can scarce believe it is Mr. Ar∣naud's own. 1st. Supposing we do attribute to these Dubitants the Argu∣ment he has formed, he cannot call it a pleasant and ridiculous Argument, as he has done, without contradicting himself, and deriding his own Maxim, which he laid down in his Chapter touching Theophylact, That the Faith of the Faith∣ful * 1.613 doth never separate the Virtue of Christ's Body, from the Body it self, nor his Body from his Virtue, and that it never entred into their Thoughts the Body of Christ was in Heaven, and that we receive only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue, whereas they believe we receive only this Strength and Virtue, from its be∣ing really and truly present in our Mysteries. Supposing that Nicolaus Metho∣niensis his Doubters, reasoned on the Principle of Mr. Arnaud's Believers, their Argument would contain nothing but what is natural and reasonable. For if the Virtue of Christ's Body be only in the Eucharist, upon the account of his Body being really and truly Present in it, it naturally follows there must appear Flesh therein, seeing the Virtue thereof cannot but be accompanied by this Flesh, according to Mr. Arnaud and his Faithful. This Reasoning must be wholly grounded on two Propositions, the one, that wheresoever the Body of Christ is substantially present, there must appear Flesh, this is a na∣tural

Consequence; th'other, that the Virtue of this Body is only in the Eu∣charist, because the Body it self is substantially in it, this is Mr. Arnaud's Faith. If this Reasoning be Pleasant and Ridiculous, it cannot be so upon the account of the first Proposition; for as I said, it is self Evident. It must be so then by reason of the second, that is to say, upon the Account of Mr. Arnaud's Faith. Is it not strange Mr. Arnaud should forget himself so soon as ever he has leap'd out of one Chapter into another, and ridicule himself. I confess it may hap∣pen that a Man, altho otherwise considerative may fall into Contradiction; for there are few Persons but what are lyable to Mistakes; But it is strange a Man should combat and fall foul on himself, because that when we are ear∣nestly intent on any Subject, the Ideas thereof return, and Attention furnishes us with that Matter which offered not it self at first. But that such a man of Parts as Mr. Arnaud, should Contradict and Confute himself, and Scoff at his own Assertions in the same Book, at three Chapters Distance, is in my Mind a little amazing.

II. BUT moreover, 'tis certain Mr. Arnaud has been plainly mistaken in the Arguing which he attributes according to us, to Nicolaus Methoniensis his Dubitants. For we never told him their Doubt was grounded on the Bread's being the Body of Christ in Virtue. Perhaps, say's Nicolaus Methoniensis, Ye doubt of this Mystery, and do not believe it, because ye do not see Flesh and Blood in it. Their Doubt was grounded on the general Proposition of the Greeks: That the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ. Nicolas say's, perhaps this Proposition appeared to them incredible, because they did not see Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist. We should know whether these Doubters acknowledged, this was in effect the real Cause of their Doubt; but supposing it were, all that can be concluded thence, is that they would Reason in this sort, If the Bread be the Body of Christ it must appear Flesh; But it does not, therefore it is not Flesh. This Reasoning opposes the Expression of the Greeks, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, as also the Example which they gave of it, to wit, of the Bread which our Saviour eat; but it does not disa∣gree with the Exposition which they gave of it, which is, that it is the Body of Christ in Virtue; on the contrary we have already observed, that Theo∣phylact uses this Exposition for the solving of the Objection contained in this Reasoning: Which plainly shews that whilst this Proposition, the Bread is the Body of Christ, stands alone, and unexplained; it may give occasion to Ignorant People to form this Objection, but as soon as 'tis explained and shew∣ed in what Sence the Greeks understand it, the Doubt vanishes.

AND this will more plainly appear, if we consider the Answer which Nicolaus Methoniensis made to those that doubted, for it comes very near to that of Theophylact. God, say's he, respecting our Weakness, lest we should con∣ceive Horror at the Pledges of Eternal Life, as being not able to indure the sight of Flesh and Blood, does therefore deliver to us things familiar to our Nature, and has joyned to them his Divinity, saying, this is my Body, this is my Blood. This Answer does in a manner explain in what Sence the Greeks believed the Bread was the Body of Christ, to wit, by its Union with the Divinity, which does very well solve the Argument of the Doubters, and bereaves it of its Strength. For if it be the Body of Christ only by this means, to wit, by its Union with the Divinity, there is no longer occasion to say it should appear Flesh.

IT is then clear that this whole Dispute of Nicolaus Methoniensis over∣throws Transubstantiation, as well as that of Theophylact. For as to those

that doubted, had they known the Greek Church taught that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body, they would have grounded their Objection, not on the general Proposition, that the Bread is the Body; but on the particular one, to wit, that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body, whence it more strongly and distinctly follows that it ought to appear Flesh after the Change. And as to the Answer return'd them, they must have been told that the Substance only is changed, and that the Accidents of Bread remain to serve as a Vail to the Flesh of Christ; This is what ought to be answered on the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation, and not that the Bread is joyned to the Divinity. This Answer would be absurd if we suppose Transubstantiation, of the Difficulty would still remain, Why the Bread becoming the Substance of our Lord's proper Flesh, it does not appear Flesh? Yet Nicolaus Methoniensis will have these Objectors rest satified with his An∣swer, and extends not their Doubts any farther.

CHAP. VIII.

The Profession of Faith which the Sarracens were caused to make in the twelveth Century, considered; several Passages out of Cabasilas, Si∣meon Archbishop of Thessalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and several others, Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors: Examined.

VVE have already rehearsed the Profession of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century caused the Sarracens to make, that imbraced the Christian Religion; to shew the Greeks kept themselves to the general Expressi∣ons of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Christ, and how they are changed into this Body and Blood; leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof. It is certain this is all can be concluded thence, and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profession of Faith to his Advantage: But seeing he designed to make a Proof of it, it seems to me, he ought at least to rehearse truly the Terms of it, and not alter them as he has done in his Version. I believe, say's the Convert, and confess the Bread and Wine which * 1.614 are mystically Sacrificed by the Christians, and of which they partake in their Di∣vine Sacraments. This Clause thus expressed, has not contented Mr. Arnaud, and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form, altho it be so in the Greek and Latin Version. I believe also, say's the Sarracen, that these things are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ, being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and invisibly above all humane Understanding, AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF. These are so far the true Ex∣pressions of the Profession; Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Version. I am per∣swaded, * 1.615 I believe, I confess that the Bread and Wine mystically Consecrated by the Christians, and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord, being changed by his Divine Virtue, in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes, and discernible only to the Mind, but

surpassing all the Thoughts of Men, and which is only comprehended by God alone, and so I promise that I will partake of it with other faithful People, as being in truth his Flesh and Blood. By this means. 1st. He confounds two things which the Proselyte distinguishes; The one is to Confess the Bread and Wine of which the Christians partake, and the other, to Confess that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. These two Clau∣ses being thus distinguished, it is clear the first supposes that 'tis Bread and Wine; and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one. 2dly. Instead of rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intellectually and Invisibly, he has taken such a Circuit as changes the Sence: In a manner, say's he, which our Eyes do not discover, and which is discernable only to the Mind: To hinder the Readers from observing that the Change in Question is Spiritual and Mysti∣cal, not Sensible, or Material, for this is precisely what is meant by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 3dly. Instead of these Terms, As he alone knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which gives us to understand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Mystical Change is; He has Translated, In a manner Comprehended by God alone, to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Ro∣man Church, which expresly determines the Change of one Substance into a∣nother; But not being able to disintangle herself from the Difficulties she finds in this Doctrine, sends us to God.

AND yet with all these Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profession of Faith, unless it be, that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that they are changed by his Di∣vine Virtue: But this is not the Point we disputed on: They are then chang∣ed in respect of their Substance: It is this Consequence which we deny▪ In Effect, whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ by a change of Virtue, and by way of Augmentation, as the Greeks explain it, or otherwise; it is certain that they are so truly, and not falsly; So th••s Professi∣on of Faith then means no more than this, that we must believe the Bread and Wine are not vainly and imaginarily the Body and Blood of our Lord, but really and truly, altho God only knows how they are changed, or what kind of Change happens to them. Now this supposes on one hand that they are still Bread and Wine, and on the other, that we must not proceed so far as to a change of Substance.

MR. Arnaud then advertises the World to no purpose, That these kind of Writings are design'd to represent the General, Publick, and Universal Sentiments of the Church, and not the Particular Sentiment of Authors. That they contain an * 1.616 Exact, Precise, and Plain way of Speaking without Figure, or Metaphor, their End being only to give an Exact and True Account of Points of Faith. It is ea∣sy to turn these Remarks against himself; For seeing these kind of Writings speak Precisely, and Exactly, he ought to shew us Distinctly, and Exactly the Conversion of Substances contained in them: And seeing it is not to be found in them, and yet this Profession of Faith represents the General, Publick, and Universal Sentiment of the Greek Church; It follows that this Publick, Gene∣ral, and Universal Sentiment is not Transubstantiation.

TO little Purpose likewise does he add, That the Church would not have the * 1.617 Converted Sarracens believe that the Bread and Wine were not truly the Body and Blood of Christ, but only his Figure indued with their Virtue. This is not the Point; the Question is to know whether they were taught the Conversion of Substances, which is what he ought to show, but this he will be never able

to do. For, for to teach that the Bread and Wine are really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, (which is what is precisely contain'd in this Professi∣on of Faith) is not as (as I have already said) the teaching the Conversion of Substances. Moreover I never told him the modern Greeks asserted the Eu∣charist to be a Figure: And as to the Change of Virtue we do not prove it, it is true by this Profession of Faith, but we prove it by other Testimonies, which are so plain and expressive that Mr. Arnaud can give no solid Answer to them.

THERE only remain now of all those pretended Proofs of Mr. Ar∣naud, some Passages out of Cabasilas Bishop of Thessalonica, Simeon Bishop also of Thessalonica, Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, and some other Greek Authors. They all say near upon the same thing, which is, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ: This very Body and Blood. That they are changed into this Body and Blood. But Mr. Arnaud must disa∣buse himself once for all, touching the Thoughts he has, that from these kind of Expressions may be concluded the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substan∣ces: For so far are we from granting this Conclusion to be good, that we pretend we have Reason to draw a contrary Consequence. In effect. 1st. There is nothing more usual in Authors than to say, That the Poor are Jesus Christ, even Christ himself, that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, that we are changed into Jesus Christ, changed into his Body, trans∣formed into him, changed into his Flesh: and such like ways of speaking, Ex∣amples of which are infinite. It is then a great Abuse to pretend these Terms are to be understood in a Sence of Identity and substantial Conversion, as they term it. For (as I said elsewhere,) these Expressions being lyable to be Ex∣pounded in divers particular Sences, and seeing they may be taken in a gene∣ral and indistinct one, there can be no Reason for the taking them, in the Sence which Mr. Arnaud gives them.

II. THE Conversion of the Substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Christ, does of it self, form so precise and distinct a Sence, that when Authors would assert it, they explain it in clear and distinct Terms, which answer the distinct determinate Conception they have of it. Whence it follows, that if the Greek Authors had on this Subject the same Belief as the Roman Church, they would explain themselves so clearly, that there would be no need of running to the Baron of Spartaris, nor Paysius Li∣garidius, nor yet to the six Syrian Priests to make us understand it.

FOR whilst he produces no other kind of Passages but such as these, we shall have still Reason to conclude from hence, that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, because if they did believe it, they would without doubt speak otherwise of it.

III. BUT supposing these Reasons Invalid, we have shewed (when we treated of the real Belief of the Greeks) in what Sence they understand these Expressions. In effect, if we compare the Doctrine of the Greeks with that of the Latins, and throly comprehend what they hold in common, and where∣in they differ, we shall easily perceive Mr. Arnaud's Sophism, for whatsoe∣ver he alledges from Greek Authors, respects this Equivocal part of their Hy∣pothesis, which he believed to be like that of the Latins, altho at bottom 'tis not so; but he has studiously avoided the relating any thing concerning this o∣ther Part, by which the two Hypothesis's distinguish themselves, and vary

from one another. The Greeks and Latins agree in these general Expressions, The Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, it becomes the very Body, the proper Body, the real Body of Christ. They are not two Bodies, but one Body. So far you see they hold the same Language.

BUT go farther, ask them whether the nature of Bread ceases to be. The Latins answer, there remains nothing of its Substance, nor Matter, nor inward Form, but only the Accidents. The Greeks on the contrary say, That the Bread is joyned to the Divinity, that from this Union results one compo∣sed of two Natures, that there is made a Composition of Bread and the Ho∣ly Spirit. Ask the Latins how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ; They Answer, by the Conversion of its whole Substance, into the Substance which this Body had before the Conversion. The Greeks on the contrary say, the Bread becomes an Augmentation of the natural Body of our Lord, and is made by this means his Body: Ask them what Change the Bread receives; the Latins say it is a real Transubstantiation, (that is to say) the change of one Substance into another. The Greeks on the contrary answer, that it is a Sanctification which the Bread receives, and that it is changed into the Su∣pernatural Virtue of Christ's Body. Ask the Latins how the Bread becomes the real Body, the very Body, the proper Body of our Lord born of the Virgin Mary: They answer, 'tis because in effect the same numerical Substance, without any Difference. The Greeks on the contrary say, that 'tis because an Augmentation makes not another Body, than that which receives Augmen∣tation, and they make use of the Example of a Child, which Eating, and Drinking and Growing by this means, has not two Bodies, but one.

MR. Arnaud then has in vain, collected all the Passages of Cabasilas which assert, The Gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, that the Bread is * 1.618 the very Body of our Saviour, the Sacrifice offered for the Salvation of the World, that the Lord is seen and handled by means of the Holy and Dreadful Mysteries, and that we receive him in the Eucharist. These Expressions are common both to the Latins and Greeks, from whence he can conclude nothing, to the Prejudice of these Differences we have observed, and which decide the Question.

IT is in vain he tells us, that Cabasilas Disputing against the Latins, on the Subject of this Prayer which they make after the Consecration: Jube sursum ferri dona haec in manu angeli ad supercaeleste tuum Altare: Reasons on these four Principles which include the real Presence, and Transubstantiation. 1st. That we ought not to wish the Body of Christ be taken up from us. 2ly. That the Body of Christ being in Heaven and on Earth, we ought not to desire it should be carried up into Heaven, because it is there already. 3dly. That it cannot be offered by Angels, because it is above Angels. 4ly. That we cannot without Impiety wish the Gifts a greater Dignity, seeing they are the Body of Jesus Christ.

AS to what concerns the first of these: Cabasilas say's only, We must not pray that the Holy Gifts be taken away from us, but on the contrary, that they may remain with us, and must believe they do so, because it is thus that Christ is with us to the end of the World: Hitherto we see neither Transubstantiation, nor * 1.619 real Presence. As to the 2d. Cabasilas say's, That if the Latins acknowledged it to be the Body of Christ, they must believe he is with us, and that he is above the Heavens, seated at the right Hand of the Father, in a manner known to him, which still supposes neither real Presence, nor Transubstantiation. For ac∣cording

to the Greeks, the Eucharist which is on the Earth, being the Growth of the Body of Christ, is one and the same Body with that in Heaven. So that in manner, the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth; In Heaven, in re∣spect of its natural Substance, and on Earth, in respect of the Mystery, which is its Growth; which is far from the Sence of the Latins, and does not sup∣pose any Transubstantiation. As to the 3d. How, say's Cabasilas, can that be carried up by an Angel which is above all Principalities and Powers, and above every Name. But, methinks this would be to extend the use of Consequences too far, to conclude from hence that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ in pro∣priety of Substance. For it is sufficient to establish the Truth of what Caba∣silas say's, that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue, and by way of Growth, as we have already observed the Greeks explain it, seeing it is true that this Dignity raises it up in some Sence above the Angels themselves, not in respect of its Nature or Substance, but in respect of the Virtue which ac∣companies it, which is the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body. As to the 4th. It is certain that Cabasilas has had reason to say that if the Latins desired the Gifts might after their Consecration receive some new Dignity, and a Change into a better State, their Prayer would be impious, seeing they ac∣knowledged they were already the Body of Christ. For, as he afterwards adds, to what more excellent or Holy State can we believe they pass into? His Reasoning is good, but I do not see it includes (as Mr. Arnaud tells us) the real Pre∣sence, and Transubstantiation: He ought to shew us this, and not assert it without Proof; for it may very well be said in the Sence of the Greeks, that the Bread is capable of no higher a Dignity, than that of receiving the Im∣pression of the Virtue of Christ's Body, and to be made this Body by way of Growth and Augmentation.

IT is moreover in Vain Mr. Arnaud endeavours to shew that in the Sence of Cabasilas Christ does not really dye in the Eucharist, for we never im∣puted * 1.620 to this Author so strange a Doctrine: Neither have we ween deceiv'd touching the Participles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Arnaud has imagined. For we find that Cabasilas calls the Body of Christ not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Ar∣naud supposes, this is a Fault in Grammar which has scaped his Pen for want of heed, and which we must not impute to a Greek; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we have seen likewise he deny's the Body is, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Mr. Arnaud does again assert by a Mistake thro Incogitancy, for we are not willing to attribute it to any thing else. The Greeks do not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Sence, to say the Sacrificed or Slain Body, no more than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is to say that Cabasilas means that the Body has been slain here∣tofore, and not at present. But this does not hinder it from being true, as I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity, that Cabasilas has respect to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, as dead, that is to say under a respect or quality of * 1.621 Death. Which appears by what he say's, that it is not an Image or Represen∣tation of a Sacrifice, but a real Sacrifice, not of Bread, but of the Body of Christ, * 1.622 and that there is but one Sacrifice of the Lamb, of him which was once offered. Whence it follows that Christ is in the Eucharist as Dead, and Sacrificed on the Cross, which is precisely what I said.

MR. Arnaud will say that the Consequence which I draw, to wit, that Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist, is contrary to Cabasilas his Discourse, who assures us, That the Bread is changed into the thing Sacrificed, altho the Sacrifice is not presently offered; But Mr. Arnaud having never well * 1.623 comprehended the Hypothesis of the Greeks, it is no marvel if he has misun∣derstood

Cabasilas his Sence in this Discourse which he makes of the Sacri∣fice in his thirty second Chapter. The Greeks will have the Bread pass thro all the Degrees of the Oeconomy, thro which the Body of Christ has passed, that as the Holy Spirit came upon the Substance of the Holy Virgin, so does he come upon the Bread; that as the Body of Christ was in a corruptible state, Crucifi'd, and Buried; so in like manner the Bread is first Corruptible, lifted up as it were upon a Cross, and buried in our Bodies, as in a Sepulchre. That, in fine, it becomes incorruptible as the Body of Christ was after his Resurrecti∣on: which they establish by this Reason, that the Bread is an augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ; and that as Nature observes on the Food which nourishes us, and augments our Body, the same order she kept in the first matter from which we were formed. So Grace observes in the Eucharistical Bread, the same order she observes in the Natural Body. By this means they will have the Bread become first the Body of Christ, in asmuch as 'tis Mortal and Corruptible, that it be afterwards this dead Body; and in fine, this Incor∣ruptible and Raised Body. Cabasilas his Sence then is, that when the Bread is mystically sacrificed, it is made the dead Body of Jesus Christ, as he speaks himself, the Lamb slain, not that the Body suffers Death in this Moment, but because in this Moment the Bread passes thro the Oeconomy of Death. And thus the Bread is changed into the dead Body of our Lord, not that our Savi∣our dyes in effect, but because the Bread which is the Growth of his Body, is then changed into this Body, in as much as it suffered Death heretofore. And this is Cabasilas his real Sence, which is conformable to the Hypothesis of the Greeks, and not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him.

HE likewise uses to no purpose several Passages out of Simeon of Thessalo∣nica. They say nothing but what I already often answered, to wit, That the Bread is the real Body of Jesus Christ, that it is the very Body of Christ, and I shewed in what Sence the Greeks use these Expressions, and therefore will not any more repeat it. I likewise answered what he alledged touching the Ado∣ration and the unconsecrated Particles.

AS to Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, we may well wonder that he should so confidently offer him us as a Person that teaches Transubstantia∣tion, seeing that not only Jeremias holds the same Language as the others, but asserts several things which opposes the Roman Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud ha∣ving according to his Custom impertinently related several historical Passages, * 1.624 tells us, That the Article of the Ausbourg Confession, which respects the Sacrament, expresly asserting the real Presence, but not mentioning Transubstantiation; Je∣remias answers, that Point is handled in it very briefly and obscurely, and adds, that the Catholick Church holds the Bread is changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Holy Spirit. So that then Jeremias held Transubstanti∣ation: And thus does Mr. Arnaud draw his Consequences; But he is too quick. Some Protestants in Germany sent the Ausbourg Confession to the Pa∣triarch of Constantinople without any Commentary or Exposition on it. The Patriarch examining its tenth Article, which runs thus, Touching the Lord's Supper, they hold the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in it, and are distributed to those that participate thereof, and condemn the Opinion of those that hold the contrary: He say's, This Article treats of the Lord's Sup∣per very briefly, and to say the Truth, somewhat obscurely; For, adds he, we are told several things of you which we do not approve. To say hereupon that the Lutherans understood this Article in the Sence of the real Presence, and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of it, signifies nothing. For it appears that

the Patriarch only considered the Expressions of the Article barely as they are laid down, and found them obscure. And as to those things which were told him of them on this Subject, and which he disapproved, he does not spe∣cify them. When then he adds, That the Catholick Church holds, the Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord thro the Spirit. It is clear his Design is without proceeding any farther into the Examination of their Be∣lief, to tell them that of his Church, and oppose it against their Article, so that we must always return to the Inquiry whether by these Expressions, The Bread is changed into the real Body, he means Transubstantiation, or the o∣ther Change by way of Augmentation, and Impression of Virtue; for 'tis certain, the Article of the Ausbourg Confession respects neither of these Changes.

MR. Arnaud tells us, This was a proper place wherein to assert the Body and * 1.625 Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacrament, seeing only their Virtue is in it. I answer, a presence of Virtue, is a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, even as the Sun is really present with us by the Efficacy of its Beams, so that Jeremias had no reason to oppose the reality of the Pre∣sence; but 'twas better said by him, that the Terms of the Confession were Ambiguous, and that they ought to acknowledg clearly, the Body and Blood are substantially present in it, supposing he believed this substantial Pre∣sence.

MR. Arnaud adds, That the Patriarch does not say the Bread is changed in * 1.626 Virtue, Power and Efficacy. I answer, neither does he say 'tis changed in Sub∣stance, and there is this Difference betwixt Mr. Arnaud and I, that I add it was not necessary that Jeremias should explain himself touching this change of Virtue, because the Greeks who preceded him, had already plainly done it; but the same cannot be said touching the change of Substance, for not one of the Greeks ever mentioned it any more than he, so that he was necessarily obliged clearly to express it, if he intended it should be understood.

BUT Mr. Arnaud further say's, The Divines of Wittemberg, and Tubinga, believed upon the Answer of the Patriarch, that he taught the real Presence and * 1.627 Transubstantiation. When this were true we need not be astonished thereat: For it might well be that Divines who held the Consubstantiation should take the Words of Jeremias in a Sence which opposed only one part of their O∣pinion, rather than in another which would wholly overthrow it. Their Pre∣judication signifies nothing, to the Exposition which the Greeks make them∣selves of their own Opinion.

BUT Mr. Arnaud say's moreover, If the Divines of Wittemberg Misun∣derstood the Patriarchs Sence, it lay upon him to rectify their Mistakes. I an∣swer, there cannot be any Advantage made of Jeremias's Silence in this Re∣spect. For it is certain that in these Divines first answer, they reckon amongst the Points in which they agreed with the Patriarch, this, That the Communi∣on, or Supper of our Lord, unites us to him, in as much as we truly partake therein of his Flesh and Blood: But these were the proper Expressions which this Patriarch used, and so far there was no reason to say they charged him with believing what he did not, seeing they only repeated what he said. It is likewise true they denyed the Bread was changed therein, which they grounded on the Testimony of St. Paul, who calls it Bread; yet did they make use of the same Term Jeremias did, which is that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without

the least mention of a change of Substance. So that so far Jeremias had no cause to tell 'em they mistook his Words: Neither does he do it in his Reply or second Answer, but still continues to say, The Bread is changed, without proceeding any farther. It is true, in fine, that the Divines having replyed to Jeremias his second Letter, they expresly oppose the change of Substance, and seem thereby to suppose they had taken the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Jeremias in the Sence of a real Transubstantiation, which might then oblige this Patriarch to explain himself more clearly than he had done in his former Writings. But it is also true that he returned them no particular Answer touching the Arti∣cle of the Eucharist. He contented himself with telling them in general con∣cerning the Sacraments, That seeing they admitted only some of them, and more∣over erroneously perverted and changed the Expressions of the ancient and modern Doctrin to obtain their Aim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They therefore deserved not the Title of Divines. Which sufficiently shews his Complaint against them, for their misunderstanding of these Terms, in understanding them of a change of Substance, and at the same time certifying them, that for his Part he would not deviate from the general and usual Expressions of his Church.

IT is certain there is in these Writings of Jeremias, such Matters which cannot agree with the Roman Transubstantiation, as that which we have al∣ready related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks, That God has given us the Sacraments double, that is to say, consisting on one Hand of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and on the other, of sensible things, which are Water, Oyl, Bread, and the Chalice by which our Souls are sanctifi'd; For a Man that speaks thus, clearly shews he understands the Substance of Bread remains. We may likewise reckon in this Rank what he says concerning the Church, That she is set forth to us in the Mysteries, not as in the Symbols; But as the Members are in the Heart, and the Branches of a Tree in the Root, or as the Branches in the Vine according to our Saviour's Words. For here is not only a bare Com∣munion of Name, or relation of Resemblance, but the Identity of the thing it self: For the Mysteries are really the Body and Blood of Christ, and they are not changed into our Body, but we are changed into them, the strongest part prevail∣ing. The Iron when put in the Fire, becomes Fire it self, but the Fire becomes not Iron. As then when the Iron is red-hot, we perceive no more Iron, but Fire, the Fire dispelling all the Proprieties of Iron, so he that beholds Christ's Church, in as much as it is united to him, and partakes of his Flesh, beholds nothing else but the Body of our Lord.

THIS Discourse is taken Verbatim out of Cabasilas, as I have observed else∣where, and shews the Change of Bread and Wine, must not be urged as if they understood it of a Change of Substance, seeing he uses the same Term in respect of the Communicants, saying, We are changed into the Mysteries. They likewise shew us we must not take in a Counter-Sence what he say's con∣cerning the Mysteries, being really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, seeing he tells us the Church is the very Body of our Lord. I alledged these last Words in my Answer to the Perpetuity, and say'd, That Jeremias speaks of the Church which has received the Impression of the Spirit of Christ. Mr. Arnaud accuses me of Falsifying this Passage: But this Accusation comes from his being out of Humor. The original Words I recited are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he will perceive nothing else but our Lord's Body: And as to what I said, that he speaks of the Church which has received the Impres∣sion of the Spirit of Christ, I affirm this is his Sence, and that Mr. Arnaud

(as prejudiced as he is) cannot give it any other: For to what relates this Comparison of Fire which changes the Iron, but to the Impression of the Spi∣rit of Christ on the Church, and this Union of the Church with Christ, but to his spiritual and mystical Union? It is true he say's, That 'tis in as much as she is partaker of his Flesh: But this does not in any sort change his Sence. For 'tis from the mystical Participation of his Flesh that comes the Impression of his Spirit, and it is the Impression of his Spirit which effects this admirable Change. These two things are subalternate, but not contrary to one ano∣ther: So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently charges me with falsifying the Pas∣sage of Jeremias. But it is not the same with this other Passage which For∣besius alledged, and concerning which I have complained of the Author of the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud may say if he pleases, That my Complaint is unreasonable; yet will it be found both Just and Reasonable. For∣besius was a Person who making outward Profession of the Protestant Religi∣on, yet wrote in favour of the Church of Rome, under the specious pre∣tence of Peace and Agreement. To soften what we believe is hard in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he assures us that almost all the Greeks believe it, and instances Jeremias who teaches according to what he say's, That the Bread is neither a Figure, nor an Azyme, but the real Body of Christ contained under the species of leavened Bread.

The Author of the Perpetuity alledges this Forbesius as a Person whose Te∣stimony ought to be of great weight with us, being a Protestant. The cause then of my Complaint is, that we must have a false Translation of Jeremias imposed upon us, under the Name of a Protestant, without telling us what kind of Man this Protestant was. When we make use of a Witness, we ought certainly to consider what he is, and if it appears there be just Exceptions a∣gainst him, we must not offer him; and when we would use a Passage which he alledges, we must take care his Translation be true. It is to no purpose to say, We are not obliged to justify the Translations of Protestants, and that if he be mistaken 'tis his Fault. This might be indeed alledged, supposing the * 1.628 Author of the Perpetuity had disputed against Forbesius, or were ignorant who this Forbesius was; but this Mans Character sufficiently shews it self by the bare reading of his Book. Neither does it signify any thing to say, That For∣besius is not the Author of this Translation, but Transcribed it Verbatim from Socolovius. Neither is it less a Deceit in Forbesius himself, who ought not to make us Believe that Jeremias said what he did not, and when a Person that pretends to be of our Communion deceives us, we have right to inveigh a∣gainst him. Let us come then to the Point, and inquire whether the Tran∣slation of Jeremias be false. Mr. Arnaud say's 'tis not, and I affirm it is: The Question will be decided by the reading of Jeremias his own Words. The Bread, say's he, of the Lord's Body, which is administred by the Priests, is neither a Type, nor an Azyme, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a leavened Loaf, and the very Body of our Lord, and the Translation runs, Illud ipsum verum Christi corpus, sub speciebus fermentati panis contentum, The Body it self, the real Body of Christ CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF LEAVENED BREAD. Mr. Arnaud affirms that this is not a Falsification, because Jeremias his true Sence is represented in it. For say's he, these Words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are capable of two different * 1.629 Sences. First, This Bread is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Leavened, because it remains in ef∣fect leavened Bread, and that it is only the Body of Christ, in Figure or Virtue. Secondly, It is called by this Name of leavened Bread, because it was originally leavened Bread, and does still appear so, altho it be the Body of our Lord. But the

first of these Sences has been several times excluded by Jeremias his own Words, wherein he clearly asserted that after the Consecration the leavend Bread is changed into our Lord's real Body, that it is not a Figure, but our Lords Body, that it is this Flesh concerning which he speaks; The Bread which I shall give you is my Flesh. It is excluded in what follows sundry different ways, and by the very Words of that passage which asserts it is our Lord's Body. Whence it follows it is not then really leavened Bread.

I answer, that this pretended Sence which Mr. Arnaud attributes to Jere∣mias is precisely the Point in Question. Now whilst a matter is in Dispute, we must never translate a Passage according to the Sence of one of the Parties which th'other denies him. To deal sincerely, the proper and natural Signifi∣cation of Terms must be kept, and every man left at his liberty to judg of them. For when men translate according to the Pretention of one Party, they are no longer the Words of this Author, but the Prejudication of this Party, and consequently an Alteration, even when the Prejudication of this Party should be just and reasonable in the Main. Moreover Mr. Arnaud is mistaken, if he believes the other Passages of Jeremias determine a Sence of substanti∣al Reality, for according to the Hypothesis of the Greeks, the Bread still re∣mains Bread in Substance, altho it be changed into the Body of Christ, and be the very Body of Christ, and not a Figure, as we have often already decla∣red, whence it follows the Translation in question cannot be justified.

A Man of never so mean Capacity may perceive that Jeremias his Sence, is not that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him. For in the same place where he say's, The Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, and wherein he alledges the Words of Christ which tell us, not, This is an Azyme, or this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body; He adds by way of Explication, This is not to say that the Flesh which our Saviour then had, was given to be eaten by his Disciples, nor his Blood to be drunk, nor that now in this sacred Ordinance our Lord's Body descends from Heaven: This would be Blasphemy. But then and now by Prayers and the Grace of the almighty Spirit, which operates in the Mysteries by means of the Holy Orisons, the Bread is chang∣ed into our Lord's real Body and Blood. These Words being applyed to the Hy∣pothesis of the Greeks, that the Bread remaining Bread, and receiving the Im∣pression of the Holy Spirit, is changed into the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation, are clear, and void of Difficulty. But if we apply them to the Hypothesis of the Latins, who affirm the Substance of Bread is changed into the natural Flesh of Christ, and becomes the Same numerical Flesh which our Lord had when on Earth; In what Sence shall we understand that say∣ing of Jeremias, namely that the Flesh which Christ had then, was not gi∣ven to be eaten by his Disciples? For if we grant Transubstantiation, it is cer∣tain the Disciples eat the same Flesh which Christ then had, and Jeremias his Proposition can not subsist. Mr. Arnaud endeavours but in vain, to expound Jeremias his Discourse in saying, That Christ gave not to be eaten by his Disci∣ples the Flesh which he had, in ceasing to have it, and to appear before them in his u∣sual manner, in cutting his Body into Morsels, or having no other place of Abode than his Apostles Stomach. To make us receive this Gloss, it must be groun∣ded on Jeremias his own Words, and not on Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. These Corrections and fine Explications hinder not, but that the Patriarch's Proposition is absolute and contrary to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. For that which Jeremias denies, is not that our Saviour disappeared before his Disciples, nor cut his Flesh into Morsels, but that he gave them to eat

the Flesh he then had. The Question respects not the manner in which our Lord gave his Flesh to be eaten, but whether he did give it, and Jeremi∣as asserts he did not. What likelyhood is there that a Man who believes Tran∣substantiation, would thus roughly offer a Negative which is directly oppo∣site to his Belief? What likelyhood is there he would offer it in the same place and Discourse wherein he asserts Transubstantiation, without explaining, and lessening the Offence, which might be taken at his Words? But in short, how is it probable he would treat as Blasphemous the Proposition contrary to his Negative? Of these two Propositions, Christ gave to be eaten by his Disciples the Flesh he bore, and Christ gave not the Flesh he bare to his Disciples to eat. The first would be the only true one according to the Letter, with∣out Gloss and Commentary, supposing Transubstantiation. Th'other taken litterally would be false and heretical, and to make it tolerable, it must have Expositions and Molifications contrary to what the Letter bears. Mr. Arnaud is forced to change the first and natural Sence of the Terms, and impose on them a forced and unusual one. Who can then imagine that a Man who be∣lieved Transubstantiation, or the real Presence, and positively asserted it, should be so senceless as to condemn the first of these Propositions which ex∣presly contains his Belief, to condemn it I say as Blasphemous, and establish the second as the only true one, without using any Corrective or Illustration? This is wholly improbable.

AND this is what I had to say concerning Jeremias. There remains no∣thing more of all Mr. Arnaud's pretended Proofs, than the Passages taken out of some common Authors, wherein there being nothing extraordinary, and containing only that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and that it is changed into his Body: The same Answer being applyed to them will be sufficient.

CHAP. IX.

Several Passages of Anastasius Sinaite, Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Damascene, Examined.

HAVING satisfied Mr. Arnaud's Objections concerning the Greeks since the eleventh Century to this present, we must not any longer defer the Consideration of his seventh Book, wherein by an odd kind of Humour he ascends upwards to the seventh Century, and so descends down again inclusively to the tenth. I call this an odd and pro∣posterous way of proceeding; For why, begin at the eleventh Century, see∣ing he designed to treat of the seventh and following Ages? Why skip over the first and six Centuries, if he sincerely design'd to prove the Per∣petuity of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence? The Question being to know whether these Doctrines were ever believed and taught in the Christian Church, and especially in Greece, there is no other direct way than that of taking Tradition from the Source, and to pass on from the first Century to the second, from the second to the third, and so on

to the last. If he thought this Method tedious, he would have done better to have abridged it in shewing these Doctrines were taught in the first six Cen∣turies, and suppose the same in those that followed, than to shew them e∣stablished from the eleventh and seventh, whereby to suppose the same in the six foregoing Centuries. To speak sincerely there ought to be neither of these Suppositions made; for it does not absolutely follow from a Point's be∣ing held in the first Ages, that it has been likewise held in the last, neither does it any more follow from a Points being held in the last, that it was so in the first. This does not follow in respect of Fact: Yet it is certain that in respect of Right, which is far more considerable than Fact, 'tis more advantageous to shew a Doctrine in the beginnings of Tradition, than in the sequels of it. For it rather follows from a Doctrine's being held in the beginnings of Tradi∣tion, that it ought to be held still, than it does follow from its being held at present, or since the eleventh, or seventh Century, that it ought to be held, or that it was held in effect in the first Ages of the Church. Why then has Mr. Arnaud divided his Tradition into three parts; one since the eleventh Centu∣ry, to this present, th'other since the seventh to the tenth, and the third, from the first Century to the sixth, seeing Tradition ought to be taken successively in order? Why has he in his Division made the last part the first, seeing in effect it is the last in order? Why in short, thus injure his Cause in spending all his time upon the two least important, and which signify nothing, as to the main of our Question, and remit the most important to another time, when his Conveniency will serve him to consider them? Howsoever we pur∣pose to follow him every where, and therefore shall examine here his seventh Book, because it treats still of the Belief of the Greeks; For by this means the Readers will see in order whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in relation to this Church.

THE Publick having nothing to do with our personal Quarrels, and the Cause which I defend, depending neither on what I am, or am not, I shall therefore pass by all the Invectives with which the first Chapter is filled. The first thing which appears in it is my Picture, which cannot but be well done, coming from his Hands; for persons Characters are the chief Weapons Mr. Arnaud and his Friends use in their Disputes. But he may describe me how he pleases, for I shall not be much moved thereat. Those that read our Dis∣courses, will do us both right I hope. I shall only say then that Mr. Arnaud has captiously abused my Words touching the eight first Centuries when I called them, The Churches happy Days, peaceable and blessed Days, wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flocks, and remove all the Difficulties which might arise * 1.630 from the Sacrament's being commonly called the Body of Christ. 1st. I joyned all these Centuries together, when I spake of them in this sort, and Mr. Arnaud only considers the two last of them, taking no notice of the other six, as if what I said of these two last were to be taken alone and apart. 2dly. That altho the two last are comprehended amongst the number of the eight, yet I never meant that the Title of happy Days, Days of Peace and Blessing, belongs equally to all of them. The happy Days have an end, and altho their last Hours which draw nearest to Night, are darker than those which preceded them, yet are we wont to comprehend them amongst the rest, under the Name of happy Day, because when we distribute the Sence of these kind of Expressions to all the Parts, or Hours; rational Persons make this Distribution proportionably to what each of them deserves. May not that Person be just∣ly derided for his Impertinency that carps at the calling of a happy Day a time wherein there's scarcely any longer Light, under pretence that the last Hour,

which approaches nearer the Night, is darker than the rest. Now this Mr. Arnaud exactly does, he pretends 'tis impertinently that I call the eight first Centuries, The Churches happy Days, seeing the other Ministers assert the seventh and eighth, that is to say, the two last were Ages of Ignorance and Superstition. To dissipate all these Subtilties, we need but distinguish these Centuries in two respects, in which we may consider them, either by comparing them with the preceeding, or following Ages. In the first they were Ages of Ignorance, and Superstition. And in the second, they were the last Hours of the Churches happy Days, or the approaches of a Night, that is to say in one Word, that altho Knowledg and Zeal suffered very much Diminution in them, and several Errors troubled the Purity of Religion, yet this was nothing in comparison of what followed afterwards. This is the Judgment I think we ought to make of them in general. But in particular, in respect of the Mystery of the Eucharist, I firmly believe that the Doctrine of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, were not then established in the Church during these two Centuries; we may indeed meet with some hard Expressions, and such as are contrary to those of the preceeding Ages, but no substantial Conversion. We shall find the care of instructing the People in the sound Knowledg of the Sacrament greatly slackned in comparison of the preceeding Ages, yet were they not wholy ignorant how the Eucharist is the Body of Christ; to wit, in that it is the Sacrament or Mystery of it. It was in this Sence I understood the seventh and eighth Centuries were compre∣hended amongst the Churches happy Days. Let any Man judg now what Reason Mr. Arnaud has to represent me as a Person, That never respect * 1.631 things as they are in Effect, but only as I would have them, that has no regard to Truth, nor Probability, but only the advantaging of my Cause, that disposes of Hi∣storical Passages and real Events with more liberty than Adventures are dealt out in Romances, that builds Castles in the Ayr, and makes all Men in the World Sence∣less, provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions, that prefers the smallest Reasons, before the strongest and clearest Proofs, and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner, giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others, and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain. And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine, my happy Days. But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion: Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered.

THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite, wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection. To prove that it was Corruptible, he takes it for granted by his Adversaries, That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ, * 1.632 not mere Bread, such as is sold in the Market; nor a Figure, such as was the Sa∣crifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews. To this Principle he adds ano∣ther, which is, That the Eucharist is corruptible, as Experience shews us; and from these two Propositions he concludes, That the Body of Christ was Cor∣ruptible before his Resurrection. Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition, That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, such as it was be∣fore his Resurrection, that is to say in the same State. Now it is likewise ma∣nifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Tran∣substantiation, and that of the substantial Presence. For besides that, 'tis both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again, and exists still Mortal, Cor∣ruptible and Passible, as it was heretofore: This is moreover directly contra∣ry to his Sacramental State, wherein we must necessarily suppose it, if we

would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance. For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible, which can be neither seen nor touched, should be at the same time Mortal, Corruptible, and Passible, as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection: These two States are inconsistent with each other; whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be, he held neither Transubstantiation, nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds.

YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him. For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure, but the true Body of Christ, he requires no more for the making of a Proof, altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him. One of the usual Artifi∣ces with which he imposes on his Readers; is, that when he offers any Pas∣sage importing what I now mentioned, or something like it, he sets himself to shew not that 'tis the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained, but that 'tis not our Doctrine. And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's, Can any Man, say's he, that has but the least spark of Sence, and believes the * 1.633 Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body, and not the real Body of Christ, Express this his Opinion by these Terms. The Eucharist is not the Figure, but really the true Body of Christ. Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to ac∣knowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine? And I say, can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence, that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit, and is therein in a Sacra∣mental State, and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption; and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection? Is there ever a one of Mr. Ar∣naud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse o∣verthrows his Doctrine? When I speak in this manner, I keep to the State of our Question, and deceive no body; But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does, he wanders from the Point in hand, and deludes his Readers.

WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be, 'tis certain 'tis not that of the Church of Rome, which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues. He expresses himself, say's Mr. Arnaud, a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse, in making use of weak Arguments, not only here, but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse. But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion, when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome; Why may not I as well say they are so, being applyed to our Hypothesis, and consequently they must not be urged against us? If A∣nastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself, how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Dis∣course? If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly, why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight? Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us, and we withheld from tak∣ing any against Mr. Arnaud, from the whole Sequel of his Discourse, and Coherence of his Thoughts, which a Man more minds than his Terms, or manner of expressing himself?

MR. Arnaud endeavours, but all in vain, to molify Anastasius's Sence, in saying, That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion, * 1.634 seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption, by the sensible Cor¦ruption of the Species, which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before

his Death. This Arguing, adds he, is very weak and roughly Expressed, but 'tis no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly, and it would be but a bad Con∣sequence to conclude that an Argument is not his, because 'tis weak. It is suffici∣ent that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree, as is that which Aubertin attributes to him.

ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud, must be put in this Form. The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such, as is in the Eucharist, the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death; But this Symbol is corruptible: Therefore the Body of Christ was then Cor∣ruptible. This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him ac∣cording to Mr. Arnaud. That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body; * 1.635 happened to his Body before his Passion. Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it, to be subject to Corruption: The Body then of Jesus Christ was Cor∣ruptible before his Passion. Take the Word Figure from this Argument, in∣sert that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud has used in his, and the two Argu∣ments are the same. Yet he will have his to be good, and Mr. Aubertin's ridi∣culously Extravagant.

BUT, it will be perhaps replyed, these two Arguments which in respect of Terms are alike, yet do differ in Sence; For Mr. Arnaud by the Symbol, means the Accidents or Species which cover the Body, and Mr. Aubertin by the Figure understands a real Substance of Bread. So that howsoever alike these Arguments do at first appear, one of 'em may be reasonable, and th'o∣ther Extravagant. I grant all this; but I say if Mr. Arnaud's Argument be good, Mr. Aubertins is so likewise, and that if there be any Extravagancy in either of them, it must be in the first, and not in the second. Why must A∣nastasius rather argue on the State of the corruptible Species, than on that of the corruptible Bread? His Arguing, take we it how we will, must be ground∣ed on two Qualities attributed to the Eucharist, one, That it is a Sign, and th'other, That it is a corruptible Sign, and from hence he will conclude that Christ's Body before his Resurrection was Corruptible as well as its Sign. Now these two Qualities of Sign and Corruptible, are found as well, or rather better in the Bread which Aubertin means, than in the Accidents, or Mr. Ar∣naud's Species. It will no ways avail to say that Anastasius denies the Eucha∣rist to be a Figure, and that thus he would contradict himself, saying on one hand that it is not a Figure, and supposing on the other that it is one. This I say signifies nothing, for 'tis only changing the Term of Figure, into that of Symbol, which Mr. Arnaud uses, and which he believed not to be compre∣hended in the Rejection of the Word Figure. Neither signifies it any thing to say Anastasius assures us the Eucharist is the real Body, which hinders us from understanding by the Term of Symbol, contained in his Argument, that 'tis Bread in Substance. For I deny that by the true Body he mentions, we must understand the Body in proper Substance. It is then certain that if we may attribute Mr. Arnaud's Argument to this Author, we may as well attri∣bute to him that of Mr. Aubertin.

BUT I say moreover, that if there be any Extravagancy in either of these two Arguments, it will be found to be rather in that which Mr. Arnaud im∣putes to him, than the other: Which we shall soon find if we consider what means in Anastasius his Discourse the Term of Eucharist, according to Mr. Arnaud's Commentary; for it signifies, the Incorruptible Body, Invisible and Impassible of Christ, under the Corruptible Species of Bread and Wine. Anastasi∣us

then will Reason after this manner, The Body of Christ before his Resurrecti∣on was immediately Corruptible in it self. Why? Because now in the Eucharist it is Incorruptible in it self, and Corruptible in respect of the Species which co∣ver it. Was ever such absurd Arguing known? Would not the Heretick Gayanite say the contrary hence followed; for seeing our Lord is Incorruptible in himself in the Eucharist, this is a Token he was so before his Resurrection. And as to the Species, being only Appearances of Bread, the Corruption which happens to them, is no more than an appearance of Corruption, which can at farthest but figurate an apparent Corruption in our Lord's Body before his Resurrection; which does not differ from the Doctrine of these Hereticks. Moreover Anastasius establishes in his Argument this Principle, That an incor∣ruptible Nature can neither be Cut, nor Wounded in the Side and Hands, nor Pierc∣ed, nor put to Death, nor Eaten; That it can neither be held, nor touched. Now is it not a most extream folly to strengthen this by instancing the Eucharist, that is to say the real Body of Christ which is Cut, Pierced, Chewed, in re∣spect of the Appearances which cover it, and which are yet incorruptible. For this is just as if a Man should prove 'tis Night in pointing to the Sun shin∣ing. In effect, if we introduce the Heretick defending himself against Ana∣stasius his Proposition, by the Example of the Eucharist, and saying, I distinguish an incorruptible Nature can neither be Hurt, nor Cut, nor Pierced, nor put to Death, immediately and really in it self: I acknowledg it, in respect of the Appearances which cover it, and I prove my Negative by the Example of the Eucharist, wherein the Body of Christ wholy incorruptible as it is, is yet Cut, Chewed, Pierced, in respect of the Appearances which are to it instead of a Vail. Should (I say) the Heretick be brought in Disputing against A∣nastasiu's Principle in this manner, he would make a very just and reasonable Answer, whence it appears that this Example of the Eucharist, if taken in the Sence Mr. Arnaud gives it, is an extravagancy and Folly in Anastasius his own Mouth.

MR. Arnaud then may be pleased to acknowledg that he cannot rely on this Hypothesis, neither justify the other Evasion; which is, That Anastasius believed this whiteness, and other sensible Accidents of the Eucharist, to be the * 1.636 Accidents of the Body of Christ, and so that when the Bread is broken, it is the Body of Christ that is broken. By the Body of Christ Mr. Arnaud understands not the Mystical Body only, but the Natural Body in proper Substance. Now what greater Extravagancy can we charge a Man with, than to impute to him the Belief, that the Substance of the Body is in Effect, of the same Form, and Figure as the Bread in the Eucharist, that 'tis divided, and broken in several Particles, as the Bread is divided; that each Particle is a part of this Body, and that the Substance of this Body has really the Savour and Colour which Bread has? And seeing we must believe the Concomitancy, in the same manner as the Substance of Bread will be liquid, and fluid as Wine in the Cup, so that of the Blood will be in the other Species, hard and solid as Bread. In Truth, if Anastasius could have this Sentiment, we must say he was a Person unfit to be instanced in this Dispute, add Mr. Arnaud cannot render him more contemptible than in attributing to him such kind of Fooleries. What he alledges concerning Tertullian, that he believed the Divinity had a Body, is lyable to be questioned. There are abundance of Passages in this Author which will not suffer us to entertain such a Thought of him, and which oblige us to expound in a good Sence what he has otherwise expressed a lit∣tle roughly. Theodoret makes the Euthychiens fall into Contradictions it is true, but they are different from the Extravagancy with which Mr. Arnaud

charges Anastasius, for they do not immediately discover themselves, whereas th'others presently manifest themselves. In short, if Mr. Arnaud cannot make use and advantage of his Authors, unless he accuse them first of Extravagan∣cy, and afterwards excuse them by Example of the Extravagancies of others: Let me tell him, he must get better Witnesses, and not think to weary us out with the Language of Persons, who neither know what they say, nor what they believe.

WAS there ever any thing more impertinent than Anastasius his Argu∣ment, if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true? He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection (that is to say) whilst he was in the World, because it is corruptible in the Eucharist. Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence, to that wherein he was before his Resurrection; It follows that when he was in the World, he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread, intirely such as he is in the Eucharist; Which is to say, that when he Talked, Walked, and Conversed, he did all these things under the form of Bread. For unless this be so, there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other. Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a cor∣ruptible Form, seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven, and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him, it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist, which cannot be but by changing its Form. It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World, in the same Form 'tis now in the Sacrament, for supposing it changes its Form, I understand not the Conclusion. The Here∣tick Gaynite might still alledg, that as it does not follow this Body is corrupti∣ble in Heaven, altho it be so in the Eucharist, neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth; and that 'tis the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible. And thus Ana∣stasius his Argument concludes nothing, unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth, that it has now in the Sacrament. Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Fol∣ly, (there being no Man of Sence that will own it,) we may easily then per∣ceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius, as Mr. Arnaud handles him.

BUT 'tis certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Tran∣substantiation, nor the real Presence, for had he believed it, he would never have reasoned as he does, nor supposed (as he has done) a Principle altoge∣ther inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine.

BUT what is then this Author's Sence? I answer, that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread, such as is sold in the Market: His meaning is manifest; to wit, that it is consecrated Bread; when he adds, That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat, which the Jews offered: It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure, but in the Sence of a legal Figure, which re∣presented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly, whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery, which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation, and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges, That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body, yet do they affirm it * 1.637 is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life, and that the same Authors which teach the one, teach the other. So that so far, there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy. When he adds, That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ: He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body, which not on∣ly

is so perfect a Representation of it, that one may say it is the true Body, and not a Figure; but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof, or if you will, the Character of it, which is its Virtue, in the same Sence that we say of Wax, which has received the Impression of the King's Seal, that it is his real Seal. If we find any roughness in this Expression, we must re∣member Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse, and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity. Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Rough∣ness and Offensiveness in the Terms, and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning, than that wherein common Sence is not to be found. We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks them∣selves do give to these kind of Expressions, that the Eucharist is the true Body, the Body it self, the proper Body of Christ; to wit, inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body, but is the same, as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book. We must know, in fine, that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged, no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body, and not a real humane Body, which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ, that is to say, the Mystery, not of a chi∣merical, but real Body.

THIS being thus cleared up, the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us. He means, that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is ex∣pressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation, being as it is corruptible, it must necessarily be concluded, that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection, because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection, and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body, whil'st it was in the World, is observed in the Bread. Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras, which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book, and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks, and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book, for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence, and there will appear no diffi∣culty in it.

AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed, where∣in this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus, who affirmed * 1.638 the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation, to be the only Divinity. We must make the same Judgment of it as the former. For as to what he say's, That the Divinity cannot be Detained, Chewed, Divided, Changed, Cut, &c. as is the Eucharist, and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eu∣charist to be in truth Christ's visible, terrestial, and created Body and Blood; He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist, being in no wise a∣greeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alterati∣on; but only to his Body, we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed; whence it follows that it could not be said as it is, that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ, being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Iden∣tity of this Oeconomy. Had he believed Transubstantiation, how could he miss telling his Adversary, 'tis not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity, and that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes; to wit, the Conver∣sion of the Substance of Bread, or fall into this other Absurdity of maintain∣ing

that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature? Common Sence leads him to this, and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse.

AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople. Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century; but in effect, there is more likelyhood, according to Allatius his Con∣jecture that he lived in the twelveth, and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject, seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty. But howsoever this Author say's no more than, That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and that it is his Body. To which we have * 1.639 so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more. Mr. Ar∣naud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour, but this is an Illusion; for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 'tis contrary to Transubstantiation, should not be Conclusive, 'twould not thence follow he believed it, nor Taught it, if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs, and Mr. Arnaud is oblig∣ed to produce such, without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Auber∣tin's Consequences: For Refuting is not Proving.

GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise, in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ. Moses, say's * 1.640 he, sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers, said, This is the Blood of the Covenant. But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body, and shed his own Blood, and given us the Cup of the new Testament; saying, This is my Body which was broken for you, this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins. As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup, ye declare my Death and Resurrection. Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, as of the Flesh of God, declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book, that the Greeks do often use this Expression, As the Flesh, As the Body, to molli∣fy and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking, which is, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Bo∣dy. It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse, his Sence is, that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup, in the stead of his Body and Blood.

AS to John Damascen, the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church. I said, He ought not * 1.641 to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against, and that with good Cause, seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Ex∣pressions, and betook himself to affected and singular ones, which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one. Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church, that excepting Mr. Arnaud, I do not believe there is any Man, how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers, but grants it. For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body, and Damascen not only deny's that it is one, but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration. He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies, whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread, in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ, that of the Blessed Vir∣gin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed, and that of Wood united to the Fire. His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients, are wholly extra∣ordinary.

He tells us that the Sacramental Bread, and the Body born of the Virgin, are but one and the same Body, because the Bread is an Augmentati∣on of the Body, and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both. I sup∣pose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions, seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse, and if I mistake not, some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism; but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers, and to say, they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours.

YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud, a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation. To prove it he alledges these same Pas∣sages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists, and which conclude nothing. Da∣mascen say's, That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood, that it is an effect of his Almighty Power, which has created all things; that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Vir∣gin, we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood; that if we demand how this Change happens, he answers, that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit, that the Word of God is True and Almighty; but that the manner is Incomprehensible. But yet it may be rationally say'd, that as the Bread and Wine (wherewith a Man is nourished) are changed into his Bo∣dy, so that they become another Body than that which they were before; so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water, are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner, by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit, and that they are not two different Bodies, but one and the same Body.

HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done, it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstan∣tiation, seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body, and is made by this means one with this Body, that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit, and Almighty Power of God, acting above Nature, and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before: Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage. But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words, as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks; This Illustration will be sufficient, without proceeding any farther, to make In∣significant this long Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the E∣quivocal Expressions of this Author. In effect, let him say as long as he pleases, That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue, that this effect * 1.642 which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen's Sence this; to wit, That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, that it is the Body really united to the Divinity, the Body taken from the Virgin, because the Bread and Wine are chang∣ed into the Body and Blood of God. That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers, some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue, and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit, with the Bread remaining Bread. That the Fathers have expressed them∣selves after two different manners, that is to say, sometimes as Philosophers, and otherwhiles as Divines. All this signifies nothing, considering the Explicati∣on which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence, in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus, and Homily at the end of it. These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius, and which were acknowledged for

Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit, the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris, and Leo Allatius himself, Mr. Arnaud's great Author: These two Pieces I say end the Difference, and suffer us not any longer to dispute a∣bout Damascene. I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in rela∣ting the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith, to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done.

CHAP. X.

An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century, upon the Sub∣ject of Images, the one at Constantinople, and th'other at Nice.

IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to see how Mr. Arnaud suffers his Pen to be guided by his Passion, and fills up his Book with In∣juries, so ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profession; making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence: Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding, not only for that thereby he gives us Oc∣casion to exercise our Christian Patience, but does also himself furnish us with an assured means of bringing his Chapters into a lesser Compass. And to this end we shall pass by all his personal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Dispute. Let us then consider those four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century, the one at Constantinople against Images, and the other at Nice for them.

MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice, that is to say with a Writing * 1.643 which the Fathers of this Council caused to be read in the sixth Session, from whence he forms these five Propositions. 1st. That the Eucharist was not called by the Name of Image or Figure, by the Apostles and Fathers after Conse∣cration. 2dly. That they have called it the Body it self, and the Blood it self. 3dly. That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood. 4ly. That they are not Images, but Body and Blood. 5ly. That it is impossible they should be both the Image and Body of Christ, so that being the Body, they are not the Image. He moreover tells us that Anastasius made use of the same Reasoning to shew the Eucharist is not an Image. That John Damascen likewise used it, and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople concludes after the same manner, that the Eu∣charist is not the Image of Christ, because it is his Body. Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out, These are the very things wherein Arguments are useless, and wherein the Impression of Truth appears so plainly, that those that deny it are * 1.644 to be regarded as Persons no longer to be reasoned with. But how clear soever his Motives may be, we can assure him this comes from his Prejudice, and not from the Truth. The Understanding of all these Discourses of the Adversa∣ries of the Iconoclastes, depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Eucharist is properly the Body and Blood of Christ. For this Point being once dispatched, we shall soon perceive why they denyed it was an Image, and wherefore they thus reasoned, that being an Image, it could not be the Body.

We must observe all these Greeks have followed the Opinion of Dama∣scen, and speak as he does; that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expressions, as appears by the Writing which was read in the second Coun∣cil of Nice, by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus, and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus.

NOW after the Notices Damascen has given us, we can no longer doubt but their Sence is, that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ, inasmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood, they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof, and therefore are not two Bodies, but one and the same Body, the proper Body of Christ, as the Food becomes our proper Body.

AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Passage in Nicephorus, * 1.645 which Mr. Arnaud himself has related and taken from Allatius: And if it be needful, say's he, to explain these things, by what passes in our selves, as the Bread, Wine, and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them, and become not another Body, so these Gifts by the Pray∣er of him that Officiates, and Descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernatural∣ly into the Body and Blood of Christ. For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer, and we do not understand they are two Bodies; but we believe it be but one and the same Body. And this is the Greeks Hypothesis, the Bread is made the pro∣per Body of Christ, as the Meat we eat becomes our Body; to wit, inas∣much as it is united to it, and receives its Form, increases and augments it.

THE same will appear if we compare the Discourses of the Fathers of Constantinople with the Censure past on them in the Council of Nice. The Fathers of Constantinople called the Eucharist, a chosen Matter, a Substance of Bread. Those of Nice were not offended thereat; Neither at the others calling the Eucharist, Bread filled with the Holy Spirit, an Oblation translated from a common State, to a State of Holyness, a Body made Divine by a Sanctifi∣cation of Grace: So far they agree. But when the Fathers of Constantinople call the Bread an Image, those of Nice could not suffer it, neither could they bear with them in saying it is the Body by Institution. Why do they make this Difference, but because these first Expressions which are contrary to Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence, yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impression of Virtue, whereas the others oppose it? For they do not say the Food is the Image of our Body, nor our Body by Institution, but that it becomes our Proper Body, not another; but the same we had before.

THIS Point being thus cleared up, it is easy to perceive why these Per∣sons deny'd the Eucharist to be an Image. For it was not because they believed the Substance of Bread did not remain, or imagined it 'twas absolutely and by a numerical Identity (as the Church of Rome speaks) the same substance of the Natural Body; but because they believed that the Bread keeping its proper Substance became the proper Body of our Lord by this way of Growth or Augmentation, in receiving the Impression of his Supernatural Virtue, so that in this Respect it was the same thing with them, whether the Bread was Virtually the Body of Christ, or properly. They found then that the simple Notion of Image was inconsistent with that of Propriety, and thereupon

denyed the Eucharist to be an Image or Representation.

THEY Argued from the same Principle, when they said 'tis not possible these Gifts could be both, The Body, and the Image of the Body, and being the Body, they could not be the Image of them. For they believed the Term of Image excluded this propriety of Virtue which they established, and that to call them Image, was to regard them in no other manner than that wherein they were before their Consecration.

IT is easy to perceive that their Arguing on the Discourse of the Fathers of Constantinople is but a mere Sophism. For besides that these Fathers, termed not the Eucharist, the proper Body of Christ, and consequently could not be charged with Contradiction, nor told, Si imago est, non potest esse hoc Divi∣num: besides this I say, all their Subtilty lyes in a mere Quible about Words. They will not receive the Term of Imago, and yet admit those of Represen∣tation, a Remembrance and Symbol, as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges. We do not call (say's Theodorus Graptus (an Author of the ninth Century) * 1.646 the sacred Mysteries of Christ, the Images of his Body, altho they become Sym∣bols thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nicephorus say's the same thing, We do not call these Gifts, either Images or Figures of this Body, altho they be Repre∣sentations thereof: Which shews they regarded more the manner of expres∣sing the Thing, than the Thing it self.

BUT let us see what Advantage Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw hence. * 1.647 First, he endeavours to prove that these Authors who wrote against the Ico∣noclastes did not believe 'twas contrary to the notion of an Image to contain the Virtue of the Original, nor established this Principle: The Image is not the thing it represents, in this Sence here; The Image is not virtually the thing it represents. For say's he, In the same place wherein they establish this Princi∣ple, the Image is not the thing it self which it represents, they bring Instances of Images which contain really the Virtue of their Original, and even its Essence. Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who Refutes the Iconoclastes by the same Argument, by which the second Council of Nice say's, That that which is the Image of a thing, cannot be its Body, for every Image is another thing than what it represents. It is True, adds he, That the Scripture calls the Son the Image of the Father, but he is likewise distinguished from him by an Hypostasis and Person.

I Answer Nicephorus his Sence is, that to exclude the Notion of Image, we must say it is the thing it self: And on the contrary to establish it, there must be no means left to say, it is the thing it self. Now altho the Son hath the same Nature and Essence as the Father, yet we cannot say he is the Fa∣ther, for they are different Persons: So the Son may be well called the I∣mage of the Father. But altho the Eucharist be not in Substance the Body of Christ, and contains only its Virtue, yet we may very well say, it is this ve∣ry Body, because an Augmentation does not make another Body than that which was before, but is the same; and thus the Eucharist cannot be called an Image.

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, The Son contains the Virtue of the Father, Nice∣phorus understands not then his own Principle, That the Image is not the thing * 1.648 which it represents; in Mr. Claude's fantastical Sence, that it is not virtually the thing whose Image it is: For it would necessarily follow hence that the Son of

God is not an Image, seeing he contains not only the Virtue, but the very Essence of his Father. This must necessarily follow according to Mr. Arnaud, but not according to right Reason; For it is true the Son contains the Essential Virtue of the Father, as being not the Image of his Essence; but he does not contain the personal Virtue of it, for he has not the Virtue of begetting ano∣ther Son, nor according to the Greeks, that of the Emanation of the Holy Spirit, and consequently he may well be called the Image of the Father's Per∣son. Had Nicephorus understood his Principle in this Sence, no Image is in Substance the thing it represents, as Mr. Arnaud supposes he did, and as in Effect he must understand it to add, But the Eucharist is in Substance the Body of Christ, it is not then the Image of it, It would sooner and more naturally follow, that the Son of God would be in no wise an Image; for he most re∣ally contains the Nature, Essence, and Substance of his Father.

Nicephorus, adds Mr. Arnaud, Supposes the Eucharist is not really di∣stinguished from the Body of Christ, and thereby proves that it is not the Figure * 1.649 of it. Si igitur Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur, imago Christi est, aliud dicitur esse praeter corpus Christi; That is to say, if the Eucharist were an Image, it would be really a distinct thing from the Body of Christ: But it is not distinct from it; Therefore it is not an Image. Nicephorus will suppose the Eucharist is not a real distinct thing from the Body of Christ, when we admit Mr. Arnaud's that is to say; but he will not suppose it when we shall consider that the Proposition he rejects is this, Sanctum corpus in communione quod sumitur est aliud praeter corpus Christ. The Holy Body we receive in the Communion, is something else besides the Body of Christ: and that the contrary Proposition which he establishes is, Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumi∣tur non est aliud praeter corpus Christi: The Holy Body we receive in the Communi∣on is nothing elce but the Body of Christ; That is to say in a Word, that they are not two Bodies, but one, because the Growth of a Body does not make another Body. But this is not to say but that there is a true and real Diffe∣rence between the Substance which encreases a thing, and the thing it self which is encreased.

The Bishops of Nice and Nicephorus, (say's moreover Mr. Arnaud) did they not know that the Water of Baptism and Oyl, are the Figure of the Holy Spi∣rit according to the Fathers; which made Aubertin himself say: Docent veteres aquam & oleum post consecrationem repraesentare spiritum sanctum. And were they ignorant that they contained and communicated the Virtue of it? It is strange a Person so confident of his own Abilities, should be so grosly mistak∣en in what he alledges concerning Mr. Aubertin, and not observed that in this place Mr. Aubertin takes the Term of Repraesentare in the Sence which Cardinal Perron gives it, for Praesens reddere, exhibere; that is to say for, to make present, give, communicate, and not for to figurate, as appears thro the whole Sequel of his Discourse. The Question concerned a Passage of Ter∣tullian, which bears That Christ represents his Body by the Bread: Cardinal Perron alledged that by Represent, we must understand, make Present, Com∣municate, Exhibit. Mr. Aubertin having shewed that this Expression was u∣sed by the Fathers to signify to Figure, supposes Perron's Sence to be good, and shews thereupon that the Passage out of Tertullian does notwithstanding o∣verthrow Transubstantiation; for it must still be said that the Bread remains Bread. And because it might be answered that by the Bread we may under∣stand * 1.650 the Accidents of Bread: He Refutes this Evasion and say's, Docent ve∣teres aquam & oleum post consecrationem repraesentare spiritum sanctum sicut ait

Tertullianus pane repraesentaricorpus Christi, sic enim Cyrillus, sive Author Cate∣cheseon illi tributatum, oleum post invocationem, &c. Christi & Spiritus sancti charisma est & divinitatis ipsius praesentiae operativum, Sic Basilius & Ambro∣sius in aqua Baptismi praesentiam spiritus esse asserunt, Nec tamen quis dixerit per oleum & aquam intelligenda esse accidentia olei & aquae, Whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud can be mistaken as well as other People, for this Passage of Mr. Aubertin cannot be alledged to prove the Fathers taught that Baptism and Oyl are the Figures of the Holy Spirit, but by a very great Mistake.

BUT to proceed, I say it is not sufficient to shew what the Fathers taught concerning Baptism and Oyl; it must be shewed that Nicephorus and the Council of Nice have expresly called them Images of the Holy Spirit, for o∣therwise there can be nothing concluded in respect of them. They knew, say's he, that they are the Figure of the Holy Spirit according to the Fathers. But they might likewise as well know that the Eucharist is the Figure, and Image of the Body of Christ according to the Fathers, and yet they for all that deny it, and affirm none of the Fathers so term it after Consecration. Moreover Nicephorus and the Fathers of Nice may tell him, that whatsoever Virtue ac∣companies Baptism and Oyl, yet they are not made the Growth of the Holy Spirit, as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are made the Growth of the Body and Blood of Christ, and consequently they are not Virtually the same thing.

WHAT Mr. Arnaud adds, That they themselves made use of the Miracles * 1.651 wrought by Images, to establish the Worship of them, and that the Author of the Theory of Ecclesiastical Matters, say's, That the unconsecrated Bread, which is the Type of the Virgin Mary's Body, communicated to those that participated of it an ineffable Benediction. This I say, does not deserve an Answer, for it does not appear these People ever attributed to Images a supernatural Virtue, ordinarily residing in them, which might make them say that the Images are changed into the Virtue of Christ, or his Saints; much less that the Image is a Growth of Christ or his Saints. And as to the Bread which according to Germain is the Type of the Virgin Marry's Body, the ineffable Benediction which he say's it communicates, is not the Virtue of the Virgin's Body, of which it is the Type.

NEITHER does it in fine, signify any thing to say, That the Figure re∣fers * 1.652 it self to the Original, and not to the Virtue; that it is opposite to the Origi∣nal, that 'tis from the Original from which 'tis distinguished, that when it is de∣prived of Virtue, it is by Accident, and that 'tis every whit as ridiculous to say a Figure ceases to be a Figure, because it becomes Efficacious, as to say a Statue ceases to be a Statue when it is gilt. For it is true that the first and most natural Op∣position is between the Figure and the Original, and that the Figure is only opposed to the Virtue, inasmuch as that by the Impression of Virtue, a thing becomes in some sort the Original in a proper Sence. Thus the Food we eat becomes in some sort in a proper Sence the Body we had before, al∣tho it be in effect of a distinct Substance, or Matter, seeing it is not the same Substance, or the same Matter in number, but an addition to our former Sub∣stance, yet do we oppose it to the Figure, and say 'tis not the Image of our Body, but our Body, our proper Body, the very Body which we had before and not another. Now it is thus the Fathers of Nice oppose the Figure to the Eucharistical Bread, and say it ceases to be a Figure; to wit, then when by the Impression of the supernatural Virtue of our Lord's Body it becomes

this proper Body, not another, as we have already a thousand times ex∣plained.

AND this is what Mr. Arnaud has said of most Moment touching the second Council of Nice, and other Adversaries of the Iconoclastes. What he after adds consists only in Repetitions, or Matters of small Importance, and * 1.653 which may be easily Refuted by his own Words. For Example, what he say's touching the Water of Baptism, and Oyl, that they are Figures which con∣tain Virtue, is an Objection he has several times made, and which we have already answered. What he say's touching the State of an Image, that it has * 1.654 not any Inconsistency in it self, neither Real nor Apparent, with a Consecration which would fill the Bread and Wine with the Virtue of Christ's Body, has been already refuted; For in the Sence of the Greeks the State of Image is Incon∣sistent, with what the Bread and Wine become by the Impression they re∣ceive from the Virtue of Christ's Body, because they become in a certain Sence, the proper Body and Blood of Christ. So that whatsoever Mr. Arnaud say's in general touching the two States, the one Consistent, and the other Incon∣sistent, has no Foundation. We know there are Consistent and Inconsistent States; but the Question is whither the Greeks might not believe without be∣ing Extravagant and Senceless, that there was an Inconsistency between these two Expressions, The Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the proper Body of Christ, altho they understood a Propriety by an Impression of Virtue. I confess there is not between these two States of Image, and proper Body in the Sence wherein those of Nice understood them, a real Inconsistancy; But we must likewise acknowledg that there is an ap∣parent one, especially when 'tis made to consist only in the Terms, as I be∣lieve these Greeks have made it. If Mr. Arnaud will have them make it to consist in the same thing, besides that this Difference will be of small Impor∣tance as to the Main, I need only offer him what himself has told us concern∣ing Anastasius and others, who denyed the Eucharist was a Figure. That * 1.655 these were not two inconsistent Principles, nor two contrary Expressions in the Lan∣guage of those Times, to say that the Eucharist is not the Figure of Christ's Body, and yet a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life, and that the same Authors that teach the one, teach us likewise the other. I need only tell him that in the same Place wherein they earnestly deny the Eucharist to be an Image, they acknowledg it is a Symbol, and that Damascen himself who will not suffer it to be called an Image or Type, yet assures us that the same Oeconomy which was observed in Christ's natural Body, is observed in the Bread; which estab∣lisheth a true Resemblance at bottom. I need only offer him the Exposition Bessarion makes of Damascen's Words. By the Figure, say's he, he means a * 1.656 Shadow which is no more than a Figure barely signifying another Subject, yet without having any Substance for acting.

MR. Arnaud answering this Passage of Bessarion, which I offered against the Author of the Perpetuity, say's, That Bessarion had reason to say St. John Damascen, in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure, means a bare Figure with∣out * 1.657 Efficacy. Not that he pretends an efficacious Figure is not a Figure; but he supposes to say the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ, and not his Body; is as∣much as to say it is a bare Figure without Virtue and Efficacy, because the Quality of a Figure does not include any Virtue, and that it would have no other which could give it this Virtue. So that according to Bessarion 'tis certain that Damascen in denying the Eucharist to be a Figure of Jesus Christ, means by the Word Figure a Shadow, and a Figure without Efficacy, because that in ef∣fect

if the Eucharist be a bare Figure, it would be a Figure without Efficacy, and there would be no place of Scripture which could prove this Efficacy, as we will shew elsewhere. This Proposition then is true in one Sence, if the Eucharist were but a Figure, it would be but an empty Figure. But this is not true in any Sence, seeing if the Figure were an Efficacious Figure, it would not be a Figure.

HE means it is impossible to attribute any Virtue to the Eucharist, if it be not acknowledged the Body of Christ in Substance. But 1st. This Prin∣ciple is false in it self, and the contrary may be proved by an Instance from Scripture, which St. Paul calls The Power of God to Salvation, Rom. 1. And by the Example of Baptism, which is accompanied with the Virtue of Christ's Blood, and which according to the Scripture is the Laver of our Regenera∣tion. In effect, to apply to us the supernatural Virtue of the Body of Christ, it is not necessary that the Substance of this Body be locally in the Eucharist, it is sufficient that his Spirit be in it, and operates therein. 2ly. It is false, there is no Passage of Scripture whereby to prove this Efficacy. That which our Saviour himself say's, Do this in Remembrance of me; and what St. Paul adds, That as often as we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we shew forth the Lord's Death till he comes; this I say includes the Communication of his Virtue. For Christ and his Death, are not Objects of a mere historical Con∣sideration. It is the same with this Divine Saviour as with the Sun; which it is impossible to behold without being inlightned by it, and cheared with its Rays. If we behold him, say's one of the Prophets, we are inlightned by him. To declare his Death as we ought, is without doubt an Action inseparable from the feeling of his Efficacy; and that Man who deny's this Truth, knows lit∣tle of Christ. 3ly. Neither is it true that Damascen opposes those that deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ in Substance, and say it is only so in Virtue, neither is it true Bessarion imputes to him this Reasoning, Were not the Eucharist the proper Substance of Christ's Body, it would be no more than a mere Figure without Virtue and Efficacy. This is one of Mr. Arnaud's Cir∣cuits which has no Grounds either in the Passage of Damascen, nor in that of Bessarion. Bessarion indeed would have Damascen to believe Transubstantia∣tion and the substantial Presence; for being a Cardinal in the Roman Church, 'tis no marvel he maintained not the contrary; but he does not say Damascen argued as Mr. Arnaud supposes. 4ly. Mr. Arnaud does himself furnish us wherewithal to dissipate all his Subtilties touching the Council of Nice; for we need only apply to the Council of Nice what he say's concerning Damascen, in making these Fathers argue after this manner; To say the Eucharist is an Image of Christ, is the same as to say 'tis no more than a bare Image without any Efficacy, because the Quality of an Image includes not any Virtue, and the Eucharist cannot have elsewhere this Virtue, there being no place of Scripture which attributes it to it, nor from whence it can be concluded. Now the Icono∣clastes affirm the Eucharist to be an Image. They say then that 'tis a bare Image without Virtue and Efficacy, and consequently they contradict themselves, when they afterwards call it the Body of Jesus Christ; for if it be a mere Image, it can∣not be Virtually this Body. This Reasoning attributed to the Fathers of Nice, would be better grounded than that which he Imputes to Damascen, be∣cause it does not appear Damascen Disputes against Persons that Expounded the Words of Christ, This is my Body in this Sence, This is the Fi∣gure of my Body; whereas it appears that the Iconoclastes had Expounded them in this Sence, This is the Image of my Body; whence it follows they might been told better than they have been by Damascen, that having no o∣ther Passage of Scripture whereby to prove it was the Body of Christ in Vir∣tue,

it was no more according to them, than a mere Image without any Efficacy.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's, That altho Paschasius his Adversaries Ex∣pounded * 1.658 these Words, The Body of Jesus Christ, the Virtue of Jesus Christ, yet did they not say it was the Body it self, that they made not use of this Principle, the Figure is not the Original, to shew the Eucharist was the Original and not the Figure; That they did not make this ridiculous Argument, The Eucharist con∣tains the Virtue of Christ's Body; It is not then the Figure of it. I answer, we Cited not Paschasius his Adversaries for that purpose. We instanced them to shew, that it is no new or extraordinary Matter, to understand by the Body of Christ, his Body in Virtue, seeing several in the ninth Century understood it in this manner. But, say's he, they said not the Eucharist was properly and * 1.659 truly the Body of Christ. It does not in effect appear to us they did say it, nor denyed it was a Figure, nor reasoned like the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes, and from thence we may well conclude they admitted not the intire Hypothe∣sis of the Greeks, which is, that this Body of Christ in Virtue, is an Augmen∣tation of the natural Body, to infer from thence that it is properly his Body, and not the Figure of it. But this does not hinder but that by the Term of Body, they understood the Virtue of the Body. Had their Error, say's Mr. * 1.660 Arnaud, led them to understand by the Word Body, the Figure and Virtue, common Sence would have forced 'em to explain themselves in proper Terms, to make themselves understood. But I say the Greeks do explain themselves in pro∣per Terms. Ely de Crete who assisted at the Council of Nice, does not he * 1.661 plainly say, That the Bread is changed into the Efficacy of Christ's Body? Did not Cyrillus of Alexandria, and Eutychius, say the same thing? Did not Theo∣phylact Express himself in the same manner? Has not Damascen said That it is Bread united to the Divinity, a Growth of the Body of Christ? Does not Ni∣colaus Methoniensis tell us, That Christ Joyns his Divinity to these Things which are familiar to our Natures? And how many more such like Expositions are to be met with in the Passages I already produced? Let Mr. Arnaud say as long as he pleases, This Language is so Unnatural and Strange, that to make this pre∣tended * 1.662 Sence of it Intelligible, it ought to be proclaimed with sound of Trumpet throughout all the East, and Notice given to all People that these Words were to be understood in this unheard of Sence: Otherwise all these Authors ought to be esteemed as Cheats and Impostors. The Greeks will answer him that all his Rhetorick is void of Reason, in whatsoever Humour it comes from him: They have sufficiently Explained themselves to those that have Ears: They are not Deceivers; for they never so much as once said the Eucharist was the natural Body of Christ in Propriety of Substance, but often the contrary, namely his Body in Virtue.

IT were better in my Mind to reserve these Proclamations he speaks of, to publish to the World there ought no more of those Passages of the Fathers to be alledged, seeing they are so troublesom to Mr. Arnaud. For seeing I have incurred his Indignation, for quoting a Passage out of Facundus, it is fitting the World should henceforward know how to avoid offending him. This Passage, say's he, of Facundus must be brought in every where right or wrong.—The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Jesus Christ may * 1.663 be taken for the Virtue and Efficacy of this Body, in which Point Facundus is si∣lent. The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Christ can be taken in another Sence, than for the Substance of Christ's natural Body, and of this Facundus speaks. To contain the Mystery of Christ's Body, and to con∣tain

the Virtue of it, are two Expressions which signify at bottom the same thing in Facundus his Sence, and it is upon good Grounds we have alledged him. But when a Passage perplexes Mr. Arnaud, it must be laid aside, be∣cause it disturbs his Brain. Omitting then Facundus for this time, in com∣pliance to Mr. Arnaud; pass we on to the Council of Constantinople, termed Iconoclastes.

THIS Council say's first, That our Saviour has commanded us to offer an I∣mage, * 1.664 a chosen Matter, that is to say the Substance of Bread. It is clear their Sence is, that that which is offered in the Eucharist, and which is an Image, is the Substance of Bread. To say thereupon their Sence is, not that it is in Effect a Substance of Bread, but only a Matter which keeps the Figure and Re∣semblance of it, is in my Mind as frivolous a Shift and Evasion as ever was u∣sed; for what may not a Man elude if he may expound these Terms, The Substance of Bread, by these, Not the Substance of Bread, but the Figure and Re∣semblance? Besides this Mr. Arnaud tells me, That I may not so much as humbly * 1.665 propose my Doubts, and must be known to be a Person extream modest, otherwise all People will wonder so easy a matter should startle me, that I consult not common Sence, touching what I ought to say, and that my Head is so full of Calvinistical Subtilities, that I cannot speak after the rate of other Men. He afterwards * 1.666 falls upon a Discourse which takes up six great Pages, which amount to this; That when the Judgment of Reason or Faith, is contrary to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence, there is form'd two sorts of Languages which subsist toge∣ther, the one Conformable to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence, and the other to Faith and Reason. To establish this Principle he say's, That Faith changes the Judgment of Sence and Concupiscence, and shews us that what we call Good is a real Evil, that our Evils are reall Goods, that those who are called Happy, are really Miserable; the Rich, Poor; the Poor, Rich; the Wise, Foolls; the Prudent, Imprudent; and the Knowing, Ignorant. He adds, That Philosophy oft overthrows the common Notions of things: That the Thomists affirm Matter has no Existence, that a dead Body has nothing in common with a living one, that some Philosophers of this Age teach that Animals are only Machins, and Auto∣mates, and sensible Qualities are not in the things themselves, but are the Impressions of our Sences. That several of the most profound Astrologers believe with Copernicus, that the Sun and Stars are unmovable, and that 'tis the Earth which by its various Motions makes Day and Night, and Variety of Seasons. He tells us afterwards, That there is in all these things a two-fold Language, the one according to Appearance, and the other according to Truth. That 'tis the same in respect of the Eucharist, Faith correcting in it the Ideas of Sence, and from thence comes this twofold Language, the one by which we call the Eucharist Bread, Substance of Bread, Matter of Bread, and the other by which we call it the Body of Christ.

NOT to proceed without profiting by Mr. Arnaud's Advertisement, lest he should accuse me of Dulness: I shall venture again humbly to offer the Doubts wherewith common Sence furnishes me after Consultation with it, against his pretended Solution. 1st. It seems to me to contain all the Cha∣racters of a Mind perplext and tormented with Study, how to extricate it self out of a Difficulty, through which it can find no natural Passage. What rela∣tion has the Ideas of Concupiscence, the Philosophy of the Thomists, Cartesi∣ans, Coperniciens, with the Discourse of these good Greek Bishops who lived in the eighth Century, and who without doubt had none of this Philosophy in their Heads? Who can Imagine that their Expressions which are plain and

simple, should be grounded on the Model of these twofold Languages, that is to say, on an Observation which scarcely ever any Person before thought of, so remote are these twofold Languages from the Sight and com∣mon Use of the World? In truth, I could never imagine the Ideas of Concupiscence, the dead Bodies of the Thomists, nor the Impressions, or Automates of the Carthesians, and Copernicus his Systems, should ever be brought into our Dispute, to decide the Question, whether the Greeks be∣lieve Transubstantiation or not.

II. WHAT likelyhood is there that Bishops assembled in Council, whose Words were to regulate the Peoples Faith, and whom it behooved moreover to speak discreetly, having Adversaries at their Backs, should lay aside the Style of Religion, if we believe Mr. Arnaud, to take up that of Sence, which Religion condemns? That they should call the Eucharist without any Neces∣sity, a Matter, and Substance of Bread, considering it even after Consecrati∣on, without adding to it either any Exposition or Mollification, and expose themselves so imprudently to the Reproaches of their Enemies, from whom they could expect no Favour nor Support, and who waited for an Occasion to render them Odious to the People.

III. BUT how came it to pass their Adversaries, (who, that they might censure them touching the Term of Image, dared assert contrary to the Truth, that none of the Fathers gave the Term of Image to the Eucharist after Consecration,) were so mild and favourable as to pardon them of Sub∣stance of Bread, were their Faith in effect that of the Church of Rome, that it is no longer the Substance of Bread? Did they do this upon the account of the Thomists dead Bodies, the Cartesians Automates, or Corpernicus his System?

IV. IF we examine these Instances of a twofold Language which Mr. Arnaud proposes, we shall find they are all Defective, either in respect of them∣selves, or in the Application he makes of them: It is not true Religion abso∣lutely teaches that what we call Goods, are real Evils; and that our Evils are real Goods; nor that it turns Felicity into Misery, Riches into Poverty, Poverty into Riches, Wisdom into Folly, Prudence into Imprudence, and Knowledg into Ignorance. Religion teaches that these things are, in Effect and in themselves, what we term them, because they are either Blessings and God's temporal Favours, or Chastisements and Afflictions which come from his Hand; and so far its Language agrees very well with the usual Speech of Men. But it also shews us that these things change their Name and Nature by the good, or bad Use which is made of them; that Riches become real Poverty; Happiness, Misery; Wisdom, Folly; Prudence, Imprudence; and Science, Ignorance; to the Vicious who corrupt these Gifts of God, and change their natural Destination, that Afflictions likewise become Benefits; Poverty, Riches; Misery, Felicity, to a Virtuous Person, and one that fears God. If Concupiscence would oppose it self against this Language, and speak otherwise, Religion will not let her: So that the double Language that there is in respect of these things, is grounded not on the Ideas of Concupiscence, but on Truth it self. When we call Riches, Goods; and Afflictions, Evils; we consider what they are in their own Nature, and when we call them o∣therwise, we consider 'em in relation to what they are by Accident. These two Languages agree very well, and they are both proper and true, the Ideas of Concupiscence having no part therein. Besides Religion moreover considers

temporal Goods and Evils, either absolutely in themselves, or by Comparison with Spiritual Goods and Evils. In the first respect it tells us that these are Goods and Evils, as they are in effect. In the second she can hardly give them that Name, because they are not considerable in comparison of eternal Goods or Evils. If Concupiscence opposes it self against this Language, and speaks otherwise, Religion restrains Her. It is then certain that the double Language is grounded on various Respects, and is ever true: But it is not the same with the Point in hand. For supposing Transubstantiation we cannot in any respect call the consecrated Eucharist a Substance of Bread, nor say that we Offer the Substance of Bread, and that the Substance of Bread is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ. But Religion will Condemn these Expressions as False in every Sence, and contrary to that Faith which injoyns us to believe the Substance of Bread does no longer remain. To say that by the Sub∣stance of Bread is meant, the bare Figure and Resemblance thereof, as the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity does: This cannot be, for the Substance, and the sim∣ple Appearance are two Terms directly opposite in the Language of Men; and to say the Substance of Bread, is as much as to say Real, and not barely Bread in Appearance. Moreover the Fathers of Constantinople compare this Substance of Bread, with the Humane Substance which Christ assumed. As our Lord, say they, took on him the Matter only, or Humane Substance, without the Personal Subsistence, so he commanded us to Offer an Image, a chosen Matter, that is to say the Substance of Bread; which shews they took the Term of Sub∣stance in a proper Sence, and not for a simple Appearance. In fine, they say that as the Humane Substance which Christ assumed has not the Personal Subsist∣ence, so this Substance has not the Form or Humane Figure, which clearly shews that as by the Humane Substance they meant a Subject capable of having personal Subsistence, so they likewise understood by the Substance used in the Eucharist, a real Subject which may have a Form or humane Figure, and consequently a real Substance, capable of Representing an external Form and Figure.

TO say likewise as Mr. Arnaud does, that this is the Language of Sence, which is contrary to the Judgment of Faith, is as much as if he had said no∣thing. For if Faith rectified the Language of Sence, it would not suffer its Expressions to be Regulated by the Falsity of their Testimony, and much less in a Decree of Council, whose Expressions according to Mr. Arnaud's Maxims, or the Church he is of, must serve for a Law to Posterity not only for well Speaking, but likewise for well Believing. We ought then keep to the Language of Faith, not that of Sence, against which we must on the contrary Precaution our selves to prevent being surpriz'd by it. When the Christian Religion came into the World, and reform'd the Abuses of Men, who believed their Idols were Gods; She at the same time Corrected their Expressions. She no longer suffered Men to speak of Gods in the Plural, nor of Jupiter, and Mercury, and these other false Divinities as formerly; espe∣cially in the Pulpit, and Sermons, or in the Decrees of Councils.

AS to the Example of Philosophers, we must not wonder if they accom∣modate their Expressions to the Language of other Men, altho it be contra∣ry to their Hypotheses. For they are not the Masters of it, the necessity of making themselves understood, and the fear of passing for Extravagants should they affect a new Style, obliges them to express themselves as the World does, seeing they cannot make it unlearn their Language, and accustom it self to speak according to their Opinions. This shews their

Opinions did not reign when humane Language established it self, and that moreover at this Day they are not Popular; but this does not shew 'twas the same in the Christian Religion, in respect of the Eucharist. The Language of the Church touching this Mystery was not found ready made, it was form∣ed on the Sentiments Men began to have of it, as soon as ever 'twas Mention'd. Supposing then that from the first rise of Christianity it were believed the Testimony of our Senses was False and Deceitful, and that the Substance of Bread was really changed into that of the Body of Christ; Men would have avoided speaking according to Sense, and Religion which was the Master of it, would never have suffer'd it. And so much the rather, (if the Supposition be made which I mentioned,) it must be necessarily ac∣knowledged that this Mystery is popular, there being none of the People but ought to know that the Substance which he receives, is not that of Bread, but of the Body of Christ. Besides this, there is a great deal of Difference be∣twixt Religion and Philosophy; Philosophical Opinions do not so greatly con∣cern the World in general, nor in particular those that hold them, that Men ought to be so much troubled about common Expressions, how contrary so∣ever they may be to these Opinions, and lyable to Error. No Man will be damned for believing a dead Body is the material Part of Man which remains, that Animals are not Automates, but real living Bodies, nor that Colours really in the Objects, nor for believing the Sun and Firma∣ment move, and not the Earth. These Carthesians and Coperniciens have not yet asserted their Sentiments to be necessary to Salvation, nor obligatory on the Conscience. So that if the contrary Sentiments be erroneous, they are not believed to be so dangerous as that humane Speech must be therefore altered. But if Christian Religion has proposed Transub∣stantiation, or the Substantial Presence, it is to be supposed she has offered it as an Article of Faith necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation, as an Ar∣ticle which obliges the Conscience, and rejected the contrary Opinion as a damnable Error, inconsistent with Salvation, and consequently she ought to warn Men touching the Expressions, and not leave to our Sences; that is to say, to Cheats and Impostors, the Power of making a Council say in a De∣termination of Faith, that we offer in the Eucharist a Substance of Bread.

TO say in fine, this Council only denoted the Matter of the Eucha∣rist, as Mr. Arnaud does, is an Unjustifiable Evasion. For when we deno∣ted * 1.667 the Matter of it, by the Term of Substance of Bread, we consider it before its Consecration, supposing 'tis believed that by the Consecration 'tis no more the Substance of Bread, but that of the Body of Jesus Christ. Yet these Fathers considered it after the Consecration, as appears by their whole Dis∣course. Those of Nice have thus observed it, for they censure them for call∣ing the Eucharist an Image after Consecration. Now in the same place where∣in those of Constantinople call it Image, they call it likewise a Substance of Bread. If the Censure of those of Nice be just, the Eucharist must be, ac∣cording to the Council of Constantinople, an Image after Consecration. What likelyhood is there Mr. Arnaud should at this time understand better the Sence of this Council of Constantinople, than the Fathers of Nice who had amongst them several Bishops that Assisted at that Assembly, and a∣mongst others him who presided over it? But I will grant the Nicene Fa∣thers were mistaken, and that Mr. Arnaud understands the Point better than they; yet it is certain they ought to have Censured the Expression of Sub∣stance of Bread, seeing they could not take it but as spoken of the Eucharist after its Consecration. These of Constantinople call the Eucharist in the same

Place and Period, Image and Substance of Bread. They take the Name of I∣mage, as a Quality attributed to the Eucharist after Consecration. They must then necessarily have taken the Substance of Bread, as an Attribute applyed likewise to the Eucharist after the Consecration: Yet those of Nice Censure the first, and do not in any manner Censure the other; they are Offended at the one, and not at the other; which concludes as I already said, that their Hypothesis was not Transubstantiation.

THE Bishops of Constantinople comparing the Eucharist with Christ's na∣tural * 1.668 Body, say that as the natural Body is Holy, being made Divine; so that which is his Body by Institution, to wit, his Image is Holy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I Translated these last Words, being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. Mr. Claude, say's Mr. Arnaud, has falsly Translated that the Eucharist is made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. If this be a Fault in me, 'tis the same with the Latin Translator of the Council in Binius his Edition; for he has inserted these very Words, Utpote per quan∣dam sanctificationem gratiae santificata, and in the Margin, deificata, that is to say Word for Word, As being Sanctifi'd (or made Divine) by a certain Sancti∣fication of Grace. Mr. Arnaud who justifi'd heretofore Forbesius, saying he could not be justly accused for falsifying the Passage of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople, seeing he only followed the Translation of Socolovius; has he so soon changed his Mind, and forgot his own Maxim, without any other Reason, than that there it concerned Forbesius, and here my self? Was that which was then Unjust, become now Just and Reasonable by the only Diffe∣rence of Persons? But let us see whether it is in effect a Falsification. He say's it should be rendred, Being made Divine by a Favour intirely Gracious by means of a certain Consecration, because we must joyn 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but why rather to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Why rather Translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, gracious Favour, than Grace? Why rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Consecration than Sancti∣fication? It is certain the Latin Interpreter could not better Translate than he has done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Image is Holy, why is it Holy? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as being made Divine by a certain Sanctification by Grace. It is Grace which Sanctifies it in making it Divine, which cannot be better Expressed in Latin than by these Words, Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae deificata; And in English, As being made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace. It appears that this is the Sence of this Council by the Words which immediately follow after, For this is what our Lord design'd to do, that as by Virtue of the Union he has made Divine the Flesh he took, by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him, so he would have the Eucharistical Bread (as being the true Image of his Flesh) be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spi∣rit, the Oblation being by means of the Priest Transferred from a common Estate, to a State of Holyness: And therefore as the natural Flesh of Christ indued with a rational Soul, was anointed by the Holy Spirit, being united to the Divinity; so his Image, to wit, the Divine Bread is replenished with the Holy Spirit. It is clear that they oppose the Sanctification which the natural Flesh of Christ has received by Virtue of the Hypostatical Union, to the Sanctification which his Image receives by the coming of the Holy Spirit. There, say they, the natural Flesh was Anointed with the Holy Spirit: Here his Image, to wit, the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit. The Question then is concerning a Sanctification which the Bread receives in quality of the Image of our Lord's natural Flesh, and this Sanctification is the Grace of the Holy Spirit where∣with the Bread is filled. The Sanctification which the natural Flesh has re∣ceived, is not a Consecration which has changed the Substance of it into ano∣ther,

but an inherent Sanctification which letting the Humane Nature sub∣sist, has made it become a Source of Grace; the Sanctification likewise which the Bread receives, is not a Consecration which changes its Substance into that of another, but an inherent Sanctification in the Bread, which letting the Bread subsist makes it full of the Holy Spirit. We could not then better Translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than by these Words, being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace. It will be to no purpose for Mr. Ar∣naud to wrangle about these Words, The Oblation being Transferred from a com∣mon State, to a State of Holyness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if they were to be Rendred, from a common State, to a State of Consecration; for here the Matter is touching a Sanctification, which is the Image of that which the natural Flesh has received. We must then Translate, to a Holy State, or to a State of Holiness. And the Latin Interpreter of the Council, who had not those par∣ticular Interests to maintain as Mr. Arnaud has, has faithfully turn'd it; Oblati∣onem de communi separans, ad Sanctificationem pertingere facit.

I am sorry I have been forced to entertain the Reader with these gramma∣tical Niceties, which I suppose cannot be very pleasing; but besides that Mr. Arnaud having charged me with a Falsification, I was obliged to justify my∣self: There will redound hence this Advantage, to wit, that the Sence of this Council will more plainly appear, and the solid Advantages we draw thence. They make two Bodies of Christ, the one his natural Body, th'other his Body by Institution; the one is his natural Flesh, th'other is the Image of his natural Flesh; the one a humane Substance, th'other a chosen Matter, namely the Substance of Bread; the one is Holy by a Sanctification which is naturally pe∣culiar unto it, the other is raised from a common State to a State of Holyness; the one is the natural Flesh of Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit, the other is Bread indued with the Holy Spirit. There is not any thing in all this that can agree with Mr. Arnaud's Conceptions.

NO more then is there in the Fathers calling the Eucharist, not a deceitful Image of Christ's Flesh, in opposition to the Images which they called Deceitful. * 1.669 To understand rightly their Sence, we must suppose with Mr. Arnaud that they said the Images of their Adversaries were deceitful, either because they represented the Humanity separated from the Divinity, and subsisting by it self, (if it were said they were only Images of the Humanity, they leaned to the Error of the Nestorians) or because they represented the Divinity Con∣fused and indistinct from the Humanity, if it were said they expressed our Saviour intire, thus they led to the Error of the Eutychiens who con∣founded the two Natures. So far Mr. Arnaud is not mistaken; but he has not been so happy in Discovering how they understood the Eucharist was not a deceitful Image. For it is certain that in respect of the Error of Nestorius their Sence is, that as the humane Substance in our Saviour had no personal Subsistance, so likewise his Image, to wit, the Substance of Bread, has not the Form and humane Figure of it, altho it seems that an Image should have them: So that by this it represented the humane Nature not as a Person, but as a Nature bereav'd of its Personality, and thus it differed from the Error of the Nestorians: Which is what they Express in these Terms; As our Lord took on him the Matter only or humane Substance, without the personal Subsistance, so he has commanded us to offer an Image, a chosen Matter, that is to say the Sub∣stance of Bread, not having the Form or humane Figure. And in respect of the Error of the Eutychiens they would have, that as the Body of Christ was not Abolished, nor Confounded with the Divinity, but Sanctified and made

Divine by means of the hypostatical Union; so the Bread is Sanctified and Deified by the Holy Spirit: Which is what they expressed by these Terms, As by Virtue of the Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took by a Sanctification, which is naturally proper to him; so likewise he would have the Bread in the Eu∣charist, as being not the deceitful Image of his natural Flesh, to be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State, to a State of Holyness. Now this does necessarily suppose that the Substance of Bread Subsists, to represent a∣gainst Eutychus the Substance of the humane Nature in the hypostatical Uni∣on. Moreover this is not one of my metaphysical Speculations, as Mr. Ar∣naud * 1.670 is pleased to express himself; it is the Doctrine of the Fathers, and espe∣cially of those who disputed against Eutychus, and I expresly observed it, ha∣ving for this effect cited Justin Martyr, Theodoret, Gelasius, and Ephraim of Antioch. But Mr. Arnaud has thought good in relating my Words to cut off this Clause, for fear the Readers should see that the Sence I attributed to the Fathers of Constantinople, and which he is pleased to call a metaphysical Speculation of Mr. Claude, is in effect, a Doctrine commonly received in the Greek Church.

I drew Advantage from the Council's saying that our Saviour chose a Mat∣ter which does not represent any humane Shape, lest Idolatry should be thereby Introduced: And pretended that in whatsoever sort these Words were Under∣stood, they were Inconsistent with the Belief of the real Presence. Mr. Ar∣naud Answers that this Passage is capable of three Sences. The First, That * 1.671 God would not let the Eucharist have a humane Shape, lest it should be adored. The 2d. That he would not suffer the Eucharist to have a humane Form, lest Men should commit Idolatry in Adoring it under this humane Figure, altho it be no Idolatry to Worship it under the Figure of Bread. The 3d. That he would not let the Eucharist have a humane Form, lest the due Worship which would be given it under this humane Figure, should carry Men forth to Adore I∣mages of Wood and Stone, which being not our Saviour as the Eucharist is, could not be Worshiped without Idolatry. The first, adds he, of these Sences is that which the Calvinists give to the Words of the Iconoclastes. The 2. Is a ridicu∣lous Sence, and that which never any Person yet Imagined. The 3d. Is the Sence which the Catholicks give them. Hereupon Mr. Claude to establish his first Sence, Declames at large against the 2d. which is not a Sence, but an absurd I∣magination which he has form'd.

HAD Mr. Arnaud sincerely related all that I said on this Subject, and not maim'd my Discourse, and produced but some part thereof disjoynted from the rest, that he might turn it into a wrong Sence: It would have been easily perceived that I offered these two last Sences, and shewed that both of 'em were Inconsistent, with the Supposition of the substantial Presence. That I afterwards established the true Sence of these Words, in supposing the Eu∣charist to be an Image really distinct from our Lord's Body. I neither attri∣buted to the Author of the Perpetuity, nor to any body else any Sence. I only proposed the two which might be given to these Words upon supposal of the real Presence, and shewed that neither of them were justifiable. I am not at all troubled at Mr. Arnaud's calling the Second an absurd Imagination; I hold it to be so as well as he, and as such I have refuted it. But the Last is no less absurd than the Second: For the due Worship which would be given to the Eucharist, if it had a humane Shape, would not induce Men to the Wor∣shipping of Images of Wood and Stone. The Difference would be appa∣rent,

for the Eucharist would be the Body of Christ, the Image of Wood not so: The Adoration of the Eucharist would not be then grounded on the hu∣mane Shape or Figure, but on the substantial Presence of Christ's Body. Moreover what can be more Ridiculous than the Opinion which Mr. Arnaud Imputes to these People, which is, that our Saviour would have proposed his Body really in the Eucharist, clothed with another humane Figure than his own natural Form: Otherwise, say's he, it would not be an Image, but our Savi∣our himself without any Vail. It is true, but this should make him compre∣hend that they understood the Eucharist was not the proper Substance of this Body, but an Image which is of another Substance than its Original. For a Man cannot be guilty of a greater Absurdity than to imagine our Saviour's Body is really in the Eucharist in a humane Shape, not his own; but a borrow∣ed one. These kind of Imaginations reside not in the Minds of reasonable People. But supposing this was their Sence, how could they say that our Saviour would not take upon him any other humane Shape than his own to prevent Idolatry? Might not their Adversaries tell them on the contrary that this very Consideration ought to prevail on us the more to make Images? For the Original of our Saviour's Body, in whatsoever State it is, takes Men off from Images, but it would carry them further off from them if it had a hu∣mane Figure, whatsoever it were, for this is what our Eyes seek in Images, and if they found this Figure joyned with the Original, they need not search it elsewhere. I confess that the Original Speaking, Moving it self, and Act∣ing under its own proper Figure, would better produce this Effect; but this does not hinder but that it may produce it likewise, having a simple borrow∣ed Figure, without Speech and Action, seeing that also Images have neither Speech nor Action, and that the Figure they have is no less a borrowed Fi∣gure, than that which the Eucharist would have. It is certain that this sen∣sual Devotion which seeks after Representations, and visible Lineaments, would be more satisfied in beholding a humane Shape whatsoever it were, applyed on the Original it self, than to behold one represented on Cloth, or the Walls of a House. It must then be acknowledged that the true Sence of this Council supposes the Eucharist to be an Image really distinct from the Body of Christ, and that our Saviour has chosen for this a Matter, or a Substance which has not a humane Figure, lest this Resemblance should carry Men forth to render to the Image that which is only due to the Origi∣nal, and to make others like it, of other matters, to Adore them. Whosoever shall compare my Exposition with that of Mr. Arnaud, will soon acknowledg that mine is Natural, Free, and according to good Sence, whereas his is For∣ced and Violent, and imputes to Persons such a kind of Arguing as is absurd and groundless.

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, the Iconoclastes Adored the Eucharist with a so∣vereign * 1.672 Adoration: For Stephen the Younger said to Constantin Copronymus, Do not you design likewise to cast out of the Church the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ, seeing they contain the true Image of them, and we Adore and Kiss them, and are Sanctified by receiving them? Stephen proves the Worship of Images by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes. Now according to them, all Worship rendred to Images is a real Adoration, and is due to God only, and con∣sequently they gave to the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God.

BUT could not Mr. Arnaud foresee, that we may argue exactly contrary, and say Stephen proves the relative Adoration of Images by that of the Eu∣charist.

Neither of them then gave the Eucharist any other than a relative Adoration, and consequently they neither of them believed, that it was the Body of Christ in proper Substance. But, say's he, the Iconoclastes acknow∣ledged but one only Adoration, which is, that which is due to God alone, and conse∣quently * 1.673 they gave the Eucharist a Worship which they supposed due only to God. There cannot be a weaker Argument; Stephen does not only prove the rela∣tive Adoration of Images, by the Example of that which is given the Eu∣charist, but likewise by the Example of that which is given to the Cross, Sa∣cred Vestments and Vessels. If Mr. Arnaud's Consequence be good, we must say likewise that the Iconoclastes rendred to all these things a Worship which they acknowledged to be only due to God alone, which is not easy to believe. It must then be necessarily acknowledged either that the Iconoclastes rejected not absolutely the distinction of the two Adorations; the one Ab∣solute, and the other Relative, or that they acknowledged not the Ho∣nour given to the Cross, Sacred Vestments, and the Eucharist, was a real Adoration, and there is a greater likelyhood in the last, than in the other. So that Stephen proves well the relative Adoration of Images, by the relative Adoration of the Eucharist, and other sacred things; but this is not by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes and their Adversaries, but only by ex∣ternal Ceremonies which were common to them both, and which were va∣riously expounded by both Parties.

CHAP. XI.

Several Circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice, Examined.

HAVING thus cleared the Sence of the Council of Nice, it's scarce worth our Enquiry, whether this Council was called and held in a regular manner; and whether its Conduct was so sincere, that there could be no Fault found with it. I grant it was assembled in the Year 787. ten Years after Stephen Stylytus's Death, if we refer our selves to the anonymous Author who wrote the Life of this Stephen; and do thereby acknowledg that according to the best Chronology it cannot be said, That after Epiphanus had censured in the Council of Nice the Terms of Figure and Image; Stephen Stylite notwithstanding said, will you cast out of the Church the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ? Altho Mr. Blondel, (whom every body knows was very skilful in these Matters of Chronology) computed Stephen's Death to have hapned ten Years after this Council of Nice was held: Howsoever Mr. Arnaud knows very well that the Bill Epiphanus read, was not written before this Council was held, that it could not be seen by Stephen, and that the Clause therein touching the Rejection of the Term of Image in reference to the Eucharist, was not taken out of Damascen's Writings, who was Stephen's Contemporary, and a Patron of Images as well as he. Whence it follows that altho the Writing which was read in the Council condemned the Use of this Term, yet Stephen (who was engaged in the same Affair as the Author of this Writing) made use of it; which shews that this Doctrine, that the Eucharist is not an Image or Figure, was

neither the Doctrine of the whole Greeks Chruch, nor even that of the whole opposite Party to the Council of Constantinople. Now this is the Substance of what I had to say, and to which Mr. Arnaud was bound to make re∣ply.

IN effect it has not been Stephen only who made use of the Term of Fi∣gure, and believed it to be not Inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Greek Church in reference to the Eucharist; Balsamon who lived in the twelfth Century did the same likewise. The thirty second Canon, say's he, of the Council called in Trullo Injoyns the unbloody Sacrifice, be made with Bread and Wine mingled with Water; because the Bread is the Figure of Christ's Body, and the Wine the Figure of his Blood. Andrew of Créte, as Goar Reports, scrupled not to say, That our Saviour is Immolated in the Symbols which are the Figures of him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Nicetas Pectora∣tus writing against the Latins in the eleventh Century, likewise said, You eat the Azyme of the Jews as a Figure of our Lords true and living Flesh; And again, If as you say the Apostles received an Azyme from our Lord, and delivered it to you as a Figure of our Lord's Body, to be the Mystery of the new Testament, &c.

BUT to return to the Council of Nice, it is granted 'twas Tarasus who (before he accepted of the See of Constantinople,) obtained a Promise from the Empress Iréne that there should be a Council called; but this does not hinder but it may be said, That he was not setled in this See till he had obtain∣ed from Iréne the Convocation of this Synod. But whether it was at his Re∣quest or not, that Iréne did it, it little matters; for it is still certain they were agreed in it; and this Condition on which he is said to accept of that See, shews only that he was far engaged to maintain the Cause of Images, and already became a Party. Mr. Arnaud cannot deny that Tarasus had already declared himself in the Letter he wrote to Pope Adrian. Neither can he a∣ny more deny the Pope answered him he would not consent to his Election to the Patriarchate, unless he Re-established the Worship of Images. All this is expresly contained in Adrian's Letters, and thence may justly be con∣cluded that this Person was not at his own Liberty when he presided in this Council, and could at farthest be considered only as the Head of a Party, which was at that time the strongest, as being upheld by the Empress Iréne, and her chief Minister Stauracius. Now this by good right makes void whatsoever Tarasus did afterwards.

MR. Arnaud cannot deny but that the two Monks Thomas, and John, whom the Council ever called The Vicars, or Representatives of the Apostoli∣cal Sees in the East, were sent by some Hermit of Palestine, and not by the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, nor by the Consent of the Patriarchal, or other Churches. Whence it appears this Council could not rightly call it self Universal, nor be preferred above that of Constantinople, altho so esteemed by the Author of the Perpetuity, who tells us as a conside∣rable Matter, that all the Patriarchs were there present.

IT was, say's Mr. Arnaud, a mere Favour of the Council towards them, to * 1.674 give them the Place of the Patriarchs. If it were a mere Favour of the Coun∣cil, then the Presence of these Men ought not to be made a Ground for the calling this an oecumenical Council; and by this means to give it the greater Authority. The Author then of the Perpetuity had no reason so loudly to

proclame, that all the Patriarchs were present at it. For it is Absurd to pre∣tend the Patriarchs assisted at it, under Pretence there was given by mere Fa∣vour the Place of Patriarchs to two Religious, who had neither Order nor Mission from these Patriarchs. Yet this Favour, adds Mr. Arnaud, was * 1.675 granted on good Grounds, seeing no Persons could better supply this Place, than those that were competent Witnesses of their Sentiments, and were the Bearers of their Synodical Letters. But to keep in a Council the Rank of Patriarchs, it is not sufficient for Persons to be Witnesses of their Sentiments, nor Car∣ryers of their Synodical Letters, which the Patriarchs wrote to one another, they must be their Deputies sent expresly for this; and 'tis to no purpose to say no Persons could better hold this Rank than they, for no body absolutely could hold it, neither they nor others, seeing they were no Deputies; to grant a Favour to People on these slight Grounds, to take afterwards upon 'em the Title of oecumenical Council, and to boast of the Presence of the Patriarchs, this was not so much to Favour them, as to Impose upon us.

TARASUS the Patriarch of Constantinople sent Deputies towards the others Patriarchs, but these Deputies returned without executing their Com∣mission, because they saw the Danger they were in from their Voyage. It is false, say's Mr. Arnaud, that the Consideration of their own Danger was the * 1.676 Cause of these Deputies Return, for they on the contrary protested they were ready to venture their Lives to acquit themselves of their Charge, and were only deter∣red upon the account 'twas represented to them, they exposed the whole Church to Danger: But Mr. Arnaud falls into a Passion without any Occasion. He was never yet told as I know of, that the fear of their own personal Danger occa∣sioned their Return: But only, They understood it was not safe for them to * 1.677 Travel to and fro to the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, because of the Suspicion which Aron the Sarracen King, who governed almost the whole East, would conceive at their Voyage, which put them upon the Resolution of Return∣ing. The Hermits Letters of Palestine contain that the Deputies, Were wil∣ling to venture their Persons; but it being shewed them that in hazarding their Lives, they endangered likewise the Peace of the Church, they desisted for this Reason. It is then certain that the Danger which made them resolve upon returning, respected their Persons, which is precisely what I said. Whether this was for Fear, or out of respect of the Trouble which might thereby happen to the Church, I did not affirm; and therefore Mr. Arnaud had no reason to charge me with Falsity.

IT is false, say's he again, that being resolved to return they assembled these * 1.678 Religious, seeing on the contrary these Religious who were gathered together per∣swaded them to return: This is still wrangling about a Trifle. When we per∣used this Relation, we were not so curious to inquire whether their Resolu∣tion to return preceded the Assembly, or whether it was the Assembly that advised them to it. The Letters Inform us, that they immediately met with two of their old Friends, to whom they discovered themselves, that those Friends joyfully Received them; But Concealed 'em for fear of the Enemies of the Cross, that being discreet they would not make known their Arrival, nor Counsel them to perform the Voyage they had undertaken. So that here I think is the Design of their Return half Resolved upon, thro the Perswa∣sion of these two Friends.

IT is false, say's Mr. Arnaud, that they assembled these Religious after * 1.679 they understood the Danger there was in going to Antioch, and Alexandria; see∣ing

it was from these Religious that they understood it. The Care their Friends took in immediately concealing them for fear of the Enemies of the Cross, not daring to trust any Body with the News of their Arrival, nor to assist them in their Voyage, sufficiently convinced them of their Danger in going farther. Now this is set down in the Religiouse's Letters as a matter which preceded their Assembly.

IT is false, say's Mr. Arnaud again, that these Religious were but five or * 1.680 six in number. This is a silly Fancy of Mr. Claude: For there was a great number of Religious then in Palestine, and therefore I see no reason why there should be no more than five or six assembled upon an Affair of so great Importance. But this is not so silly neither: For seeing the two Friends we now mentioned, were forced to hide the Deputies for fear of the Infidels, 'tis very likely they called no great Assembly for this Affair, how important soever it was. The Letter of the Religious informs us that these two Friends having secured the Deputies, hastned to the Religious, whom they secretly assembled, and Swore them first to keep secret the Affair they had to communicate to them. This I think sufficiently shews that the Assembly was but small, and could not exceed the number of five or six; for a numerous Assembly would not well agree with this great Fear and Secret.

THE Epithets of Idiots, and Persons of no Experience, which it pleases Mr. Claude to give them, adds Mr. Arnaud, have not any Foundation but in his unjust Passion; And this it is to be angry when a Man Writes. The Letter of the Religious assembled, tells us expresly, that having cast their Eyes on John, and Thomas, to depute them to the Council, they ingenuously answe∣red, And how can we who are Idiots, and Persons void of Experience, Ignorant, and Unable to mannage such an Affair. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin Interpreter has well rendred, Idiotae & inexpertes, & ad tantam causam infirmi & indocti: How can we un∣dertake this Business which we are not able to mannage? To which the others answered, not that 'twas their Humility which made 'em thus express them∣selves; but, That our Lord made use of unlearned and mean Persons for the Reforming of the whole World, giving them Utterance, and manifesting his Strength in their Weakness. Now what Unjustice and Rashness have I been guilty of, in using the very Expressions of a Letter inserted amongst the Acts of a Council? Neither can Mr. Arnaud say these Monks spake thus only in mere Modesty, and that their Words are not to be taken in a strict Sence. For besides that the Modesty of learned Men does never proceed to this Excess, as to call themselves Ignorant and Unskilful Persons: 'tis to be considered the other Religious did not gainsay but that they were really such as they termed themselves: They Answer that God will manifest his Power by their Weakness. Is it then Rashness and Injustice in me to speak according to the Expressions of this Letter? Mr. Arnaud certainly might have found better Employment, than to fill up a whole Chapter with these Trifles, and to make such a pudder about them.

HE ought likewise to shew greater Sincerity than he has done, in un∣dertaking * 1.681 to Justify the Translation of a Passage out of the Life of Luke the Anachorite, related by the Author of the Perpetuity in these Words, Stretching out a linnen Cloath, you must put the Sacred Particles therein, and * 1.682 burning Incense, sing Psalms, which Relate to, and Represent this Mystery, or else the Canticle usually called Trisagion, together with the Apostles Creed,

and WORSHIPING it thrice with bended Knees, and Hands lift up, you shall take in your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God. I com∣plained that this Worshiping it written in great Characters, was an Additi∣on to the Greek Text, which only say's thus; And bowing thrice the Knee, * 1.683 and joyning your Hands, you shall take, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Mr. Arnaud Justifies this Translation, and first he say's, That Mr. Claude may as well Reproach Bollandus, and Peter Com∣befis, who first Translated the Greek Words, which signify no more litterally than bending the Knee, by these, Trinaque genuflexione adorans. To whom Mr. Arnaud may likewise add Allatius his great Author; for he also Translates Trinaque genuum flexione adorans: But neither do Bollandus, nor Combefis, nor * 1.684 Allatius, excuse the Author of the Perpetuity. He ought not to assert any thing in a matter of this Importance, without a careful Examination of it, for 'tis not the Examples of others that will excuse such kind of Faults as these. Moreover there is a considerable Difference between the Translation of Bol∣landus, Combefis, and Allatius, and that of the Author of the Perpetuity. They Translate, Trinaque genuflexione adorans: This adorans is an Addition to the Letter, and an Explication of what may be pretended the genuflexion signifies, but 'tis not a spoyling of the Sence, for 'tis certain that in this Occasion the genuflexion is an Adoration. Mr. Arnaud needed not Expatiate in long Dis∣courses and Distinctions to prove it; We grant it. All that can be said in this Respect is, that Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius, have rather performed the Office of Paraphrastists, than that of Translators. The Paraphrastists do not only Explain the Terms, but the Matters Represented by them: They inlarge upon Matters, and when two Notions are joyned together by any Dependance, they pass easily from one to the other; this is allowable in them. But Translators must be more exact, they must faithfully render the Expressions as much as the Idiom of the Language they Translate in will per∣mit them. They ought especially to keep to the first Sence and Notion which the Letter gives them, and never take the Liberty to pass over from one Sence to another, or from one Idea to another, whatsoever Coherence and Dependence there may seem to be betwixt them: For this is not permitted them. A Paraphrastist may for Instance very well say on our Saviour's Words to Judas: Dost thou betray the Son of Man with a Kiss, in doing him Homage, and shewing him Respect and Friendship. This does explain that which the Kiss given to our Saviour does naturally Signify, and a Man passes thus from one Idea to another. But should a Translator pretend to this Li∣berty, it would be justly denyed him. A Paraphrastist may make our Lord say, I am the Spiritual and Mystical Light of the World inlightning others. A Translator cannot; for altho this be the true Sence of the Word Light, yet 'tis a second and explicatory Sence, which is not exactly the first Notion which the Letter gives. We must say the same that when Bollandus, Com∣befis, and Allatius have Translated, Trinaque genuum flexione adorans: They were Paraphrastists, not Translators, and kept not the Character they took upon them: They cannot be excused by saying as Mr. Arnaud does, that ge∣nuflexion in a Matter of Religion is an Act of Adoration. For altho this be true, this is not the first Idea which the Letter of the Greek Text gives. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if rightly rendred, signifies no more than, ter genu Flectens. Adorans ought not to be added thereunto, this is Expounding, and not Transla∣ting, this is passing from one Conception to another, which is not a Transla∣tor's Business, and so much the rather, in that there was no Necessity to make this Addition, the Latin very well bearing that we should say ter genu flectens. It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say (as he does) that Combe∣fis,

has done no more than the Evangelists did: For as to St. Luke's saying, That the leprous Person fell flat on his Face before our Saviour Christ: And St. * 1.685 Mark, That he kneeled down: And St. Matthew, That he worshiped him. Mr. Arnaud here Imposes on us as he is wont: St Mark, and St. Matthew were not Translators of St. Luke. The Evangelists are each of 'em Authors of their own Gospel, and there is a great deal of Difference betwixt speaking as an Author, and as a Translator. Had the Translation of Mons rendred these Words of St. Luke, kneeled down, or worshiped him, instead of falling on the Ground, it might be justly blamed; and that Man ill understands the Rules of Translation, who allows in himself or others this Liberty.

SO far concerning Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius: But the Author of the Perpetuity did not think good to stop here: Besides the Addition of an Ex∣pression which is not in the Greek Text, he has proceeded to the altering the Sence in determining it. For he Translates, And WORSHIPING it in bending thrice the Knee, and with folded Hands, you shall receive into your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God. He has written this Word Worshiping in great Characters, to shew that thereon depends the Decision of the Question, as referring it self to the Body of Christ which we receive into our Mouths; that is to say, to the Sacrament it self. Th'others left it at the Readers Liberty to refer this Adoration to God, or our Saviour in Hea∣ven: But the Author of the Perpetuity judged not this sufficient, and there∣fore would have it only relate to the Eucharist. Now this is an inexcusable Depravation: For what Right has this Author to add an Expression, and de∣termine moreover the Sence of it, by an Article which hinders us from un∣derstanding it any otherwise than he pleases. Is it fairly done of a Transla∣tor who cites a Passage in a Dispute to deal thus. It is apparent, say's Mr. Ar∣naud, that in this Passage these Genuflexions refer themselves to our Saviour * 1.686 Christ: Which I deny, if by the Body of Christ he means the Sacrament; provided Mr. Arnaud can say, it is Apparent, it is Clear, or it is False, the Matter is decided, he has done enough. But why is this apparent? Is not there more likelyhood on the contrary that these three Genuflexions respect the three Persons of the Trinity, to whom is sung the Trisagion? This An∣swer is, again say's he, Ridiculous; why Ridiculous? Because, say's he, that singing of Psalms, or of the Trisagion, rehearsing the Creed, and folding the Hands, are several Parts of the whole Ceremony injoyned by the Bishop, all of which respect the Blessed Sacrament, and serve as a Preparation for its Reception, and not to one another. It is true they all respect the Celebration of the Sacra∣mental Action, and serve for a Preparation to the Communion; but that they all refer themselves to the Sacrament, that is to say, to the Object which is present before our Eyes, as so many marks of Reverence given to it; this cannot be truly said, for the Trisagion is adressed to the Holy Trinity, and not to the Sacrament. What also hinders but that the three Genuflexions may be made in Honour of the three Persons? Those that know the Temper of the Greeks, need not be told what great Lovers of Mysteries they are in all things, as Combesis does somewhere observe; Graeci, say's he, sunt valde mystici; it is then very likely that the number of three in their Kneelings has a mysti∣cal Reason and refers it self to three Persons. But say's Mr. Arnaud, It is not * 1.687 necessary to sing always the Trisagion, and when 'twas not sung, yet the three Ge∣nuflexions were made. I grant it, the three Genuflexions then were not made to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; this Conclusion is not good: Could they not think of the Trinity nor Worship it, but they must sing the Trisagion.

MR. Claude, say's Mr. Arnaud, must prove that these Terms of the Body of * 1.688 Jesus Christ, do not signify the true Body of Christ, before he can justly blame this Translation as False. Did ever any Man behold a more unreasonable Pre∣tension? The Author of the Perpetuity shall bring in his Prejudication into his Translations, and add unto them what he pleases; and having thus ac∣commodated them to his Sence, he may give 'em me for good and substanti∣al Proofs, and I must not have the Liberty to charge his Translations with Falsity, till I have showed his Prejudications to be False. Is there the least Dram of Equity in this? After this rate Mr. Arnaud may Translate thus the Words of Christ, This is my Body in proper Substance; For this Translation is agreeable to his Prejudication, he may alledg them to me in this Form as a good and excellent Proof; and if I tell him his Translation is False, and that 'tis not thus in the Original, he may maintain against me that I have not the Liberty to charge his Translation as False, till such time as I have proved that the Term of Body, does not signify the Body in proper Substance: And the Laws of Controversie being as well for the Benefit of the one Party, as the other; I will render the same Words, This Bread is the sign of my Body; and producing my Translation as an express Proof of my Sentiment, I will likewise tell him that he must not Accuse my Translation as False, till he has proved that by the Term of Body, when the Question concerns the Sacra∣ment, we must not understand the Sign of Christ's Body.

BUT, adds he, as this is an unjustifyable Pretension (to wit, the Preten∣sion that the Term of Body does not signify the true Body) and is particu∣larly confuted by all the Greeks of our time, in supposing the Words of our Savi∣our Christ signify the real Body of Christ, we have had reason to suppose that those of bending the Knee, signify a real Adoration: What weak Arguing is here? Suppose these three Genuflexions refer themselves to the Body of Christ which we receive into our Mouths; Suppose that by the Term of Body, we must understand the Body in proper Substance; Then Mr. Arnaud's Translation will be tolerable. There is so great Irregularity in all this, that the plain Repetition of it is enough to Confute it.

AND thus have we considered whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has proposed of any Weight in his seventh Book, and in his second, third, and fourth, touching the Greeks, to perswade the World that Transubstantiation is one of their Doctrines. We have met with several Delusions, and many Paralogisms, which are the two Characters of a Person that is deceived himself, and would have others to be deceived with him. He has not been sparing of his fruit∣less Histories, false Suppositions, starcht Prefaces, Amplifications, Exclama∣tions, and in a Word, of any of the Artifices of Rhetorick; and that which is most strange, is, he has never less shunned the slipping into these Defaults, then when he has himself most unjustly accused me of them. I take no No∣tice of his Invectives, and Sharpness with which he has stuffed his Discourses to render 'em more taking and agreeable, nor of that common Custom of his, of taking in a contrary Sence the most solid Matters, to make them seem Ridiculous. All which has not hindred but that I have done the three things I took upon me to prove; The first to shew that altho it were true the Greeks believed Transubstantiation, it would not thence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually in the Church. The other, That the Greeks do not in effect hold Transubstantiation, nor Adore the Eucharist: And the Third, That all Mr. Arnaud's Efforts to prove the contrary Proposition are Ineffectu∣al,

and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude directly against himself: The First of these has been established by solid Reflections on evident mat∣ters of Fact; The Second by good Proofs; And the Third by pertinent An∣swers, and most natural Consequences.

IT only remains now to be concluded from this whole Dispute, that Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence are in effect an Innovation of the Latins, and not the ancient Doctrines of Christianity, seeing they are not found established in the Greek Church. This Conclusion is as every Man may see directly opposite to that of Mr. Arnaud, but if compared toge∣ther, it will be soon found that mine is drawn from my Principle with far greater Evidence, and Necessity, than the other follows from his. For, sup∣posing the Greeks do believe the Conversion of Substances, it cannot hence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually held by that Church, as we made appear in our second Book. But if they do not believe it, it is a plain sign that it was neither Believed nor so much as heard of by the two Churches before their Separation. If the Greeks do now at this day believe this Do∣ctrine, having not done so heretofore, we cannot marvel thereat, considering their Condition (as it has been represented by us) since the eleventh Cen∣tury, and the unwearied Pains the Latins have taken for the Propogation of the Doctrines of the Roman Church in the East; to which end they have used, and do still use all kind of Means. But supposing they believed it here∣tofore, it is hard to conceive they have ceased believing it, because it is natu∣rally more Difficult for Men to give over believing what they did once Be∣lieve, than to begin to believe what they did not Believe, and because likewise the least Effect this aforementioned Commerce of the Latins with the Greeks could Produce, would be to Cherish and Preserve a Doctrine of this Impor∣tance amongst the Greeks themselves, and to hinder its being Lost.

The End of the First Part.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr. de Vence in his Appro∣bation.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 1. ch. 1. P. 1.
• * 1.4

  The first Obser∣vation justified.
• * 1.5

  The second Observation justified, Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4.
• * 1.7

  Perpetuity of the Faith, P. 50. 51. &c.
• * 1.8

  Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 1. Ch. 2.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 10. Ch. 7 Pag. 55
• * 1.12

  Lib. 1. Ch. 1 P. 10.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 1. C 2. P. 10.
• * 1.14

  Lib. 1. C. 2. P. 15.
• * 1.15

  Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 16.
• * 1.16

  Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66.
• * 1.17

  Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68.
• * 1.18

  Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30.
• * 1.19

  Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 31.
• * 1.20

  Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 24.
• * 1.21

  Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 32.
• * 1.22

  Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53.
• * 1.23

  Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26.
• * 1.24

  Lib. 1. C. ••. P. 34.
• * 1.25

  Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36.
• * 1.26

  Annals Eccl. ad An. 1600, art. 12.
• * 1.27

  Lib. 1. C. 5. Pag. 41.
• * 1.28

  Inst. Lib. 4. C. 18.
• * 1.29

  De usu Pat. C. 2
• * 1.30

  Ibid.
• * 1.31

  Ibid.
• * 1.32

  Ibid.
• * 1.33

  C. 1.
• * 1.34

  Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192.
• * 1.35

  Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34.
• * 1.36

  Ibid.
• * 1.37

  Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47.
• * 1.38

  Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47.
• * 1.39

  Lib. 1. C. •••• P. 54.
• * 1.40

  Perpetuity of the Faith, Part 2. C. 7.
• * 1.41

  Lib. 1. C. 7.
• * 1.42

  Perpetuity of the Faith. Part 2. C. 7.
• * 1.43

  Lib. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.44

  Lib. 1. C. 7.
• * 1.45

  Lib. 1. C. 7.
• * 1.46

  Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17.
• * 1.47

  Epist. 106.
• * 1.48

  Hier. Com. in Epist. ad Tit. C. 1.
• * 1.49

  Com. in Job L. 3.
• * 1.50

  Origen Cont. Col. L. 5.
• * 1.51

  Tertul. de je∣jun. C. 1.
• * 1.52

  C. ••••
• * 1.53

  2d. Part of the Perpetuity. C. 5. P. 256.
• * 1.54

  P. 11.
• * 1.55

  L. 2. C. 2. P. 113.
• * 1.56

  L. 2. C. 2. P. 115.
• * 1.57

  In his Prefa. P. 10.
• * 1.58

  Bell. S••cr. L. 1. C. 8.
• * 1.59

  Jacobus de Vitriac••. L. 1. C. 14.
• * 1.60

  Allat. de Ec∣cle. Occid. & Orien. Perpe. Consens. L 2. C. 13.
• * 1.61

  Ru••••n qu••s his Voyage. C. 13.
• * 1.62

  Syropul. Sec. 3. C. 7.
• * 1.63

  Lib 4. C. 8. P. 400.
• * 1.64

  Belon's Obser∣vatiuns. L. 3. C. 39, & 40.
• * 1.65

  Itinebar. Hi••∣rosol. & Syr. L. 2. C. 6.
• * 1.66

  Mr. Hays Voyage. Paris Edit 2. 1629. P. 338.
• * 1.67

  De Graecor. recentior haer. ad Greg. XIII. L. 6. Ms. ex biblio. Reg. P. 75.
• * 1.68

  It n••r. L. C. 13.
• * 1.69

  Observat. L. 1. C. 3.
• * 1.70

  Holy Land. L. 2 C. 2.
• * 1.71

  Thevenot's Voyages Part 1. P. 188.
• * 1.72

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erini C. 9.
• * 1.73

  Loir's Voyag∣es. P. 303.
• * 1.74

  Forrain Let∣ters sent to the Procur of the Emiss. printed at Paris, 1688. Let 1. P. 3.
• * 1.75

  Pietro Della Vallés Voy∣ages. Tom. 1. P. 76.
• * 1.76

  Tom. 4. P. 434.
• * 1.77

  Tom. 3. P. 188.
• * 1.78

  Herbert's Voyages L. 2. P. 244.
• * 1.79

  Thevenot's Voyages Part 2. C. 75.
• * 1.80

  Montconis Voyages. P. 129.
• * 1.81

  Description of the Holy Land. L. 2.
• * 1.82

  Spond. Ann. Tom 3. Ann. 1561.
• * 1.83

  Gouveau's Relations. L. 3. C. 3. P. 368.
• * 1.84

  Forrain Let∣tors Let. 1.
• * 1.85

  Le Blanc's Voyages. Part 1. P. 115.
• * 1.86

  History of the East Indias. L. 1. C. 6. P. 84.
• * 1.87

  Bibliot. Select. L. 6. C. 5.
• * 1.88

  Derebus Mosco. P. 2.
• * 1.89

  History of the Indias. L 16. P. 938.
• * 1.90

  Annal. Eccl. ad ann. 1524.
• * 1.91

  His••r. Eccl. L. 18. C 53.
• * 1.92

  Holy Syria. Part 1. of the Armenians. P. 48.
• * 1.93

  Boucher Bou∣quet sacr. L. 4. C. 7. Brerowood's Inquiries. C. 22, 23. Villamont, & alii passim de reb. Mosco. P. 6.
• * 1.94

  Christoph. Angel. Stat. & rit. Eccl. Graec. C. 25. vide Annot. Geor. Felsau. Eucholog. Goar P. 689. Allat. Epist. de quorun••. Graecer. opin.
• * 1.95

  Christoph. Angel. C. 42.
• * 1.96

  Annot. Al∣lat. de quo∣rund. Graecor. opinat. & alii passim.
• * 1.97

  Christoph. Angel. C. 42.
• * 1.98

  Relation of the Levant, or the Sieur of Poulet's Voy∣age. Part. 2. C. 28.
• * 1.99

  L. 2. C. 8. P. 172.
• * 1.100

  L. 2. C. 10.
• * 1.101

  Guilliel. Tyr. Bell. Sacri. Lib. 1. C. 1.
• * 1.102

  Idem L. 5. C. 9.
• * 1.103

  Idem. L. 1. C. 2.
• * 1.104

  Gill. Tyr. L 6. C. 11. Jacob. de V••••r. Hist. Orient. C. 16.
• * 1.105

  P. 192.
• * 1.106

  L. 2. C. 10. P. 193.
• * 1.107

  Ibid.
• * 1.108

  Hist. Orient. C 75.
• * 1.109

  Ibid. P. 194.
• * 1.110

  Baron. ad ann. 1100.
• * 1.111

  De Eccl. Oc∣cid. & Orient. Perp. Consens L 2, C. 13.
• * 1.112

  Ibid. P. 194.
• * 1.113

  Guilliel. Tyr. L. 6. C. 23. & L. 7. C. 8. & L. 9. C. 15. & L. 10. C. 16. & L. 11. C. 12. & L. 1. C. 2••. & L. 15. C. 11.
• * 1.114

  De Eccl. Occ. & Orient. Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 13.
• * 1.115

  Ibid.
• * 1.116

  Ibid.
• * 1.117

  L. 3. C. 1.
• * 1.118

  L. 3. C. 7.
• * 1.119

  L. 3. C. 7.
• * 1.120

  De Perp. Con∣sens. L. 2. C. 15.
• * 1.121

  L. 3. C. 1. P. 256.
• * 1.122

  General Hist. of the Isle and Kingdom of Cyprus. Fol. 71.
• * 1.123

  Ibid.
• * 1.124

  Ibid.
• * 1.125

  De reb. Mos∣covit. P. 7.
• * 1.126

  Anonym. apud Allat. de perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 8.
• * 1.127

  L. 2. C. 8. P. 173.
• * 1.128

  Allet. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 9.
• * 1.129

  Rationar. temp. Part 1. L. 8. C 13. Baron. ad ann. 1095.
• * 1.130

  Allat. de Cons L 2. C. 10.
• * 1.131

  Barron. ad ann. 109••.
• * 1.132

  Baron. ad ann. 1112 & ad ann. 1118.
• * 1.133

  Allat. ubi supra.
• * 1.134

  Baron. ad ann. 1130.
• * 1.135

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 11.
• * 1.136

  Ration. Temp. Part 1. C. 8. C. 21.
• * 1.137

  Allat. ubi Supra.
• * 1.138

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. L. 2. C. 2. Idem. Ibid.
• * 1.139

  Ancyr an. apud Allat. Ibid.
• * 1.140

  L. 3. C. 2.
• * 1.141

  Mat. Par. in Henrico. 3.
• * 1.142

  Raynald. ad ann. 1256. numb. 47.
• * 1.143

  Allat. de Cons. Perp. L. 2. C. 14.
• * 1.144

  L. 5. C. 1. P. 255.
• * 1.145

  Allat. de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 15.
• * 1.146

  Ibid.
• * 1.147

  Pachymer. Hist. Lib. 5. C. 12.
• * 1.148

  Idem C. 13.
• * 1.149

  Raynald. ad ann. 261. Num. 32. Vide. Pach.
• * 1.150

  Pachymer. L. 5. C. 20 Codin. de Offi∣ciis Const. Cap. 1.
• * 1.151

  Idem. L. 6. C. 16.
• * 1.152

  Idem. L. 3. C. 18.
• * 1.153

  Raynald. ad ann. 1262. num. 3. &c. ad ann. 1262.
• * 1.154

  Raynald. ad ann. 1263. num 22.
• * 1.155

  L. 3. C. 2. P. 266.
• * 1.156

  L. 3. C. 3. P. 274.
• * 1.157

  Pachym. L. 6. C. 15.
• * 1.158

  Raynald. ad ann. 1370.
• * 1.159

  Syrop. Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 2. C. 5.
• * 1.160

  De Perp. Cons. L. 3. C. 12.
• * 1.161

  L. 2. C. 10. P. 200.
• * 1.162

  Pachym. Hist. L. 5. C. 1.
• * 1.163

  L. 1. C. 10. P. 194.
• * 1.164

  Guill. Tyr. L 12. C. 1••. L. 15. C. 16. & L. 12. C. 25.
• * 1.165

  Baron. ad ann. 1177.
• * 1.166

  Raynald. ad ann. 1193. num. 55.
• * 1.167

  Raynald. ad ann. 1233.
• * 1.168

  Raynald. ad ann. 1245. num. 11.
• * 1.169

  John du Plan's Voy∣age C. 9. & C. 24.
• * 1.170

  Raynald. ad ann. 1247. num. 30. & ad ann. 1253, num. 38.
• * 1.171

  Voyage of Rubriq. C. 1. &c.
• * 1.172

  Raynald. ad. ann. 1264. num. 64. 65.
• * 1.173

  Raynald. ad ann. 1267. numb. 73. Ibid. num. 81.
• * 1.174

  Idem. ad ann. 1276. num. 45. & ad ann. 1277. num. 20. 21.
• * 1.175

  Idem. ad ann. 1278. num. 17. 18. &c.
• * 1.176

  Idem. ad ann. 1288. num. 29. 30. 31.
• * 1.177

  Ibid. num. 32.
• * 1.178

  Ibid. num. 33.
• * 1.179

  Idem. ad ann. 1299. num. 39. 4041.
• * 1.180

  The wonder∣ful History of the great Cham of Tar∣taria, Paris 1529. Fol. 40.
• * 1.181

  Fol. 55.
• * 1.182

  Raynald. ad ann. 1369. num. 14. Ray. ad ann. 1370. num. 8.
• * 1.183

  Idem. ad. ann. 1372. num. 32.
• * 1.184

  Idem. ad ann. 1418. num. 19. 20.
• * 1.185

  Idem. ad ann. 143. num. 29.
• * 1.186

  Idem. ad ann. 1514. num. 87. 101. 102. & ad ann. 1519. num. 60. num. 60. Spondan. ann. Eccl. ad ann. 1531. num. 13. Ray∣nald. ad ann. 1515. num. 69. & 73.
• * 1.187

  Holy Land, L. 2. C. 3.
• * 1.188

  Holy Syria. C. 1. & 3.
• * 1.189

  Letter to the Clergy of France.
• * 1.190

  Thevenot's Voyages. Part 1. C 13. & C. 61. & C. 66.
• * 1.191

  Stochove's Voyage. P. 225.
• * 1.192

  Boulay Le Goux Part 1. C. 9. P. 20.
• * 1.193

  Villamont's Voyages. L. 2. C. 4. Stochovie's Voyages. P. 98.
• * 1.194

  Loir's Voya∣ges. P. 67.
• * 1.195

  C. 20. P. 304.
• * 1.196

  C. 16. P. 247.
• * 1.197

  Anthony Gou∣veau's Relati∣on lib. 3.
• * 1.198

  Relation of the Isle of St. Eri∣nys C. 16. p 248.
• * 1.199

  Holy Syria part 1. 3 Trea∣tise c. 5.
• * 1.200

  Ibid. Treatise the 4. c. 4.
• * 1.201

  Ibid. Treat. 1. C. 9.
• * 1.202

  Ib. chap. 10.
• * 1.203

  Treatise 6. c. 7.
• * 1.204

  Stochovius's Voyages p. 98.
• * 1.205

  Busbeq. Voya∣ges lib 4. p. 5. 26.
• * 1.206

  Gouveau's re∣lation lib. 5. 3.
• * 1.207

  Voyages of M. de la Haye c. 5. pag. 125.
• * 1.208

  Stochov. Voya∣ges pag. 98.
• * 1.209

  Loir's Voyages pag. 67. Thevenot, part. 1 c. 61.
• * 1.210

  Chap. 13.
• * 1.211

  Boulay's Voy∣ages part. 1. c. 9. Relat. of St. Erinys c. 5.
• * 1.212

  Holy Syria part. 1. Treat. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.213

  Poulet's Voy∣ages 2. part. C. 20.
• * 1.214

  Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 11.
• * 1.215

  Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 2.
• * 1.216

  De Perp Cons. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag 970.
• * 1.217

  Arcudius E∣pist, ad Sigism. Regem Polo∣niae de reb. Mosc. pag. 10.
• * 1.218

  Bibl. Select. lib. 6. cap. 1.
• * 1.219

  Spondanus. Annalaom. 3. ••d ann. 1584
• * 1.220

  Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 75.
• * 1.221

  Raynald. ad ann. 1272. num. 27.
• * 1.222

  Idem ad ann. 1288. num. 30.
• * 1.223

  Ibid. num. 33.
• * 1.224

  Raynald. ad ann. 1318. num. 13.
• * 1.225

  Idem ad ann. 1338. num. 77.
• * 1.226

  Idem ad ann. 1366. num. 6.
• * 1.227

  Arcud. Epist. ad Sigismond.
• * 1.228

  Answer to the first Treatise towards the end.
• * 1.229

  Allat. de perp. cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.230

  Lib. 2. C. 12.
• * 1.231

  Lib. 2. C. 13.
• * 1.232

  Lib. 2. C. 15.
• * 1.233

  Lib. 3. C. 1.
• * 1.234

  Answer to the first Treatise.
• * 1.235

  First Treatise of the Perpetu∣ity.
• * 1.236

  Lib. 2. C. 3. P. 128.
• * 1.237

  Ibid.
• * 1.238

  Lib. 2. C. 10. P. 191.
• * 1.239

  Arcud. lib. 3. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 2.
• * 1.240

  Lib. 4. c. 6. pag. 387.
• * 1.241

  Mr. Arnaud lib. 2. ch. 8. p. 170.
• * 1.242

  Concil. Lat. sub Innoc. 3. cap. 1.
• * 1.243

  Sess. 13. cap. 4.
• * 1.244

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys, chap. 12. pag. 150.
• * 1.245

  Allat. de prep. cons. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.246

  Guag. in Mosc. descrip.
• * 1.247

  Relig. Rutheni art. 9.
• * 1.248

  De uno past. part. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.249

  Confess. Eccles. Or. cap. 15.
• * 1.250

  Raynald. ad ann. 1267. num. 77.
• * 1.251

  Allat perp. cons. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.252

  Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298.
• * 1.253

  Gregor. Naz. Ora. 40.
• * 1.254

  H••m. 2. in di∣vers. Iren. ad Haeres. lib. 5. cap. 12.
• * 1.255

  Concil. Florent. Sess. 25.
• * 1.256

  Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345.
• * 1.257

  Lib. 4. cap 2. pag. 346.
• * 1.258

  Germa•• ••n Theor.
• * 1.259

  Arcud. lib de Euch. c. 20 & 21.
• * 1.260

  Arcud. lib. 3. de Euch.
• * 1.261

  Goar in Euch. notis in Miss. Chrys.
• * 1.262

  Goar ibid.
• * 1.263

  Arcud. lib. 3. de Euch. C 9.
• * 1.264

  Histor. Eccl. part. 4. p. 20.
• * 1.265

  Theoria rer. Eccles.
• * 1.266

  Sacred Nose∣gay. lib. 4. c. 3.
• * 1.267

  Arcud. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.268

  Arcud. lib. 5. cap. 11.
• * 1.269

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erini.
• * 1.270

  Epist 2. ad Nihus.
• * 1.271

  Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330.
• * 1.272

  Apud Ar∣cud. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.273

  Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• * 1.274

  Ibid.
• * 1.275

  Apud Arc. lib. 3. cap. 11. pag 331.
• * 1.276

  Prercol. Elem. Heres. lib. 7. pag. 201.
• * 1.277

  Raynald ad ann. 1514.
• * 1.278

  Possevin in Mosc pag. 43.
• * 1.279

  Allat. de per∣pet. cons. lib. 3. cap. 17.
• * 1.280

  Alphonsus de Castro. adv. bae∣res. lib. 6. tit. de Euchar. haeres. 9.
• * 1.281

  Areud. lib. 3. cap. 55.
• * 1.282

  Euchar. Grae∣corum Jacobi Goar & Bibl. patr. Graecor. Lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.283

  Bibliot. Patr. Graeco. Lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.284

  Ibid.
• * 1.285

  Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 33.
• * 1.286

  Archi. Habert Apud. Goar. in Euchol.
• * 1.287

  Bibl. Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.288

  Eurho. Goar.
• * 1.289

  Ʋbi supra.
• * 1.290

  Balsam. in Canon. 55. A∣post. Can 70.
• * 1.291

  Areud lib. 3. cap. 6.
• * 1.292

  Goar in Eu∣chol. p. 153.
• * 1.293

  Apud. Allat. de perp. cons. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.294

  Apud Allat. lib 3 ••e perp. C••ns cap 12.
• * 1.295

  Athan. disp. hab. in Concil. Nic. V••l ali∣us sub nomine Athanas••.
• * 1.296

  Prateol. Elen. Heresic. lib. 7. cap. de Graecis.
• * 1.297

  Possevin in Mosc. p. 43.
• * 1.298

  Gabisil. in ex∣plicat. Litur. cap. 22.
• * 1.299

  Apud Allat. de Simeon Nil. in Par. Bibl. Patr. Graeco-lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.300

  Comm. trium. Patr. in Cant. Cant.
• * 1.301

  Apud Allat. de perpet. Cons. lib. 3.
• * 1.302

  Chifflet. prae∣fat. ad Lector. in Confess. Alcu.
• * 1.303

  In their Histo∣rical and Chronologi∣cal Table un∣der the title of B. Alcuin.
• * 1.304

  Possevin ubi Supra.
• * 1.305

  Gabasilas ubi Supra.
• * 1.306

  Cap. 42.
• * 1.307

  Cap. 43.
• * 1.308

  Cap. 42.
• * 1.309

  Ibid.
• * 1.310

  Cap. 43.
• * 1.311

  Of frequent Com. part. 3. P. 725.
• * 1.312

  Religio. Ruthe∣nor. art. 20.
• * 1.313

  Raynald ad ann. 1514.
• * 1.314

  Par. 3. cap. 2. art. 8.
• * 1.315

  Relation of the I sle of St. Frinis cap. 12. pag. 142.
• * 1.316

  Cap. 20.
• * 1.317

  Mr. Haye's Voyages, part. 49.
• * 1.318

  Thevenot's Voyages, part. 2 ch. 77.
• * 1.319

  Montconis's Voyages, p. 228. &c.
• * 1.320

  Lib. 10. cap. 9.
• * 1.321

  Cap. 37.
• * 1.322

  Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317.
• * 1.323

  Lib. 10. cap. 9.
• * 1.324

  Ibid.
• * 1.325

  Second part, pag. 257.
• * 1.326

  Answer to the 2. Treat. of Perp 2. part. cap. 8.
• * 1.327

  Ibid.
• * 1.328

  Ibid.
• * 1.329

  Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 21.
• * 1.330

  Book 10. chap. 9.
• * 1.331

  Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254.
• * 1.332

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise part 2 c. 8.
• * 1.333

  Book 10 ch 9. p. 7.
• * 1.334

  Goar in not. in S. Joan, Chry∣sost. Miss. pag. 153.
• * 1.335

  Moscovit. de∣script. cap. 2.
• * 1.336

  Comment. Vir Mosco.
• * 1.337

  Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• * 1.338

  Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obscrvat. XI. ad partein. 7. litt.
• * 1.339

  Allatide Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 15.
• * 1.340

  Book 10 chap. 9 pag. 76.
• * 1.341

  Book 10. chap. 9. pag. 78.
• * 1.342

  Consess. Eccles. Orient. cap. 9. de coena Dom.
• * 1.343

  H••mber. sum conir. t. 11. Tho. à Jesu lib 6. p. 3. c. 1. Thom. •• Jesu. ibid.
• * 1.344

  Vita S Stepha∣ni junioris a∣pud Damas∣cen. Biblii.
• * 1.345

  Orat. 1. d. I∣mag.
• * 1.346

  Ibid.
• * 1.347

  Pho. de Synod.
• * 1.348

  Book 10. chap. 9.
• * 1.349

  Bibliot. Pa••••. Tom. 4. ••d••t. 4.
• * 1.350

  Allat de lib. Eccles. Graec. diss. 2.
• * 1.351

  Gennad p••o Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 7. Book 10.
• * 1.352

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.
• * 1.353

  Gennad. pro Concil. Flor. cap. 2 sect. 1.
• * 1.354

  Bibl Patr. Tom 4, Edit. 4.
• * 1.355

  Auctar Com∣besis, Tom 2. in not. ad Isaaci arm. Cath. am∣bas inv.
• * 1.356

  Auctar. Com. bef. Tom. 2 in not ad Is. Ar∣men. in.
• * 1.357

  Nicet. pect. in Lat. Bib. Patr. ••4.
• * 1.358

  Apud. Allat. Perpet Cons. lib. 3. cap. 12. Sigism. Reg. Mosc. Com.
• * 1.359

  Humbert. con∣tr. Nic. Bib. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit. 4.
• * 1.360

  Humbert con∣tr. G••••••. Ca∣lumn.
• * 1.361

  Ibid.
• * 1.362

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4 Edit. 4.
• * 1.363

  Relation of the Isle of St. Erin. chap. 17. p. 2••0.
• * 1.364

  Tract. contr. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 60.
• * 1.365

  Nicet Chon. Annal. lib. 3.
• * 1.366

  Lib. 2. cap. 14. pag 242.
• * 1.367

  Lib. 3. cap. 14. pag. 241.
• * 1.368

  Ibid.
• * 1.369

  1 Cor. 10:
• * 1.370

  Pag. 237.
• * 1.371

  Tom. 6. Cyrill. Alex. in notis Valcan ad lib. advers. antrop. Allat. advers. Chr••ict.
• * 1.372

  Chrysost. Hom. 15. in Rom. lib. 4. de Sace••∣dot.
• * 1.373

  August. in Psalm. 87 & Scrm 49. & 53. de verb. Dom.
• * 1.374

  Occham quod 4. quaest. 35. Bell. lib. 1. d. Euchu. cap 1.
• * 1.375

  Ibid. pag ••44.
• * 1.376

  Lib. 10. cap. 8. pag. 59
• * 1.377

  Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155.
• * 1.378

  Lib. 10 cap 8. p. 59.
• * 1.379

  Ibid. pag. 63.
• * 1.380

  Ibid. pag 58, 59.
• * 1.381

  Ibid. pag. 62.
• * 1.382

  Ibid.
• * 1.383

  Ibid. pag. 59.
• * 1.384

  Answer to the Sccond Treatise of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit. 7.
• * 1.385

  Status & ri∣tus Ecclesiae Graecae à Chri∣stoph Angel••. cap. 23.
• * 1.386

  Confession Cath. & A∣post. in Orient. Ecclesiae per Metrophanem Critopulum.
• * 1.387

  Ibid. cap. 91.
• * 1.388

  Ibid.
• * 1.389

  Apud Posse∣vin Bibl. se∣lect. lib. 6.
• * 1.390

  Hist. Conc. Fl••••. sect. 4. cap. 31, Relig. Ruthen, art. 6.
• * 1.391

  Error Mos. ex Scarga art. ••
• * 1.392

  De Repub. Turcor. pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bé∣nard. lib. cap. 24.
• * 1.393

  Possevin Bib∣liot. select. lib. 1.
• * 1.394

  R••futatio pfeud••-Christi∣anae Catechesis editae à Zacha∣ria Gergano Graeco Aucto∣re Matthae•• Caryophil. Romae 1631. Blasph. 61.
• * 1.395

  Ibid. Blas. phem. 65.
• * 1.396

  Ibid. Blas∣phem. 6.
• * 1.397

  Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382,, 83.
• * 1.398

  Ibid. pag. 383.
• * 1.399

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.400

  Vide Allat. de Perpet. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 15, 16, 17, 18. &c. advers. Ch••eygt. pas∣sim.
• * 1.401

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.402

  Ibid.
• * 1.403

  Hottinger in Appendic•• dissert. 8.
• * 1.404

  Confess. Ec•• Orient. cap. 17.
• * 1.405

  Cyril Conf. fi•• dei, art. 1. & art. 16.
• * 1.406

  Resp. ad In•• terr. 4.
• * 1.407

  Matt. 7.
• * 1.408

  Rom. 14.
• * 1.409

  Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417.
• * 1.410

  Chrysostom. Hem. 23. in Rom.
• * 1.411

  Pag. 422.
• * 1.412

  Pag. 420.
• * 1.413

  In Triod.
• * 1.414

  Thom. à Jesu de procuran. Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.415

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.416

  Lib. 2. cap. 3.
• * 1.417

  Lib. 3. cap. 6, & 7.
• * 1.418

  Allat. de Perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.419

  Ibid.
• * 1.420

  Hottinger. in Append Dis∣sert. 8.
• * 1.421

  Which Letter may be seen in its Original.
• * 1.422

  Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Con∣fes. cap. 9.
• * 1.423

  Arcud. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.424

  Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388.
• * 1.425

  Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16.
• * 1.426

  Allat. de lib. Eccl. disp. 2.
• * 1.427

  Ibid.
• * 1.428

  Sigism. Com. ver. Moscov.
• * 1.429

  Jacob. Goar in notis in offic. Exeq.
• * 1.430

  Heydanus prae∣fat. ad lib cui titulus est, cau∣sa Dei.
• * 1.431

  Athan. Rhe∣tor. Presbyt. Bisant. anti patellar. Paris 1655.
• * 1.432

  Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 387.
• * 1.433

  Allat. de per. Cons. lib. 3.
• * 1.434

  Lib. 4. cap. 7. pag. 39, 392.
• * 1.435

  Allat. de Per∣pet. Cons. lib 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.436

  Allat. ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.437

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat.
• * 1.438

  Nicetas Choni∣at. Annal. lib. 3.
• * 1.439

  Joan Sylv. a∣••rebat. Cathem.
• * 1.440

  Confess. Eccles. Or. cap. 9.
• * 1.441

  Allat. adver∣sus Chreygton exercit. 22.
• * 1.442

  Confes. Eccles. Or. cap. 5.
• * 1.443

  Ibid cap. 9.
• * 1.444

  Jerem. Rep. 1. ad Theologos Wittemb.
• * 1.445

  In actis Concil. Nic. 2 act. 6.
• * 1.446

  Apud. Phol. Bib. Cod. 229.
• * 1.447

  Diog. al. 1.
• * 1.448

  Chrysost. Hom. 44. in Joan.
• * 1.449

  Theophil. A∣lex. Ep. Pasch. 1. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. Edit. 4.
• * 1.450

  Irenae, advers. Hares. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.451

  Thom. à Jesu. lib. de procur. salute omn. gent. part. 2. lib. 7. cap 7.
• * 1.452

  Nicolaus Me∣thon. advers. dubitantes, &c. Bibl. Patr. Craeco-Lat. Tom. 2.
• * 1.453

  Lib 2 cap. 13. pag. 231.
• * 1.454

  Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 155. Lib. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.455

  Damascen de Orthod. fid. lib. 4 cap. 14.
• * 1.456

  Lib. 7. cap. 4. pag. 654.
• * 1.457

  Ibid.
• * 1.458

  Vide Damas∣cen de Ortho∣doxa Fide, of Veronnes Im∣pression, 1531. and that of Basil.
• * 1.459

  Euthym. Com∣ment. in Mat∣the. cap. 64.
• * 1.460

  Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216.
• * 1.461

  1 Tim. 4. 3.
• * 1.462

  Gal. 6. 16.
• * 1.463

  Cyrill. Alex. in Joan. 6. 57. Chrysost. H••m. ••. in Rom.
• * 1.464

  Aug. S••rm. 12. ex 40 Serm.
• * 1.465

  Theophyl. in Marc 14.
• * 1.466

  Elias Cret. Comment. in Oratio. Apol. Greg. Naz.
• * 1.467

  Nicet. Annal. lib. 3.
• * 1.468

  Victor Anti∣och. Com. MS. in Marc.
• * 1.469

  Epiph. Serm. de Fide Eccles. & in Anacephal.
• * 1.470

  Greg. Niss in Bapt. Chr.
• * 1.471

  Epitome. Theo∣dot. in calce, o∣per. Clem. A∣lex.
• * 1.472

  Theophil. 1. Jo∣an 6.
• * 1.473

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat.
• * 1.474

  Apud Leo∣nem Allat. post diatribas de Simeon & ••••ia Collect 1.
• * 1.475

  Allat. de perp. Cons. lib. 3. cap. 15. M. Arn. lib. 7 cap. 5 p. 662.
• * 1.476

  Damascen. de fide Orthod. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.477

  Gregor. Nyss. in Orat. Cat••∣chet.
• * 1.478

  Durand in 4. sent. dist. 11. quaest. 3.
• * 1.479

  Bell. de Sacr. Euch. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.480

  Damascen. E. pist ad Zachar. Doar. & in Hum. de Corp. & Sanct Dom. in Edit. Biblii.
• * 1.481

  Lib. 4. de Fid. Orth. cap. 14.
• * 1.482

  Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 139.
• * 1.483

  Office of the B. Sacrament, Hist. and Chron. 11. Cent.
• * 1.484

  Baron ann. Eccles. ad ann. 1053.
• * 1.485

  Baron. ad ann. 1053.
• * 1.486

  infr. de. corp. sang. Dom.
• * 1.487

  Baron. ad ann. 1059.
• * 1.488

  Lanfr. de corp. & sang. Dum. lib. 2. cap. 5.
• * 1.489

  Lanfr. de corp. & sang.
• * 1.490

  Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 141.
• * 1.491

  Baron ibid.
• * 1.492

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Per∣pet. part. 3. chap. 8.
• * 1.493

  Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143.
• * 1.494

  Lib. 2. cap. 5.
• * 1.495

  Chrysost. Ep. ad Ces.
• * 1.496

  Damascen. I. pist ad Zac. Doar. Humbert cont. Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit.
• * 1.497

  Lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 150.
• * 1.498

  Ibid. pag. 151.
• * 1.499

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise.
• * 1.500

  Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 153.
• * 1.501

  Ibid.
• * 1.502

  Ibid pag. 155.
• * 1.503

  Lib. 2. cap 6. pag. 155.
• * 1.504

  Nicetas Con∣tra. Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit.
• * 1.505

  Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141.
• * 1.506

  Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1••••.
• * 1.507

  Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. & 163.
• * 1.508

  Ibid. pag. 162.
• * 1.509

  Ibid. pag. 164.
• * 1.510

  Ibid.
• * 1.511

  Perpetuity of the Faith, 3. part. cap. 8.
• * 1.512

  Answer to 2. Treat. 3. part. cap. 8.
• * 1.513

  Thomas à Jesu de proc. Salv. omn. gent. lib. 6. cap. 5.
• * 1.514

  Lib. 3. cap. 3. pag 275.
• * 1.515

  Ibid. pag 277.
• * 1.516

  Allat. de Perp. Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.517

  Lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 273. cap. 2.
• * 1.518

  Lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.519

  Lib. 4. cap. 8.
• * 1.520

  Apud Habert in Archierat.
• * 1.521

  In Refuta. Caryophr.
• * 1.522

  Vide lib. 12. Mr. Arnaud.
• * 1.523

  Pag. 131.
• * 1.524

  Praefat. ad Christoph. Angel.
• * 1.525

  Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8.
• * 1.526

  Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133.
• * 1.527

  Ibid. p. 137.
• * 1.528

  Perp. of the Faith Refut. 1. part. p. 121, 122, 123.
• * 1.529

  Allat. Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec.
• * 1.530

  Bellarm de purg. lib. 2. C. 18.
• * 1.531

  Allat Diss. 2. de Pentecost.
• * 1.532

  Bellarm. de Christi. anim. lib. 4. Cap. 16.
• * 1.533

  Allat. Diss. 2.
• * 1.534

  Metroph. Con∣fess. Eccl. Orien. C 7.
• * 1.535

  Jacob. a Vitri hist. Orient. cap. 76.
• * 1.536

  Vallim. lib. 2. cap. 22.
• * 1.537

  Itinerar. Hiero∣sol Joa. Cotto∣ric. lib. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.538

  Thom. a Jesu. lib. 7. part. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.539

  Barlaam Epist. 1. Bibl. patr. Tom. 2. Edit. 4.
• * 1.540

  Epist. ad Wit∣temborg in E∣pist. Virro erudi.
• * 1.541

  Peteau. Rat. tempor. ex Cu∣ropal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid.
• * 1.542

  Ibid.
• * 1.543

  Ibid.
• * 1.544

  Ibid,
• * 1.545

  Ibid.
• * 1.546

  Ibid.
• * 1.547

  Ibid.
• * 1.548

  Ibid.
• * 1.549

  Idem. Lib. 8. Cap. 21.
• * 1.550

  Ibid.
• * 1.551

  Ration. ••em. Lib. 9. C. 7.
• * 1.552

  Pachymer. hist. lib. 5. cap. 18.
• * 1.553

  Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec. Pag. 65.
• * 1.554

  Turco. Grec 1: 8. Pag. 545.
• * 1.555

  Biblioth. selert. de rat. ag. cum Grec. lib. 5. cap. 24.
• * 1.556

  Rupert. in Jo∣an. lib. 6. & in Exod. l. 2. c. 10.
• * 1.557

  Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Wal∣dens. tom. 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. & cod. Ms. qui asservatur in Biblioth. S. Vi∣ctor Paris. cui∣titul. Determi∣natio fratris. Joan. de Pari∣scis. praedieato∣ris de modo ex∣istendi corporis Christi in Sacr. Altare &c. Intendo dicere v••ram existen∣tiam & realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris, & quod non est ibi solum in signo, & licet teneam & approbem ill••rum solemnem opinionem, quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substanciae panis in ipsum, & quod ipsi mane∣ant accidentia sine subjecto, non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet sub fide mea, sed potest aliter salvari vera, & realis ex∣istentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris. Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per Sacrum canonem, aut per Ecclesiam, aut per Concilium generale, aut per Papam, qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam, quic∣quid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto, & statim paratus sum revocare, quod si non fit determinatus, contingat tamen deter∣minari, statim paratus sum assentire. In 4. Sent. Quaest. 6. Art. 4.
• * 1.558

  Titulus Judi∣cium facultatis Theologiae in presentia Col∣legij magisir••∣rum in Theolo∣gia dictum est, utrumque ••••c∣dum ponendi corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro opini∣one prohabil•• & approbat u∣trumque per (hic est lacu∣na) & per dicta Sancto∣rum dicit ta∣men quod nul∣lus est determi∣natus per Ec∣clesian & idco nullum cadere sub fide. Et si aliter dixisset minus benc dixisset & qui aliter dicunt minus benc di∣cunt, & qui de∣terminate asse∣veret alteru∣trum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sen∣tentiam Can••∣nis Anathc∣matis.
• * 1.559

  Epist. Cyrill. ad Wittemb. in Epist. Viror. erud.
• * 1.560

  Lib. 2. c. 9•• p. 174.
• * 1.561

  Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 204.
• * 1.562

  Ibid.
• * 1.563

  Ibid. p. 205. Ibid. p. 204. Ibid. p. 205.
• * 1.564

  Lib. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.565

  Lib. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.566

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.567

  Lib. 2. c. 8. p. 171. Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Ibid.
• * 1.568

  Lib. 3. c. 2. p. 262. Lib. 3. c. 3. Ibid. Lib. 4. c. 2.
• * 1.569

  Baron. ad ann. 1179.
• * 1.570

  Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210.
• * 1.571

  Answ. to the 2d. Treatise. 2. p. c. 8.
• * 1.572

  Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 333.
• * 1.573

  Ibid p. 337.
• * 1.574

  Syrop. Hist. Concil. Flor. Sect. 3. c. 6.
• * 1.575

  Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337.
• * 1.576

  Concil. Flor. Sess. 23.
• * 1.577

  Sess. 25.
• * 1.578

  Sess. 25.
• * 1.579

  Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343.
• * 1.580

  Hist. Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9.
• * 1.581

  Sect. 10. c. 10.
• * 1.582

  Sect. 10. c. 11.
• * 1.583

  Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355.
• * 1.584

  Pag. 347.
• * 1.585

  Thom. a Jesu. Lib. 6. p. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.586

  Possevin. Bibl. select. l. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.587

  Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 910.
• * 1.588

  Lib. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.589

  Allat. de Perp Cons••l. 2. c. 15.
• * 1.590

  Lib. 6. c. 4.
• * 1.591

  Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 180.
• * 1.592

  C. 12. p. 215.
• * 1.593

  Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 179.
• * 1.594

  Comment. in Orat. 1. Greg. Naz.
• * 1.595

  Cyrill. apud Victor. Ante MS. in Bibl. Reg.
• * 1.596

  Lib. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.597

  Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 183.
• * 1.598

  Comm. in Mat. c. 26.
• * 1.599

  Com. in. Joan.
• * 1.600

  Ibid.
• * 1.601

  These 2.
• * 1.602

  Paschas. Rat. 6. in Mat. 26.
• * 1.603

  Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 288.
• * 1.604

  Ibid. p. 179.
• * 1.605

  Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.
• * 1.606

  Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Greco. Lat.
• * 1.607

  Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.
• * 1.608

  Ibid.
• * 1.609

  Pallad. Hist. cap. 73.
• * 1.610

  Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223.
• * 1.611

  Ibid. p. 226.
• * 1.612

  P. 226.
• * 1.613

  P. 188.
• * 1.614

  Bibl. Patr. tom. 2. Grec. Lat.
• * 1.615

  Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247.
• * 1.616

  P. 246.
• * 1.617

  P. 247.
• * 1.618

  Lib. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.619

  Cabas. expos. Liturg. c. 30.
• * 1.620

  Lib. 3. c. 8.
• * 1.621

  Answer to the 2d Treat. c. 8.
• * 1.622

  Cabas. expos. Lit. cap. 32.
• * 1.623

  Ibid.
• * 1.624

  Lib. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.625

  Ibid. p. 361.
• * 1.626

  p. 362.
• * 1.627

  p. 370.
• * 1.628

  P. 365.
• * 1.629

  P. 366.
• * 1.630

  Answer to the 2d. Treat. 2, p. c. 3.
• * 1.631

  Lib. 7. c. 1. p. 614.
• * 1.632

  Anast. Sin. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.633

  Ibid. p. 625.
• * 1.634

  Ibid. p. ••3••.
• * 1.635

  P. 629.
• * 1.636

  Ibid. p. 631.
• * 1.637

  Ibid. p. 630.
• * 1.638

  Ibid. p. 634.
• * 1.639

  Lib. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.640

  Germ. Theor. rer. Eccles sub finem.
• * 1.641

  Answer to the 2d. Treatise of the Perpet. c. 2.
• * 1.642

  Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651.
• * 1.643

  Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661.
• * 1.644

  P. 663.
• * 1.645

  Allat. de Ec∣cles. Occid. & Orient. Perp. Consens. Lib. 3. cap. 15.
• * 1.646

  Origin rerum{que} Constantinopl. variis autor. manipulus a Francis. Com∣befix. ubi supra.
• * 1.647

  P. 664. 665.
• * 1.648

  Ibid.
• * 1.649

  Ibid.
• * 1.650

  Albertin. de Sacram. Eu∣char. Lib. 2. Pag. 322.
• * 1.651

  Ibid.
• * 1.652

  P. 665.
• * 1.653

  Lib. 7. c. 6. p. 678.
• * 1.654

  C. 6. p. 674.
• * 1.655

  Lib. 7. c. 2. p. 630.
• * 1.656

  Bessarion de de Sacram. Eucharist.
• * 1.657

  C. 6. p. 680.
• * 1.658

  C. 6. p. 683.
• * 1.659

  Ibid.
• * 1.660

  Ibid.
• * 1.661

  Com. in Greg. Naz.
• * 1.662

  C. 5. p. 669.
• * 1.663

  C. 6. p. 684.
• * 1.664

  Apud. Concil▪ Nicen. art. 6.
• * 1.665

  C. 7. p. 689.
• * 1.666

  Ibid. c. 7.
• * 1.667

  P. 693.
• * 1.668

  C. 7. p. 6, 6.
• * 1.669

  C. 7. p. 698.
• * 1.670

  P. 669.
• * 1.671

  Lib. 7. c. 7. p. 700. 701.
• * 1.672

  C. 7. p. 702.
• * 1.673

  Ibid.
• * 1.674

  Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 715.
• * 1.675

  Ibid.
• * 1.676

  P. 716.
• * 1.677

  Answer to the 2d. Treat. of the Perp. 3. p. c. 4.
• * 1.678

  Ibid. c. 8. p. 716.
• * 1.679

  Ibid.
• * 1.680

  Ibid.
• * 1.681

  Lib. 7. c. 9. p. 722., &c.
• * 1.682

  Perp. of the Faith, 2. Part, p. 249, 250.
• * 1.683

  Answer to the 2d. Treat. of the Perpetuit. 2. part. c. 8.
• * 1.684

  Allat. in ad∣dendis ad lib. de Perpet cons.
• * 1.685

  C. 9. p. 724.
• * 1.686

  P. 725.
• * 1.687

  P. 726.
• * 1.688

  P. 725.