The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 5

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 4 · Chapter 5

p. 272CHAP. V.

Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of the Greeks and Latins, on the Article of Tranſubſtantiation Examined.

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 weary 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 Reflections: 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 conclude 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 taking of Conſtantinople, and the Eſtabliſhment of the Latins in the Greek Empire, 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 Chapter, 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 p. 273word 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 Perp. of the Faith Refut. 1. part. p. 121, 122, 123.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 Accident 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 Pagans, or thoſe of the Fathers, and the Books which have bin written touching 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 Bodies 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 p. 274which 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 believe 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 Silence, 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 telling 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 declare 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 Argument, 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 diſcourſe, 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 whatſoever may adminiſter them an Occaſion of conſidering the Accidents, and I might as often draw this Concluſion that they do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, 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 Converſion. 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, according 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 palbable, p. 275nor diviſible, thus more like a Spirit than a Body, and yet without Motion, 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 attributed 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 receive 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 Subſtance, 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 about 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 pleaſed to give us. A matter in fine, in which the Greeks might be ſilent without 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 offered 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 foreign, that they explain themſelves only in general Terms, which may be underſtood in another Sence, and which at fartheſt can admit only p. 276of 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 Ligaridius, the Synod of Cyprus, and that of ſome Prieſts in the Patriarchate of Antioch; 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 Conſequences. I would likewiſe deſire the Reader to compare his negative Argument 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 ſignifies, they own not the Councils that have determin'd it; and in the rejection of them never except this Article, nor ſhew by any thing elſe they are agreed in it. They do not then believe the ſubſtancial Converſion of the Latins. 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 Subſtance 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 immediate 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 neceſſary: For there is nothing that can hinder the Greek Church from expounding clearly and plainly this Opinion, if ſhe held it: Not the Ignorance of proper 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 Chriſtianity was firſt planted amongſt them, not the fear of ſcandalizing the Infidels, for the Turks amongſt whom the Greeks live, ſuffer all ſorts of Religions, 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 notwithſtanding p. 277all 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 generality is not only unevident, but falſe, and contrary to the Principles of Reaſon 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, ſuppoſe 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 Suppoſitions 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 difference. 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 Controverſy. The Queſtion between us is to know whether the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation, 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 Tranſubſtantiation, 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 affirmative 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 reaſonable Perſon. Our Minds might be perplexed with it, but yet 'twill be ſtill ſaid, we muſt examine what the Greeks poſitively teach touching the Euchariſt, p. 278and 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 decides 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 ſpared 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 concerning the Euchariſt. For as I now ſaid, Mr. Arnaud's Propoſition being affirmative, to wit, that the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation, he muſt clearly eſtabliſh 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 Tranſubſtantiation, nor yet ſtill believe it, they ought to make it a point of Controverſy with the Latins. I anſwer, the Greeks contented themſelves with keeping their own Belief concerning the Sacrament, and held to their uſual 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 diſputed this Point with the Latins, nor formally debated it in their ancient Differences. I ſay, as far as we can find, for 'tis impoſſible but ſome have Diſputed 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. Arnaud'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 particular 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 p. 279her Silence, ſo reſolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks. The Queſtion whether the Infallibility reſides in the Pope, or Council, has remain'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, without oppoſing or condemning it, altho ſhe does not approve of it? This Conſequence 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 Example, and Maxim of Pope Innocent himſelf.

IT will not be amiſs to obſerve two things in theſe Examples I now inſtanced, the one, that the Point before us is concerning what paſſed in the very 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 Body 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 manifeſt 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 remains 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 towards 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 Prayers 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, extreamly p. 280found of this Opinion, that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat. Diſſ 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec.and thoſe condemned to eternal Miſery, and that they are eaſed, and ſometimes wholy delivered by them. Which he proves by ſeveral Paſſages in their Triode (which is one of their eccleſiaſtical Books) and other their moſt famous 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 Bellarm de purg. lib. 2. C. 18.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 Florence 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 Allat Diſſ. 2. de Pentecoſt.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 produced 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 Bellarm. de Chriſti. anim. lib. 4. Cap. 16.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 Theodorus, Allat. Diſſ. 2.the one a Prieſt, and th'other a Deacon of the Church of Conſtantinople. 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 Churches, 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 Metroph. Confeſs. Eccl. Orien. C 7.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 Doctrines 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.

p. 281WE 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 Rejection 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 nullity 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 themſelves touching the Damned, and Chriſt's preaching to them, touching the number of Canonical Books, &c. without entring into Debate with the Latins, 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 Tranſubſtantiation 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 Religion. 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 Chriſtian 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 ſecond place I anſwer, to judg rightly of the Importance of Tranſubſtantiation, 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 ſuperſtitious Ceremonies; who have lived hitherto in Diſorders and perpetual Confuſions, and have had the Latins continually to deal with, and bin forced 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 Opinion of the Latins, and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference, p. 282which 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 Expreſſions, 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 another Jacob. a Vitri hiſt. Orient. cap. 76.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 Vallim. lib. 2. cap. 22.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 Confeſſion, Itinerar. Hieroſol Joa. Cottoric. lib. 2. c. 6.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, Damaſcen 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 Eccleſiaſtical 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 appears 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 Sacraments.

THOMAS a Jeſu tells us that the Pope having ſent Apoſtolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites, and purging their Books from ſome Thom. a Jeſu. lib. 7. part. 2. c. 7.Errors, which were common to them, ſay's he, as well as to other Eaſtern Nations, that is to ſay other Chriſtians in that Country, they found they miſunderſtood ſome Paſſages of Scripture, and eſpecially that touching the Inſtitution 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 Interpretation of the Words of Chriſt, ſeeing 'tis only on the literal Sence of theſe p. 283Words 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 nature, that the Armenians do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, nor the ſubſtantial 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, becauſe 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 Tranſubſtantiation, 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 Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century, till this preſent. For I already related in the ſecond Book what Wm. of Tyre, James de Vitry, Belon, Cottovic, Anthony Caucus, Francis Richard, Allatius, du Loir, Thevenot, and Barbereau the Jeſuit have written of this matter. I moreover produced 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, Barlaam Epiſt. 1. Bibl. patr. Tom. 2. Edit. 4.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 Salvation; 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 Ignorance Epiſt. ad Wittemborg in Epiſt. Virro erudi.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, excepting 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 p. 284dreadful 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 divided into Factions and horrible Confuſions. In the Year 1034, Romanus Argirus Peteau. Rat. tempor. ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid.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 adopted one Michael Calaphatus, and made him Emperor; but four or five Months Ibid.after, ſhe cauſed his Eyes to be bored out, and gave the Empire to Conſtantin 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 Ibid.Year. After her came one named Michael Stratiotique, who Reigned alſo but one Year. Iſaack Comnenus diſpoſſeſſed him and took his Place, wherein he remained Ibid,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 Ibid.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, Ibid.was not more fortunate. Nicephorus Botionatus having Dethroned him, put Ibid.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: Alexius Ibid.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 wretched Idem. Lib. 8. Cap. 21.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 Ibid.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 Michael 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, againſt 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 p. 285private 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 under 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 Paleologues, Ration. …em. Lib. 9. C. 7.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 Poyſoned 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 conſider we moreover the Influence the Latins had on the Greeks, and the manner 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 Roman. 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, Constantin Monomaque fail'd not to take Leo's Part, countenancing his Legats, and conſtraining Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his own Book, which he wrote againſt the Latins. We have likewiſe obſerv'd that John Veccus Library keeper 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 Emperors 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 Preceding Conſiderations this third Remark, that the Greeks were forc'd to be ſilent for fear of the Latins, and their own Emperors. It may be perhaps replyed, 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 Controverſies, 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 others begun, which would render the Deſign of a Reconciliation more difficult?

p. 286IV. 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 notwithſtanding the Agreement, there ſhould be no alteration made in their Religion. Do not doubt, ſay's he, but after this Peace the Church ſhall remain in its Pachymer. hiſt. lib. 5. cap. 18.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 accomodate 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 nature 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 manifeſtly 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 Charging 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 Michael deſires but the firſt of theſe, and proteſts he intends not thereby to proceed 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 important 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 Diſcourſe, 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 Religion 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 engaged '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 another with Error. Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Principles which they do not acknowledg to be good, and therefore plauſible Pretences 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 deceive 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 another thing, to which they did not believe they were obliged, and from which they might refrain without the leaſt Violence to their Inclinations.

p. 287THIS 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 Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec. Pag. 65.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 Ceremonies, and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church before 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 Condemning 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 Principle whereby to juſtify himſelf to the Greeks, which is a Sign that this Propoſition agreed with the Genius of that Nation. For People are not wont to juſtify themſelves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred; if Michael Paleologus, 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 Philip 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 Turco. Grec 1: 8. Pag. 545.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 certain 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 Biblioth. ſelert. de rat. ag. cum Grec. lib. 5. cap. 24.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 Latins, 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 habitual Hatred againſt the Latins, altho their Biſhops and moſt prudent Perſons amongſt 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, ſuppoſing 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 Salvation 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.

p. 288VI. BUT it will be demanded why then did they Diſpute on the Proceſſion 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 Cauſes of their Quarrel with the Latins, treading in the Steps of their Predeceſſors. 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 marvel 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 Tranſubſtantiation 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 ſubſtantial 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, publickly Rupert. in Joan. lib. 6. & in Exod. l. 2. c. 10.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. **Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Waldenſ. tom. 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. & cod. Ms. qui aſſervatur in Biblioth. S. Victor Pariſ. cuititul. Determinatio fratris. Joan. de Pariſcis. praedieatoris de modo exiſtendi corporis Chriſti in Sacr. Altare &c. Intendo dicere v…ram exiſtentiam & 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 maneant accidentia ſine ſubjecto, non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet ſub fide mea, ſed poteſt aliter ſalvari vera, & realis exiſtentia 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, quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto, & ſtatim paratus ſum revocare, quod ſi non fit determinatus, contingat tamen determinari, ſtatim paratus ſum aſſentire. In 4. Sent. Quaeſt. 6. Art. 4.Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opinion, may be called a Transformation, but not a Tranſubſtantiation. Yet was not Durand Proſecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick, nor his Doctrine Cenſured. We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Order of Fryar Preachers, and Divinity Profeſſor at Paris, who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century. That altho he approved of the common Opinion 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 determin'd by the Church, and that there was another more popular Opinion, and perhaps 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 lived 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.

p. 289BUT to the end it may not be ſaid, theſe are the Opinions of particular Titulus Judicium facultatis Theologiae in preſentia Collegij magiſir… rum in Theologia dictum eſt, utrumque …cdum ponendi corpus Christi eſſe in Altari tenet pro opinione prohabil… & approbat utrumque per (hic eſt lacuna) & per dicta Sanctorum dicit tamen quod nullus eſt determinatus per Eccleſian & idco nullum cadere ſub fide. Et ſi aliter dixiſſet minus benc dixiſſet & qui aliter dicunt minus benc dicunt, & qui determinate aſſeveret alterutrum praeciſe cadere ſub fide incurreret ſententiam Can… nis Anathcmatis.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 Aſſumption of the Subſtance of Bread, as is contained in a Manuſcript of the Library 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 Body 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 Teſtimonies of the Fathers. Yet it ſays that neither of theſe two ways has been determined 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 Anathema. I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuſcript according 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 paſſed 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 Authors as Rupert, Durand, John of Paris and Cardinal Dailly publickly maintained 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 Ambaſſadors, 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 ſeveral 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 affirmed 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.

p. 290VIII. 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 determined 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 being 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 Condemns 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 little 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 condemn 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 Faculty 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 manner 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 mentioned this conſiderable Remark, which is, that the Latins never raiſed a Diſpute 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 whether the Greeks have the ſame Opinion with us touching the Euchariſt, much leſs whether they explain themſelves after the ſame manner. This is Mr. Arnaud'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. Whether p. 291the 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 about 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 touching their Expreſſions, how general ſoever they have been; They have indeed done what they could whereby to introduce inſenſibly amongſt them the Terms of foreign, and of foreign, 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 Expreſſions of foreign, 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 wonder if this Conduct has kept the Greeks from diſcuſſing any farther the Differences which ſeparate the two Churches. They agreed in the general Expreſſions, that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis changed into 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 Judgment 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 Reunion 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 Controverſies, 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 concerning themſelves with that of Strangers?

p. 292X. 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 Sarracen 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 determine the manner of this Change, ſaying 'tis a real Converſion of the Subſtance of Bread and Wine; we muſt not find it ſtrange, if they contain themſelves in their generalities, and neither Receive nor Condemn this Doctrine. Whether they do well or ill in this, I ſhall not here determine: But howſoever, '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, foreign, ſay's he, foreign, 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 Converſion of Subſtances, altho they did not believe it) be not grounded on all imaginable 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 comply 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 Epist. Cyrill. ad Wittemb. in Epist. Viror. erud.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 admoniſh 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 Converſation, 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 themſelves 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 p. 293Medium, neither Believing it, nor Condemning it; than to ſay as Mr. Arnaud does, that if they have not oppoſed it, nor diſputed on it, nor reproached the Roman Church with it as an Error, it inevitably follows, they have, and do ſtill believe it.