The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
A farther Examination of Mr. Arnaud's Negative Arguments. A particular Reflection concerning what paſt in the Treaties of Reunion, and eſpecially in the Council of Florence, and afterwards.
THE more we conſider the Principles on which Mr. Arnaud Reaſons, the plainlier appears the Nullity of the Conſequence he pretends to draw thence. He ſay's for Example that Theophylact, reduces all the Differences which ſeparated in his time the two Churches Lib. 2. c. 9… p. 174.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 againſt 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 particulars 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 Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 204.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 whatſoever he upbraided the Greeks with; that John Phurnius wrote againſt Ibid.Chryſolanus, and mentions only the Proceſſion; and that this ſame Phurnius Ibid. p. 205. Ibid. p. 204. Ibid. p. 205.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 anſwers Chryſolanus, and that he wrote another Treatiſe concerning the Azymes, 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 fourteenth Century, that wrote againſt the Roman Church, and aſſures us they Lib. 3. c. 7.all of 'em reſtrain…d themſelves to theſe two Points. He farther ſhews us Lib. 3. c. 2.that in the Treaty of Agreement, which was begun in the Year 1232, between Gregory the IX, and Germain the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, there Lib. 3. c. 4.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 mentioned the Doctrine of Purgatory, the beatifical Viſion of the Saints, and primacy of the See of Rome? What certainty is there in all theſe negative Arguments, 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 Tranſubſtantiation, 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 already 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 Lib. 2. c. 8. p. 171. Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Ibid.therein: That they were together at the Synod of Barris where Anſelm diſputed 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 failed 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 purpoſe: Lib. 3. c. 2. p. 262. Lib. 3. c. 3. Ibid. Lib. 4. c. 2.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 reckoned 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 Aſſertion.
'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 Corcyra to the Abbot Nectairus, and from the Abbot's Letters again to George, Baron. ad ann. 1179.mentioned by Baronius, and which relate not a Word to the purpoſe.
TO refute what he tells us concerning the Council of Conſtantinople under 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 Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210.Pope's Name in their publick Offices, acknowledg his Supremacy, and right of Appeals. Which is as much as to ſay, that all the reſt ſignified nothing, provided 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 Michael Paleologus touching the Reunion of the two Churches, Mr. Arnaud forgets to put us in mind of that Violence, Deceit, and Tyranny which that Emperor uſed to accompliſh his Deſign, as we already obſerved, which was mannaged 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 Ceremonies, 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 Perpetuity 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 Anſw. to the 2d. Treatiſe. 2. p. c. 8.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 Converſion under pretence it was not debated in that Council, and that the rather 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, without preparing the Readers by long Diſcourſes. Mr. Claude, ſay's he, here, Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 333.who can ſpeak when he pleaſes, Court Language in his Books of Divinity, pleaſantly 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 introduced this term in a ſerious Diſpute: I think I may borrow it of him, whereby 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 produce 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 Remote 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 Language 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 themſelves 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 ſufficiently in Love with the Age I live in, to leave my common Expreſſions, to accommodate 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 Clory 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 Method 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 Latins, 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 Dictionary, (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 Ibid p. 337.Union, touching the Differences which divided the Greeks from the Latins, there ſhould be politick Reſpects, and humane Intereſts; this is neither marvelous nor unjuſt. 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 ordered 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 miſerable 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 Council 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 ſolid and laſting Union, it was needful to examine all the Doctrines on both ſides, Syrop. Hiſt. Concil. Flor. Sect. 3. c. 6.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 Emperor 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 deſcent into Hell, the Salvation of the Damned, Apocryphal Books, nor of any other Points but what had been openly controverted, and of them how many were paſſed over in Silence? There was no mention of the Communion 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 viſible 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 appears 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 either 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 renounced 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 Doctrines of the Latins, and there could be no more concluded thence at fartheſt, 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 Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337.'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 other Points contained in the Decree, for they paſſed them over without Examination and Diſcuſſion, except that of Purgatory, which was ſlightly regarded.
MR. Arnaud ſets himſelf to ſhow afterwards that the Latins did not ſuſpect 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 abſurdities he plunges himſelf. Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongſt themſelves 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 Latins? There are certainly judicious Perſons enough ſtill in the World to determine 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, foreign. 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 tranſubſtantiated into the Body, and the Blood into the Wine? For, for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their foreign, a true and real Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe '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 particular 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 Tranſubſtantiation. 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 produced. It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wearied 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 Concil. Flor. Seſſ. 23.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 Seſſ. 25.the Greeks telling the Latins: That they were not for Diſputing, becauſe Diſputes 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 Cardinal Julian, that we are not for any more Diſputes, for Words are never wanting Seſſ. 25.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 Controverſies, 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 Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343.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 abjured 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 partake of the Myſteries of the Latins, they ſhould prepare themſelves; at theſe Words the Greeks were ſeized with Horror, foreign. Hiſt. Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9.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 Sect. 10. c. 10.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 Adoration. 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 conſider in what manner they celebrated it, and ſee whether he could ſatisfy their Demands. Whereupon the Emperor finding himſelf abuſed, thus expreſſed Sect. 10. c. 11.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 neither he nor his Latins had conſidered the Liturgy of the Greeks, and the Emperor on the other hand, proteſts the Latins are Innovators, and guilty of ſeveral 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 weakneſs; he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Subject 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 Holy Sacrament, of which he was a Witneſs? Why did he not deplore the Abominations 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 intended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd. A Hiſtory is not a Diſpute: Wherefore then ſhould he Diſcourſe of Tranſubſtantiation in it? Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins, or deteſt the Adoration 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 contrary, 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, conſidered 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 condemn 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 likewiſe draws ſome Arguments from what paſſed after the Greeks had renounced 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 Jeruſalem, 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 Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355.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 Pag. 347.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 Agreement 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 treated, 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 compleat 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. Beſſarion 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? Seeing 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 Jeruſalem, to declaim on this Point, ſeeing they had no reaſon to do ſo. Certainly ſuch groſs Illuſions as theſe, deſerved not ſuch Exclamations.
IT only remains for the finiſhing of this Chapter, and this matter of Negative 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. Obſerving 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 Tranſubſtantiation. Had they condemned them as inſufficient, and urged the Greeks to admit of theirs, they would at the ſame time condemned themſelves as Innovators. They choſe then rather to paſs over ſoftly this Article, than to venture 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 already mentioned, and Decree of the Council of Florence, wherein was uſed only the word foreign 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 preciſe and determinate ones of the Roman Church. That learned Man I mentioned 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 Thom. a Jeſu. Lib. 6. p. 3. c. 3.matter to ſtick at, but there were things of greater Importance to be conſidered touching the Sacrament. De proceſſione infeſto corporis non laborarem, multa tamen 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 diſtinctly the ſubſtantial Converſion, and to receive the term of Tranſubſtantiation, 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 inſenſibly 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 inſinuated the word foreign, in his Catechiſm, and was cenſured for it by the reſt. When the Scholars of the Seminaries are ſent into Greece, to live amongſt the Schiſmaticks, and procure the eſtabliſhment of the Roman Religion, they are made to ſign the Confeſſion of Faith I now mentioned, which expreſly denotes Tranſubſtantiation: So likewiſe is their Language far different 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 Poſſevin. Bibl. ſelect. l. 5. c. 24.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 Euchariſt 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 underſtand 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. Arnaud himſelf has diſcovered ſomething of this, when he told us that in the Council of Constantinople held under Emanuel Comnenus, The Latins only required Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 910.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 Paleologus 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 Cauſes 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. Lib. 3. c. 2.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 Condition that the Reunion was made in the Council of Florence: But when the Latins ſaw a more favourable Occaſion, they extended their Pretenſions farther, 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 Paleologus to ſolicit him, to oblige his Patriarch and Prelates to make their Profeſſion 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 intereſt) 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, either in the Act of Profeſſion, or in the Chaunt, or any particular Declaration of Allat. de Perp Conſ…l. 2. c. 15.Faith. Much leſs was this to be ſuffered in the publick ſinging of the Creed, wherein 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 reſolved 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 withal 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 Intereſt of ſubmitting the Greeks to the See of Rome. The Greeks are complyed 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 Religion 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 Deſign 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 Emiſſaries. It is in order to this, that the Emiſſaries apply themſelves to the converting of the Greek Biſhops, and inſtructing of Youth in the Roman Religion, 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 Catholick Faith. His Holineſs, ſay's he, who is ſo vigilant for the Salvation of Souls, Lib. 6. c. 4.muſt take care, that as ſoon as ever the Patriarchal Church of Conſtantinople becomes 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 Conſtantinople, Elects and Confirms him Patriarch. For this effect his Holyneſs muſt order him to betake himſelf to Conſtantinople, where he will find Ambaſſadors 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 unjuſtly,) 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 Patriarchal 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 invalid, 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 Schiſmaticks 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 ſeeing 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 Prelates 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 Prelates by the uprightneſs of their Lives, and ſoundneſs of their Doctrine, may govern 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 Controverſies.