The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 11 – Book 5
CHAP. XI.
Several Circumſtances relating to the ſecond Council of Nice, Examined.
HAVING thus cleared the Sence of the Council of Nice, it's ſcarce worth our Enquiry, whether this Council was called and held in a regular manner; and whether its Conduct was ſo ſincere, that there could be no Fault found with it. I grant it was aſſembled in the Year 787. ten Years after Stephen Stylytus's Death, if we refer our ſelves to the anonymous Author who wrote the Life of this Stephen; and do thereby acknowledg that according to the beſt Chronology it cannot be ſaid, That after Epiphanus had cenſured in the Council of Nice the Terms of Figure and Image; Stephen Stylite notwithſtanding ſaid, will you caſt out of the Church the Figures of the Body and Blood of Chriſt? Altho Mr. Blondel, (whom every body knows was very skilful in theſe Matters of Chronology) computed Stephen's Death to have hapned ten Years after this Council of Nice was held: Howſoever Mr. Arnaud knows very well that the Bill Epiphanus read, was not written before this Council was held, that it could not be ſeen by Stephen, and that the Clauſe therein touching the Rejection of the Term of Image in reference to the Euchariſt, was not taken out of Damaſcen's Writings, who was Stephen's Contemporary, and a Patron of Images as well as he. Whence it follows that altho the Writing which was read in the Council condemned the Uſe of this Term, yet Stephen (who was engaged in the ſame Affair as the Author of this Writing) made uſe of it; which ſhews that this Doctrine, that the Euchariſt is not an Image or Figure, was neither the Doctrine of the whole Greeks Chruch, nor even that of the whole oppoſite Party to the Council of Conſtantinople. Now this is the Subſtance of what I had to ſay, and to which Mr. Arnaud was bound to make reply.
IN effect it has not been Stephen only who made uſe of the Term of Figure, and believed it to be not Inconſiſtent with the Doctrine of the Greek Church in reference to the Euchariſt; Balſamon who lived in the twelfth Century did the ſame likewiſe. The thirty ſecond Canon, ſay's he, of the Council called in Trullo Injoyns the unbloody Sacrifice, be made with Bread and Wine mingled with Water; becauſe the Bread is the Figure of Chriſt's Body, and the Wine the Figure of his Blood. Andrew of Créte, as Goar Reports, ſcrupled not to ſay, That our Saviour is Immolated in the Symbols which are the Figures of him; foreign. And Nicetas Pectoratus writing againſt the Latins in the eleventh Century, likewiſe ſaid, You eat the Azyme of the Jews as a Figure of our Lords true and living Fleſh; And again, If as you ſay the Apoſtles received an Azyme from our Lord, and delivered it to you as a Figure of our Lord's Body, to be the Mystery of the new Teſtament, &c.
BUT to return to the Council of Nice, it is granted 'twas Taraſus who (before he accepted of the See of Conſtantinople,) obtained a Promiſe from the Empreſs Iréne that there ſhould be a Council called; but this does not hinder but it may be ſaid, That he was not ſetled in this See till he had obtained from Iréne the Convocation of this Synod. But whether it was at his Requeſt or not, that Iréne did it, it little matters; for it is ſtill certain they were agreed in it; and this Condition on which he is ſaid to accept of that See, ſhews only that he was far engaged to maintain the Cauſe of Images, and already became a Party. Mr. Arnaud cannot deny that Taraſus had already declared himſelf in the Letter he wrote to Pope Adrian. Neither can he any more deny the Pope anſwered him he would not conſent to his Election to the Patriarchate, unleſs he Re-eſtabliſhed the Worſhip of Images. All this is expreſly contained in Adrian's Letters, and thence may juſtly be concluded that this Perſon was not at his own Liberty when he preſided in this Council, and could at fartheſt be conſidered only as the Head of a Party, which was at that time the ſtrongeſt, as being upheld by the Empreſs Iréne, and her chief Miniſter Stauracius. Now this by good right makes void whatſoever Taraſus did afterwards.
MR. Arnaud cannot deny but that the two Monks Thomas, and John, whom the Council ever called The Vicars, or Repreſentatives of the Apoſtolical Sees in the Eaſt, were ſent by ſome Hermit of Paleſtine, and not by the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jeruſalem, nor by the Conſent of the Patriarchal, or other Churches. Whence it appears this Council could not rightly call it ſelf Univerſal, nor be preferred above that of Conſtantinople, altho ſo eſteemed by the Author of the Perpetuity, who tells us as a conſiderable Matter, that all the Patriarchs were there preſent.
IT was, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, a mere Favour of the Council towards them, to Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 715.give them the Place of the Patriarchs. If it were a mere Favour of the Council, then the Preſence of theſe Men ought not to be made a Ground for the calling this an oecumenical Council; and by this means to give it the greater Authority. The Author then of the Perpetuity had no reaſon ſo loudly to proclame, that all the Patriarchs were preſent at it. For it is Abſurd to pretend the Patriarchs aſſiſted at it, under Pretence there was given by mere Favour the Place of Patriarchs to two Religious, who had neither Order nor Miſſion from theſe Patriarchs. Yet this Favour, adds Mr. Arnaud, was Ibid.granted on good Grounds, ſeeing no Perſons could better ſupply this Place, than thoſe that were competent Witneſſes of their Sentiments, and were the Bearers of their Synodical Letters. But to keep in a Council the Rank of Patriarchs, it is not ſufficient for Perſons to be Witneſſes of their Sentiments, nor Carryers of their Synodical Letters, which the Patriarchs wrote to one another, they muſt be their Deputies ſent expreſly for this; and 'tis to no purpoſe to ſay no Perſons could better hold this Rank than they, for no body abſolutely could hold it, neither they nor others, ſeeing they were no Deputies; to grant a Favour to People on theſe ſlight Grounds, to take afterwards upon 'em the Title of oecumenical Council, and to boaſt of the Preſence of the Patriarchs, this was not ſo much to Favour them, as to Impoſe upon us.
TARASUS the Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſent Deputies towards the others Patriarchs, but theſe Deputies returned without executing their Commiſſion, becauſe they ſaw the Danger they were in from their Voyage. It is falſe, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, that the Conſideration of their own Danger was the P. 716.Cauſe of theſe Deputies Return, for they on the contrary proteſted they were ready to venture their Lives to acquit themſelves of their Charge, and were only deterred upon the account 'twas repreſented to them, they expoſed the whole Church to Danger: But Mr. Arnaud falls into a Paſſion without any Occaſion. He was never yet told as I know of, that the fear of their own perſonal Danger occaſioned their Return: But only, They underſtood it was not ſafe for them to Anſwer to the 2d. Treat. of the Perp. 3. p. c. 4.Travel to and fro to the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, becauſe of the Suſpicion which Aron the Sarracen King, who governed almoſt the whole Eaſt, would conceive at their Voyage, which put them upon the Reſolution of Returning. The Hermits Letters of Paleſtine contain that the Deputies, Were willing to venture their Perſons; but it being ſhewed them that in hazarding their Lives, they endangered likewiſe the Peace of the Church, they deſiſted for this Reaſon. It is then certain that the Danger which made them reſolve upon returning, reſpected their Perſons, which is preciſely what I ſaid. Whether this was for Fear, or out of reſpect of the Trouble which might thereby happen to the Church, I did not affirm; and therefore Mr. Arnaud had no reaſon to charge me with Falſity.
IT is falſe, ſay's he again, that being reſolved to return they aſſembled theſe Ibid. c. 8. p. 716.Religious, ſeeing on the contrary theſe Religious who were gathered together perſwaded them to return: This is ſtill wrangling about a Trifle. When we peruſed this Relation, we were not ſo curious to inquire whether their Reſolution to return preceded the Aſſembly, or whether it was the Aſſembly that adviſed them to it. The Letters Inform us, that they immediately met with two of their old Friends, to whom they diſcovered themſelves, that thoſe Friends joyfully Received them; But Concealed 'em for fear of the Enemies of the Croſs, that being diſcreet they would not make known their Arrival, nor Counſel them to perform the Voyage they had undertaken. So that here I think is the Deſign of their Return half Reſolved upon, thro the Perſwaſion of theſe two Friends.
IT is falſe, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, that they aſſembled theſe Religious after Ibid.they underſtood the Danger there was in going to Antioch, and Alexandria; ſeeing it was from theſe Religious that they underſtood it. The Care their Friends took in immediately concealing them for fear of the Enemies of the Croſs, not daring to truſt any Body with the News of their Arrival, nor to aſſiſt them in their Voyage, ſufficiently convinced them of their Danger in going farther. Now this is ſet down in the Religiouſe's Letters as a matter which preceded their Aſſembly.
IT is falſe, ſay's Mr. Arnaud again, that theſe Religious were but five or Ibid.ſix in number. This is a ſilly Fancy of Mr. Claude: For there was a great number of Religious then in Paleſtine, and therefore I ſee no reaſon why there ſhould be no more than five or ſix aſſembled upon an Affair of ſo great Importance. But this is not ſo ſilly neither: For ſeeing the two Friends we now mentioned, were forced to hide the Deputies for fear of the Infidels, 'tis very likely they called no great Aſſembly for this Affair, how important ſoever it was. The Letter of the Religious informs us that theſe two Friends having ſecured the Deputies, haſtned to the Religious, whom they ſecretly aſſembled, and Swore them firſt to keep ſecret the Affair they had to communicate to them. This I think ſufficiently ſhews that the Aſſembly was but ſmall, and could not exceed the number of five or ſix; for a numerous Aſſembly would not well agree with this great Fear and Secret.
THE Epithets of Idiots, and Perſons of no Experience, which it pleaſes Mr. Claude to give them, adds Mr. Arnaud, have not any Foundation but in his unjuſt Paſſion; And this it is to be angry when a Man Writes. The Letter of the Religious aſſembled, tells us expreſly, that having caſt their Eyes on John, and Thomas, to depute them to the Council, they ingenuouſly anſwered, And how can we who are Idiots, and Perſons void of Experience, Ignorant, and Unable to mannage ſuch an Affair. foreign, which the Latin Interpreter has well rendred, Idiotae & inexpertes, & ad tantam cauſam infirmi & indocti: How can we undertake this Buſineſs which we are not able to mannage? To which the others anſwered, not that 'twas their Humility which made 'em thus expreſs themſelves; but, That our Lord made uſe of unlearned and mean Perſons for the Reforming of the whole World, giving them Utterance, and manifeſting his Strength in their Weakneſs. Now what Unjuſtice and Raſhneſs have I been guilty of, in uſing the very Expreſſions of a Letter inſerted amongſt the Acts of a Council? Neither can Mr. Arnaud ſay theſe Monks ſpake thus only in mere Modeſty, and that their Words are not to be taken in a ſtrict Sence. For beſides that the Modeſty of learned Men does never proceed to this Exceſs, as to call themſelves Ignorant and Unskilful Perſons: 'tis to be conſidered the other Religious did not gainſay but that they were really ſuch as they termed themſelves: They Anſwer that God will manifeſt his Power by their Weakneſs. Is it then Raſhneſs and Injuſtice in me to ſpeak according to the Expreſſions of this Letter? Mr. Arnaud certainly might have found better Employment, than to fill up a whole Chapter with theſe Trifles, and to make ſuch a pudder about them.
HE ought likewiſe to ſhew greater Sincerity than he has done, in undertaking Lib. 7. c. 9. p. 722., &c.to Juſtify the Tranſlation of a Paſſage out of the Life of Luke the Anachorite, related by the Author of the Perpetuity in theſe Words, Stretching out a linnen Cloath, you muſt put the Sacred Particles therein, and Perp. of the Faith, 2. Part, p. 249, 250.burning Incenſe, ſing Pſalms, which Relate to, and Repreſent this Myſtery, or elſe the Canticle uſually called Triſagion, together with the Apoſtles Creed, and WORSHIPING it thrice with bended Knees, and Hands lift up, you ſhall take in your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jeſus Chriſt our God. I complained that this Worſhiping it written in great Characters, was an Addition to the Greek Text, which only ſay's thus; And bowing thrice the Knee, Anſwer to the 2d. Treat. of the Perpetuit. 2. part. c. 8.and joyning your Hands, you ſhall take, &c. foreign, &c. Mr. Arnaud Juſtifies this Tranſlation, and firſt he ſay's, That Mr. Claude may as well Reproach Bollandus, and Peter Combefis, who firſt Tranſlated the Greek Words, which ſignify no more litterally than bending the Knee, by theſe, Trinaque genuflexione adorans. To whom Mr. Arnaud may likewiſe add Allatius his great Author; for he alſo Tranſlates Trinaque genuum flexione adorans: But neither do Bollandus, nor Combefis, nor Allat. in addendis ad lib. de Perpet conſ.Allatius, excuſe the Author of the Perpetuity. He ought not to aſſert any thing in a matter of this Importance, without a careful Examination of it, for 'tis not the Examples of others that will excuſe ſuch kind of Faults as theſe. Moreover there is a conſiderable Difference between the Tranſlation of Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius, and that of the Author of the Perpetuity. They Tranſlate, Trinaque genuflexione adorans: This adorans is an Addition to the Letter, and an Explication of what may be pretended the genuflexion ſignifies, but 'tis not a ſpoyling of the Sence, for 'tis certain that in this Occaſion the genuflexion is an Adoration. Mr. Arnaud needed not Expatiate in long Diſcourſes and Diſtinctions to prove it; We grant it. All that can be ſaid in this Reſpect is, that Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius, have rather performed the Office of Paraphraſtiſts, than that of Tranſlators. The Paraphraſtiſts do not only Explain the Terms, but the Matters Repreſented by them: They inlarge upon Matters, and when two Notions are joyned together by any Dependance, they paſs eaſily from one to the other; this is allowable in them. But Tranſlators muſt be more exact, they muſt faithfully render the Expreſſions as much as the Idiom of the Language they Tranſlate in will permit them. They ought eſpecially to keep to the firſt Sence and Notion which the Letter gives them, and never take the Liberty to paſs over from one Sence to another, or from one Idea to another, whatſoever Coherence and Dependence there may ſeem to be betwixt them: For this is not permitted them. A Paraphraſtiſt may for Inſtance very well ſay on our Saviour's Words to Judas: Doſt thou betray the Son of Man with a Kiſs, in doing him Homage, and ſhewing him Reſpect and Friendſhip. This does explain that which the Kiſs given to our Saviour does naturally Signify, and a Man paſſes thus from one Idea to another. But ſhould a Tranſlator pretend to this Liberty, it would be juſtly denyed him. A Paraphraſtiſt may make our Lord ſay, I am the Spiritual and Myſtical Light of the World inlightning others. A Tranſlator cannot; for altho this be the true Sence of the Word Light, yet 'tis a ſecond and explicatory Sence, which is not exactly the firſt Notion which the Letter gives. We muſt ſay the ſame that when Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius have Tranſlated, Trinaque genuum flexione adorans: They were Paraphraſtiſts, not Tranſlators, and kept not the Character they took upon them: They cannot be excuſed by ſaying as Mr. Arnaud does, that genuflexion in a Matter of Religion is an Act of Adoration. For altho this be true, this is not the firſt Idea which the Letter of the Greek Text gives. foreign if rightly rendred, ſignifies no more than, ter genu Flectens. Adorans ought not to be added thereunto, this is Expounding, and not Tranſlating, this is paſſing from one Conception to another, which is not a Tranſlator's Buſineſs, and ſo much the rather, in that there was no Neceſſity to make this Addition, the Latin very well bearing that we ſhould ſay ter genu flectens. It is to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to ſay (as he does) that Combefis, has done no more than the Evangeliſts did: For as to St. Luke's ſaying, That the leprous Perſon fell flat on his Face before our Saviour Chriſt: And St. C. 9. p. 724.Mark, That he kneeled down: And St. Matthew, That he worſhiped him. Mr. Arnaud here Impoſes on us as he is wont: St Mark, and St. Matthew were not Tranſlators of St. Luke. The Evangeliſts are each of 'em Authors of their own Goſpel, and there is a great deal of Difference betwixt ſpeaking as an Author, and as a Tranſlator. Had the Tranſlation of Mons rendred theſe Words of St. Luke, kneeled down, or worſhiped him, inſtead of falling on the Ground, it might be juſtly blamed; and that Man ill underſtands the Rules of Tranſlation, who allows in himſelf or others this Liberty.
SO far concerning Bollandus, Combefis, and Allatius: But the Author of the Perpetuity did not think good to ſtop here: Beſides the Addition of an Expreſſion which is not in the Greek Text, he has proceeded to the altering the Sence in determining it. For he Tranſlates, And WORSHIPING it in bending thrice the Knee, and with folded Hands, you ſhall receive into your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jeſus Chriſt our God. He has written this Word Worſhiping in great Characters, to ſhew that thereon depends the Deciſion of the Queſtion, as referring it ſelf to the Body of Chriſt which we receive into our Mouths; that is to ſay, to the Sacrament it ſelf. Th'others left it at the Readers Liberty to refer this Adoration to God, or our Saviour in Heaven: But the Author of the Perpetuity judged not this ſufficient, and therefore would have it only relate to the Euchariſt. Now this is an inexcuſable Depravation: For what Right has this Author to add an Expreſſion, and determine moreover the Sence of it, by an Article which hinders us from underſtanding it any otherwiſe than he pleaſes. Is it fairly done of a Tranſlator who cites a Paſſage in a Diſpute to deal thus. It is apparent, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, that in this Paſſage theſe Genuflexions refer themſelves to our Saviour P. 725.Chriſt: Which I deny, if by the Body of Chriſt he means the Sacrament; provided Mr. Arnaud can ſay, it is Apparent, it is Clear, or it is Falſe, the Matter is decided, he has done enough. But why is this apparent? Is not there more likelyhood on the contrary that theſe three Genuflexions reſpect the three Perſons of the Trinity, to whom is ſung the Triſagion? This Anſwer is, again ſay's he, Ridiculous; why Ridiculous? Becauſe, ſay's he, that ſinging of Pſalms, or of the Triſagion, rehearſing the Creed, and folding the Hands, are ſeveral Parts of the whole Ceremony injoyned by the Biſhop, all of which reſpect the Bleſſed Sacrament, and ſerve as a Preparation for its Reception, and not to one another. It is true they all reſpect the Celebration of the Sacramental Action, and ſerve for a Preparation to the Communion; but that they all refer themſelves to the Sacrament, that is to ſay, to the Object which is preſent before our Eyes, as ſo many marks of Reverence given to it; this cannot be truly ſaid, for the Triſagion is adreſſed to the Holy Trinity, and not to the Sacrament. What alſo hinders but that the three Genuflexions may be made in Honour of the three Perſons? Thoſe that know the Temper of the Greeks, need not be told what great Lovers of Myſteries they are in all things, as Combeſis does ſomewhere obſerve; Graeci, ſay's he, ſunt valde myſtici; it is then very likely that the number of three in their Kneelings has a myſtical Reaſon and refers it ſelf to three Perſons. But ſay's Mr. Arnaud, It is not P. 726.neceſſary to ſing always the Triſagion, and when 'twas not ſung, yet the three Genuflexions were made. I grant it, the three Genuflexions then were not made to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; this Concluſion is not good: Could they not think of the Trinity nor Worſhip it, but they muſt ſing the Triſagion.
MR. Claude, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, muſt prove that theſe Terms of the Body of P. 725.Jeſus Chriſt, do not ſignify the true Body of Chriſt, before he can juſtly blame this Tranſlation as Falſe. Did ever any Man behold a more unreaſonable Pretenſion? The Author of the Perpetuity ſhall bring in his Prejudication into his Tranſlations, and add unto them what he pleaſes; and having thus accommodated them to his Sence, he may give 'em me for good and ſubſtantial Proofs, and I muſt not have the Liberty to charge his Tranſlations with Falſity, till I have ſhowed his Prejudications to be Falſe. Is there the leaſt Dram of Equity in this? After this rate Mr. Arnaud may Tranſlate thus the Words of Chriſt, This is my Body in proper Subſtance; For this Tranſlation is agreeable to his Prejudication, he may alledg them to me in this Form as a good and excellent Proof; and if I tell him his Tranſlation is Falſe, and that 'tis not thus in the Original, he may maintain againſt me that I have not the Liberty to charge his Tranſlation as Falſe, till ſuch time as I have proved that the Term of Body, does not ſignify the Body in proper Subſtance: And the Laws of Controverſie being as well for the Benefit of the one Party, as the other; I will render the ſame Words, This Bread is the ſign of my Body; and producing my Tranſlation as an expreſs Proof of my Sentiment, I will likewiſe tell him that he muſt not Accuſe my Tranſlation as Falſe, till he has proved that by the Term of Body, when the Queſtion concerns the Sacrament, we muſt not underſtand the Sign of Chriſt's Body.
BUT, adds he, as this is an unjuſtifyable Pretenſion (to wit, the Pretenſion that the Term of Body does not ſignify the true Body) and is particularly confuted by all the Greeks of our time, in ſuppoſing the Words of our Saviour Chriſt ſignify the real Body of Chriſt, we have had reaſon to ſuppoſe that thoſe of bending the Knee, ſignify a real Adoration: What weak Arguing is here? Suppoſe theſe three Genuflexions refer themſelves to the Body of Chriſt which we receive into our Mouths; Suppoſe that by the Term of Body, we muſt underſtand the Body in proper Subſtance; Then Mr. Arnaud's Tranſlation will be tolerable. There is ſo great Irregularity in all this, that the plain Repetition of it is enough to Confute it.
AND thus have we conſidered whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has propoſed of any Weight in his ſeventh Book, and in his ſecond, third, and fourth, touching the Greeks, to perſwade the World that Tranſubſtantiation is one of their Doctrines. We have met with ſeveral Deluſions, and many Paralogiſms, which are the two Characters of a Perſon that is deceived himſelf, and would have others to be deceived with him. He has not been ſparing of his fruitleſs Hiſtories, falſe Suppoſitions, ſtarcht Prefaces, Amplifications, Exclamations, and in a Word, of any of the Artifices of Rhetorick; and that which is moſt ſtrange, is, he has never leſs ſhunned the ſlipping into theſe Defaults, then when he has himſelf moſt unjuſtly accuſed me of them. I take no Notice of his Invectives, and Sharpneſs with which he has ſtuffed his Diſcourſes to render 'em more taking and agreeable, nor of that common Cuſtom of his, of taking in a contrary Sence the moſt ſolid Matters, to make them ſeem Ridiculous. All which has not hindred but that I have done the three things I took upon me to prove; The firſt to ſhew that altho it were true the Greeks believed Tranſubſtantiation, it would not thence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually in the Church. The other, That the Greeks do not in effect hold Tranſubſtantiation, nor Adore the Euchariſt: And the Third, That all Mr. Arnaud's Efforts to prove the contrary Propoſition are Ineffectual, and that the greateſt part of his Proofs conclude directly againſt himſelf: The Firſt of theſe has been eſtabliſhed by ſolid Reflections on evident matters of Fact; The Second by good Proofs; And the Third by pertinent Anſwers, and moſt natural Conſequences.
IT only remains now to be concluded from this whole Diſpute, that Tranſubſtantiation and the ſubſtantial Preſence are in effect an Innovation of the Latins, and not the ancient Doctrines of Chriſtianity, ſeeing they are not found eſtabliſhed in the Greek Church. This Concluſion is as every Man may ſee directly oppoſite to that of Mr. Arnaud, but if compared together, it will be ſoon found that mine is drawn from my Principle with far greater Evidence, and Neceſſity, than the other follows from his. For, ſuppoſing the Greeks do believe the Converſion of Subſtances, it cannot hence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually held by that Church, as we made appear in our ſecond Book. But if they do not believe it, it is a plain ſign that it was neither Believed nor ſo much as heard of by the two Churches before their Separation. If the Greeks do now at this day believe this Doctrine, having not done ſo heretofore, we cannot marvel thereat, conſidering their Condition (as it has been repreſented by us) ſince the eleventh Century, and the unwearied Pains the Latins have taken for the Propogation of the Doctrines of the Roman Church in the Eaſt; to which end they have uſed, and do ſtill uſe all kind of Means. But ſuppoſing they believed it heretofore, it is hard to conceive they have ceaſed believing it, becauſe it is naturally more Difficult for Men to give over believing what they did once Believe, than to begin to believe what they did not Believe, and becauſe likewiſe the leaſt Effect this aforementioned Commerce of the Latins with the Greeks could Produce, would be to Cheriſh and Preſerve a Doctrine of this Importance amongſt the Greeks themſelves, and to hinder its being Loſt.
The End of the First Part.
AN ANSVVER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED, The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church, touching the Euchariſt defended.
PART II.
BOOK V.
Wherein is treated of the belief of the Moſcovites, Armenians, Neſtorians, Jacobites, and other Churches, called Schiſmaticks, of the belief of the Latins in the ſeventh and eighth Centuries, and of the Conſequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Conſent of theſe Churches, in the Doctrines of the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation.