The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The Testimony of ſome Authors who expreſly ſay or ſuppoſe that the Armenians hold not Tranſubſtantiation.
ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the queſtion, and needs not to be confirmed by others, yet will we here produce the Teſtimony of ſeveral Authors of good credit that unanimouſly aſſert the Armenians do not hold Tranſubſtantiation nor the real preſence.
THE Firſt is Guy Carmus who aſſures us of it in expreſs terms, The Guido Carmel. ſuma de Hereſ. de Her. Arm. Cap. 12.Twenty ſecond Error, ſays he, of the Armenians conſiſts in their not believing that after the conſecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Chriſt pronounced on the Bread, and Wine, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is truly, and really contained under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine, but they hold they are only ſo by reſemblance and figure, ſaying that our Saviour Chriſt did not Tranſubſtantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood, but eſtabliſhed them only as a reſemblance and figure. And in another place Arguing againſt their Opinion, The Armenians, ſays he, have no Salvo for the truth of theſe words which they themſelves utter in the Canon of their Maſs, to wit, and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. They thus expound them, the true Body, that is to ſay, the true reſemblance of the Body, but this expoſition will not paſs, becauſe the true reſemblance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, as the Image of a Man is not a real Man. Man is the true Image and reſemblance of God, but he is not true God by Nature; if then this be only the reſemblance, and not the truth, or the true Body of Chriſt as the Armenians falſly ſay, it cannot be called the true Body. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this teſtimony, ask e'm why, they can give you no other reaſon but this, That they believe Guy Carmes was miſtaken. 'Tis indeed my Opinion that we muſt not decide queſtions of this importance by the Teſtimony of ſome particular Perſons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themſelves. But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious, who was all his life time devoted to the intereſts of the Roman Church, and often employed by the Pope upon ſeveral Occaſions, as a moſt truſty Servant, and moreover a Perſon of good parts and conſiderable Learning in thoſe Days, being Prior General alſo of his order, Inquiſitor General of the faith, and Biſhop of Majorca in the Balearian Iſles, and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Hereſies, what likelyhood is there he ſhould write a thing ſo poſitively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real preſence, were he not well aſſured of it? What advantage could he expect by imputing falſly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himſelf held to be a Damnable Error, and that at the ſame time wherein the Romans that perſecuted in the Weſt thoſe who were in this point of the ſame judgment, and why would he give this advantage againſt Truth to thoſe deem'd Hereticks? It is moreover to be obſerv'd that Guy Carmes flouriſhed under the Popedom of John 22, that is to ſay, in an Age wherein all the Eaſt was overſpread with Emiſſarys, and eſpecially Armenia Raynald. ad ann. 13. 18.whoſe King Oſſinius, embraced the Roman Religion, receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope ſent him for the Inſtruction of his People, and ſet up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins. It was then no difficult matter for a Perſon in thoſe circumſtances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Hereſies to inform himſelf exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians.
THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Teſtimony bethought Perp. of the faith part. 3. Ch. 8.himſelf to ſay that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accuſed them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the ſubject of Tranſubstantiation. Deſpenſus, & Alphonſus de Caſtro ſay'd the ſame before him, and 'tis likely he grounded himſelf on their teſtimony. But ſo confident an aſſertion deſerved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up, and the Authority of two prejudic'd Perſons ought not to be of ſo great weight with him but that he ought to have conſidered whether what they ſay be true. Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumſpect than the Author of the Perpetuity. I will not diſſemble, ſays he, that ſeveral Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accuſed the Armenians for not believing the real preſence, Guy Carmes expreſly imputes to them this Error. Prateolus ſays the ſame thing becauſe he coppys Guy Carmes his Words. We ſhall ſoon ſee that Prateolus is not the only Perſon that has followed Guy Carmes. It is ſufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Theſis was not juſtifyable, and therefore has choſe rather of his own accord to forſake it than to be forced to it by a conſiderable number of Authoritys. I confeſs this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praiſe-worthy, but this confident Aſſertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not ſo, for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect, yet methinks a man ought to be ſparing in this particular. But to go on with our Proofs.
THE Second ſhall be taken from the Teſtimony of Pope John 22. The Hiſtorian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church, but thoſe alſo that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Cherſonneſus Taurique ſubmitted themſelves to the Biſhop of Capha who was a Latin. That he received them in the name of the Roman Church. That the Pope thereupon congratulated them, and ſhewed them that in the Divine Myſteries the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and that there ought to be mingled ſome Water with the Wine before it be conſecrated. He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Biſhop and Armenian Prieſts which were in the Dioceſs of Capha. We have receiv'd, ſays Pope John, great ſatisfaction in Underſtanding how the Almighty Creator diſplaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his ſaving Grace, and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds, which ſhe faithfully Teaches and Preaches, and that you have promiſed Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church, in the preſence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Biſhop of Capha. And therefore we earnestly deſire that holding the ſaving Doctrines of this Church you likewiſe obſerve its Ceremonies, eſpecially in what relates to the moſt excellent of the Sacraments, which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar. For altho all the other Sacraments confer ſanctifying Grace, yet in this is contained intirely Jeſus Chriſt Sacramentally under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine, which remain, the Bread being Tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt and the Wine into his Blood. Then he tells them they muſt mingle water with the wine in the Chalice, becauſe this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death, and of the Blood and Water which guſhed out from his ſide. 'Tis evident that this Pope applyes himſelf only to theſe two Articles, becauſe the Armenians held neither of them, and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be inſtructed. For to what purpoſe ſhould Tranſubſtantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion? Why muſt all the other points of Controverſy between the two Churches be laid aſide, as that of the Proceſſion of the Holy Spirit, the two Natures of our Saviour Chriſt, Purgatory, Confirmation, and ſeveral others to ſtick wholly to Tranſubſtantiation, and the mixture of Water? The thing declares it ſelf.
MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the moſt ready at proofs, makes one of this. The Pope, ſays he, ſo little diſtruſted the Armenians believed not Tranſubſtantiation, that altho he propoſes it to them expreſly, yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469.does it only occaſionally, and by way of principle, to aſſert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water. And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himſelf, and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter; whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Tranſubſtantiation, he would without doubt have ſet about proving it, and that with more care and earneſtneſs than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice.
MR. Arnaud muſt pardon me if I tell him, 'tis not true that the Pope does only occaſionally mention Tranſubstantiation and by way of principle to eſtabliſh the mixture of Water. Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he, ipſos inſtruxit, ſays he, ut in divinis myſteriis ſubſtantia panis et vini integris ſpeciebus, cum Chriſti corpore et ſanguine commutaretur, et vino conſecrando aqua modica affundenda eſſet. I believe I do not do ill in oppoſing againſt Mr. Arnaud's Illuſion, a truth atteſted by an Hiſtorian that faithfully relates the matter, without the leaſt regard to our diſpute. Moreover what can be more unreaſonable than to ſay as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope propoſes Tranſubſtantiation only occaſionally and by way of Principle to eſtabliſh thereby the putting of Water into the Cup? What Relation is there between theſe two things, it do's not follow from the believing of Tranſubſtantiation that Water muſt be put in the Chalice, nor that thoſe which do not do it oppoſe this Doctrine. Theſe are two diſtinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence, and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope leſs beſeeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner. The Bread and Wine are Tranſubſtantiated, therefore you muſt put Water into the Chalice. Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate, and obſerve that Tranſubſtantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Diſcourſe a kind of Principle and Concluſion, (this would be Ridiculous) but a Doctrine, and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians, to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the ſubject of the Sacrament of the Altar, and thus Raynaldus underſtood it, who has been more ſincere in this than Mr. Arnaud. As to that minute obſervation that the Pope do's more inſiſt on the mixture of Water than on Tranſubſtantiation it is not worthconſidering for this proceeds not from the cauſe Mr. Arnaud imagins, but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the myſtical ſignifications of this mixture, which required ſome Diſcourſe, and which Raynaldus has well obſerved, whodiſtinguiſhestheſethree particulars in the Popes Letter, Tranſubſtantiation, the Mixture of Water, and the myſtical ſignifications. Ipſos inſtruxit ut indivinis myſteriis ſubſtantia panis & vini integris ſpeciebus, cum Chriſti corpore & ſanguine commutaretur, & vino conſecrando aqua modica affun denda eſſet, acdivina ea re adumbratra myſteria aperuit, that is to ſay, he taught 'em the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, the mixture of Water, and ſhewed them the myſteries repreſented by this mixture.
MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Succeſſor to John the XXII cauſed to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians, not at Rome (as Mr. Arnaud has aſſerted through a miſtake, of which inadvertency were I guilty how ſevere would he be upon me?) but at Avignon, where he kept his ſeat, and whence his Bull is dated. The 67 Article Raynauld. ad Ann. 1341.is expreſt in theſe Terms, The Armenians do not ſay that after the words of Conſecration, the Bread and Wine are Tranſubſtantiated into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt Born of the Virgin who ſuffered and roſe again. But they hold that this Sacrament is a repreſentation, a reſemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this ſome of the Armenian Doctors have particularly aſſerted, to wit, that the real Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are not in the Eucharist, but that it is a repreſentation, and a reſemblance of them. They ſay likewiſe that when our Saviour inſtituted this Sacrament, he did not Tranſubſtantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body, but only inſtituted a repreſentation or a reſemblance of his Body and Blood, and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar, the Body and Blood of our Lord, but the Hoſt, the Sacrifice, or the Communion. One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Prieſt ſays theſe words, this is my Body, then the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is Dead, but when he adds, by which Holy Spirit, &c. then the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is alive; yet has he not expreſſed whether it be the true Body or the reſemblance of it. The Armenians likewiſe ſay we muſt expound that which is ſay'd in the Cannon of their Maſs, by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt in this ſence, that by the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, we muſt underſtand the real reſemblance or repreſentation of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And therefore Damaſcen cenſuring them for this ſays that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years aboliſhed all the Sacraments, and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apoſtles, nor Greek or Latin Church, but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy.
MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Teſtimony yet … has not been perplexed with it, for his invention never fails of finding out ways to ſhift the force of the moſt plain and poſitive truths, and to turn them to his own advantage. He tells us that after an exact ſearch into the cauſe which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up. He adds, that if this Original has been known to the Miniſters, yet they have found greater advantage in ſtanding by the Teſtimony C 9. 348. & 485.of Guy Carmes then in aſcending up to this Source.
BUT all this Diſcourſe is but a meer Amuſement. For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture ſhould be right, it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Teſtimony were void, and the Miniſters had no right to alledge him, nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians thoſe Doctrines which they have not. There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule, for beſides that he ſay's nothing of it, he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians, whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen. But ſuppoſing it were ſo, all that can be concluded thence is, that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not queſtioned, but paſt for ſuch certainties that the Writers of thoſe times ſcrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books. And this is all the uſe which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark.
BUT howſoever, what can be ſaid againſt an act ſo Authentick as that of Benedict's, which was not grounded on uncertain Reports, but on the Teſtimonies of ſeveral Perſons worthy of credit, Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia, and whom the Pope would hear himſelf that he might be aſcertain'd of the Truth?
TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is, we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject, to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia. Raynald. Ibid.We have long ſince, ſays he, been informed by ſeveral Perſons of good credit, that in both the Armenia's there are held ſeveral deteſtable and abominable Errors, and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches, which is the Mother and Miſtreſs of all the Faithful. And altho at firſt we were unwilling to credit theſe reports, yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Teſtimony of Perſons who tell us they perfectly underſtand the ſtate of thoſe Countries. Yet before we gave full credit, we thought our ſelves Obliged to make exact ſearch of the Truth by way of judiciary and ſolemn information, both by hearing ſeveral witneſſes who likewiſe told us they knew the ſtate of theſe Countrys, and taking in Writing theſe their Depoſitions, and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly uſe wherein are plainly taught theſe Errors. He ſays the ſame in his Letter to the King of Armenia, and in his information 'tis expreſly ſaid, that the Pope cauſed theſe Witneſſes to appear perſonally before him, and gave Ra…nald. Ibid.them an Oath to ſpeak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians, that theſe Witneſſes were not only Latins that had been in Armenia, but Armenians themſelves, and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue, and ſome of thoſe were ſuch as were in uſe in both the Armenia's? I think here are as many formalities as can be deſired, and all theſe circumſtances will not ſuffer a man to call in queſtion the truth of thoſe matters of fact which are contained in this act.
YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein. He ſays, that in this monſtrous heap of Errors there are ſeveral ſenceleſs, extravagant and Socinian Opinions. Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4…4.That therein Original Sin, the Immortality of the Soul, the Viſion of God, the Exiſtence of Hell, and almoſt all the points of Religion are denyed. That therein are alſo contrary Errors, ſo that 'tis plain this is not the Religion of a People, or Nation, but rather a Rapſody of Opinions of ſeveral Sects and Nations. I confeſs there are in theſe Articles ſeveral abſurd Opinions, and ſome that differ little from Socinianiſm, but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People. The Pope expreſly diſtinguiſhes in his Bull three ſorts of Errors contained in his information, ſome that are held in both one and the other Armenia, others which are held only in one Armenia, and the third which are only held and taught by ſome particular Perſons. And this diſtinction is exactly obſerved in the Articles themſelves, in which the Particular Opinions are Deſcribed in theſe terms, quidam, or aliqui tenent, as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit & ſcripſit, quod in generali Reſurrectione omnes homines conſurgent cum Corporibus ſuis, ſed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum diſcretio. And in the CVIII Article, Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt quod ſicut beſtiae in morte expirant, & ſic moriuntur, ita & Homines; & ſicut beſtiae cum ſemel morte fuerunt, nunquam reſurgent, ita nec homines. The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewiſe denoted exactly in theſe Words. In majori Armenia, In minori Armenia, or, Catholicon majoris Armeniae, Catholicon minoris Armeniae. The common Opinions are expreſſed in theſe Terms, Armeni dicunt, Armeni tenent. And altho in the Article which reſpects the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation we find theſe words. Et hoc ſpecialiter aliqui magiſtri Armenorum dixerunt, videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Chriſti verum & Sanguis, ſed exemplar, & ſimilitudo ejus; yet is this ſame ſentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians, for the Article begins thus, Item quod Armeni, non dicunt quod poſt verba conſecrationis Panis & Vini ſit facta Tranſubstantiatio Panis & Vini in verum Corpus Chriſti & Sanguinem. And towards the end of the ſame Article there is, Quod etiam Armeni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Miſſae, per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi, exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera ſimilitudo, & exemplar Corporis & Sanguinis Chriſti. Unde Damaſcenus propter hoc reprehendens eos dixit, quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta, &c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to ſome particular Perſons, but to the whole Body of the Armenians, ſeeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors, common to the Armenians; and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damaſcene ſay'd of 'um ſo long before, that they had loſt all the Sacraments. Let Mr. Arnaud beſtir himſelf as fiercely as he pleaſes, he cannot hinder us from perceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Perſons; witneſſes of the Fourteenth Century, that depoſe what it contains would never have ſought in the eight Century, that is to ſay, Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damaſcen to confirm what they depoſed, and even to confirm it by a paſſage which reſpects the Church of the Armenians in general, and which accuſes it for having no true Sacrament.
MR. Arnaud obſerves afterwards that in this ſame Article there is accuſed another Armenian Doctor named Narces, for ſaying when the Prieſt C. 9. P. 48.pronounces theſe Words, Hoc eſt Corpus meum, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is then in a ſtate of Death, and when he adds, perquem, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is then alive. It is true, ſays he, the information adds that this Doctor do's not expreſs whether he ſpeaks of the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or of the Figure. But the difference of theſe two ſtates of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change, ſufficiently ſhews that he ſpake of the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt. If theſe two ſtates of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure, much leſs in the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which is no more Subject to Death, nor the Neceſſity of riſing again. Is Mr. Arnaud ſo greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the ſence of this Doctor is, that the Euchariſt is a myſtery which expreſſes the whole oeconomy of Jeſus Chriſt, eſpecially his Death, and Reſurrection, according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks, from which in this reſpect the Greeks do not vary?
IN the Seventyeth Error, ſays he moreover, the ſame Armenians are Ibidcharged with believing that when any one receives the Euchariſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt Deſcends into his Body, and is converted therein as other aliments, which is a contrary Hereſie to that of Berengarius. But as Berengarius would not have ſcrupled to call the Bread, which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Body of Jeſus Chriſt; ſo neither would he have ſcrupled to expreſs himſelf in the ſame manner, as this Article makes the Armenians do, That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that is to ſay, the Bread which is the figure of it, Deſcends into our Bodies, and is changed into our Bodies. So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins, has no Ground. But there is a real Oppoſition between this Diſcourſe of the Armenians that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is Changed into our Bodies as other food, and the Opinion of Tranſubstantiation; for how can it be conceived that the proper ſubſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt which is in Heaven ſhould be changed into our Bodies, that an incorruptible ſubſtance ſhould be digeſted, and changed, that a ſubſtance which exiſts after the manner of Spirits, ſhould nouriſh us and become food to us? It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jeſus Chriſt the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Myſtery of this Body, which in reſpect of its ſubſtance is real Bread.
NEITHER is it to any purpoſe to Remark, as Mr. Arnaud do's, Ibid.that thoſe to whom was attributed the believing the Euchariſt to be only the figure of Chriſts Body were not wont to call the Euchariſt the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it, as appears by their Liturgies. For 'tis evident the ſence of this Article is, not that abſolutely the Armenians rejected this expreſſion, ſeeing it immediately afterwards attributes it to them; but that it was not uſual amongſt them, eſpecially ſince they ſaw the Latins abuſed it, and therefore they choſe rather to uſe thoſe of Hoſt, Sacrifice and Communion.
IT is alſo to no purpoſe to ſay the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary Ibid.to this Opinion, ſeeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt; for they expounded it in this ſence, that the Bread is made the true reſemblance, or the repreſentation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. This explication, ſays Mr. Arnaud, is ſo abſurd and ridiculous, that it could not be very common, it being impoſſible the generality ſhould entertain it. But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Tranſubſtantiation being fully and truly explained, as it is in it ſelf, and conſequences and dependencies, can be more eaſily entertain'd by a People than this ſence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy?
AS to what he adds, that it is ſay'd, in the Seventyeth Article, that Ibid.according to the Armenians the Euchariſt do's not effect the remiſſion of Sins, nor confer Grace, and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis, and a paſſage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien, which ſay's they Sacrifice in the Church the ſon of God for the Salvation of the whole World. All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is, That the Armenians reſiding in Armenia do not well agree in this point with thoſe of Leopolis in Poland, and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great conſideration amongſt them; but it cannot hence follow that the things which theſe Articles contain are only the Opinions of ſome particular Perſons.
BUT, ſays moreover Mr. Arnaud, the Armenians juſtified themſelves Ibid.by acts, decrees, and formal declarations; the King of Armenia, cauſed a Religious named Daniel to draw up a Memorial, in which he proteſted againſt theſe Errors, and complains they were unjuſtly charged on his Nation. The Patriarch and Biſhops being aſſembled condemned them. The Patriarch of the leſſer Armenia declared to Clement the Sixth his faith touching the Euchariſt in theſe terms; That the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, Dead on the Croſs, and which is now alive in Heaven after the Words of the Conſecration of the Bread which are, This is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the ſpecies and appearances of Bread.
THERE is a ſtrange Illuſion in all this Diſcourſe. 'Tis true the King of Armenia who needed the Popes protection drew up this Memorial mentioned by Mr. Arnaud. But ſeeing he had this Remark from Raynaldus he ought not to have ſuppreſſed what the ſame Raynaldus adds, Caeterum non Raynald. ubi ſupra.falſo ſubornata erant haec crimina in Armenos, nec temerè credita à Benedicto, faſſosenim Clementi VI. Armeniae Regis Oratoresplures errores in Armenia pullulaſſe, & Clementem ſtudia ſua ut abolerentur applicuiſſe viſuriſumus. Moreoverthe Armenians were not falſly accuſed of theſe crimes, nor did Benedict believe them without ſufficient grounds. For the Ambaſſadors of the King of Armenia confeſſed to Clement the Sixth, that ſeveral Errors had ſprung up in Armenia, and Clement uſed his utmoſt endeavours to cruſh them, as we ſhall ſee by what follows. This diſ-acknowledgment then of the King, and complaint which Daniel made concerning the imputation of Doctrines to the Armenians which they never own'd, was only a Politick intrigue, which yet does not hinder the information of Benedict from being true. I do not doubt but the King in the extremity of his affairs, threatned by the Saracens, and having no hope but in the protection of the Latins, aſſembled his Biſhops that they might ſatisfie the Pope in what he deſired, and condemn the Errors contained in his Bull. But if Mr. Arnaud will conclude, that then they had them not before, Raynaldus will draw a contrary Conſequence, that then they had them. For after having ſay'd, as I now recited, that theſe Errors were not falſly charged upon the Armenians, he immediately adds as a reaſon which confirms his Propoſition. Quin etiam commoti pontificiis monitis Armeni praeſules coacta ſolemni Synodo numeratos ſuperiùs Errores Eccleſiaſtica execratione damnaverunt, ac decreta inſigni ad ſedem Apoſtolicam legatione imperiis ſe pontificiis adhaeſuros profeſſi ſunt. But moreover the Armenians moved by the Popes remonſtrances called a Synod, wherein they Condemned with an Anathema the Errors contained in this information, and ſent Embaſſadours to the Pope to make profeſſion of their Obedience to his Commands. He proves that the Errors contained in the Popes information were really the Armenians, becauſe the Biſhops met together to Condemn them. What a great deal of difference there is between a Perſon that is prejudiced and one that is not. Raynaldus is naturally no more favourable to us than Mr. Arnaud, the one is a Prieſt of the Oratory, and the other a Doctor of the Sorbonne, yet they draw from the ſame matter of fact contrary Concluſions; one hence ſhews the Armenians were innocent of the things they were accuſed, and th'other from the ſame Principle proves they were Culpable. And this becauſe one has the diſpute in his Eye, and th'other not, the one Reaſons without paſſion and th'other is in a heat.
AS to what Mr. Arnaud ſay's touching the Patriarch of the leſſer Armenia who ſo Authentickly declared his faith concerning the Eucharist to Pope Clement VI. I cannot but deſire the Readers attention to this ſubject; for here he will perceive one of Mr. Arnaud's notorious Sophiſms. It is to be obſerved then that after Benedict the XII. had ſent into Armenia the Catalogue of this Peoples Errors, the affairs of the Armenians growing every day worſe, they reſolved (that they might render the Latins favourable to 'em) to make in a Synod a pretended Decree wherein they feigned to renounce theſe Errors, and abjure them; which made Pope Clement VI. (who was Benedict's Succeſſor) to ſend them Anthony Biſhop of Gayette, and John Arch-Biſhop of Piſa, in quality of Apoſtolical Legats to finiſh (if Poſſible) the Work of their reduction. Raynaldus ſpeaks of this act as of a Piece, not by which they cleared themſelves of a falſe accuſation, but whereby they renounced their Opinions, Poſt habitam, ſays he, Synodum at que in ea repudiatos Errores. And Clement ſpeaks after Raynald. ad ann. 1346. Num. 67. 68. &c.the ſame manner in the Letter he ſent them. Veſtra Synodo prout per vos commode fieri potuit convocata, Errores abjeciſtis et condemnaſtis praedictos, ſicut in libello quem nobis tranſmiſtſtis continetur. Obſerve theſe terms repudiatos Eerores, & Errores abjeciſtis, for they expreſly ſignifie a change of Opinion, a renunciation of their former Errors, and not a bare Condemnation of Errors for which they had been in reference to their Church in General impertinently accuſed, as Mr. Arnaud would make us believe. But the King of Armenia urged the Pope to aſſiſt him againſt the Soldan of Babylon, who fell upon his Kingdom; and the Pope preſſed him on the other hand, to aſſiſt his Legats in the extirpating of thoſe Errors which were ſo rife in Armenia. He wrote alſo to the Legats to inform him of their Succeſs, who gave him to underſtand they loſt their Labour, and that whatſoever declarations the Armenians had made, they ſtill perſevered in their Opinions. Which appears by a Letter of Clement to the Biſhop of Nicoſia, ab eorum Erroribus, ſay's he, iidem Raynald. ad ann. 1310. Num. 37.Rex, Catholicus, et Populus minime reſipuiſſe dicuntnr, ſicut per quaſdam litter as miſſas & Scripturam exhibitam nobisluculenter apparet. They perſevered therein, they repented not of them, ſay's the Pope, and Mr. Arnaud would needs perſwade us they were falſly accuſed.
THE Pope had charged his Legat with ſome oppoſite Articles to the Errors of the Armenians to make 'um receive them, and that which reſpected the Euchariſt contain'd theſe words, That the ſame Numerical Body Raynaldus ad ann. 1351. Num. 31of Jeſus Chriſt, idem numero, which was born of the Virgin and nayled to the Croſs is contain'd in the Eucharist. One of the Legats, Anthony by name, dyed in the way, and John having performed his Voyage fail'd not to propoſe theſe Articles to the Catholick of Armenia Minor and his Biſhops. But the Catholick refuſed to approve them; he abſolutely rejected ſome of them, and made captious and doubtful anſwers to others; he never would admit of the Article touching the Euchariſt which contained, That after Conſecration it was the ſame Numerical Body of Jeſus Chriſt which was born of a Virgin and ſuffered on the Croſs. He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected ſixteen of them, amongſt which was that of the Euchariſt; and in the Anſwers he made to the Popes inſtructions, he would never admit of Tranſubſtantiation, but barely ſays, he believed and held that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, dead on the Croſs, and which is now alive in Heaven, after the words of the Conſecration of the Bread which are, this is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the ſpecies, and reſemblance of Bread, ſub ſpecie & ſimilitudine panis. Now 'tis on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himſelf concealing all the reſt of this Hiſtory and producing only theſe laſt words, and drawing from them his Concluſion after his uſual Manner in theſe terms, I ſee no Lib. 5: C. 9. pag. 488.reaſon to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch conſidering this his declaration, that is to ſay, it plainly appeared hence that he believed Tranſubſtantiation, and the Subſtantial preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt.
BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Conſequences. For I. he ought not to have diſſembled that in all this affair the queſtion is not whether the Armenians held, or did not hold the things contain'd in the information of Benedict, but whether they ſincerely renounced them; and whether the act of their renunciation ſent to the Pope was feigned or real. II. He ought not to have diſſembled likewiſe that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this reſpect but a mere cheat, invented only to remedy the diſorders of their State, and procure aſſiſtance from the Weſtern Princes. That the Pope laid hold on this Occaſion to make them receive the Roman Religion, and they on their ſide endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they deſired, in eluding his purſuits. Which is juſtified by the Letter ſent by Clement himſelf to the Catholick of Armenia. Moreover, ſays he, we have bin ſeveral times informed by divers Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17.Perſons worthy of credit, and even by Armenians, that you and your Predeceſſors the Catholicks of Armenia, and the Armenians under your juriſdiction do not in any manner obſerve, what you promiſed us and our Predeceſſors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith. And that which is yet worſe and more deplorable, is, that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholeſome Inſtructions of our Apoſtolical Legats ſent you in regard to your Souls, but have after a Damnable manner deſpiſed the Faith of the Roman Church, out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation. The ſame thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia, in which having exhorted him earneſtly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine ſincerely and purely Raynald. ibid. Numb. 18.without duplicity of heart, to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the Latin Church, he adds, that by this means the mouths of ſeveral Catholicks and Armenians too will be ſtopt who ſtick not to affirm, That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulneſs and ſimplicity, but with diſſimulation; and that which is yet worſe and more deplorable, they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into deriſion and contempt the ſaving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them.
III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia, who would ſave himſelf by ambiguous Anſwers, rejected the Article of the Euchariſt which contain'd, that it was the ſame Numerical Body which Raynald. ibid. Numb. 15.was Born of the Virgin and crucified; and that he neither would admit of the Article of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe both one and the other ſo manifeſtly contradicted his faith, and left no room for his Equivocations. In fine, he ought not to have concluded ſo briskly as he has done from the terms of his Anſwer, that after this declaration, there could be no Reaſon to doubt whether this Patriarch had the ſame faith as the Church of Rome. For notwithſtanding this declaration Clement VI. ſtill doubted of it, as alſo the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and Doctors with whom the Pope conſulted about it. Obſerve here the Contents of Raynaldus ibid. Numb. 2.Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia. We have kindly receiv'd your anſwers, and thoſe of the Church of Armenia minor, reduced to certain heads; and having deliberately conſidered them, together with my Reverend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church, ſome Patriarchs, Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and other Prelates, we could not, nor cannot now gather from theſe anſwers, till ſuch time as you give us a more clear Diſcovery, what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and ſincerely hold and believe. He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article, and deſired plain and direct anſwers. In effect he propoſes 'em to him, and coming to the Article of the Euchariſt having ſet down the firſt anſwer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited, he adds, upon this we demand ibid. Numcr. 11.firſt of all whether you believe the Bread is Tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. Then coming to ſpeak of a certain Letter which the Patriarch wrote wherein he rejected ſixteen Articles, of the fifty three which were offered him, and amongſt the ſixteen this. Quod Corpus Christi poſt ibid. Num. 15.verba Conſecrationis ſit idem numero, quod Corpus natum de virgine & immolatum in cruce, he ſays to him, the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away ſixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Biſhop and Biſhops are confuſed and obſcure, as alſo the particular anſwers you returned by Writing. Therefore we deſire to know of you plainly, and truely, whether you have rejected theſe ſixteen Articles becauſe you do not believe 'em to be true and ſound, or for what other reaſon you have retrenched them from the reſt. But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Cardinals, Prelates and Doctors, and better inſtructed in the intentions of the Armenian Patriarch than all the People then in the World, comes and confidently tells us, that he ſees no reaſon to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch, and thinks Mr. Claude himſelf will acknowledge as much. And ſuppreſſing all theſe matters of fact related by the very Hiſtorian he makes uſe of, he proclaims his Victories; and confidently affirms, the Armenians have ever believed the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation.
BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion, for having related the whole ſtory of what paſſed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information, he adds, That we may thence plainly ſee into how many filthy Errors thy fall who ſeparate from the Raynaldus ibid Numer. 18.Church of Rome. That innovators howſoever have no reaſon to glory in the Antiquity of their Hereſies, nor bragg, (for the ſeducing of the weak) that the Armenians and other Eaſtern People have the ſame ſentiments with them. For altho they hold ſome of theſe Errors, yet do they not admit them all, but differ from the Armenians in very conſiderable matters. That the Divine juſtice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with theſe Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians. This is not a proper place to Anſwer Raynaldus in, 'tis ſufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold, all theſe Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict, in the inſtructions of Clement, and conſequently that they deny'd Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence.
WE may then reckon as a IV Proof, the teſtimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's, and the Catholick of Armenia's. The 5th. ſhall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the inſtructions he gave to the Armenians, in the Council of Florence, forgot not the Article of Tranſubſtantiation, the form, ſays he, of this Sacrament conſiſts in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament. The Prieſt ſpeaking in the Eugen. ad Calcem Concil. Flore…Perſon of our Saviour Chriſt do's the ſame. For by the virtue of theſe words the ſubſtance of Bread is changed into his Body, and the ſubſtance of Wine into his Blood, ſo that Jeſus Chriſt is intirely contain'd under the ſpecies of Bread, and Wine, and is intire under each part whether of the Conſecrated Hoſt or Conſecrated Wine, even when the ſpecies are ſeparate. Mr. Arnaud ſay's, 'tis not uſual to propoſe Capital Points of Controverſie in this manner. That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles, nor are ſo lightly paſſed over, but conſidered eſtabliſhed and ſtrengthened. But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope eſtabliſhed and ſtrengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol; which he injoyn'd them to receive, altho a controverted Point. How did he confirm the Article of the two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo? Upon what Reaſons did he ground the Article of the Remiſſion of Original ſin in Baptiſm when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error, as appears by the information of Benedict XII? What Proofs did he bring to ſhew 'em that the Conſecration of the Euchariſt is made by the words of our Saviour, when the Armenians believ'd the contrary, as we may ſee in the ſame information? Theſe kind of Remarks which are uſual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them. Eugenius is excuſable let Mr. Arnaud ſay what he will; he thought it no wiſe neceſſary, to inſert common Places in his Decretal, nor to be ſo ſcrupulous in obſerving Heads or Tails, like ſuch as view the Dragon in the Firmament. He deſign'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought henceforward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Biſhop of Pamiez in the Paſſage I have related. Now the Article of Tranſubstantiation being expreſly mention'd therein, 'tis a ſign the Armenians did not believe it.