The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Testimony of ſeveral other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence.
THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Propoſition I defend, is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion, who have bin ſo far from queſtioning Guy Carmes's Teſtimony, that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their ſuffrages. We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldenſis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century, and a zealous Defender of Tranſubſtantiation, who writing againſt Wicliff, calls the Armenians, Nepotes Berengarii, Berengarius his Children or Diſciples. I mention 'em, ſays he, to the end we may have a care of 'em. And therefore alſo Guy Carmes ſpeaking of them, ſays, that the Twenty Second of their Errors is, that after the Conſecration, Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30.the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not really under the ſpecies of Bread, and Wine, but only in Repreſentation and Figure. That Jeſus Chriſt did not really Tranſubſtantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood, but only in Reſemblance and Figure.
PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred Prateolus Elench. haeret. pag. 63. in Armen. art. 12.years ſince, teſtifies the ſame thing, They deny, ſays he, (ſpeaking of the Armenians) the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt to be contain'd really in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt under the Species of Bread and Wine.
BZOVIUS an Hiſtorian of our time and a continuer of Baronius, has Bzoviusad. an. 1318. Num 16.not ſcrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point. He obſerves as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Hereſies, That the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt is not under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt.
IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers, in that confuſed heap of Coccius. Theſ. Cathol. tom. 2. pag. 601.Collections he has made of paſſages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points, follows Guy Carmes; and relying on his Teſtimony aſſures us, That the Armenians deny the Euchariſt to be the real Body and Blood of Chriſt, affirming it to be only a ſign thereof.
THOMAS à Jeſu who has made ſtrict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schiſmatical Eaſtern Churches, has thought (as well as others) he Thomas à Jeſu. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17.ought not to deviate from the ſentiment of Guy Carmes, nor that any man has Reaſon to doubt of the Truth of his Teſtimony. He relates and approves it, and ſays, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine.Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Hereſies p. 349.
DR. Avily in his computation of Hereſies both Modern and Ancient, has likewiſe follow'd Guy Carmes, and aſſured us from his Teſtimony That the Armenians teach Chriſt's Body is not really under the Bread, nor his Blood under the Wine.
HOW comes it that theſe Authors who appear otherwiſe ſo zealous for the Intereſts of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended miſtake of Guy Carmes? Why ſhould they ſuffer themſelves to be ſo groſly impoſed on? or, to ſpeak better, whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation? how comes he to be better informed than other People?
WE ſhall in the following Chapter ſearch into the Grounds of his Opinion, and the Proofs he brings, only mentioning here ſeveral Proteſtants, whoſe Teſtimony is the leſs to be ſuſpected, in aſmuch as, what they wrote was not all deſign'd for our controverſie. We have already ſeen in the Diſcourſe about the Moſcovites, that Laſicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis ſay's, they believe the Bread and Wine retain their firſt Nature. They deny, ſay's he, that in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt Joann Lazicius de Rel. Armeni.the Elements loſe their Nature. They adminiſter the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine. They ſhew a greater reſpect to the Sacrament than the Ruſſians, believing our Saviour Chriſt is therein ſuch as he was Born of the Virgin, and after the Incarnation there was ſuch a Conjunction, and affinity, between the Divine and Humane Nature, that they were not ſeparated in the Sufferings of Jeſus Chriſt nor ever can be. They have this Opinion from St. Chryſoſtom that Jeſus Chriſt ſuffers ſomething more in the Euchariſt than he ſuffered on the Croſs, becauſe in the Euchariſt he ſuffers the Sacramental fraction. And when I demanded of them how this could be, ſeeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Conſecration, they anſwered me, This was effected by the Divine virtue, to which we ought to give credit. And theſe are Laſicius his words, according to the Original, but different from Mr. Arnaud's Verſion. It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cauſe I defend, for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin aboveſaid that the Armenians belive not Tranſubſtantiation; Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it alſo that they believe the real Preſence. But as to my pretention I think 'tis well grounded and beyond all Queſtion, ſeeing this Author ſay's expreſly they deny the Elements loſe their Nature.
HE has had his informations, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, only from ſome Ignorant Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449.Perſons in Leopolis. If this be a ſufficient ground for rejecting the Teſtimony of Laſicius in reference to Tranſubſtantiation, why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the ſame Teſtimony to ſhew the Armenians believe the real Preſence? Has this Author met with ignorant perſons for the informing him in one Point, and knowing ones for the other? perhaps, ſay's he, he did not comprehend that by the word Nature, they meant only the Maſs of external Accidents. But he ought to aſſert things more likely to be probable. Where will Ibid.he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature, for the Maſs of external accidents ſeperate from their ſubſtance? The exiſtence of accidents without a ſubject is one of thoſe Difficulties of which (he himſelf tells us in another place) the Greeks, the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no mention. Why then would he have 'em to uſe in a familiar Diſcourſe the Lib. 10. C. 8.word Nature to ſignify a thing which is unknown to 'em, or of which at leaſt they make no mention? Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs theſe Principles according as his occaſions require, Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis. Which ſhews his Anſwers mere Evaſions, and in effect there's no Body that reads theſe words of Laſicius, but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Tranſubſtantiation. Now this is preciſely the Point in queſtion between the Author of the Perpetuity and me. Hitherto our Diſputes has not concern'd the real Preſence.
BUT ſeeing he is deſirous to treat of it, I muſt tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretenſion and mine, that mine is grounded on clear expreſſions which are not capable of any other ſence; whereas on the contrary his are eſtabliſhed on obſcure and Ambiguous Terms, of which he has not comprehended the ſence. For theſe Perſons ſay only That our Saviour Chriſt is in the Euchariſt ſuch as he was born of the Virgin Mary. Now we have already ſeen that according to them, Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature, which had only a Body in appearance, foreign and not really. Upon this Hypotheſis their ſence will be, that the Divinity being every where, it muſt of Conſequence be in the Euchariſt. And with this agrees what they add, that after the Incarnation, there was ſuch a conjunction and ſociety between the Divine and Humane Natures, that they were not ſeperate even in the Sufferings of Chriſt. For by this Conjunction they underſtood not a Union which leaves the two Natures diſtinct, for in ſo ſaying they would not contradict the Orthodox ſence, but they meant a Confuſion of the Humane Nature with the Divine, a ſwallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyſs of the Divinity, as we have already ſeen they commonly held. So that all the real Preſence which they Underſtand in the Sacrament, is no other than the preſence of the Divinity, which is every where, but more eſpecially in the Euchariſt. 'Tis very probable 'twas under this Equivocation the Patriarch of Armenia Minor ſheltred himſelf in the anſwer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter. The Body of Jeſus Chriſt, ſay's he, Born of the Virgin, dead on the Croſs, and which is now alive in Heaven, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the ſpecies and repreſentation of Bread. The Body Born of the Virgin and Dead on the Croſs, which was to ſay, according to them, the Divinity, which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Croſs. But when he was urged to acknowledge 'twas the ſame Numerical Body, he would not grant it, becauſe he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Chriſt into the ſame Rank with other Humane Bodies, and conſequently made it a real Body. Mr. Arnaud will reply, this is one of my Conjectures which has no ſurer foundation than his may be ſo's. But he has no other Grounds for his may be's than his own Imagination, whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypotheſis of the Armenians, having firſt ſolidly ſhewn 'tis ſuch as I deſcribe it.
WE may add to the Teſtimony of Laſicius that of Breerewood, in his Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24.Treatiſe of Religions. For he ſay's expreſly, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jeſus Chriſt to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine. I confeſs indeed he grounds himſelf on the Authority of Guy Carmes, but this ſhews he takes it for an unqueſtionable truth.
MR. Alexander Roſs in his view of Religions likewiſe tells us, that the Armenians do not hold the Body of Chriſt is really preſent under the form View of Religions Printed at Amſterdam Gallice 1666.of Bread and Wine.
MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whoſe name is almoſt known thro out all Europe, for his skill in Languages and other exquiſit qualifications, has obliged the publick with a Tranſlation into French of Herbert's Voyages, in which are found theſe words, The Armenians adminiſter the Sacrament Herberts Voyages Lib. 2. q. 244of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine, and deny the real preſence of the Body of Chriſt, acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptiſm and the Lords Supper. There has hapned upon the Account of this Tranſlation a very Remarkable circumſtance. You muſt know then that Mr. Arnaud in the firſt edition of his Book having made an Objection to himſelf concerning this Paſſage of Herbert, and heightened it aſmuch as he could to the ſaying, he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it, being ſo conſiderable as to ſtartle most People, that he thought there could Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. Firſt Edition.be nothing replyed to ſuch an expreſs paſſage, and that this Author ſeemed to ſpeak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themſelves. Having I ſay propoſed this Objection, he Anſwers, that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calviniſtical Tranſlator. That having deſired ſome of his Friends to Tranſlate from the Original Engliſh, whatſoever related to the Armenians in that Book, he found by their Tranſlation that not only he does in no wiſe ſpeak of the real Preſence, but that almoſt all the diſcourſes contained in the 249th. and 250th. page were foyſted in by the Tranſlator, who made his Dreams and Fancies paſs for the Relations of a Traveller. That 'tis likely he has done the ſame in ſeveral other places, ſo that this whole Book is rather the Tranſlators Romance than the true account of a Voyage. This Diſcourſe being very diſingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman, who has ever manifeſted in his Writings and Converſation an exemplary ſincerity, it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having ſeen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly juſtifyed himſelf from it. And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embaſſadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew, Herbert's Book in Engliſh Printed at London. 1638. by Rich. Biſhop, wherein is preciſely theſe words, They adminiſter the Lords Supper in both kinds, Bread and Wine, and deny a real Preſence. They allow but our two Sacraments. Having produced this Original, he cauſed a Letter to be Printed and directed to me, in which he complains of the injuſtice Mr. Arnaud has done him, and proteſts, he is not of that Temper to make uſe of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofeſſes, as knowing it abhors them, and makes no difference between the cheats which the Modern Divinity of ſome call pious, and the falſhood that deſtroys the Soul of him that utters it. He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expreſſions, and refutes his Calumnies, and offers for his juſtification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related 'um. Afterwards he ſays he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now juſtify, that in the Original Engliſh there is no mention of the real Preſence, nor affirm 'tis a mere impoſture of the Calviniſtical Tranſlator. That he alſo affirms whatſoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250, concerning the Baptiſm of the Armenians, their Proſelytes, Faſts, Images, Prieſts, their Belief touching Purgatory, their Superſtitions, and Efforts which the Jeſuits have made to ſubject them to the See of Rome, is really contained in the Original Engliſh, there being nothing of his Invention in all this. And to juſtifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Language.
THIS ſo well grounded defence, has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accuſation Printed in the Firſt. He has retrenched all thoſe Injurious Diſcourſes againſt the Reputation, and ſincerity of Mr. Vicqfort, and acknowledged his Tranſlation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original. He has at the ſame time diſcovered to us the cauſe of his miſtake, to wit, that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634, th'other in 1635. in which the Author contained himſelf within the Relation of his Voyage; and the Second in 1638, wherein he had added ſeveral particulars relating to Religion and Hiſtory, thoſe whom he conſulted had ſeen only the firſt Edition, but that Mr. Vicqfort Tranſlated from the Second in which was found the Paſſage in queſtion.
I am far from being of that Humour to inſult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occaſion, nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors, who mean not the leaſt hurt to him. I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own raſhneſs in grounding a charge of this importance on a ſuppoſition, he has found to be falſe, without conſidering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one. But he muſt ſuffer me to tell him that what he has inſerted in his Marginal Notes is not a ſufficient excuſe for him, the French Tranſlation, ſays he, making no mention of two different Editions of this Engliſh Book, we could not Divine it. Much leſs could Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition.the Tranſlator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impoſtour, for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book. Theſe kind of Accuſations pronounced with ſuch confidence do ſuppoſe a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them, whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the leaſt pains in this reſpect he might have eaſily diſcovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book, and found what he has bin ſince ſhewed. He needed not divine but certainly inform himſelf, for this Book being Printed at London in 1638, and being moreover famous in that kind, he might have been ſoon ſatisfyed concerning it. But ſuppoſing he could not, he ought not preſently to call a Perſon a Deceiver: But rather to have propoſed his doubts, and require a ſolution of Mr. Vicqfort himſelf, and not thus raſhly charge a Gentleman that never offended him. I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular, Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology, did not the intereſt of my cauſe oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Diſcourſes, if they be not upheld by ſolid and convincing Proofs, which they never are, as appears from this whole diſpute.
BUT laying aſide this conteſt ſee we what Mr. Arnaud offers againſt the Authority of Herbert, who expreſly affirms the Armenians deny the real Preſence. We matter not, ſays he, the advantage which the Calviniſts C. 8. 2. Edition.would make of this Teſtimony of Herbert, who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book, has added what he pleaſed, touching the Religion of thoſe People through whoſe Countrys he travelled, without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them, for he only ſays what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect, who have treated of them, as Breerewood has done. Thoſe Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Armenians do fully ſolve this Point. And not to mention others, there is no compariſon between a Calviniſt who ſpeaks in his own cauſe, and according to his intereſts, without Authority and proofs, and a Lutheran, ſuch a one as Mr. Olearius is, who ſpeaks againſt himſelf and his own intereſt, and cites the Perſons from whom he learnt what he tells us.
MR. Arnaud has ſoon forgotten what he wrote on this ſame ſubject Chap. 8. firſt Edition.in his firſt Edition, We may well admire, ſay's he, that Mr. Claude, who is wont to propoſe ſlight Objections, ſhould omit one, which is very conſiderable in appearance, and enough to ſtartle People, becauſe the ſolution of it is ſo hard to be found, that we cannot justly reproach him, if he be ignorant of it. The Objection is, that we meet with this paſſage in a Tranſlation of Herbert's Voyages, That the Armenians deny the real preſence of the Body of Chriſt. It ſeems there can be nothing replyed to ſo clear a paſſage, and that this Author who tells us what he learnt from the Inhabitants themſelves of thoſe Countrys, as well as Mr. Olearius, may at leaſt weaken his Authority.
WHENCE I pray comes this ſo manifeſt a contrariety of judgment? As long as the pretended Impoſture of the Tranſlator continues in Mr. Arnaud's thoughts, Herbert's Authority is weighty and ſufficient to ſtartle People, the ſolution of it is difficult, and it ſeems there can be nothing replyed to ſo plain a paſſage. But ſo ſoon as this pretended Impoſture vaniſhes, then 'tis, we matter not the Teſtimony of Herbert, and judicious Perſons ought not to credit it. Before he was an Author who ſpeaks what he learnt from the Inhabitants themſelves thro whoſe Countrys he paſſed. Now he is a Perſon that to enlarge his Book has in his Second Edition added what he pleaſes. Before he was an Author, who may well weaken the Authority of Mr. Olearius, now he is a Calviniſt in no wiſe comparable with a Lutheran, ſuch as Mr. Olearius. What is this but a ſporting with Authors, extolling 'um, depreſſing them, and making 'um good or bad according as Mr. Arnaud's Occaſions require. 'Tis plain he wants an object to exerciſe his w…ath on; if it be not the Tranſlator, it muſt then be the Author; and when the living eſcapes him, then the Dead muſt pay for't. Who told Mr. Arnaud that what Mr. Herbert relates in his Second Edition is not what he Learnt from the Inhabitants themſelves thro whoſe Countrys he travelled, but Excerptions from Breerewood? He dared not mention, ſay's he, from whom he learnt what he relates. If this be ſufficient to invalidate the Teſtimony of Travellers, we can be certain in nothing they tell us touching the manners of People, and their Religions; for it ſeldom happens that Travellers denote the Perſons from whom they have bin inform'd, and if they be unfaithful in reſpect of the things they tell us, they may be as well ſo in reference to the naming of Perſons.
MR. Herbert was a Perſon of Quality, deſervedly Honourable both for his Learning and Integrity. He has viewed whatſoever was worth his Obſervation both in Aſia and Affrica, and carefully denoted the manners and Religions of People, writing nothing till ſuch time as he was well informed of the Truth of it. What means Mr. Arnaud then thus to attack his Memory, and tells us that a Perſon thus qualifyed has copyed out from Breerewood, that is to ſay, from a Scholar who perhaps never travelled farther than his own Country?