The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
The Question stated, and M. Arnaud's ſixth Deceit manifested.
IT may be remembred, that at the beginning of this Diſpute touching the Schiſmatical Churches, I undertook to prove the truth of of theſe three Propoſitions. Firſt, that when Mr. Arnaud ſhall prove what he pretends concerning theſe Churches, ſince the eleventh Century to this preſent, yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Euchariſt has been perpetual in the Chriſtian Religion, or the change in queſtion impoſſible, or that it hath not actually hapned. Secondly, That the true Greek Church and others which the Latins call Schiſmaticks, never reckoned Tranſubſtantiation amongſt the Articles of their Belief, nor the Adoration of the Euchariſt amongſt their Rites and Ceremonies. Thirdly, That whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative, is void and ineffectual, and that even the greateſt part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends. I have already made good the firſt of theſe Propoſitions in the preceding Book, and ſhall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this preſent; that I may thereby accommodate my ſelf to Mr. Arnaud's Method. And as to the other Greek Churches, I ſhall treat of them in my fifth Book. But it is firſt neceſſary to lay down the true State of the Queſtion, to the end, that what we undertake may be the better underſtood, and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected. Who continually wanders from the point in diſpute, ſuppoſing impoſſibilities, proving impertinencies and confounding what ought to be diſtinguiſhed.
WE muſt know then there are two ſorts of Greeks, the one reunited to the Church of Rome, who acknowledge the Popes Juriſdiction, and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council, living in Peace with the Latins; The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, having their Communion apart, and ſeparate from the Latins. And this I ſuppoſe Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny, ſeeing that in their Obſervations on the Requeſt of M. the Archbiſhop of Ambrun they have themſelves made this diſtinction of the Greek Catholick Church, and the Greek Schiſmatical one. It is needleſs to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact ſo well known. In effect the Endeavours of the Latins to ſubject the Greeks to themſelves have not been wholly fruitleſs, for beſides that in Greece it ſelf and other Patriarchates, they have acquired a great number of Perſons and intire Families, beſides this I ſay, there are whole Nations which obſerve the Decrees of the Council of Florence, and live under the Juriſdiction of the See of Rome, who yet ſtill obſerve the Rites and Cuſtoms of the Greeks. We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy, Rome, Venice, Tuſcany, the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples, which are called Italian Greeks, we may alſo bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians. For Allatius teſtifies, that not only all theſe do obſerve the ſame Ceremonies as them of the Eaſt, but that the Pope likewiſe obliges them to an Obſervance of them, and therefore maintains a Greek Biſhop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode, to hinder 'em from receiving them in the Eaſt, from the hands of Schiſmaticks. We muſt likewiſe comprehend the Ruſſians which inhabit black Ruſſia, and Podolia, under the Government of the King of Poland; who ſubmitted themſelves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the laſt Century. Arcudius commends Sigiſmond the Third, for that he did not only ſollicite but in a manner Arcud. Epist. ad Sigiſmond.conſtrain them to make this Union, ut ad Romanam, ſays he, hoc eſt ver am Dei Eccleſiam ſe adjungerent excitaſti ac pene dixerim impuliſti. Our Queſtion does not concern them, their Submiſſion to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Diſpute, I expreſly excepted them, when I denyed that the Greeks and other Chriſtians held Tranſubſtantiation, and Adored the Sacrament, having ſaid in plain terms, except thoſe that ſubmit themſelves to the Pope.
SECONDLY, We muſt remember that one of the chief Advantages Anſwer to the firſt Treatiſe towards the end.the Church of Rome makes of theſe forementioned Seminaries, and Emiſſaries in Greece, is the gaining of Proſelytes and inſtructing young People in its Doctrines, to uſe them afterwards for the Converſion of others, as I ſhewed in the preceding Book. Now Mr, Arnaud cannot in reaſon bring theſe ſort of People into the reckoning, and I think it will not be taken ill, If I ſeparate them from the reſt, for in effect the Abuſe would be too groſs to pretend to determine this Queſtion touching the Greek Church, by the Teſtimony of Converts, or Perſons brought up from their Infancy amongſt the Jeſuits and other Religious Orders and Latin Doctors, who inſtructed them in their Doctrines; and I have already ſhewn, that the number of theſe is not ſmall, and Allatius himſelf aſſures us of it. The Greeks, ſay's he, that reverence the Pope and receive his Decrees as Oracles are more in number than we Allat. de perp. conſ. lib. 3. cap. 11.imagine, and were they not with held by the fear of a moſt cruel Tyrant, and that of the Calumnies and Accuſations of ſome wicked People, we ſhould ſee every day, them who poſſeſs the greateſt Dignities amongſt the Greeks, come and proſtrate themſelves at the Popes Foot-ſtool. This is the Fruit of the Miſſions and Seminaries.
IN the third place, the Queſtion is not here, whether the Greeks have the ſame Opinion with us concerning the Sacrament? This is Mr. Arnauds continual device to diſpute on this Principle, to wit, that I affirm the Greeks to be of the ſame Opinion with us. As for example, he takes a great deal Lib. 2. C. 12.of pains to ſhew that 'tis not likely we would make uſe of Euthymius his words to inſtruct a man in our Doctrine, and that Euthymius has not taken the term Eſt, in our Saviour's words, This is my Body, in the ſence of Significat. Lib. 2. C. 13.He likewiſe takes a great deal of pains to prove that Nicholas Méthonienſis Lib. 2. C. 15.was not a Berengarian and one that believed the Bread was the Figure of our Saviour's Body, that the Profeſſion of Faith which the Saracens were cauſed to make when they embraced the Chriſtian Religion, was not in ſuch terms as to make them underſtand that the Bread and Wine were not really our Saviour's Body, but only the Figure or Repreſentation thereof indued with its Virtue, and that Pope Innocent the Third did not reproach Lib. 3. C. 1.the Greeks with their believing that they eat only the Figure of Chriſt's Body. All this is but a mere Artifice to impoſe on the World, and blind thoſe that have not continually the point in queſtion in their minds; and ſuffer themſelves to be eaſily carried off from one Subject to another. I ſay then it concerns us not to know, whether the belief of the Greeks touching the Euchariſt, is the ſame in every particular with that of ours, and whether they explain themſelves on that Subject in the ſame manner as we do. This we never yet affirmed to Mr. Arnaud, but the contrary, viz, That ſeveral Anſwer to the firſt Treatiſe.of the Greeks have ſince the ſeventh Century rejected the terms of Figure, Image, and Type, which the Ancients made uſe of and we uſe after their example. The preſent Queſtion is, whether the Greeks do believe concerning the Sacrament what the Church of Rome doth, this is the only point of the Diſpute, to which Mr. Arnaud ought to have ſtuck, and not to wander into wide Diſcourſes and fruitleſs Conſequences. In effect the deſign of the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity being to make us confeſs, that the belief of the Church of Firſt Treatiſe of the Perpetuity.Rome touching the Euchariſt, has been perpetual in all Ages, and that Author having for this purpoſe made uſe of the Conformity of the Greeks with her in this Point, and this Conformity having been denyed, it is clear, that the Queſtion does not concern our Sentiment, but that of the Roman Church, to know whether the Greeks hold and teach the ſame thing.
IN the fourth place, our Diſpute hitherto has not been concerning the real Preſence, as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes, but only on the Subject of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Adoration thereon appendant; ſo that he has dealt very diſ-ingeniouſly, in making the World believe that our debate reached to the Real Preſence: Our Queſtion, ſay's he, is concerning the belief of all theſe Lib. 2. C. 3. P. 128.Sects and People touching Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence. 'Tis yet more abſurdly he complains that contrary to the intention of the Author of the Perpetuity, I have turned the Queſtion upon Tranſubſtantiation. Notwithſtanding, ſay's he, that the Author of the Perpetuity has only in his firſt Ibid.Treatiſe diſcourſed of the Real preſence, and contented himſelf with maintaining that this Doctrine was received by all theſe Schiſmatical Churches; yet Mr. Claude has continually turn'd the Queſtion upon Tranſubſtantiation, which was not the point preciſely in queſtion. But in fine, 'tis the effect of a moſt unwarrantable Lib. 2. C. 10. P. 191.Liberty to write, that he knows not whether the boldneſs of a man can proceed to that point where mine muſt needs be, in maintaining to the end that the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation are Doctrines unknown to the Greek Church. And I dare to affirm that his cannot be greater than it is, for 'tis certain, that here the Queſtion only concerns Tranſubſtantiation and the Adoration, and not the Real Preſence, concerning which I have not yet ſaid any thing. 1. Let Mr. Arnaud read the laſt Section of my firſt Anſwer, and he will find preciſely theſe words; I affirm that Tranſubſtantiation and the Adoration of the Sacrament, are two things unknown to all the World, the Roman Church excepted; for neither the Greeks, nor the Armenians, Ruſſians, Jacobites, Ethiopians, nor in general any Chriſtians but them who have ſubmitted themſelves to the Pope, do believe any thing touching theſe two Articles. 2. Let the paſſages of my ſecond Anſwer be peruſed where I handle again the ſame Queſtion, and it will be found that they only concern Tranſubſtantiation, there being no mention therein of the Real Preſence. 3. I deſire the Reader to peruſe the laſt Chapter of the ſecond Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, and he will find it contains theſe words for its Title. That all the Sects ſeparate from the Church of Rome are at accord with her, in the point of Tranſubſtantiation, and eſpecially the Greeks. He will find likewiſe that in the body of the Chapter there is not a word of the Real Preſence.
THERE is no body then but Mr. Arnaud, who has thought of bringing it into our debate, and this without any other reaſon but that he will have it ſo, maugre us, imagining he ſhall be able to ſave himſelf by the Ambiguity of the term of Real Preſence. For as to what he tells us, that the Author of the Perpetuity ſpeaks only in his firſt Treatiſe of the Real Preſence, and contents himſelf with aſſerting That this Doctrine was received by all the Schiſmatical Churches, I am ſorry I muſt tell him that I know not any man that writes things on ſuch ſlight grounds as he does; nor ſo eaſily expoſes his Reputation in aſſerting matters of Fact, of whoſe untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read. For not to go farther we need but read, to find in the fourteenth Page of the firſt Treatiſe, that the Author propoſes to himſelf, to make any man confeſs who is not extreamly obſtinate by the evidence of truth it ſelf, that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Myſtery is the ſame with that of all Antiquity. Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Tranſubſtantiation. We need but read moreover for this purpoſe the eighteenth and nineteenth Pages of the firſt Treatiſe, wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being deſirous to ſhew us the univerſality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, tells us, that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in theſe terms; We believe the Terreſtial Subſtances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sanctified on our Lord's Table by the Miniſtry of the Prieſts, are CHANGED by the ineffable Operation, wonderful and incomprehenſible Power of God into the Eſſence of the Body of our Lord, adds farther, Behold here the Faith which the Church diſperſed throughout the whole World, which is called Catholick, has held in all Ages and does at this time hold, and that he confidently repeats this in the twenty ſecond Chapter, and preſſes Berengarius to inform himſelf of the Sentiments of all the Chriſtians in the World in the Eaſt and Weſt. Ask the Greeks, Armenians, and generally all Chriſtians of what Nation ſoever, and they will all of them tell you they hold the ſame Faith which we profeſs. We need but only read to be ſatisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity produces afterwards the Teſtimony of Guitmond in the ſame Sence, and for the ſame end he cited that of Lanfranc, to wit, to prove that the Greeks and other Schiſmaticks do believe Tranſubſtantiation, and that in the twenty ſecond Page he makes this remark, That Guitmond does not only apply what he ſay's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Preſence, but likewiſe to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans, which clearly ſhews us, that this Teſtimony of Guitmond reſpects not only the Real Preſence, but likewiſe Tranſubſtantiation. In fine, to be aſcertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page, after he had alledged that paſſage of Guitmond: All the Books of the Schiſmatical Greeks, ſay's he, which have come to our hands ſince that time, do clearly teſtifie they held the ſame Opinions as the Church of Rome, touching the Euchariſt. After this Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us, that although the Author of the Perpetuity ſpeaks only in his firſt Treatiſe of the Real Preſence, and contents himſelf with aſſerting that this Doctrine was held by all theſe Schiſmatical Churches, Yet Mr. Claude turns aſide the Queſtion upon Tranſubſtantion, which Point this Author does not preciſely Treat of. What means then I pray theſe Quotations out of Lanfranc and Guitmond which he has expreſly produc'd to ſhew that Tranſubſtantiation was believed by the whole World, both by the Greeks and Armenians, and generally by all Chriſtians? Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himſelf an irreparable Injury thus to maintain things without conſulting and examining them, flattering himſelf with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word. That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this: That he has obſerved in the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schiſmatical Churches in the manner already mention'd, that is to ſay poſitively, in reference to Tranſubſtantiation, paſſing afterwards to the propoſing of ſome Arguments; by which he pretends to ſhew that the Myſtery of the Euchariſt is diſtinctly known by all the Faithful, and that an inſenſible change is a thing impoſſible, he reſtrains himſelf to the Real Preſence, but there is a difference betwixt theſe two points, and Mr. Arnaud ought to have conſidered this a little better. I ſay then, that in this Diſpute of the Greeks and other Chriſtians ſeparated from the Roman Church, the queſtion concerns Tranſubſtantiation, and not the Real Preſence, as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expreſly mentioned Tranſubſtantiation in his firſt Treatiſe as I come now from obſerving, and for as much as I plainly kept my ſelf in my firſt Anſwer to this Doctrine alone, and that of the Adoration, whereupon it follows that the Debate has been preciſely continued on theſe two Articles. Yet do I here declare, to avoid all Miſtakes, that altho our debate at preſent is not concerning the Real Preſence, yet do I not yield to the drawing of this conſequence from hence, that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church, in the ſame Sence as the Latins underſtand it. This is not my Opinion, and I ſhall ſay no more of it, but that this point is not the Subject of our preſent debate. It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Diſcourſe, what ought to be believed touching this matter, it not being needful for this to alter the State of our queſtion.
BUT beſides the Obſervations I now made, we muſt likewiſe obſerve, that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expreſly reject Tranſubſtantiation, or whether they have made it a point of Controverſie betwixt them and the Latins, but the queſtion here is whether they do poſitively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples abſolute rejecting of a Doctrine, that is to ſay, the making thereof a point of debate, and the not receiving and reckoning it amongſt the Articles of their Faith. Our debate concerns only this laſt, I mean whether the Greek Church as it ſtands ſeparate from the Latin profeſſes the Doctrine of the Subſtantial Converſion, or not: This is the true ſtate of the queſtion. Mr. Arnaud maintains the affirmative, and I the negative, ſo that we muſt ſee now who has the reaſon and truth on his ſide. Yet let me tell him, that deſigning throly to handle this Subject, he ought to have laid down all theſe diſtinctions and leave the Reader at his own liberty to judge of them. But inſtead of this, there is never a one of theſe Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifeſtly perverted. 1. He makes advantage of all thoſe Parties which have been made from time to time, either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors, or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches. 2. He makes uſe of the Teſtimony of Perſons won to the Roman Intereſt, ſuch as Emanuel Calecas, Beſſarion, John Pluſiadenus, Gennudius Scholarius, Baronius Spatarius, Payſius, Ligardius, all of 'em Perſons manifeſtly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome, as ſhall be ſhewed him in the Sequel of this debate. 3. He ſets himſelf upon proving to no purpoſe, that the Greeks do not believe as we do the Sacrament to be a Figure or Repreſentation, and that they are not Berengarians. 4. He maintains that the Point in queſtion is to know whether they believe the Real Preſence, and that the Diſpute turns eſpecially on this hinge. 5. He ſet himſelf to ſhew that the Greeks never made Tranſubſtantiation a point of Controverſie with the Latins. Now all this is no more than a general Illuſion, which alters the ſtate of the Queſtion.