The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 12

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 3 · Chapter 12

p. 201CHAP. XII.

The Twenty Sixth Proof, taken from the Confeſsion of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar, Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and what followed thereupon.

HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himſelf, (to the end he might get clear from the Confeſſion of Faith of Cyrillus) in ſaying this Patriarch ſtudied John Calvin, and was a great admirer of his Doctrine. That his Confeſſion of Faith contradicted ſeveral Articles of the Belief of the Greeks; that 'twas condemned by two Councils held ſince his death, and that there is no reaſon the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church (touching the Euchariſt) ſhould be determined by his opinion; had he I ſay only thus expreſſed himſelf, we ſhould not have complained againſt him, but endeavoured to ſatisfie him in every one of theſe particulars. But inſtead of containing himſelf within theſe bounds, he has faln foul on the Perſon Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382,, 83.of Cyrillus himſelf, whom he treats as a hireling, charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany, for ſubſcribing to Articles againſt the Catholicks, as a ſacrilegious Perſon and Uſurper, who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius, to the purchaſing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another, that was elected by common conſent, as an inſatiable ambitious. Wretch, who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, would have that of Conſtantinople; and which is yet worſe, as a Villain and Murtherer, who having cauſed his Predeceſſor Timotheus to be poyſoned, got afterwards Janiſaries to ſtrangle him, who aſſiſted him in this deteſtable Action. Tho I reſolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Paſſion, which cannot but be diſpleaſing to good People of either Communion, yet I may tell him, that ſeeing he publiſhes theſe Accuſations againſt a Perſon that is dead, he muſt be able to prove by good Teſtimony his charge to be true, but having no better an Author than Allatius for this, he cannot take it ill, if I affirm, his account of this Perſon to be meer Calumny and Forgery.

HE confeſſes, he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius, who Ibid. pag. 383.made it his buſineſs to inform himſelf, and being a Greek, ought ſooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Miniſters, and eſpecially than Hottinger, who is one of the moſt paſſionate Miniſters, and least ſincere Writers he ever read. Let the Dutch or Switzers Miniſters, and eſpecially Hottinger be what he pleaſes, what ſignifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of theſe Accuſations, and the ſincerity of Allatius? When the Miniſters ſhall poſitively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus, which they cannot prove; then Mr. Arnaud may queſtion their Teſtimony, and term them paſſionate Perſons not worthy of credit. If Allatius relates the ſame thing otherwiſe than the Miniſters, he may ſay he is ſooner to be believed than they, and ſee what anſwer we will make him; but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with ſuch hainous Crimes, and to authorize his Impoſtures, we muſt be told that Hottinger is no good Author, and that Allatius is more worthy of credit, this is mere mockery; For to decide the Queſtion, whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous, Hottinger and other Miniſters are not concerned, we are only to inquire whether Allatius p. 202cites any Witneſſes, or whether he himſelf is an Author worthy of credit. Allatius, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, has taken ſpecial care to inform himſelf. He muſt tell us then what his Informations contain, and not affirm ſuch important matters, without good Grounds. He was a Greek by Nation, very true, but a Greek that forſook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith; a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper, a Perſon the moſt wedded of all men to the Intereſts of the Court of Rome, a Perſon than whom none could be more malicious againſt thoſe he took to be his Adverſaries, and eſpecially againſt Cyrillus, and thoſe called Schiſmatical Greeks, a man full of words but little ſence. His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in queſtion by thoſe that ever heard of him. His Zeal for the Intereſt of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book, De perpetua conſenſione, for obſerve here how he expreſſes himſelf, in the Pope's Favour: The Roman Prelate, ſay's he, is independent, he judges all the World, and Allat. de Perpet. Conſ. lib. 1. cap. 2.is judged of none, we muſt obey him altho he governs unjuſtly, he gives Laws, but receives none, and changes them when he pleaſes, he makes Magiſtrates, determins Points of Faith, and orders as ſeems good to him the greateſt Affairs in the Church. If he would err, he cannot; for he cannot be deceived himſelf, neither can he deceive others, and when an Angel ſhould affirm the contrary, being guarded, as he is with the Authority of Chriſt, he cannot change. The ſharpneſs, wherewith he treats thoſe againſt whom he writes, ſuch as Chytreus, Creygton, the Archbiſhop of Corfou, and ſome others, appears by the bare reading of his Writings; every period honouring them with theſe kind of Titles, Sots, Vide Allat. de Perpet. Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 15, 16, 17, 18. &c. adverſ. Ch…eygt. paſſim.Lyers, Blockheads, Helliſh, and impudent Perſons, and other ſuch like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit. To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Eſſentials, he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church, but that Party which has ſubmitted to the Roman See, and in reſpect of the other Greeks, whom he calls Hereticks, and Schiſmaticks, he fiercely maintains that a good courſe is taken with 'em, when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword; That Hereticks muſt be exterminated Allat. de Perpet. Conſ. lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11.and puniſhed, and if obſtinate, put to death and burnt, theſe are his Expreſſions; and as to what concerns Cyrillus, we need but read what he has written of him to be perſwaded of his partiality and injuſtice. Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of ſuch a man to defend himſelf againſt the aforemention'd Confeſſion of Faith.

CYRILLUS had Adverſaries whilſt living, and after his death; but, he has had likewiſe Defenders of his Innocency, and Admirers of his Virtues. It is the Fate of great men to be perſecuted, and thoſe that are acquainted with the Eaſtern Affairs, muſt acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and expoſed to more Revolutions and Tempeſts, than the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople. Beſides the Traverſes, which Envy, and particular Intereſts ſtirred up againſt Cyrillus, he had the whole Party of the Latins and falſe Greeks againſt him, who looked upon him as an Obſtacle that withſtood their old Deſign, to bring over that Church to Roman See. He Ibid.was aſſay'd both by Promiſes and Threatnings, as Allatius himſelf acknowledges, but they found him unmovable; and this is the real cauſe of their after hatred.

IT is certain Cyrillus had a great averſion to the Romiſh Religion, and his Inclination led him rather to the Proteſtants ſide. Neither do I doubt but he diſapproved ſeveral Superſtitions in vogue amongſt the Greeks, and laboured with all his power to reform them, according to the directions of his Conſcience p. 203and Authority of his Charge. But to make him paſs under pretence of this, for a half Calviniſt, that was falſe to his own Principles, this is very diſingenuouſly done. It is true he relates himſelf, that in a conference he held with Fuxius, a Tranſylvanian Doctour, touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic… diſſert. 8.Saints, He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule, and following the Fancies and Opinions of men, the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Chriſt, and on Hay or Stubble.

BUT beſides that, Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular; ſets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius, and that we muſt not ſuppoſe without good Proof, this hap'ned before his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria; beſides this, I ſay, it cannot be hence concluded, he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocation of Saints, nor that he reſpected it as an Impiety. Hottinger indeed calls this Worſhip Superſtition, but from himſelf, and not from Cyrillus; ſo that it is not fairly done, to confound one man's Opinion with another. Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference, that this Invocation, aſter the manner ſome teach and practiſe it, is a meer Fancy and humane Invention; that 'tis this Word, Hay, and Stubble, Saint Paul ſpeaks of, and yet not abſolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main. Metrophanus Critopulus Confeſſ. Ec… Orient. cap. 17.whom I already mentioned expreſly diſtinguiſhes between an Invocation directed to Saints, as Mediatours, and that which reſpects them as Embaſſadours, whom the Church has near Almighty God to beſeech him in behalf of their Brethren. He rejects the firſt, upon this Reaſon, that there is but one only Mediatour, who is Chriſt Jeſus; but he receives the ſecond; and Cyrillus himſelf, in the eighth Article of his Confeſſion, inſinuates this diſtinction, ſaying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Prieſt and Mediatour. It concerns me not now to examine, whether the diſtinction be good, or not, it is ſufficient to ſay, that a man which holds it, may condemn the Invocation of Saints in one reſpect, and retain it in another, and remain in the Greek Church which practiſes it, without acting againſt his Conſcience, and being a damnable Hypocrite, as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus.

WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confeſſion, in which, and ſome Anſwers which accompany it, he clearly declared his Belief. It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine; as for Cyril Conf. fi… dei, art. 1. & art. 16.inſtance, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, and that Baptiſm is abſolutely neceſſary for our Communion with Chriſt, which plainly ſhews Mr. Arnaud has been miſtaken in affirming he was a Calviniſt. We do not find he oppoſes any where Chriſt's Deſcent into Hell, nor the Hierarchical Order, nor regulated Faſts, Lents, Arbitrary uſe of Confeſſion, Religious Orders, Monaſtick Vows, Celebration of Feaſts, nor the uſe of the Greek Liturgy, nor any of thoſe things commonly believed and practiſed in that Church, altho Calvin has for the moſt part diſapproved of them. He admits the uſe of the Images of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Saints, it's true he deteſts the giving them the Adoration of Latria, or any Religious Worſhip, foreign Reſp. ad In… terr. 4.foreign, and inſinuates he was willing to correct the Superſtition of the Greeks in this particular; he teaches likewiſe the Doctrine of Predeſtination, and Juſtification, according to the Word of God, more clearly than the Eaſtern People knew it. But it muſt not therefore be concluded, he was a Perſon that betrayed his Truſt, in performing the Functions of the Patriarchate; nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church, nor as ſpeaks Mr. Arnaud, That Piety could not ſubſiſt with ſo damnable Hypocriſie.

p. 204OUR Saviour and his Apoſtle taught us not to judge ſo raſhly of the Conſciences of men. Judge not, ſay's our Lord, that ye be not judged, for Matt. 7.Matt 7with what Judgment you judge ye ſhall be judged, and with what meaſure you meet, it ſhall be meaſured to you again; And the Apoſtle cries out to us, Who Rom. 14.Rom 14art thou that judgeſt another man's ſervant? Certainly a man cannot be guilty of greater raſhneſs than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conſcience, when having never ſeen nor heard them, it is impoſſible to have any other than a confuſed and general knowledge of them, ſuch as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus. For beſides that, a man may be eaſily miſtaken, in imagining that ſuch and ſuch a ſentiment obliges a man in conſcience to the doing of this or th'other thing, if a man proceeds not to a particular conſideration of Circumſtances, beſides this I ſay, it may be that this Obligation which appears to us ſo cogent and inviolable, has not ſo appeared to the Perſon concerned, which ſuffices to acquit him of the Crime of acting againſt his Conſcience. Mr. Arnaud's cenſure cannot be juſtifiable, unleſs he could prove Cyrillus has really practiſed or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent, or unprofitable, but abſolutely evil, and that he has practiſed them in the ſame time when he judged them to be ſo. Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will, he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed, we muſt not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions, but the word of God, that we muſt invoke only Jeſus Chriſt in the quality of Mediatour, and render no kind of Religious Worſhip to Images. He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins, and Superſtitions amongſt the Greeks, and deteſted both. He may ſhew that Cyrillus has approved, conformably to his Confeſſion, divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin, but he cannot prove Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of theſe Sentiments, nor believed theſe Opinions obliged him to ſeperate himſelf from the Communion of the Greeks, and forſake the Patriarchal Functions. His whole Conduct ſhewed on the contrary he believed 'twas his duty to labour at the eſtabliſhment of perfect Piety in his Church, in oppoſing to the utmoſt of his power the progreſs of Error and Superſtitions he condemned, and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge, and of which he was to render an Account. All which he did to the laſt breath. He held not the truth in unrighteouſneſs, nor was he falſe to the Dictates of his Conſcience. He publiſhed his Confeſſion, and put it in the hands of all the Greeks, and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the preſence of Ambaſſadors from Chriſtian Monarchs, ſo that 'twas only paſſion that extorted this ſaying from Mr. Arnaud, That he was a damnable Hypocrite, and one that made his Faith buckle to his Intereſt.

'TIS the ſame Paſſion caus'd him to ſay, That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417.we make of this Perſon ſhews, that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion. That the Spirit which animates us, is rather a Spirit of Faction, and a Cabal againſt the Catholick Church, than a Spirit of Zeal for the eſtabliſhment of true Piety. God who is the Witneſs of our Innocency can be when he pleaſes the Protectour of it. Our Intereſts are in his hands, and as we pray him to defend them, ſo likewiſe we beſeech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us. We appear extream odious in his ſight, but when pleaſes God to inſpire him with more equitable Sentiments, he will judge wholly otherwiſe. In this hope we will comfort our ſelves by the example of the Holy Apoſtles, and of our Saviour himſelf, who were accuſed, ſay's Saint Chryſoſtom, p. 205to be ſeditious Perſons and Innovators, that made it their buſineſs to disturb the Chryſoſtom. Hem. 23. in Rom.Publick Peace. We will endeavour to refute theſe kind of Accuſations by a Chriſtian Deportment, without forgetting our Duty, is, to bleſs them that curſe us, and pray for them that deſpitefully uſe us.

ENGLAND and Holland are able to juſtifie (were there occaſion) the Actions of their Ambaſſadours in relation to the buſineſs of Cyrillus, without my interpoſing. And as they were not the Maſters nor Directours of his Conſcience, ſo they were never able to preſcribe him what he had to do; ſo that 'tis very unreaſonable to make them reſponſable for his Conduct in thoſe particulars. They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch, than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there, their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity, when they found him at Conſtantinople. But this familiarity reached no farther than the uſual Services, Perſons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another, notwithſtanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion. They helpt him to Books, and to the keeping a correſpondence with Learned men. If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce, and makes it a Myſtery of Iniquity, Pag. 422.as he is pleaſed to call it, who need be troubled thereat? Strangers at Conſtantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendſhips and Civilities. I do not doubt but theſe Ambaſſadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confeſſion to be ſo agreeable with ſeveral Doctrines which the Proteſtants believe to be of great Importance, and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome. Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious, and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power, and what is there unlawful in all this? Muſt Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures, or govern himſelf according to their Directions? Had they ſaid, Pag. 420.ſay's Mr. Arnaud, that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine. Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth? Did ever any body ſee any thing more captious than to eſtabliſh in the form of an Anſwer from our part a falſe Foundation to build thereon an Invective? Had they ſaid, they had in fine obliged him. But ſhould they ſay they obliged him not to this Confeſſion, but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conſcience and Knowledge? Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm, ſeeing 'tis the real truth. As to his being canonized amongſt us for a Saint and Martyr (as Mr. Arnaud is pleaſed to affirm) he knows we have no ſuch power. 'Tis certain (as I already mentioned) his memory is ſtill precious amongſt the Greeks, as that of a Saint and Martyr of Chriſt, as I ſhall make appear hereafter, but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs.

SHOULD we preſs thoſe that judge thus of the Conſciences of other men, perhaps they would be ſtraitned to give us a reaſon for theirs, on the ſame Maxims, on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged, and the Ambaſſadors of England and Holland. For not to go farther, how can they in conſcience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome (which were wholly their Creatures, ſent into Greece to promote the Intereſt of the Roman See) ſhould take Orders from Schiſmatical Biſhops, and afterwards be raiſed to Biſhopricks by Schiſmatical Patriarchs; that they ſhould live in their communion and dependance in the midſt of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thurſday by the Patriarch of Jeruſalem; where their Sacrifice is abhorred, and p. 206this Sentence read every Year in their Churches, confounded be all they that In Triod.offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice, wherein Purgatory is rejected, and 'tis held a crime to ſay the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, wherein the neceſſity of communicating under both kinds is held, carved Images condemned, and ſeveral other ſuch like things which are not over favourable to the Latins. How in Conſcience can theſe ſaid Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates, elected, and conſecrated by Schiſmatical Metropolitains, and placed at the Head of a Church which profeſſes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome, and live in Communion with that of Jeruſalem, in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated? What I ſay, is grounded on matter of Fact, which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny, for ſhould he do it, he would be convinced by the Teſtimony of Thomas à Jeſu; who expreſly tells us, That it has been ever thought fitting, to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jeſu de procuran. Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4.of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders, when in Greece, from the hands of Schiſmatical Biſhops, it being neceſſary to uſe this Indulgence or Diſpenſation; to the end the Patriarchs may not ſcruple to promote them to Biſhopricks; and likewiſe, that, they being Biſhops, may provide the Churches in their Dioceſſes with Catholick Curats. Let Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleaſes, how they could in conſcience advance Cyrillus of Béroë, to the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople, being a Diſciple of the Jeſuits, whom Allatius calls, vir probus & Catholicus, Allat. de Perp. Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 11.and who after his death was like to be canoniz'd, ſay's Allatius. The ſame Queſtion may be put to him touching others, namely, Timotheus, Anthimus, Gregory, Athenaſius, Patelar, who being all of 'em Latins in their hearts, yet for all that exerciſed the Patriarchal Functions in a Schiſmatical Church, wherein, as I ſaid, the Pope and all the Latins are every year excommunicated. Moreover this Excommunication is not to be called in Queſtion, foraſmuch as Mr. Arnaud himſelf acknowledges it. The Greek Patriarch of Jeruſalem, ſay's he, excommunicates once a year on Holy Thurſday, all other Lib. 2. cap. 3.Sects, not excepting the Roman Church.

HAVING ſatisfi'd the unjuſt Accuſations of Mr. Arnaud againſt Cyrillus it now remains to ſee what advantage may accrue to us by this Patriarch's Confeſſion, and whether the rejection he makes in expreſs Terms of Tranſubſtantiation, may be eſteemed as that of the Body of the whole Greek Church. Mr. Arnaud tells us three things, on the diſcuſſion of which depends Lib. 3. cap. 6, & 7.the Solution of this Queſtion. The firſt, is, that, the Greeks continually endeavoured to deliver themſelves from the Tyranny of Cyrillus, and that in effect he was four or five times expelled the Church. The ſecond, that this Confeſſion is wholly contrary in its principal Articles to the Doctrine of the Greeks. And the third, that it has been condemned by two Councils held by Cyrillus his Succeſſours. Which is what we are now to examine.

AS to the firſt of theſe particulars, I confeſs this Patriarch has endured ſeveral cruel Traverſes during his life, which never ended till they had procured his death, but I deny 'twas his Church occaſioned him all theſe evils; It was the Latine Party and falſe Greeks which followed him with inceſſant Perſecutions. How dexterous ſoever Allatius has been in diſguiſing the Allat. de Perp. Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 11.Truth, yet could he not refrain here from diſcovering it: He tells us then, that the Greeks whom he calls pii homines, zealous and pious People, not being able to defend their Faith themſelves, nor carry on the neceſſary expences for this, addreſſed themſelves to other Chriſtians, and eſpecially to the Roman Prelate, by whoſe means they avoid the like Tempeſts, and ſecure their Church. He adds, p. 207there were Perſons deputed towards Cyrillus, with an expreſs charge, to oblige Ibid.him either by Promiſes, or Threatnings, to ſend to Rome his Confeſſion of Faith, in which he was to admit the Council of Florence, and condemn the Errors of the Calviniſts, and in ſo doing he might aſſure himſelf of the aſſiſtance and favour of the Apoſtolical See. That Cyrillus anſwered, he liked well their offers, and was ready to accept their conditions, provided he might have money and be upheld in his Patriarchate. But that at length finding he kept a correſpondence both with Calviniſts and Catholicks too, theſe laſt, being troubled thereat, proceeded to threatnings, ſaying, they would never ſuffer that Chair to be defiled with the Blaſphemies of the Calviniſts. What he ſay's touching this Deputation is true, for the Congregation, de fide propoganda, ſent two Jeſuits to Conſtantinople with one, named Canachio Roſſi, charged with Inſtructions to gain Cyrillus by Promiſes or Threatnings, being required only to receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council. But what he adds concerning Cyrillus his Anſwer, is a meer Calumny, for Cyrillus remained immoveable, notwithſtanding all theſe Sollicitations. Neither, have we any reaſon to believe any thing upon Allatius's bare word. Mr. Arnaud may judge as he pleaſes, yet cannot he deny but Cyrillus his Enemies, were the Latins and Latiniſed Greeks, and that the Tempeſts and Storms he ſuffered, and which at length overwhelmed him, came from that ſide, ſeeing, that Allatius himſelf (his own Witneſs and great Author) affirms it. Cyrillus was ever beloved and honoured by his own true Church, as appears from the care and charge ſhe was at to ſupport him, and to ſay as Mr. Arnaud does, that the Dutch lent him money upon uſe, and that he extorted it afterwards from the Churches, which were made to obey him by the Turks, is a Story for which he brings no proof. Neither is there any likelihood particular Perſons, who put their money out to uſe, ſhould chooſe a man in his Circumſtances, that is to ſay, one that was bereaved of his Dignities, and ſtript of all he had, were he (as it is ſuppoſed) th… Object of his Peoples hatred. The Dutch Merc…nts at Conſtantinople are not wont to part with their money upon ſuch Security. Hottinger, Hottinger. in Append Diſſert. 8.tells us, (from the Teſtimony of the deceaſed Mr. Leger, Miniſter of Geneva, who was at Conſtantinople, and had a particular Knowledge of this Hiſtory) That one Iſaac, Metropolitain of Chalcedon, a Diſciple of the Jeſuits, having bought of the Turks Cyrillus his Seat, and the report of it being ſpread throughout Conſtantinople, there was ſuch an Univerſal Lamentation amongſt all the Greeks, that it came to the Grand Senior's Ears, who broke off this Intrigue, and would not ſuffer 'em to obey any longer this Uſurper. He likewiſe Which Letter may be ſeen in its Original.produces a Letter from Cyrillus his Proto-Syncellus, that is to ſay, from one of the Chief Officers in his Chamber, named, Nathanael Conopius, dated from Conſtantinople the Fourth of July, 1638, Immediately after the death of Cyrillus. Wherein he takes particular notice that the Executioners which ſtrangled him, having parted his Garments among them, and afterwards carried them into one of the Markets of Conſtantinople to ſell them, as being the Clothes of the late Patriarch, the People were univerſally ſeized with Grief, and uttered a thouſand imprecations againſt Cyrillus of Berea, calling him Villain, and Murtherer, who had diſhonoured God's Church, and not only uſurped the Throne of the Holy and Lawful Patriarch, but likewiſe put him to death. He adds that ſome of 'em, entred the Houſe of the Uſurper, calling him Pilate, and bidding him give them the Body that they might bury it; and how they afterwards went to the Caimacans, and offered him a great deal of money to obtain of him the Body of their true Patriarch, but the wicked Uſurper who cauſed him to be put to death, underſtanding it, ſent to the Caimaican to tell him, that, if he gave theſe People Cyrillus his Body, p. 208the City would certainly be in an uproar, which hindered him from granting them their requeſt. In fine, he ſays, this Uſurper ſent Slaves to take his Body, and caſt it into the Sea, but that ſome Chriſtians having taken it thence, carried it into a Monaſtery (called St. Andrews) where they privately buried it.

MR. Arnaud, will not fail to fay, that Hottinger is a Miniſter, and one of the moſt paſſionate, and leaſt ſincere Writers, he ever read. But why muſt we rather believe Allatius, than Hottinger? The former of theſe has all the marks of a paſſionate man, who is ever upon diſguiſhing things, whereas this laſt on the contrary (let Mr. Arnaud ſay what he pleaſes) has all the Characters of a faithful Writer, relating things according to the beſt of his Knowledge. The former of theſe is I confeſs more polite, but th'other has more ſimplicity. Allatius relates from his own head, what he pleaſes, Hottinger alledges his Witneſſes, and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Conopius whoſe Letter in its Original I have by me, invented theſe Stories thus circumſtanced as we find them, if it were moreover true, that the Greek Church reſpected Cyrillus as a Heretick, and did her utmoſt endeavours to deliver her ſelf from him. It was on the contrary the Latins and their Diſciples who ſo ſtrenuouſly endeavoured, to get rid of a Perſon whom they could neither gain by Promiſes, nor Threatnings, and that hindred them in their great Deſign of a Re-union. It was in reference to them, that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confeſſion, We plainly foreſee, this ſhort Confeſſion, will be as a mark of contradiction to them, who are pleaſed to calumniate and perſecute us. His Preſentiment was not vain.

AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's firſt Objection. As to the ſecond, which aſſerts the principal Articles of his Confeſſion, are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks. I confeſs, there are ſome of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Goſpel is more plainly aſſerted than in other Greek Books, as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles, for inſtance, which treat of our Juſtification by Faith in Chriſt, of Free Will and Divine Grace, but 'tis certain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church, and may be eaſily reconciled with the Anſwers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg. The Fifteenth Article, acknowledges but two Sacraments, and Jeremias, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, openly profeſſes to hold ſeven. But I ſay the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Confeſ. cap. 9.Greeks have no rule in this matter, Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Inſtitution, to wit, Baptiſm, the Euchariſt, and Penance, and as to the other four he affirms, They are called Myſteries improperly foreign. Jeremias acknowledges ſeven, 'tis true, but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Inſtitution, namely, Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper; and as to the five others, he ſeems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the number of Sacraments. Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus (who only ſpeaks of the true Sacraments inſtituted by our Saviour, and not of humane Ceremonies, which are improperly called Myſteries, becauſe they have ſomething that is myſterious in them, as ſpeaks Metrophanus) to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks? Why (ſeeing he oppoſes Jeremias to Cyrillus) does he not ſincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias? Arcudius has dealt better in this reſpect than he, for he acknowledges, That Jeremias does Arcud. lib. 2. cap. 2.not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition; but that he paſſes the ſame Judgment on all the reſt, Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper excepted, contrary to what he had aſſerted in the Seventh Chapter of his firſt Anſwer.

AS to the Eighteenth Article, in which Cyrillus aſſerts, That the Souls of the deceaſed, are carried immediately into a State of Bliſs or Miſery. Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388.ſay's, he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks, touching the State of Souls after death. Hornbeck, and Chytreus, ſay's he, And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks, affirm, they admit beſides Paradiſe, and Hell, a certain dark, and doleful place, in which the Souls are purged after this life. I anſwer, the Greeks are not determinately poſitive, touching the State of the Soul after death. As to the Souls of the Faithful, there are ſome, who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Viſion, till after the laſt Judgment, and in the mean time, are in pleaſant and delightful places, places, exempt from all kind of ſorrows, or elſe in dark and diſmal ſhades, where they continually ruminate, on the ſins they have committed, and theſe hold there are three different ranks of deceaſed Perſons, namely, the Unfaithful or Wicked, the Faithful, that dye in a State of Repentance, and perfect Holyneſs, and others, who notwithſtanding their Faith and true Piety, yet have committed ſeveral ſins, for which they have not ſo truely repented, as they ought. Hell is deſigned for the firſt of theſe. The ſecond, ſay they, go into places of reſt and refreſhment, and the laſt, into thoſe doleful places, where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination.

BUT we muſt not imagine this to be the ſenſe of the whole Greek Church, for there are not a few, that hold there are only two conditions of men after death, namely, that of the virtuous, and wicked, and two places, to wit, Heaven and Hell. Syropulus, relates in his Hiſtory of the Council of Florence, that, the Greeks being urged by the Latins, to expreſs themſelves Hiſt. Concil. Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16.plainly touching the State of departed Souls; Beſſarion declared, That the Souls of the Saints, receive the Bliſs prepared for them, and thoſe of ſinners, their puniſhments, and that it only remains, that each of theſe reaſſume their Bodies, after which, the Souls of the Juſt ſhall enter into a full enjoyment of Happineſs with their Bodies, and that ſinners likewiſe with their Bodies, &c. ſhall ſuffer everlaſting puniſhments. We ſee here but two States after death. We find in Allatius a paſſage of the Greeks, which likewiſe aſſerts but two places. We muſt know, ſay's it, that the Souls of the Juſt remain in certain places, and Allat. de lib. Eccl. diſp. 2.thoſe of ſinners in like manner ſeparate from them. Thoſe rejoyce upon the account of the hope of Bliſs, Theſe lament in expectation of their torments. There is moreover a paſſage of Joſeph Briennius, which aſſerts, That, there are two Ibid.places, deſigned for the entertainment of deceaſed Souls, Heaven for the Saints, and the Center of the Earth or Hell for ſinners. That the Saints are at liberty, that they have all the World, and eſpecially the Garden of Eden for their abode. That thoſe who are condemned to Hell, will not come out from their abode, till the day of Judgment, and that they cannot receive the leaſt beam of light or relaxation. For, adds he, the Saints will not enjoy eternal happineſs, nor ſinners ſuffer their everlaſting torments, before the laſt Judgement. But theſe laſt ſhall be ſhut up in the mean time in dark Priſons, under the cuſtody of cruel Devils. Sigiſmond, ſpeaking of the Moſcovits ſay's, They believe not there is any Purgatory, but Sigiſm. Com. ver. Moſcov.hold, that every one after death goes to the place he deſerves, good People into a place of Serenity amongſt Angels, and the wicked into diſmal and dark ſhades, amongſt terrible Devils, where they expect the laſt Judgment; that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in, and by the preſence of Angels which accompany them, and ſo the others on the contrary. Goar teſtifies that Ligaridius (a Greek Author of the Iſle of Chios) expounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic. Exeq.the meaning of thoſe frequent Allelujas, ſung at the Funeral of p. 210the deceaſed, ſay's, They are ſung as ſign of joy, that thoſe who remain alive, may rejoyce, in that the defunct, has happily left this miſerable life, and is now in poſſeſſion of Everlaſting Bliſs.

IT appears then by this diverſity, that there is nothing ſo regulated, on this Subject, amongſt the Greeks, but that Cyrillus may aſſert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us, without contradicting the general Belief of his Church. Beſides, his Terms are not ſo ſtrict, but that they may be well accommodated, with the Sentiment of thoſe who affirm the Souls Enjoy not the Beatifical Viſion, or a perfect Felicity, till the laſt Judgment, and that hold, there are three States of deceaſed Perſons, for he ſay's only, That the Souls of the deceaſed are in bliſs or miſery, and aſſoon as ever they leave their Bodies, are either in Heaven, or Hell, which will bear this ſence, that Judgment is already paſſed upon them, and that God has already ſhown them their condition, which hinders not, but it may be ſaid that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect, and the felicity of the others not yet compleated. And this ſence ſeems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards, That every one is judged, according to the condition he is in at the hour of death, which ſeems to intimate, that he would be underſtood to ſpeak only of the Judgment, and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment. There are two things, moſt certain in reference to the Greeks, the one, that they pray for the dead, and th'other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church. Now Cyrillus, touches not on the firſt of theſe, and as to the ſecond, he agrees very well therein with his own People, for he calls Purgatory, an imagination not to be admitted. So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently accuſes him of contradicting the Greeks, in the chief Articles of his Confeſſion.

WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection, which conſiſts, of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confeſſion, the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea, and th'other under Parthenius. I have already diſcourſed of thoſe two Pieces in my Anſwer to Father Nüet, wherein I have ſhewn they are ſuſpected to be fictious. But if the Reader will not trouble himſelf, with conſulting what I have elſewhere written, touching the matter, he may here behold a Compendium of my Reaſons.

I. ALTHO theſe Narratives have been often printed, there has been no body yet, that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick. There is one of them printed from a Manuſcript, ſent from Rome, and th'other from an Edition printed at Jaſi in Moldavia publiſhed by a certain Monk named Arſenius. It ſeems to me there ought to be greater aſſurance given than what we have already, ſeeing it is not ſufficient to authorize ſo important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils, the one in the year 1639. and th'other in 1642.

II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another, the firſt of them which is publiſhed under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea, is ſubſcribed by ſeveral of thoſe whoſe hands are to the ſecond, and by the ſame Parthenius, to whom this laſt is attributed, and yet in the ſecond there is no mention of the firſt. The firſt expreſly anathematizes Cyrillus, and calls him an impious and wicked Perſon; The ſecond, ſay's only, There are certain Articles produced under the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus. The firſt condemns with an Anathema theſe Articles. The ſecond ſay's, It was propoſed in the Synod, whether they p. 211ſhould be received and held for pious and orthodox Points, or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eaſtern Church, which plainly ſhews that they that made the ſecond, knew nothing of the firſt, and yet they are both found ſubſcribed by the ſame Perſons.

III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is ſaid to have been an Aſſeſſor at the firſt Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea, nor that Parthenius who is ſaid to have held the ſecond, would have ſo lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris, ſeeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber, and th'other his Protector, and intimate Friend.

IV. ARSENIUS the Monk, from whom 'tis ſaid we have the pretended account of the Synod under Parthenius, and who ſent it from Conſtantinople to a nameleſs Friend at Venice, having ſtuffed his Letter with Railings againſt Cyrillus and his Confeſſion, yet mentions not a word touching its firſt condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea. Which ſhews us that theſe are counterfeit Pieces compoſed at ſeveral times, and by different Perſons, who not conſulting one another, nor furniſhed with ſufficient Inſtructions, have been guilty of ſeveral Contradictions.

I will now add to what has been already ſaid, ſome other Remarks, which are no leſs conſiderable, the firſt is that when Cyrillus his Confeſſion of Faith appeared in our Weſtern Parts; the firſt Game that was played, was to deny it, and affirm 'twas a feigned Story; but when this Shift would no longer ſerve turn, and that the thing was made evident, then an account of theſe pretended Councils appeared, which ſhows that they were ſubſtituted as a new remedy, inſtead of the other, which could be of no longer uſe. Secondly, what Parthenius is made to ſay, That there have been ſome Articles produced under Cyrillus his name, is as every man may diſcover the Style of the Weſtern People, and not that of Parthenius himſelf, who could not ſpeak after this manner, nor his Synod neither, becauſe 'twas notorious in Conſtantinople, that this Confeſſion was in effect Cyrillus his own, ſeeing he offered it in a Council, and openly juſtified it before the Miniſters of the Grand Senior, in the preſence of ſeveral Ambaſſadors; and becauſe Parthenius and his Biſhops in the preceding Synod had already conſidered it, as unqueſtionably his. Moreover what likelihood is there, that Parthenius and his Council would thus groſly and ſlanderouſly imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was falſe as they do? For Cyrillus having ſaid in the firſt Article of his Confeſſion, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, which is an expreſſion from which the Greeks never vary; The firſt Article of the Cenſure bears, That he aſſerted contrary to the ſence of the Catholick Church the Subſtantial and Eternal Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Father and the Son, which is exactly the expreſſion the Greeks abhor.

WE may add to this, that Mr. Arnaud tells us of a Treatiſe of Payſius Ligaridius Archbiſhop of Gaza, in which, Ligaridius diſcourſes of Cyrillus and his Confeſſion, and raiſes an Objection about it, which he himſelf anſwers, ſaying, That, ſeveral boubted of the truth of this Piece, and that ſhould it be true, yet one Swallow does not make a Summer; but he makes no mention of theſe two pretended Cenſures, which without doubt he would never have forgotten, being (as he is) a man full of Zeal for the intereſts of the Roman Religion, were they acknowledged to be good and Authentick Acts in the Greek p. 212Church. I might ſay the ſame thing of the Barons of Spartaris, did it not elſewhere appear, that he was a Perſon of ſmall Knowledge in the Affairs of the Greeks.

HEYDANUS (a Dutch Profeſſour of Divinity) relates, that in the year 1643. The News being come to Conſtantinople, that, this pretended Heydanus praefat. ad lib cui titulus eſt, cauſa Dei.Council was confidently reported to be true in the Weſt, Parthenius himſelf was ſo ſurpriſed and offended thereat, that aſſembling his Clergy and People in the Patriarchal Church, he openly profeſſed 'twas falſe, and that he never intended ſuch an injury to the memory of Cyrillus.

IN fine, Mr. Rivet, Doctor of Divinity, in Holland, writing to Mr. Sarrau, a Councellour in the Parliament of Paris, the 21 of March, 1644. tells him touching this Buſineſs, That he ſaw (at Mr. Hagha's a Letter written in Vulgar Greek, from Pachomius, the Metropolitain of Chalcedon, which diſowned the pretended Council under the Patriarch Parthenius. Farther affirming, that the Subſcriptions were counterfeit, and particularly his. That this Piece was contrived by a Raſcal, &c. That the Patriarch was a double minded man, yet denied what was printed in Moldavia to be the Act he ſigned; and that the Prince of Moldavia baniſhed the Author of this Impreſſion from his Territories.

BUT, ſuppoſing what I now alledged, to be wholly untrue, and that theſe two pretended Councils, were as really true as I believe 'em to be falſe, yet is it certain, they will but confirm the Proof we draw from Cyrillus his Confeſſion againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and change it into Demonſtration. Which will clearly appear, if we conſider, that whoſoever compoſed them, did all they could to turn Cyrillus his words into a ſence odious to the Greeks, even to the imputing to him ſeveral Falſities; that Cyrillus of Berrhaea who preſided in the firſt Council was a falſe Greek, and one of the Jeſuits Scholars, engaged long ſince in the Party of the Latins, and that Parthenius ſeemed likewiſe faſtned to the Roman Intereſt, if we take that for one of his Letters, which one Athanaſius a Latiniſing Greek publiſhed, in which he makes him thus write to the late King, That he heartily deſired the Peace of the two Churches, Athan. Rhetor. Presbyt. Biſant. anti patellar. Paris 1655.as much as any of his Predeceſſors, but if the Turk, under whoſe Empire they lived, knew of this Affair, he would kill 'em all. Yet could the King find out a way whereby to ſecure them from this danger, he ſolemnly protests that for his part he would not be wanting. So that we ſee here what kind of men the Authors of theſe two Cenſures have been, ſuppoſing 'em true, and yet they have not expreſly cenſured what Cyrillus Lucaris aſſerted touching Tranſubſtantiation; the firſt of theſe, to wit, Cyrillus of Berrhaea ſay's, Anathematiſed be Cyrillus who teaches and believes that neither the Bread of the Altar, nor the Wine are changed, foreign, by the Prieſts Conſecration, and coming down of the Holy Spirit, into the real Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, ſeeing 'tis written in the ſeventeenth Article of his Heretical Doctrine, that what we ſee and take is not the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. The ſecond, namely, Parthenius, ſay's, His Doctrine is ſo deſtructive to the Euchariſt, that, he attributes only the bare Figure to it, as if we were ſtill under the Old Law of Types and Shadows. For he denies the Bread which is ſeen and eaten, becomes after Conſecration the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, in any other than a ſpiritual manner, or rather by imagination, which is the higheſt pitch of Impiety. For Jeſus Chriſt did not ſay, This is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body, this is my Blood, this, to wit, that which was ſeen, received, eaten, and broken after it was bleſſed and ſanctified. p. 213Not to take here notice, how captiouſly theſe People turn the Words of Cyrillus, to make them contradictory to the Belief, and common Expreſſions of the Greeks, it will be ſufficient to obſerve, that howſoever prejudiced theſe Perſons have been, they durſt not re-eſtabliſh the Tranſubſtantiation he expreſly condemned, nor take any notice of that part of the Article which rejects it in expreſs Terms. But to the end we may better judge of this, it will not be amiſs, to recite Cyrillus his own Words. We believe, ſay's he, that the ſecond Sacrament, which the Lord has inſtituted, is, that, which we call the Euchariſt, for in the Night in which he was betrayed, taking Bread and bleſſing it, he ſaid to his Apoſtles, take eat this is my Body; and taking the Cup, he gave thanks and ſaid, drink ye all of this, this is my Blood which is ſhed for you; do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul adds, as often as ye ſhall eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye ſhew the Lord's death. This is the plain, true, and lawful Tradition, of this admirable Myſtery, in the adminiſtration and underſtanding of which, we confeſs and believe a real, and certain Preſence, of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to wit, that which Faith offers and gives us, and not that which Tranſubſtantiation has raſhly invented and teaches. For we believe the faithful eat the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, not in a ſenſible chewing of him with the teeth, in the Communion, but in communicating by the ſence of the Soul. For our Lord's Body is not in the Myſtery, what our eyes behold, and what we take, but that which Faith (which receives after a ſpiritual manner) preſents and gives us. Wherefore, it is certain if we believe, we eat, and participate; but if we believe not, we are deprived of this benefit. If you compare this Article with Cyrillus of Berrhaea and Parthenius's Cenſures, you will find they apply themſelves to that which is ſaid concerning Our Saviour's Body being not what we ſee and eat, but that which our Faith does ſpiritually receive, and that they endeavour to give theſe Words a conſtruction abominated by the Greeks, and different from their uſual expreſſions. But as to what he ſays, touching Tranſubſtantiation, (which he calls a raſh invention, foreign) we ſee they meddle not with that. They ſay that the Bread (foreign) is changed into the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that 'tis not a Figure, but the real Body, but that it is ſo, by a real Converſion of Subſtance, they do not mention. I diſpute not here concerning thoſe Perſons ſence that drew up theſe Cenſures; for I do not queſtion but they were Latins in their hearts, and I further believe had they dared they would have proceeded farther; but any man may perceive they deſigned to accommodate themſelves to the Style of the Greeks, the better to colour over their Forgeries. You ſee on one hand Cyrillus, who oppoſes Tranſubſtantiation in plain Terms, boldly naming it, and giving it a Title ſufficient to ſtartle a Church that believed it, and on the other, we behold Perſons intereſſed to run down Cyrillus, and that leave no means unattempted whereby to render him odious to the Greeks, that poyſon all he ſays, and yet dare not defend this Tranſubſtantiation, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in expreſs Terms, nor equivalent ones. What means this Myſtery, if the Greek Church does in effect believe the converſion of Subſtances? Could they light of a better occaſion wherein to ſhow their Zeal for Orthodoxy, and to confound at the ſame time Cyrillus his Accomplices.

MR. Arnaud tells us, That the Word foreign, is not the expreſſion the Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 387.Greeks commonly uſe for the explaining of Tranſubſtantiation. But what does he mean by this? foreign ſignifies properly Syllable, after Syllable, Tranſubſtantiation, the Latins uſe it when they expreſs themſelves in Greek, the Latinizing Greeks uſe it, and all the reſt know what it ſignifies; ſuppoſing then it were not in common uſe amongſt them, would they ſuffer a Perſon p. 214who pretends not to be a Grammarian, but a Divine, who ſpeaks not of the Term, but of the thing meant by it, to reject it as ſtifly as Cyrillus has done, without ſo much as ſaying, that altho we uſe not the Term of foreign, yet we believe the thing meant by it, to wit, the Converſion of Subſtances? Yet do they take no notice thereof, they forſake the Term and the thing repreſented by it, and contain themſelves in their general expreſſions. Is not this then an evident token Cyrillus ſaid nothing in this reſpect which oppoſed the Doctrine of his Church?

AND this is what we had to ſay touching this Patriarch. I am very much miſtaken if any comparing this Chapter with the Third, which Mr. Arnaud has made on this Subject, will accuſe me of raſhneſs, for ſaying the real Doctrine of the Greeks appears in Cyrillus his Confeſſion. For 'tis certain, that man who barely conſiders what I now mentioned touching Cyrillus his Confeſſion, cannot but conclude the Greek Church believed not Tranſubſtantiation. It only remains, for the finiſhing of this Chapter, that I ſpeak ſomething touching the State of this Church ſince the year 1642. the fixt time of the laſt of theſe pretented Cenſures. Parthenius having cauſed Cyrillus of Berrhaea to be baniſhed, and afterwards ſtrangled after the ſame manner as he ſerved his Predeceſſor, he himſelf remained not long on the Throne. His bad Conduct, brought him down thence, and the Church of Conſtantinople ſubſtituted one, (who had been Cyrillus Lucaris his Diſciple,) and named likewiſe Parthenius in his place. Which Allatius acknowledges in a Letter he Allat. de per. Conſ. lib. 3.wrote to Nilhuſius dated in the year 1645. from whence we may judge, that this great averſion the Greeks ſhewed Cyrillus and thoſe Synodical Cenſures are meer Forgeries: for what likelihood is there a Church, that uſed ſo many endeavours to deliver it ſelf from ſuch a man as Cyrillus, and which had anathematized his Memory and Doctrine, ſhould four or five years after, put her ſelf into the hands of one of his Diſciples, and ſo run her ſelf again into the ſame diſorder and Hereſie. Neither muſt Mr. Arnaud tell us that the Turks promote to this See, thoſe that give them moſt money, and that a Lib. 4. cap. 7. pag. 39, 392.Socinian may as well arrive thereunto, as another; for this is not ſo abſolutely true, but that the People have the liberty of hindring the Elections of Perſons diſagreeable to them, as appears by what Allatius relates concerning one Meletius Biſhop of Sophia, who coming to Rome, in order to the reconciling Allat. de Perpet. Conſ. lib 3. cap. 11.himſelf with that Church, at his return into his own Country, was deſigned for the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople: But, ſay's he, he was put by, being hindred by the People. We ſee then this People, have ſtill the liberty to reject the Latiniſing Greeks, and that they do in effect put them by; but we find not they made the leaſt attempt to hinder the Election of Cyrillus his Diſciple, Allat. ubi ſupra.whom the Latins term a Heretick and Calviniſt, as well as his Maſter.

THIS condition wherein we now beheld the Greek Church laſted from the year 1645. till 1653. Obſerve here what Doctour Baſire a Reverend Divine of the Church of England, whom I have already mentioned wrote to me about it. When I was at Conſtantinople, which was in the year 1653. Payſius was then Patriarch of it, who in token of Communion with the Church of England, laid his hands on me in an Aſſembly of Biſhops, according to cuſtom, as being a Prieſt of the Church of England, and with this impoſition of hands gave me power to preach in Greek in all the Greek Churches within his Juriſdiction. Which I afterwards did very often, according as occaſion offered, as well at Conſtantinople as elſewhere, altho the Jeſuits ſeemed to be very much diſpleaſed thereat. I preached one Sunday to the Engliſh, another in French for p. 215the Genevoiſes, the next Sunday to the Italians, the following Sunday in Latin to the Hungarian and Tranſylvanian Ambaſſadors, and the fifth Sunday in Greek in the Greek Churches. Now what likelihood is there, if Cyrillus his Doctrine were ſo odious, and his Memory ſo execrable to the Greeks, (as Mr. Arnaud would perſwade us) and their Opinion touching the Euchariſt the ſame with theirs in the Church of Rome; and if they deteſted our Doctrine as impious and Heretical, they would admit a Miniſter of the Church of England, to be a preacher amongſt them, and not be afraid that in preaching to 'em the Goſpel, he ſhould inſtil amongſt them the pretended Errors of his Nation, eſpecially in that important Subject of the Euchariſt?