The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 3 · Chapter 7

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Book 3 · Chapter 7

p. 152CHAP. VII.

That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria, as the Latins do, and conſequently believe not Tranſubſtantiation. The Thirteenth Proof. Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illuſion.

VVE may I think already begin to doubt, whether the Greeks have in effect the ſame Sentiments with the Latins touching Tranſubſtantiation, and whether the aſſurances Mr. Arnaud has given us thereof be well grounded. He appears very brisk and confident in aſſerting this Point, and behaves himſelf as a Perſon that has already conquered, but 'tis more than probable that theſe flouriſhes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakeſt part of their cauſe, to the end they may obtain that by noiſe, which they could not by reaſon. But howſoever, it may now be demanded what will become of all thoſe Hiſtorical Collections, Arguments, Atteſtations, Conſequences, Keys, Syſtems, thoſe confident Defies, and Challenges to produce any thing which had the leaſt appearance of Truth or Reaſon againſt his Proofs, and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philoſophy.

—Aurae

Omnia diſcerpunt & nubibus irrita donant.

THE Proofs I have already produced do ſufficiently confirm this, but that which I ſhall farther offer will yet more evidence it, and at the ſame time diſcover another of Mr. Arnaud's Illuſions. My Proof ſhall be taken from the Greeks not adoring the Euchariſt with that Sovereign Adoration the Latins do. Now if this be made apparent, what likelihood is there, that a Church which otherwiſe is not at all ſcrupulous in matters of Ceremony, and which has ſuch a great devotion for Pictures, for the Writings of the Evangeliſts p. 153conſecrated Bread which they call foreign, and even the Bread of the Euchariſt before 'tis conſecrated, ſhould believe the Subſtance of the Symbols to be really changed into the Subſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and yet not render it that Sovereign Honour which belongs to it. It concerns us then to know what the Cuſtom of the Greeks is touching this Adoration, and ſo much the more, becauſe this Queſtion being one of the chief of our Diſpute, it is therefore abſolutely neceſſary to be throughly inform'd in it.

BUT before we proceed any farther, we muſt diſtinguiſh (according to the ſence of the Greeks and Latins) two ſorts of Adoration, the one inferiour and ſubalternate which is rendred to Subjects, in which we do not acknowledge an infinite Majeſty, and th'other a Sovereign and Higheſt Worſhip, called that of Latria, which is only due to God.

WE muſt likewiſe diſtinguiſh according to the ſence of the ſame Greeks and Latins, an Adoration called relative, which terminates not it ſelf in any one Subject, but paſſes (as it were) from one Subject to another, as thro a Channel; and an abſolute Adoration, which terminates it ſelf in that Subject which is worſhipped, without a reference to any thing elſe.

IN fine there ought to be a diſtinction made betwixt an internal Adoration which conſiſts in the motions of the Soul towards the Subject adored, and the external Adoration which conſiſts in outward expreſſions.

WHICH Diſtinctions being premiſed, we are now to enquire whether the Greeks adore the Euchariſt with a Sovereign Adoration, and that of Latria, not relatively, (as we ſpeak) but abſolutely, and in the ſame manner we ought to worſhip the proper Subſtance and Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt. And becauſe the internal affections of the Soul, cannot be immediately known, it therefore concerns us to enquire whether the Greeks do outwardly expreſs any Sign of ſuch an Adoration, either by their words or actions. Mr. Arnaud holds the affirmative and I the negative, and this being here only a queſtion of Fact, 'tis likewiſe by Proofs of fact wherewith it muſt be decided.

FOR this effect I ſhall firſt here offer the teſtimony of a Cannon of Cracovia called Sacranus, who in reckoning up the Errors of the Moſcovits, (whom we all know do follow the Greek Religion) does expreſly mention this. Before the Cup is prepared, ſay's he, they light Torches and expoſe to the Religio. Ruthenor. art. 20.Peoples ſight with exceeding great devotion the Bread, which is to be conſecrated, with the Wine and hot Water, which they pour into the Chalice. They carry theſe about, and the People bow down before them with the greateſt teſtimonies of reſpect and veneration. But afterwards when the Bread is placed on the Altar and conſecrated, there is no veneration ſhewed it, nor do they make any elevation of it.

JOHN de Lasko Archbiſhop of Gneſne, and Ambaſſadour from Poland Raynald ad ann. 1514.to Rome in the beginning of the laſt Century, makes the ſame relation of the Errors of the Ruſſians, as Sarcanus had done before him. It is likely by what Mr Arnaud tells us, that he has only copied out what Sacranus wrote and appropriated it to himſelf, for we find their expreſſions to be both the ſame. But be it as it will, he has not forgotten this Article I now mentioned.

PETER Scarga a Jeſuit of Vilna in Lituania has written a Book againſt p. 154the Greeks and Ruſſians, which he intitled, de uno paſtore, in which, Par. 3. cap. 2. art. 8.making a Catalogue of their Errors, he particularly mentions this. At Maſs they worſhip on their knees the Bread before 'tis conſecrated, but after its Conſecration they give no honour to the moſt Holy Body of Jeſus Chriſt.

SO that we have here already three Witneſſes whoſe Teſtimonies are not to be rejected, ſeeing they are of far greater weight than the forced conſequences of Mr. Arnaud, for they lived in thoſe Parts, and were eye-witneſſes, of what they tell us, and moreover conſiderable Perſons in the Romiſh Church, the firſt of them being a Cannon, th'other an Archbiſhop, and the third a Jeſuit, who do all three of them poſitively affirm the Greeks do not adore the Euchariſt after Conſecration. Behold here a fourth of the ſame Order, which is Anthony Caucus a Venetian, and Archbiſhop of Corfou. He had an order from Pope Gregory XIII. to inform himſelf exactly of the belief of the Greeks, and to make him a Relation thereof which he did. Allatius ſpeaks of this Relation as if it were publiſhed. I confeſs I never ſaw it in print, but I have ſeen a Manuſcript of it in the King's Library, wherein I found theſe words in the thirteenth Article of their Errors. They yield no Reverence, Honour, Veneration, nor Worſhip to the moſt Holy Sacrament of the Euchariſt conſecrated with leavened Bread according to their Cuſtom, they carry it to the ſick without Lights and Torches. They keep it in their Churches in a bag hanging againſt a wall in a little wooden box, and yet burn Tapers before the Images of all the Saints. He informs us elſewhere that the Greek Prieſts when they carry the Sacrament to the Sick, are wont to wrap it up in a linnen cloth, or Handkercher, and ſo put it into their boſoms without any other Ceremony. But when he ſets himſelf to the oppoſing of this Error, he thus ſpeaks. There's no People (that I know of) who profeſs the Chriſtian Religion that ſhew leſs reſpect and veneration to the Holy Sacrament, than the Greek Nation. They adore and reverence their leavened Bread before 'tis conſecrated, even to the very idolizing of it, but after ſcarcely riſe up to reſpect it. Their Prieſt carry the Euchariſt in their boſoms to the ſick, without any Lights, and that which is moſt abſurd is, they keep it in their Churches in a little wooden box, tied up in a bag and hanged againſt a wall without any Lights before it, as if 'twere a prophane thing to the ſcandalizing of all pious People. I believe they have this Cuſtom from the Heretical Sacramentaries, who deny the virtue of this moſt Holy Sacrament. They are moreover ſo ſuper ſtitious and covetous, that when deceaſed Perſons have bequeathed them any Legacy, they light Candles before the Images of all the Saints, drawing near to them with the greateſt teſtimonies of reverence when they enter the Churches, but they turn their backs to the Holy Sacrament of the Euchariſt. I wondred to ſee them do thus, and being deſirous to inform my ſelf of the reaſon of this irreverence, ſhewing them how grievouſly they erred, in that they teſtifi'd a greater reſpect to the Saints who are the ſervants and friends of our Saviour than to himſelf, who is their Lord and Maſter. Theſe Papa's gave me no other anſwer but that there was no command which enjoyned this reſpect and adoration. This anſwer is Heretical as I ſhall hereafter manifeſt, for John Oecolampadus (that arch Heretick of our time the ring-leader of the Sacrament aries, aſſerted that our Saviour was not contain'd in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt) has likewiſe written and publickly taught that we ought in no wiſe to adore the Euchariſt with an Adoration of Latria, terming all them Idolaters that did ſo. Wherefore let Catholicks judge whether this does not well agree with the Opinion of the Greeks.

IT will be thought perhaps, this Author ſpeaks only of ſome particular p. 155Perſons and not of the Greek Church in general, but ſuch Perſons may be ſoon ſatisfi'd when they read what follows towards the end of his Relation, Behold moſt Holy Father, ſay's he, all the Hereſies of the Modern Greeks which I have laid open and confuted as well as I could. I ſay the Hereſies of the Greeks, not only of the Inhabitants of Corfou, but of all the Eaſtern Greeks, to the end the others may not magnifie themſelves, for they have all the ſame belief, the ſame will, and obſtinacy, to maintain every where the ſame things, And here I think is another good Witneſs, being likewiſe an Archbiſhop, and a Perſon that wanted neither Wit nor Learning, who dwelt among the Greeks. He affirms preciſely as well as the reſt, that the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament. He proceeds farther and lays this to their charge as a crime, and aggravates it by comparing it with the reſpect they ſhew the Images; he relates their Reaſons, there being no command enjoyning this Adoration. He condemns this Opinion as Heretical, and likens it unto that of the chief of Hereticks; he farther tells us, that this is not only the opinion of ſome particular Perſons, but of all the Eaſtern Greeks, and in ſhort he remarks the irreverences which are directly oppoſite to all kinds of Adoration. What can be more expreſſive, and what can Mr. Arnaud reply to this? Will he call again here to his aſſiſtance Allatius who diſputes againſt Caucus, and would have it believed that this Archbiſhop has falſely charged the Greeks. But beſides that it cannot be ſhewed by what intereſt Caucus ſhould be moved to form ſuch an accuſation contrary to the reſpect he owed the Pope, and that his teſtimony is found conformable to that of ſeveral others, it is certain that Allatius himſelf is of all men the moſt paſſionate and leaſt ſincere, frequently denying and affirming things according to his own Capricio, or rather Intereſt, and that which likewiſe is moſt conſiderable, is, that Allatius who meddles with other Articles dared not touch in particular on this, ſo that his ſilence is a confirmation of what I ſay.

THE Jeſuit that wrote the Relation touching St. Erinis, affirms almoſt Relation of the I ſle of St. Frinis cap. 12. pag. 142.the ſame thing as Caucus. A great abuſe, ſay's he, has crept in amongſt the Greeks. For when the Prieſt comes from the leſſer Altar to the Offertory, to paſs on to the great one, all the People there preſent adore the Bread which is not yet conſecrated, and ſhew a greater devotion during this action, than in or after the time of Conſecration; for in the time of the Conſecration they put out the Torches which they lighted for the Offertory. And in another place, We ſee Cap. 20.by what has been ſaid in the foregoing Chapters how greatly the Greeks are to blame for the little reſpect they yield to this adorable Sacrament, ſeeing that having conſecrated on Holy Thurſday a great quantity of Particles, they keep them all the year in a little wooden box incloſed in a bag, and hanged on a nail over the Altar, or behind an Image, without a light or any other mark of veneration. When they enter into the Church to ſay their Prayers, you may ſee 'em make a profound bow, before the Images of our Lord, or Virgin Mary, or ſome other Saint, but you will never ſee them proſtrate themſelves before this adorable Sacrament. We have often reprehended them for this fault, and ſome have promiſed to amend it, others are really ſenſible of the unſeemlineſs of this their carriage; but being loath to appear ſingular in their Devotions, they chooſe rather to follow the Cuſtoms of an ignorant People than to render themſelves up to reaſon. So great force has ill examples over weak minds. Some time ſince the Lady Margareta D'argenta, a Perſon both devout and eloquent, told me, that being in company with ſome Greeks, ſhe ſharply rebuked them upon this occaſion; you Greeks really ſhow your ſelves, ſaid ſhe, in matters of Religion, to be void of ſence, not knowing to whom you owe your reſpects, nor to whom to direct your p. 156Prayers. On one hand you acknowledge that Jeſus Chriſt who is God and Man, our Creator and Redeemer, is really in the Sacrament, with all the Treaſures of his Graces, and on the other, we can ſee you ſhow him not any reverence anſwerable to the reſpect of his Majeſty. I have been ſeveral times in your Churches, and having ſought the only object of my affection, and the God of my heart, I found, you keep him cloſe ſhut in a wooden box, hanging up in a little bag on a nail covered with duſt and cobwebs. A Saviour in a pitiful box, an Infinite Majeſty in the duſt, an Almighty God in a bag, hanged on a nail! He is not thus treated amongſt us, you may ſee him receive an other kind of uſage, ſhewing him far greater reſpect than this. Our Prieſts keep him in a ſilver Pyx, he reſts in a Tabernacle gilded without, and within covered with Sattin, and to ſhew that we believe he is the Light which light'neth our Underſtandings, and enflameth our Affections, we have Lamps always burning day and night before him. When we come into our Churches we ſet not our ſelves upon conſidering the ſeveral Pictures and other Ornaments, for our affections do immediately lead us to the place where we believe our Treaſure is. Whereas you keep your ſelves ſtanding like the Phariſees, and we fall on our knees with the Publican.

THAT which the Jeſuit makes this woman ſpeak concerning the Greeks believing the real Preſence, is forged by him without any grounds in the ſence wherein he takes it, that is to ſay, as a Subſtantial Preſence, for 'tis certain the Greeks do not thus underſtand it. But whatſoever he otherwiſe tells us is matter of fact which he has ſeen himſelf, and concerning the truth of which we have no reaſon to doubt. Now theſe Facts are ſuch, that we cannot but judge them inconſiſtent with the belief of adoring the Sacrament of the Euchariſt with ſuch a Supreme Adoration as is due to the Son of God alone.

THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambaſſadour, Mr. Haye's Voyages, part. 49.obſerves the ſame thing as the others concerning the linnen bag, and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar, wherein they put the conſecrated Particles. He ſays he thus ſaw it at Selivrée, and ſeveral other places. But becauſe this remark might offend his Readers, he has therefore attributed the cauſe thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks; but this is but a falſe colour, for the Greeks are not ſo poor, but that they may keep the Euchariſt in a more decent manner, did they believe it to be the proper Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt. The true reaſon of this Cuſtom, is, that they do not believe what the Latins do, (or as ſpeaks Caucus) they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins.

MR. Thevenot an exact and inquiſitive Traveller, gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages, part. 2 ch. 77.the manner, which the Patriarch of Alexandria uſes in celebrating the Sacrament; but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration, and he is even forced to ſay, that they do in truth behave themſelves with leſs reſpect at the Communion than the Latins.

MR. de Montconis deſcribes likewiſe very exactly the Divine Service, Montconis's Voyages, p. 228. &c.which he ſaw perform'd by a Greek Archbiſhop at Mount Sinai; and obſerves not any thing which ſhews they adored the Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud who has ſeen the uſe which might be made of the expreſs Teſtimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament, and p. 157ſeveral other Proofs which might be added, and which conclude the ſame thing, has betook himſelf to his uſual Artifices. Firſt of all he has avoided the handling of the queſtion touching the Adoration, as a means whereby to clear up that of Tranſubſtantiation, or the real Preſence. He on the contrary handles it only as a neceſſary conſequence of it, I would ſay, that inſtead of arguing thus, the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jeſus Chriſt; they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jeſus Chriſt in propriety of Subſtance, he reaſons on the contrary after this manner, the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence, therefore they adore the Sacrament. Now I ſay there is a great deal of deceit in this method, for although Tranſubſtantiation may be uſed, when 'tis agreed 'tis believed, as a means whereby to conclude, that thoſe who believe it adore it, yet who ſees not, that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of theſe to Mr Arnaud, it had been a more juſt and natural courſe to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Tranſubſtantiation? For Adoration is a thing which diſcovers it ſelf by outward acts, a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees, and conſequently is more ſenſible and apparent, and more eaſily known than an Article of Faith, concerning which we muſt conſult the Writings of the Learned, judge of Perſons, and weigh their expreſſions. It is certainly a great deal eaſier for us to know whether the Greeks give the ſame honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does, or one equivalent thereunto, than to know what their belief is touching the Subſtantial Converſion. We may be impoſed on by this laſt, for there may be forged atteſtations produced, and hunger ſtarv'd Greeks brought in as witneſſes, whom a ſmall penſion will byaſs either way; or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for thoſe of the Greeks. A Conſul zealous for his Religion may eaſily give or admit a change. The teſtimony of a falſe Greek may be alledged, as of that of a true one, and moreover 'tis no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Arguments. But it is not ſo eaſie a matter to make uſe of all theſe falſe colours in the point of the Adoration. In a word, it plainly appears that Mr. Arnaud's deſign was to ſend back this Article to his Treatiſe of Conſequences, to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs.

THE ſecond thing he does, ſeems to correct the firſt; for he pretends to eſtabliſh this Adoration by particular Proofs, which he calls groſs Proofs, to diſtinguiſh them from that other more fine and ſlender Proof, which he draws from the real Preſence. He immediately produces a paſſage of Cabaſilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9.theſe Terms, The faithful, deſirous to ſhew their Faith, in receiving the Communion do adore, bleſs, and praiſe Jeſus Chriſt as God, who is manifeſted in the Gifts. I anſwer, he ought faithfully to tranſlate this paſſage. Cabaſilas ſpeaks of the Gifts, and ſay's, That the Faithful adore, bleſs, and praiſe Jeſus Chriſt, who is underſtood in them, foreign. Now a man muſt be very Cap. 37.little converſant amongſt Greek Authors not to know, that when the queſtion is concerning the Symbols, foreign, or the foreign, ſignifies the Spiritual and Myſtical Object, repreſented by the outward Sign. Jeſus Chriſt then being repreſented by the Gifts, is adored according to Cabaſilas, and not the Gifts themſelves. Which is what I obſerv'd in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make uſe of this paſſage to conſider all that he has taken out of this Author to ſhew he believed the real Preſence. For, ſay's he, Cabaſilas aſſerts in his Book that our Saviour Chriſt is really preſent in the Sacrament, and ſhews us in this paſſage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317.in the Gifts. Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Euchariſt. I anſwer, p. 158that Cabaſilas neither teaches Tranſubſtantiation nor the real Preſence, as I ſhall make appear in its place, and had the Author of the Perpetuity alledged the paſſages cited by Mr. Arnaud, we ſhould not have been wanting to examine them, but the queſtion then in hand only concerning the Adoration. I could not without great injuſtice tire the Reader with a long Diſpute about the real Preſence, before I could alledge one formal paſſage touching the Subject I handled.

MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards, that Cabaſilas blames thoſe that adore before Lib. 10. cap. 9.the Conſecration the Gifts which are carri'd about, and that ſpeak to them as to our Saviour himſelf, and approves they ſhould give the ſame reſpect to the Euchariſt after its Conſecration. I anſwer, that the Greeks proſtrate themſelves before the Book of the Goſpels and ſpeak to it, as to our Saviour himſelf, and yet it cannot hence be concluded, they adore the Book it ſelf with an abſolute Adoration, as if the Book were in effect our Saviour himſelf. Cabaſilas likes they ſhould do the ſame thing in reſpect of the conſecrated Gifts, but does not approve they ſhould do it before their Conſecration, altho he already acknowledges them to be Types and Figures, becauſe he would have a difference made, they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Chriſt. But this is not to ſay they ought to give to the Gifts, either before or after their Conſecration, an honour which terminates it ſelf in them alone.

AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Theſſalonica, we have no other Ibid.aſſurance of the truth of theſe paſſages than the bare word of Allatius, that is to ſay, of a paſſionate man, ready to aſſert and maintain any thing right or wrong, for the intereſt of the Court of Rome. We ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak more of him hereafter, but in the mean time ſhall only ſay, that the words of Simeon be they what they will, do not conclude, we ought to yield the Gifts an abſolute honour, which terminates it ſelf in that Subſtance which the Prieſt carries on his head when he enters into the Church.

THE paſſage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted, as of Gabriel de Philadelphia Second part, pag. 257.was more ſpecious, but becauſe Cardinal Perron (from whom 'twas borrow'd) does not recite the Greek Text, and Arcudius who relates ſome clauſes thereof, deſcribes him as a Perſon void of all kinds of Learning, either in Divinity, Philoſophy, or Grammar, and that moreover the ſame Arcudius aſſures us, the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sacrament after its Conſecration, I therefore ſaid I would ſuſpend my Judgment till I could aſcertain my ſelf by reading the Book it ſelf.

MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticiſms, and willingly paſſes over the Anſwer to the 2. Treat. of Perp 2. part. cap. 8.matter, that he might faſten on the Perſon, imagines he has found here a lucky occaſion to triumph over me. But I am ſorry to find my ſelf oblig'd to diſturb his Enjoyments, which I would not do, could I well avoid it. I affirm then firſt, I had reaſon to ſuſpend my Judgment, becauſe that to judge aright of the ſence of an Author, it is not ſufficient that we ſee a paſſage tranſlated into French by Cardinal Perron. For beſides that, his Tranſlations are not always very exact, as ſeveral have obſerv'd no more than thoſe of the Office of the Bleſſed Sacrament (according to their Relations that have examin'd them,) 'tis probable this paſſage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand, by Perſons unknown to us, and for whoſe Fidelity he was not willing to anſwer. In effect foraſmuch as he has not inſerted the Greek in the Margent, p. 159as he has done in the moſt part of his other Quotations, may juſtly give us a ſhrewd ſuſpition of this. Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Tranſubſtantiation which Mr. Arnaud himſelf confeſſes is not an uſual expreſſion with the Greeks. There is likewiſe mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain, which is not the uſual Style of the Greeks. I have then wrong'd no body when I ſuſpended my Judgment, but have rather done what I and every man elſe ought to do in the like occaſion. I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this, altho he pretends I was; for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reaſon, there being ſeveral things which paſs there, in which he takes no part.

BUT, ſay's he, Arcudius Mr. Claude's great Author relates ſeveral paſſages Ibid.out of Gabriel which are as expreſſive as that now in queſtion. I anſwer, that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to ſuſpend my Judgment, becauſe that in it there are ſeveral Contradictions and manifeſt Abſurdities, as I ſhewed in my Anſwer to Father Noüet, which the Reader may conſult, if he deſires information touching this particular.

I confeſs, adds Mr. Arnaud, that having not the leaſt reaſon to doubt of the Ibid.Sentiment of this Author touching the paſſages produced by Arcudius, I have therefore avoided giving my ſelf the trouble to inquire after his Book. And I for my part profeſs I am not ſo eaſily ſatisfi'd, for I cannot thus take things upon truſt. What ſhall we ſay, every one has his way, Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing, but mine is not ſo haſty, and indeed I never had cauſe to repent of my ſlowneſs in this particular, reckoning it to be the beſt way to prevent miſtakes. Not that I would have him put himſelf to the trouble of ſeeking after this Book of Gabriel's, as he has proffer'd me to do, for our Diſpute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbiſhop, whofe Book, (if we will believe Arcudius) is a very extravagant one, and the Civilities of ſuch a Perſon as Mr. Arnaud is, may be expected in a weightier occaſion.

BUT as we muſt not ſuffer our ſelves to be prevailed on by his kindneſs, ſo neither muſt we ſuffer our ſelves to be run down by his Injuries. For he charges me with diſingenuouſly ſuppreſſing Arcudius his words, which would have diſcovered the true ſence of what I cited. He chages me with likewiſe impertinently deſigning to invalidate the Teſtimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius. I muſt then juſtifie my ſelf concerning theſe two particulars. The firſt of which will be ſoon diſpatched by conſidering, that having in the firſt Edition of my Books only ſet down in the Margent the particular places of thoſe Authors where are to be found the paſſages I made uſe of, I have in the laſt Edition inſerted theſe paſſages themſelves in full length, according as they are in the Original. Now that very place of Arcudius in queſtion, may be ſeen there ſet down at large, together, with the Clauſe which Mr. Arnaud ſay's I have ſuppreſſed. Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page, and he ſhall find theſe very words therein, Nam etiam poſtea in elevatione Sacratiſſimae Hoſtiae quamtumvis eam non aſpiciant, quamprimum tamen Sacerdos ea verba protulerit, foreign, ſancta ſanctis, ſtatim procumbunt & cultu Latriae adorant, which are the ſame words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon. This is then a groundleſs Accuſation, for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition, ſeeing he has mention'd it himſelf in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book, upon occaſion of the Council at Nice.

p. 160BUT, it will be demanded, perhaps why I did not inſert into the Body of my Diſcourſe theſe words of Arcudius which do ſo plainly manifeſt his meaning. I anſwer, that if I had argued on the ſence of Arcudius, I ſhould have been to blame in not alledging whatſoever might give light to this ſence. For when we would draw a true conſequence, we ought to eſtabliſh the Principle in a clear and perfect manner, to take away all occaſion of miſtakes. But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Perſon this Arcudius is, being a Greek latiniz'd Prieſt, brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks, extremely paſſionate for the Intereſts of the Roman Church, having wrote a Book particularly againſt the Proteſtants, to perſwade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins, as to what concerns the Sacraments in all eſſential Points. I cannot then otherwiſe alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himſelf concerning ſome Truths and Matters of Fact, which do now and then eſcape him, after the ſame manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron, and Bellarmin, and Mr. Arnaud himſelf, not as witneſſes that believe what I would conclude, but as Perſons who affirm things, from whence I conclude what they themſelves do not believe. And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Meſtrezat and Daillé, and ſundry others of our Authors. Now 'tis evident that when the Teſtimony of an Adverſary is alledged in this reſpect, a man is not obliged to ſet down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom, nor to relate all the words which may make it known, for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing, but to tire the Reader's patience and trifle away the time. It is ſufficient if what is alledged from them be true. Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjuſtly accuſed me, ſeeing I publiſhed this illuſtration in my Anſwer to Father Noüel, which altho well known to him; yet has it not ſtopt him in his carreer, concealing my Juſtification, neither more nor leſs than if I had ſaid nothing.

IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be ſufficient to conclude, that the Greeks adore not the Euchariſt, notwithſtanding whatſoever the ſame Arcudius has elſewhere aſſerted. Which is what I take upon me to maintain. He ſay's, that when the Prieſt conſecrates the Gifts, Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 21.in ſaying, this is my Body, this is my Blood, he then ſhews them little or no reſpect at all, he bows not his head, neither does he adore them, nor proſtrate himſelf before them, nor lights Candles, nor makes any Reverence. Mr. Arnaud anſwers, the queſtion concerns not the Adoration in it ſelf, but the time of the Adoration, Book 10. chap. 9.that we muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony, that the firſt is one and the ſame both with the Greeks and Latins, becauſe it chiefly conſiſts in acknowledging the Euchariſt to be the Body of Chriſt with an inward Submiſſion, which both one and the other do, as ſoon as the Conſecration is performed, that as to what concerns the ſecond, the Latins immediately perform it after the Conſecration, and the Greeks later, to wit, at the Elevation of the Hoſte, which is done a little before the Prieſt diſpoſes himſelf to communicate.

THAT we may examine this Anſwer, we muſt lay aſide this voluntary Adoration of which he ſpeaks, for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks, than his bare word, or at moſt the Proofs he ſuppoſes he has given of their Belief touching the real Preſence; but this is what's in queſtion, and we cannot yet ſuppoſe the ſolidity of his Proofs. To colour over this pretended diſtinction of a voluntary Adoration, and an Adoration of Rite, he ſhould ſhew us that the Greeks do give at leaſt at ſome time to the Euchariſt p. 161immediately after Conſecration this honour he calls voluntary, and that in their intention, this is a ſovereign honour. But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly conſiſts in acknowledging the Euchariſt to be the Body of Chriſt with an inward reverence, and to perſwade us the Greeks do this, is a plain abuſe, for what is this but a ſetting us upon penetrating into mens hearts, and gueſſing at their thoughts? Thoſe that have this inward reverence to the Euchariſt, do certainly ſhew it by ſome outward Sign, and the Greeks ſhewing none, Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he ſay's on any thing, unleſs it be upon ſome particular revelation he has had of this matter.

SACRANUS, Scarga, and Caucus, who lived amongſt the Greeks, were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence, for had they known any thing of it, they would not have been ſo poſitive in aſſerting the Greeks do ſhew no Reverence, Reſpect, or Adoration to the Euchariſt after its Conſecration; nor would they call them, as they have done, Heretical, and Prophane People. Even the Greeks themſelves who anſwer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration, knew nothing of this. This inward Reverence had its reſidence and operations in their Souls, and yet they knew nothing of it; for had they known it, they would never return ſuch an Anſwer. None but Mr. Arnaud knew this ſecret; but if he gives us not other Proofs, it is to be feared, his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits.

WE muſt come then to this Adoration of Rite, or Ceremony, which is uſed, as he ſay's, at the Elevation of the Hoſte, and ſee whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it ſelf. Now I cannot but admire theſe Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned. The Greek Liturgy has theſe words, That the Prieſt and Deacon adore three times, in ſaying thrice with a low voice, O God be propitious unto me a ſinner. The Author of the Perpetuity would have theſe three Adorations refer to the Sacrament, Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254.wherefore he ſay's, that the Prieſt adores, and the Deacon likewiſe three times in the place where they are, in ſaying thrice ſoftly, Lord be propitious to me a ſinner. My Anſwer was, that I found in Goar's Book of Rites and Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe part 2 c. 8.Ceremonies, not this Term of Lord, but that of God, which ſhews that this Adoration terminated it ſelf in God, and not in the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth, leaves out the Prieſt's Prayer which diſcovers his deceit, and contents himſelf with alledging theſe words of the Liturgy, then the Prieſt bows and the Deacon likewiſe, and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7.general do reverently bow. Leaving it to be believed that theſe Adorations do certainly terminate themſelves in the Euchariſt. But he ought to proceed ſincerely; it is true that then the Prieſt and Deacon do adore, but it is likewiſe as true that their Adoration addreſſes it ſelf to God in theſe expreſs Terms, foreign, O God be propitious to me a ſinner, from whence 'tis plainly apparent there can be no ſuch thing concludedas the Adoration of the Euchariſt.

AS to Arcudius's Teſtimony (who tells us, that the People proſtrate themſelves on the ground, as ſoon as they hear the Prieſt ſay, Sancta Sanctis, Holy Things are for Holy Perſons, and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria) we need not be much concerned thereat, being a Perſon prepoſſeſſed, and one who teſtifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant, Goar in not. in S. Joan, Chryſoſt. Miſſ. pag. 153.Arcudius, ſay's Goar, altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of the Greeks, being brought into Italy when he was but ten years of age. In effect what he ſay's p. 162concerning the Peoples proſtrating themſelves on the ground, as ſoon as they hear the Prieſt ſay, Sancta Sanctis is not true, for the Liturgy denotes this Adoration of the People before the Sancta Sanctis, at the ſame time as the Prieſt and Deacon adore, immediately after this Prayer, Look upon us O Lord Jeſus Chriſt our God, &c. But granting it were ſo that the People proſtrated themſelves in the time the Sancta Sanctis was ſaid, it would not thence follow that their Adoration terminated it ſelf in the Sacrament. They would worſhip God, as does the Deacon in the words I now mention'd, O God be propitious, &c. Or our Saviour in Heaven as they do in the Prayer, which I likewiſe now mention'd which precedes the Sancta Sanctis, Look down O Lord our God from the Holy Place of thy Dwelling. They proſtrate themſelves before the Images of the Saints, before the Book of the Goſpels, before the Bread when as yet unconſecrated, and yet no Body concludes hence, they adore theſe things with an abſolute Adoration. Why then will Arcudius have them to adore the Euchariſt with an Adoration terminating it ſelf in it?

BUT if Arcudius's Teſtimony be of no validity in reference to this laſt Article, wherefore muſt it be otherwiſe in reſpect of this other Article on which I ground my Concluſion? I anſwer, for two Reaſons, the one, for that being interreſſed as he is againſt us, it is not to be imagin'd he would ſpeak any thing in our favour, unleſs the thing were ſo well known and undeniably true, that he could not diſguiſe it; or paſs it over in ſilence; and th'other becauſe that in effect his Teſtimony in this reſpect, agrees with the Liturgy of the Greeks, which expreſſes no kind of Adoration directed to the Euchariſt immediately after its Conſecration. And there being no mention likewiſe of any ſuch thing afterwards to the end of the Office, the Concluſion I draw hence is undeniable. Had the Greeks the ſame Sentiments as the Latins, and made profeſſion of rendring the ſame Divine honours to the Subſtance of the Sacrament which are due only to the proper Perſon of the Son of God, what time could they chooſe better for the acquitting themſelves of this Duty than that in which he begins to be preſent on the Altar? When a Prince comes into a place, People are not wont to delay the ſhewing him the reſpect due to him, every one ſtands immediately uncovered in his Preſence, and thoſe Perſons that did otherwiſe would be eſteemed fooliſh and ſtupid. What likelyhood is there then, did the Greek Church believe, that immediately after the Conſecration, the Bread becomes the very Subſtance of the Body of our Lord, ſhe would defer any longer to acknowledge it to be ſo, by a Solemn Adoration? Mr. Arnaud muſt not tell us, that the Prieſt's mind is ſo taken up with the Idea of the Sacrifice, that it is all this while fixed in Heaven. Theſe are Reaſonings invented, expreſly to excuſe a thing which cannot be alter'd, but in truth, it is ſo natural, to Perſons that believe Tranſubſtantiation to ſhew immediately the Signs of Adoration to that Object they have before their eyes, that notwithſtanding all theſe fine Reaſons, thoſe who compiled the Liturgy of the Greeks would never have been wanting in this particular had they believed the aforemention'd Doctrine. So that this very conſideration of the Greeks not having ordain'd any ſolemn kind of Reverence or Worſhip to the Sacrament after its Conſecration is alone ſufficient to make us conclude what we contend for.

MR. Arnaud who indeed has no reaſon to reſt ſatisfi'd with his firſt Proofs, has recourſe to his Baron of Spartaris and Payſius Ligaridius, that is to ſay, to two falſe Greeks, brought up in the Faith of the Roman Church; p. 163and won to its intereſt, as will appear hereafter. I only wonder he is not aſham'd to bring for witneſſes ſuch kind of People as theſe are.

AS to Oderborne the Lutheran (who diſcourſing of the Ruſſians, tells us, That the Prieſt leaving the Altar to ſhew the People the Euchariſt, the People kneel down, and the Prieſt ſay's in the Moſcovit's Language, Loe here the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt whom the Jews put to death altho innocent,) it is eaſie to perceive he is deceived in taking for an Adoration of the Euchariſt, a Devotion which they practiſe before its Conſecration, when the Bread is carri'd, from the Protheſis to the great Altar. There can be rais'd no ſcruple concerning the truth of this, ſeeing we have the Teſtimony of all Authors who by unanimous conſent obſerve, that this Ceremony is performed before the Conſecration of the Symbols.

ALEXANDER. Gagnin, ſay's, That one of them carries the Bread Moſcovit. deſcript. cap. 2.which is prepared for the Sacrifice, and another the Cup full of Wine, that they iſſue out of the Sanctuary thro a little door with other Prieſts that carry the Images of St. Peter, St. Nicholas, and Michael the Archangel, whilſt in the mean time the …ople expreſs their Devotion by Acclamations and Acts of Worſhip, that ſome of 'em cry out, Lord have pity on us, others knock their foreheads againſt the Ground, and that others make often the Sign of the Croſs, and bow their heads, in fine that they render to the Symbols which are carri'd about ſundry marks of veneration and honour. That having went round the Church, they enter again thro the Gate which is in the middle of the Quire into the Sanctuary, and there make the Sacrifice. Sigiſmond Baron of Herberſtain, ſay's likewiſe, Comment. Vir Moſco.That before they conſecrate the Bread according to our manner, they walk with it about the Church, worſhip it, and adore it with a certain form of words they utter.

ARCUDIUS, who inveighs ſo earneſtly againſt this Cuſtom as an Idolatrous Arcud. lib. 3. cap. 19.practice, attributes it not only to the Greeks, but likewiſe to the Ruſſians, and ſay's, That they proſtrate themſelves and knock their heads againſt the Ground. M. Habert Biſhop of Vabres, ſay's, That in the Greek Churches Pontif. Eccl. Gr. obſcrvat. XI. ad partein. 7. litt.the People make a low bow, but in other Churches, as in thoſe at Ruſſia, they proſtrate themſelves on the ground after the ſame manner, as if our Saviour's real Body paſſed along. We have already obſerv'd that Sacranus and Scarga do expreſly refer this Devotion to the Bread when as yet unconſecrated as well as others, and moreover add, that the Ruſſians ſhew no reverence to the Sacrament after its Conſecration. And in effect we do not find they go twice round the Church, whence it follows that Oderborne was miſtaken, and ſuppoſed this reſpect was given the Bread after its Conſecration, for there being but one turn made round the Church, it cannot be denied but 'tis done before the Conſecration. What I ſay is ſo well known, that Allatius himſelf cenſures a Proteſtant named Jerom Viſcer, for ſaying, the Greeks carry the Body of our Saviour in Proceſſion twice about the Church; So far are Allatide Perp. Conſ. lib. 3. cap. 15.they, ſay's he, from carrying the Euchariſt twice about the Church, that on the contrary they carry it not at all, for that which they carry from the Protheſis, to the great Altar which they call the great Entry, is no more than Bread and Wine unconſecrated.

AND theſe are Mr. Arnaud's groſs Proofs, as he calls 'em, for I meddle not here with what he tells us concerning a Letter from Mr. Pompone. We ſhall examine that in the following Book. His fine Proofs (as he tetms them) are thoſe he draws from the real Preſence in ſuppoſing the Greeks hold it. p. 164For, ſay's he, whoſoever believes Jeſus Chriſt to be preſent in the Euchariſt, Book 10 chap. 9 pag. 76.ſpeaks to him as God, implores his aſſiſtance, beggs his pardon, excites himſelf by expreſſions of confidence in him, acknowledges his own unworthineſs, and all theſe actions being external are outward expreſſions of Adoration. So that to bring Proofs of the Adoration of the Euchariſt, there needs no more to be done, but only to produce all the Prayers contain'd in the Liturgies which are offer'd to our Saviour after the Conſecration. But it has been already obſerved that this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Illuſions, who is not willing to handle the Queſtion of the Adoration, as a means whereby to decide that of the ſubſtantial Converſion, but rather as a Conſequence thereof; ſo that all the force of his pretended Proofs conſiſting in ſuppoſing the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence, there needs no more to be done, for the overthrowing them, than to ſend him to the refutation of theſe Arguments, by which he pretends he has eſtabliſh'd his Principle; and even this very conſideration that he could not form his Proof without making this ſuppoſition, will only confirm what we maintain, viz. that the Greeks adore not the Sacrament, whence it follows they do not believe 'tis the proper Subſtance of the Son of God, for 'tis not likely a Church that holds this Opinion, would be wanting to give to the Sacrament thoſe outward expreſſions of reverence which would diſtinguiſh themſelves eaſily, from all other kinds of honour. The Church of Rome furniſhes us with an example of this, on which we need only caſt our eyes, for it clearly appears by her words and actions, that the honour ſhe gives the Euchariſt is a ſovereign and divine honour, ſuch as is due to God alone. Had the Greek Church deſign'd to ſhew it the ſame reſpect, what ſhould hinder it from doing as the Roman Church does? Would ſhe not at leaſt indeavour to imitate its example in ſeveral particulars? Why do they not carry it to the ſick with the ſame ſolemnity as thoſe of the Church of Rome? Wherefore, I ſay, does not the Greek Church enjoyn her Children to kneel as oft as they ſhall meet the Sacrament? Why does ſhe not openly expoſe it in publick rejoycings or afflictions? Wherefore does ſhe not carry it about in Proceſſion? Why not dedicate a particular Feſtival to it? Mr. Arnaud may tell us as long as he pleaſes, That there is no natural Book 10. chap. 9. pag. 78.coherence between theſe things and the Adoration, that the Inſtitution of theſe Ceremonies is pious and commendable, but no wiſe neceſſary, and that the Adoration may ſubſiſt without them, as it does in effect in all the Eaſt. When there were not a natural coherence between Adoration and each of theſe particular Cuſtoms, yet would it be (me thinks) contrary to nature that the Adoration ſhould ſubſiſt ſeperated from all theſe things in general; ſeeing theſe are in a manner almoſt the ſame external marks of Divine Worſhip, which People have ever rendred to ſome viſible Object. What likelihood is there if the Greeks had the ſame Sentiments as the Latins touching this Sacrament, but they would adopt ſome one of theſe Devotions which are ſo familiar to the Latins, eſpecially thoſe that approach the neareſt their uſual Cuſtoms, and which are moreover very proper to expreſs this ſovereign honour now in queſtion, as is that ſolemn Feaſt called God's Feſtival, with all its Pomp. But ſo far have they been from imitating the Church of Rome in this particular, that they have on the contrary ſhewed the greateſt averſion to it, as appears by the Confeſſion of Metrophanus Citropulus made at Helmstad in the year 1625. We carry not about the Streets, ſay's he, this Holy Myſtery, unleſs Conſeſſ. Eccleſ. Orient. cap. 9. de coena Dom.it be to the ſick, it being not given us to make a ſhow of it, but to be religiouſly received for the remiſſion of ſins according to the words of our Saviour. All Hiſtorians are agreed that the Ruſſians do not obſerve this Feſtival. Sigiſmond in his Commentaries touching Moſcovia and Gagnin, in his Deſcription p. 165of this ſame Country do expresſly take notice of it. But that which moſt conſiderable is, That when thoſe amongſt them, who were ſubject to the King of Poland were forc'd to reunite themſelves to the Roman Church, which hap'ned in the year 1595. under Pope Clement the Eighth they made this Contract. That they ſhould not be compelled to make any Proceſſion on the H…mber. ſum conir. t. 11. Tho. à Jeſu lib 6. p. 3. c. 1. Thom. … Jeſu. ibid.Feſtival of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they had other Customs amongſt them in reference to the Sacrament.

WHEREUPON a Learned man of the Roman Church being conſulted, gave this Anſwer, That as to the carrying or not carrying of the Sacrament about in Proceſſion, that was not to be much regarded, but there were ſeveral other things of greater importance touching the Sacrament to be conſidered.

THIS Perſon, although he ſpake not fully his mind, yet ſaid enough to make us underſtand him. For he means, (if I miſtake not) that did the matter concern only the Feſtival of the Sacrament it ſignified little, but that the unwillingneſs theſe People ſhewed to obſerve this Feaſt, did ſufficiently evidence they had not the ſame Sentiment in the main with the Latins touching the Euchariſt. And in effect wherefore ſhould they refuſe to obſerve this Feaſt, did they believe the Sacrament to be the proper Subſtance of the Son of God, and adored it with an Adoration of Latria? Were they afraid of giving it too much honour? Why not conform in this particular with the Roman Church, ſeeing they were reunited to her, and had left the Greeks? Is not this an evident token, that the Greeks cannot accommodate themſelves to the Adoration practis'd by the Latins, nor conſequently to the Doctrine they teach, and on which this Adoration is eſtabliſhed.

BUT when what I ſaid ſhould have no ground, and the Adoration might ſubſiſt without theſe Ceremonies, Mr. Arnaud ought at leaſt to ſhew us they ſubſtituted ſome others equivalent to them, which were to the Greeks the ſame as thoſe we ſpeak of are to the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this. He thinks it ſufficient, to tell me, I am fal'n into a condition void of reaſon and common ſence, that I make extravagant and ridiculous Concluſions, and that he is both aſhamed and ſorry for me, that he laughs at my Arguments, being ſuch little Sophiſtries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Perſon, and that my audaciouſneſs is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Euchariſt. Theſe are his uſual Civilities, which yet ſhall not make me change my humour. I hope he will be one day of a better mind, and to that end I ſhall deal with him, not only in a calm and gentle manner, as it becomes a man of my Profeſſion, but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him.

BUT before I finiſh this Chapter, I am obliged to tell him, he could not do his Cauſe a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Euchariſt, a paſſage taken from Stephen Stylite, who told the Emperour Copronymus, That the Chriſtians adore, and kiſs, the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. Either he has not examined this Paſſage, or his prejudice has hind'red him from obſerving what is as clear as the day, to wit, that Stephen attributes no more to the Euchariſt than an inferiour and relative Adoration, ſuch as is given to Images, the Croſs and conſecrated Veſſels, whoſe matter is not adored. And this appears throughout the whole ſequel of his Diſcourſe. The Emperor accuſed him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images. He anſwers that his Adoration p. 166related not to the matter of the Image, but to the Original which the Image repreſented. And to ſhew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry (altho addreſſed to a thing made with hands and ſenſeleſs) he alledges the example of the Croſs, holy Garments and Veſſels which are likewiſe adored, and in fine that of the Euchariſt. Loe here his words which juſtifie what I ſay. What crime do we commit when we repreſent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damaſcen. Biblii.ſhape of Jeſus Chriſt who has been ſeen, and whom we worſhip? Is this to adore a Creature, or do you think it may be truly ſaid that we adore the Matter, when we adore a Croſs be it made of what ſtuff it will? We adore the Holy Veſtments and Sacred Veſſels, without incurring any cenſure, for we are perſwaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things. Will you baniſh likewiſe from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood? We worſhip, and kiſs, them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification. Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him (if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation) or he has deceiv'd himſelf, or which is worſe he has deſign'd to deceive others, when he produc'd this paſſage; for 'tis certain, that hence ariſes a clear Demonſtration that the Greeks do not adore the Euchariſt with that ſupreme and abſolute Adoration now in queſtion, and which terminates it ſelf in that Subſtance we receive. There needs little ſtrength of reaſoning to make this Concluſion, and as little Meditation to comprehend it. We need only obſerve that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images, by the example of the Adoration of the Euchariſt, and ranks in the ſame order, the Adoration given to the Croſs, to the ſacred Veſtments, to the Veſſels of the Church, to Images, with that given to the Euchariſt. We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist, the Anti-Type, Image, and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Euchariſt in the rank of thoſe which terminate not themſelves in the Object which we have before us, but which refer to the Original they repreſent, wherein the Matter or that which is viſible is not adored; but where by means of a material Symbol, a man raiſes up his mind to the Object whoſe Symbol he beholds. In fine it needs only be obſerv'd, that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it ſelf in the Sacrament, never man was more impertinent than he, in endeavouring to excuſe a relative Adoration by an abſolute one, never man betrayed more his Cauſe, for beſides the Extravagancy of his reaſonings, for which he may be juſtly reproach'd, he may be likewiſe told, he falls into a new Hereſie, and horrible Impiety, making the Adoration of the Euchariſt to be like that of the Croſs and conſecrated Veſſels, or that of Images, whoſe viſible Subject or Matter men do not adore. Neither muſt Mr. Arnaud tell us he ſpeaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents, for Stephen expreſly ranks this Adoration in the number of thoſe amongſt which the viſible Matter is not worſhipped, and conſequently, means there is in the Euchariſt a Subſtance which is not adored. He ſay's, they worſhip theſe Anti-Types and kiſs them. Now in the intention of the Communicants theſe acts of Adoration and kiſſing are not barely directed to the Accidents, but to the whole Subject called the Euchariſt. He ſay's, in ſhort, that in partaking of theſe Anti-Types, we obtain Sanctification, which appertains to the whole Euchariſt, and not the bare Accidents.

DAMASCENE who lived much about the ſame time as Stephen, and ſtifly maintain'd the ſame Cauſe, thus argues. I worſhip not, ſay's he, the p. 167Orat. 1. d. Imag.Matter, but the Author of the Matter, who has himſelf become Matter for my ſake, and exiſts in it, to the end he may give me Salvation by it, and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me, I will ever worſhip it, not as the Divinity, God forbid, for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing, altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Perſon, for the Body is made without Converſion that which it hath been anointed, and remains what it was by Nature, to wit, Living Fleſh, indued with a reaſonable Soul and Underſtanding, which has had a beginning, and bin created: AS TO THE OTHER MATTER, by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us, I honour and worſhip it, as being full of the Divine Grace. The bleſſed wood of the Croſs, is it not Matter? The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary, is it not Matter? The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jeſus Chriſt, and which was the Spring of our Reſurrection, was it not Matter? Thoſe black letters wherewith the Holy Goſpels were written, are they not Matter? This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life, is it not Matter? In fine the Body and Blood of our Lord, are they not Matter? You muſt either then overthrow the Veneration and Worſhip of all theſe things, or grant the Adoration of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints. It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Chriſt, he means the Euchariſt, and diſtinguiſhes it from the Natural Body, for ſpeaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter, he adds, As to the other Matter, &c. which ſhews he paſſes over to another kind of material things diſtinct from the Body hypoſtatically united to the Divinity. It is likewiſe apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the ſame order and degree with the wood of the Croſs, Mount Calvary, the Holy Sepulchre, the Letters of the Goſpel, and the Communion Table, and attributes no more to all theſe things than one and the ſame Adoration, an Adoration proportionable to that of Images.

WHEN he has occaſion to diſcourſe on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body, he expreſſes himſelf after a different manner. I adore, ſay's he, one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, I give to him alone the Ibid.worſhip of Latria, I worſhip one God, one Divinity, but I adore likewiſe the Trinity of Perſons, God the Father, God the Son clothed with Humane Fleſh, and God the Holy Ghost, which yet are no more than one God. I worſhip not the Creature beſides the Creator, but I adore the Creator who hath made me, and who without the loſs of his Dignity or ſuffering any Diviſion has deſcended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature. I do alſo together with my God and King adore th'encloſure of his Body, if a man may ſo expreſs himſelf, tho not as a Veſtment, or fourth Perſon, God forbid, but as having been declared God and made without Converſion, that which it hath been anointed. Here the Humanity is adored in Perſon, with an Adoration of Latria, whereas the Myſtical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration after the ſame manner as the Croſs, the Holy Sepulchre and Images. If you ſay, ſay's he, in another place a little farther, that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Underſtanding, aboliſh then all corporeal things, Tapers, Incenſe, Prayers uttered with an articulate voice; nay, even th… Divine Mysteries which conſiſt of Matter, to wit, the Bread and Wine, the Oyl of Unction, the Sign of the Croſs, the Reed, and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life iſſue out from thence. Either the veneration of all theſe things muſt be aboliſhed, which cannot be done, or not reject the Worſhip of Images; What he called a little above, the Body and Blood, he here calls Bread and Wine, but whether he deſigns them under the name of Body and Blood, or whether he calls them Bread and Wine, he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration p. 168unto that which he pretends ought to be given, Images and other material things he mentions, that is to ſay a relative Adoration.

WE find in Photius a Paſſage like unto thoſe of Stephen, and Damaſcene, in which he juſtifies after the ſame manner, the relative Adoration given to Images, by the example of that which is given to the Myſteries. He compares theſe two Worſhips together, and makes them of the ſame order and quality. When we adore, ſay's he, the Image of Jeſus Chriſt, the Croſs, and the Pho. de Synod.Sign of the Croſs, we do not pretend to terminate our Worſhip or Adoration in theſe things, but direct it to him, who by the unſpeakable Riches of his Love became man and ſuffered a ſhameful death for us. And thus do we adore the Temples, Sepulchers, and Relicks of Saints, from whence do proceed thoſe miraculous cures, praiſing and glorifying God who has given them this Power, and if there be any ſuch like thing in our myſtical and holy Sacraments, we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and firſt Cauſe of it, for the Gift and Grace which he has beſtowed on us by their means.

AND this is what I had to ſay on this Point; I leave now the Reader to judge, whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament according to the manner of the Latins, be the effect of an unparallel'd raſhneſs, as ſpeaks Mr. Arnaud, or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Conſideration more juſt and diſintereſſed than that of his. I ground my negative on the expreſs Teſtimonies of Sacranus, John de Lasko, Peter Scarga, Anthony Caucus, Francis Richard, all Roman Catholicks and Eccleſiaſticks, who lived in thoſe Places and are conſequently unreproachable Witneſſes in this particular, who all of 'em expreſly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament after Conſecration, and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this reſpect with the name of Hereticks. I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office, without obſerving this eſſential particular, but likewiſe from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refuſal to practiſe the chief Ceremonies the Latins uſe to expreſs their Adoration, without ſubſtituting others equivalent to them. I farther confirm it by expreſs Paſſages taken out of other Greek Fathers, who only attribute to the Euchariſt a relative Adoration, like unto that given to Images, Temples, Croſſes, and Relicks of Saints. And yet Mr. Arnaud, tells me, that he is both aſhamed and ſorry for me, and that my negative is the effect of a raſhneſs beyond example, and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations, which no body ever ſaw but himſelf, that is to ſay, on Chimera's with which the neceſſity of maintaining his Th…ſis, right or wrong, has furniſh'd him. Yet how greatly ſoever mens minds may be prejudic'd, I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind.

I hope at leaſt they will not ſay I have been raſh in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins. For were there any raſhneſs in this aſſertion they muſt blame theſe Canons, Archbiſhops and Jeſuits and not me, who only denied it after them. I hope likewiſe the Proof I have made touching theſe ſame Greeks not believing Tranſubſtantiation will not be eſteemed inconſiderable, my Conſequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle. Not only, ſay's he, the Doctrine of the real Preſence is neceſſarily Book 10. chap. 9.annexed to the internal Adoration, but alſo to ſome act of external reſpect. For altho they may be ſeparated by metaphyſical Suppoſitions or extravagant Errors, p. 169ſuch as thoſe of ſome Hereticks in theſe latter days, yet is it impoſſible to ſeparate them by the real Suppoſitions of Perſons endued with common ſence.