The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
Mr. Arnaud's Firſt Proof, taken from Cerularius his Silence, examined. The reſt of his Illuſions diſcovered.
AFter what I have eſtabliſhed in the two former Books, it will be no difficult matter, to anſwer, Mr. Arnaud's Objections, and ſhew as I promiſed, that all his endeavours to demonſtrate the Greek Church ever believed Tranſubſtantiation are ineffectual, and that the greateſt part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends. And this ſhall be the ſubject of this Book. Which I ſhall divide into two Parts; in the firſt, I ſhall examine what Mr. Arnaud has alledged, to prove his ſuppoſition ſince the Eleventh Century to this preſent; and in the ſecond, conſider what he has alledged for the ſame purpoſe from the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Centuries.
IN the firſt Part of this Book, I ſhall handle four principal Heads, under which I ſhall exactly gather whatſoever Mr. Arnaud has diſperſed in his Second, Third, and Fourth Books, and part of his Twelfth Book, wherein he has treated on ſome Particulars, reſpecting this Queſtion.
OUR firſt Remark ſhall be touching ſome of Mr. Arnaud's Deluſions, beſides thoſe we already diſcovered, in the former Books. It is certain we may juſtly ſo term all the Parts of his Work, but more eſpecially, what he has written touching the Greeks; for 'tis all deluſory. But at preſent we mean to apply this Term to certain things only, wherein his Artifice plainly appears, and which are wholly inconſiſtent with that ſincerity, wherewith Controverſies ought to be managed.
THE ſecond Head contains the Teſtimonies of ſome Proteſtants, whom Mr. Arnaud has alledged; which ſeem in effect to attribute to the Greeks the Belief of Tranſubſtantiation.
THE Third, ſhall contain the Negative Arguments, drawn from the Silence of both Greeks, and Latins; that is to ſay, they never diſputed one againſt another, on this Article, of the Converſion of Subſtances in the Euchariſt.
IN the Fourth, we ſhall explain, all the Paſſages Mr. Arnaud has taken out of Greek Authors, and from which he would infer by dint of Argument, that the Greeks hold this Converſion of Subſtances.
TO begin at his Deluſions, the Firſt, or to ſpeak better, the Twelfth, (after thoſe we already diſcovered) conſiſts, in that he would have us upon the account of his own bare word, without any Proof, ſuppoſe, that when Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Leo Archbiſhop of Acrida, wrote their Letter againſt the Church of Rome, Leo the Ninth, the then preſent Pope had already condemned Berengarius; and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of this cenſure. But 'twill not be amiſs to hear him ſpeak himſelf, To ſhew, ſay's he, the conſent of the Greek Church with the Roman, Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 139.in the Subject of the Euchariſt; we have made uſe (in the refutation of Mr. Claude's Anſwer) of the conteſt which aroſe in the year 1053. between Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Leo Archbiſhop of Acrida on one hand, and Pope Leo the Ninth, and the whole Latine Church on the other. For theſe Perſons altho ſuch paſſionate adverſaries againſt the Weſtern Church, upon the account of the Azymes, yet never reproached her as erring in the Myſtery of the Euchariſt; altho they wrote againſt the Latins, AT THE SAME TIME, AND AFTER, Pope Leo had cenſured Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verſeil; whence we conclude they were agreed with the Latin Church in the Doctrine of the real Preſence, which ſhe ſo loudly aſſerted at that time. This is Mr. Arnaud's firſt Proof, which he has ſet forth to the life, in the beſt colours wherewith his Eloquence could furniſh him; having turned it ſeveral wayes by his uſual dexterary, in amplifying, and exaggerating the Subjects he handles.
IT is certain that to make this Argument valid, he muſt clearly eſtabliſh before all things, that, Berengarius his Condemnation preceded Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida's Letter, and preceded it to, a very conſiderable time; to ſhew that theſe Prelates were well informed of it, and had reaſon to mention it in their Letter; for without this, we can conclude nothing from their Silence. Yet Mr. Arnaud has not troubled himſelf with the clearing up this matter of Fact; contenting himſelf in ſaying only, that Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida wrote againſt the Latins at the ſame time, and a little after Pope Leo condemned Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy. A man would then think, this was a Point out of doubt, and at which Mr. Arnaud has no need to ſtop a moment, having judged it evident (beyond contradiction) in his Chronology. But he will be much ſtartled to find, there is nothing more uncertain, than his ſuppoſition; and moreover, that there is nothing more unlikely than what he ſay's.
TO be aſcertained in this Matter, we muſt know, that Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida's Letter was written in the Year, 1053. as Mr. Arnaud and all the World grants. We muſt moreover know, that although Baronius, and Binius attribute the two Condemnations of Berengarius, to the Year, 1050. 3 Years before Cerularius his Letter was written, yet there are Authors that are better informed in this Matter than Baronius, and Binius; who refer theſe two Condemnations to the Year 1053. being exactly the ſame Year wherein the Letter was written. And theſe are ſuch Authors, whoſe Teſtimony will go far with Mr. Arnaud. Being thoſe that publiſhed the Office of the B. Sacrament, that is to ſay, this ſame Office, to which, the firſt Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, in its primary Deſign, was to ſerve as a Preface; as a Preface; as we have been already twice informed. Obſerve here, what they ſay, Neither Malmesbury, nor Baronius, have exactly obſerved all the Office of the B. Sacrament, Hiſt. and Chron. 11. Cent.Councils, which were called touching this Hereſie of Berengarius. The firſt of them, was held at Rome, by Pope Leo the Ninth; the ſecond at Verſeil, in the Month of September, in the ſame Year, under the ſame Pope. We cannot doubt, (after the Teſtimony of Lanfranc) in his Book againſt Berengarius, but that theſe two Councils were held both in the ſame Year. But ſome, (as Baronius and Binius) will have this Year to be 1050. others the Year, 1053. Firſt, becauſe Sigibert ſay's, that Pope Leo held two Councils, in 1050. but he immediately obſerves likewiſe this was only to reform the abuſes of the Eccleſiaſticks; and ſpeaks not of the Troubles raiſed by Berengarius his Hereſie, but only as hapning in the Year, 1051. Secondly, becauſe Durand Abbot of Trorand in Normandy, who lived about that time, refers the Council of Verſeil, to the Year 1053. only. And there is no reaſon to pretend, as a Learned Lawyer of Angers does, that there is a miſtake, in this Paſſage of Durand; and that we muſt read 1050. ſeeing that according to the judicious Obſervation of Mr. de St. Beuve, the King's Profeſſor at Sorbornne; in a Manuſcript on this Matter, the ſame Durand teſtifies, that in the Year he ſpeaks of, Alfred was Abbot of the Abby of Preaux in Normandy, which was not founded till the Year 1053. according to Du Bec's Chronicle.
HERE then we have upon good Grounds, and undeniable Authority, the two Condemnations of Berengarius, referred to the ſame Year, in which Cerularius, and Leo of Acrida wrote their Letter. It remains only to know, whether Mr. Arnaud may ſuppoſe without Proof, that the Letter was written after Berengarius his Condemnation; and whether 'tis not a plain Deluſion, thus ſlightly to paſs over a Point of this importance, on which depends the greateſt part of his reaſoning. For, if this Letter was written, before the time wherein Berenger was firſt condemned; what can be then concluded from Cerularius, and Leo de Acrida's Silence? Wherefore muſt they ground an Accuſation, againſt the Church of Rome, on a Condemnation which was not then in being. Now this is a matter of Fact, which I affirm to be very uncertain; and which Mr. Arnaud muſt demonſtrate, and not ſuppoſe, without Proof. They wrote, ſay's he, againſt the Latins, at the ſame time, and a little after, Pope Leo had condemned Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verſeil. There being but one Letter, from both Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida; we muſt conceive, 'twas written to the Council at Rome, after Berengarius his firſt Condemnation, and near the time they were about calling th'other Council at Verſeil. Now this has no likelihood, for as Baronius has well Baron ann. Eccleſ. ad ann. 1053.obſerved, Leo anſwered this Letter in the ſame Year, namely, 1053. whence it follows, if we reckon right, we ſhall find, that Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida could not have written their Letter, but in the beginning of the Year, at fartheſt, and conſequently before there was any mention at Rome of Berengarius his Condemnation; and eſpecially before the news thereof came to Conſtantinople. In effect it muſt not be imagined, that this Patriarch, and Archbiſhop, indited their Letter without mature and deliberate advice, and conſideration, nor that they ſent it without communicating the Contents of it to ſome of their Clergy, to bring them to take part with them, and engage 'em in their Intereſts; ſeeing the matter concerned the cenſuring of a Church, ſuch as that of the Latins, and which, they were ſure would highly reſent it; Affairs of this importance are not wont to be precipitated. It required alſo ſome time, before this Letter could come from Constantinople, to Tranys in the Kingdom of Naples. John Biſhop of Tranys, to whom 'twas directed, muſt likewiſe have ſome time, to ſend it to Cardinal Humbert, and he, muſt get it tranſlated out of Greek into Latin. Humbert muſt go to Rome, for he carried it himſelf to Pope Leo, after he received it from the Biſhop of Tranys. In fine, Leo muſt examine it, and anſwer it; For all which Mr. Arnaud allows but three Months. Cerularius, ſay's he, and Leo of Acrida, wrote againſt the Latins, Baron. ad ann. 1053.and at the ſame time, and not long after again, Pope Leo condemned Berengarius, in two Councils of Italy, the one held at Rome, th'other at Verſeil. This not long after, can only relate to the Council at Rome, which was the firſt, and conſequently this, at the ſame time, muſt relate to the Council of Verſeil, which being not called till September, as appears by Lanfranc, who poſitively affirmeth it; and the Pope having wrote his Anſwer at fartheſt in December, infr. de. corp. ſang. Dom.it muſt needs be, (if we believe what Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes) that is to ſay, if the Letter was written in the Month of September, that all that which I come now from obſerving, was tranſacted in three Months time. And thus does Mr. Arnaud haſten the time, that it may anſwer his neceſſities.
TO this Deluſion, we may add another, which will be the Thirteenth. It conſiſts in ſuppoſing, without Proof, that Leo the Ninth in condemning Berengarius, preciſely eſtabliſhed Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence. For if we take not this Fact for a certain Principle, there can be no Pretence for demanding, wherefore Cerularius reproached not the Church of Rome, about her erring in the Doctrine of the Euchariſt.
YET is there nothing more uncertain, for, there are none of the Decrees of this Council extant, and I think not one Author that relates the proper Terms of theſe Condemnations. They tell us, that Berengarius was condemned, that John Scot's Book was burnt, but this is not ſufficient to conclude, that Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence were eſtabliſhed, in Terms which might offend Cerularius, and the Greeks, and give them occaſion to form an Accuſation againſt the Roman Church. Sober men are not wont to accuſe People upon confuſed Reports, and equivocal Terms. And it will be to no purpoſe to ſay, we muſt not doubt, but that Leo's intention was, to aſſert the ſubſtantial Converſion, againſt Berengarius; ſeeing Lanfranc aſſures us, that he himſelf having declared in full Council his Belief touching the Euchariſt, in oppoſition to that of Berengarius, it was approved, and the other rejected as erroneous. For he that ſtates an Opinion contradictory to that of Berengarius, does not neceſſarily aſſert Tranſubſtantiation, there being ſeveral other ways and means of oppoſition. It concerns us not here to inform our ſelves from Lanfranc, what was the ſence of the Synod, but whether what came to Cerularius his knowledge concerning that matter was ſufficient to make him ſay, thoſe People eſtabliſhed a real Converſion of Subſtances. Now to imagine, as Mr. Arnaud does, that a Patriarch which is at Conſtantinople, can make ſuch a Judgment with Diſcretion, it will not be ſufficient to inform him of the intention and ſecret deſign of the Latins (altho even this is not to be ſuppoſed without Proof) but he muſt have before him the diſtinct and expreſs Terms relating to this Affair, and this Mr. Arnaud cannot prove, ſeeing there is no ſuch matter extant.
HE will ſay without doubt, that this is a very ſtrange thing (for whatſoever falls not under his ſence is ſtrange) to affirm that a Pope and Council that intended to eſtabliſh Tranſubſtantiation in condemning Berengarius, yet have not done it in intelligible Terms. Neither will he forget to cenſure me here a little (as he is wont at every pinch) ſaying, I conſider the matters I write in a ſuperficial view only, not penetrating into the bottom of things, and that occaſions my falling into ſuch idle fancies; that I multiply my may-be-ſo's; and am one of the boldeſt and fruitfulleſt men in the World, in Hypotheſiſes and Syſtems. To which I have nothing to anſwer, but that in the Year, 1059. Baron. ad ann. 1059.ſix years after the Synods held by Pope Leo, Nicholas the Second, condemned likewiſe Berengarius, in another Synod held at Rome, and made him ſign a Formulary of Abjuration, and that according to Lanfranc, they earneſtly deſired Lanfr. de corp. & ſang. Dum. lib. 2. cap. 5.to eſtabliſh the real Converſion of Subſtances in this Formulary; that Cardinal Humbert, who drew it up, did firmly believe this Doctrine, as Mr. Arnaud proteſts for him, and yet for all this, it was aſſerted only in ambiguous Terms, which might be expounded in a ſence that does not at all contradict the Doctrine of the Greeks; ſeeing Berengarius himſelf turned them to his own advantage. And in effect, the Formulary bears, That the Bread and Wine are after Lanfr. de corp. & ſang.Conſecration, not only the Sacrament, but likewiſe the real Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; and are ſenſibly touched and broken by the Prieſt's hands, and chewed with the teeth of the Faithful; not only ſacramentally, but really and in truth. It cannot be denied, but theſe words need a Commentary to make them ſignifie Tranſubſtantiation; ſeeing the natural ſence of them is, that thoſe very things which are Bread and Wine, are alſo the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt; which is the Opinion of the Greeks, as I already ſhewed in theforegoing Chapter. How comes it to paſs, that what was done under Nicholas, was not done likewiſe under Leo, who preceded him; and wherefore were the Terms of Leo more expreſſive and determinative than thoſe of the Pope that came after him? Is it the Cuſtom in the Court of Rome to recede from, and diminiſh Doctrines? But howſoever, if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius his Silence, he muſt ſhew us, that Leo decided the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation in ſuch Terms, that the Patriarch of Conſtantinople could not, when he ſaw them, expound them in another ſence. But to ſuppoſe this without proving it, is a mere Illuſion.
SO far is Mr. Arnaud from ſhewing us that this formal deciſion was carried to Cerularius, that he does not ſo much as undertake to inform us whether the Decrees of theſe Synods at Rome and Verſeil (be they what they will) came to the hands of this Patriarch. He contents himſelf with ſaying, That it had been already eighteen years ſince Berengarius his Hereſie, became Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 141.famous in the World; that Dedowin the Biſhop of Liege, and Adelman Biſhop of Breſſe teſtifie, that the report of it o'reſpread all Germany; and that there is no likelihood, but the Latins at Conſtantinople, and the Greeks in Italy were informed of it, and that a Patriarch ſhould be ignorant of ſo famous an occurrence.
FIRST, he has forgot what his Friends obſerved in their Office, that Sigibert ſpeaks not of the troubles Berengarius his Hereſie raiſed, till 1051. which is to ſay, that his eighteen years muſt be reduced to two, even by his own Friends conſent. And as to what he ſay's of Deadwin, 'tis true, his Letter produced by Baronius under the name of Durand, has theſe Words, That there was a common report throughout all Germany, that Bruno Biſhop of Angers and Berengarius renewed the Ancient Hereſies, in teaching that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, was not ſo much a Body as a Shadow and a Figure; and that they annulled the Sacrament of Marriage, and that of Baptiſm of Infants. And this was it according to this good Biſhop, which diſturbed all Germany. As to Adelman he expreſſes himſelf more to the purpoſe, for he ſay's, the report was, that Berengarius deviated from the Catholick Faith, touching the Body Baron ibid.and Blood of our Lord; and to uſe the words of thoſe that accuſed him, they ſaid, he taught the Sacrament was not the real Body and Blood, but a Figure or reſemblance of them. Does Mr. Arnaud believe, that theſe Reports, when they ſhould come even to Cerularius his ears, were capable of making him take the Field in favour of Berengarius? On one hand they repreſented his Doctrine in Terms very different from the uſual expreſſions of the Greeks; which aſſert the Bread to be the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and not a Figure, and on the other hand he had things laid to his charge, which were mere Falſities and Calumnies. Why will he needs have a Patriarch that was always at Conſtantinople, and held little or no communication with the Latins; to know better what Berengarius did in France, than Dedowin Biſhop of Liége; or Adelman, who had been Berengarius his School fellow, and who by this long acquaintance might have ſome intereſt in his Affairs? Why muſt it needs be that during theſe pretended eighteen years, Cerularius has been better informed by his Spyes or Inquiſitors, than the Pope by his? For it does not appear that the Court of Rome concerned themſelves at the matter till 1053. which is as we obſerved the ſame year in which Cerularius wrote his Letter. Nay 'tis probable they had not ſo ſoon taken notice of it, had not an Eccleſiaſtick of Rheims brought along with him to Rome ſome Letters which Berengarius wrote to Lanfranc. If the Popes remained ſilent eighteen years, notwithſtanding this great diſturbance in the Weſt, I ſee no reaſon why a Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſhould be any more concerned. I could wiſh Mr. Arnaud would tell us, why ſince the year 1053. (to which Baronius refers the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman) Bennet the Ninth; Gregory the Sixth; Clement the Second; Damaſus the Second, have taken no notice of ſo conſiderable a matter; and why Leo the Ninth concerned not himſelf in it, till the fifth year of his Popedom. All Italy was full of French and Dutch, France and Germany of Italians, and yet no body all this while could think of waking theſe ſleepy Popes; and cautioning them againſt this damnable Hereſie; which overthrew the Faith of the whole Earth. Let him tell us, why the Patriarchs, that preceded Cerularius, or Cerularius himſelf reproached them not with this ſcandalous neglect: For if on one hand they believed Tranſubſtantiation, as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes; and on the other, that there was nothing elſe almoſt talkt of in the Weſt, and being ſo probable, that the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople were informed of ſo famous an occurrence, how came they to be ſo mute in ſuch an important Affair, and prodigious neglect of the Popes? Of this he muſt give us an account, before he can require a reaſon of us, for Cerularius his ſilence. But to ſpeak plainly, Mr. Arnaud deviſes matters in his Cloſet, and having clothed them with all the rhetorical colours, wherewith the power of his invention can furniſh him, he delivers them to us as the exact Rules of humane Actions; without conſidering, that what he offers agrees no better with his own Hypotheſis than ours. But be it as it will, he makes it not appear, that the Acts of the Synods at Rome and Verſeil came to Cerularius his hands, that he might make a right Judgment of them; and this is one of his illuſions, for how can he expect we ſhould ſatisfie him touching the Conduct of this Patriarch, if he does not before-hand ſhew us, that Cerularius had all neceſſary information, to make a right Judgment concerning Berengarius his Affair.
I anſwered the Author of the Perpetuity; That 'tis poſſible, Cerularius Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe of the Perpet. part. 3. chap. 8.knew nothing of what paſſed in France under Leo the Ninth, touching Berengarius; or if he did, the account given him might be very confuſed and imperfect. And that 'tis likewiſe poſſible, matters might be miſrepreſented to him; and Berengarius charged with that which was not his Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud to avoid the force of this Anſwer, turns it into ridicule. Mr. Claude, ſay's he, muſt make the beſt advantage he can of his may-be-ſo's. He thinks he has ſufficiently acquitted himſelf by theſe three may-be ſo's, &c.. I am not troubled at Mr. Arnaud's diverting himſelf; but I am not willing the truth ſhould ſuffer prejudice thereby. Had he been willing to examine ſeriouſly my Anſwer, he could not but find I meant, that the Argument drawn from Cerularius his Silence, could not be concluſive, till theſe three things are ſhewed us; Firſt, That he knew what paſſed in France; Secondly, That he had a more certain and diſtinct knowledge thereof, than a meer flying report could furniſh him with; And Thirdly, That Berengarius his Doctrine was truly repreſented to him. In effect, if either of theſe three things be wanting, the Argument drawn from Cerularius his Silence is invalid. There was no great reaſon than for charging my Anſwer with Drollery, and affirming my Hypotheſiſes to be fantaſtical, and that I uſe too often my priviledge of ſuppoſing. For thus does he ſhrowd the abſurdity of his Anſwers under two or three lines of pitiful raillery. The matter concerns not my Suppoſitions; but thoſe of the Author of the Perpetuity. For this Author's Argument is grounded on theſe three Suppoſitions, already mentioned; not one of which he either does, or can prove: 'Tis he then and Mr. Arnaud that argue on groundleſs imaginations. Whence have they this priviledge of eſtabliſhing their Arguments on uncertain matters of fact, or what can hinder me from calling their unproved Suppoſitions meer may-be-ſo's? I have not uſed this expreſſion, but ſeeing Mr. Arnaud imputes it to me, I ſee no ill conveniency in adopting it; may be then Cerularius knew nothing of what paſt in Berengarius his Affair; may be he had only a general and confuſed account of it; it may be Berengarius his Doctrine was miſrepreſented to him. When Mr. Arnaud ſhall put theſe three may be's out of doubt, he ſhall ſee what anſwer we will make him, but till then I ſhall have reaſon to ſay, that his Proof is grounded on chimerical Suppoſitions.
BUT, ſay's he, the Queſtion being once opened, there could be no miſtake about it. For every one knew the Catholicks held the real Body of Chriſt, was preſent in the Euchariſt; and that Berenger denied this. Firſt, the Queſtion was ſo little known, that it came not to the ears of four following Popes, or at leaſt they pretended not to have heard of it. Moreover, granting it to be as publickly known as he pretends it was, yet People might be as well deceived in Italy and Conſtantinople, as at Liége; where Dedowin was groſly miſtaken. In the third place, who told him, 'twas then held, that Chriſt's real Body was preſent in the Euchariſt, and not rather that the Bread of the Euchariſt was Chriſt's real Body? This was the Language of Nicholas, and his Biſhops ſix years after; why was it not likewiſe that of Leo and his Church. 'Tis not likely Mr. Arnaud ſhould know better the Style of thoſe times, than the Roman Church her ſelf, aſſembled in full Council, in the year 1059. Every one, ſay's he, know. It ſeems to hear him thus ſpeak, as if this particular had been proclaimed in every corner of the Streets, and was the common matter of Entertainment; all other buſineſs over the whole World being ſuſpended and laid aſide; and only that of Berengarius his conteſt attended to. Mr. Arnaud falls into the ſame humour, as thoſe that have Quarrels or Law-Suits; for they thinking of nothing elſe both Day and Night; it ſeems to them, that others are concerned in like manner as they. His mind at preſent is ſo taken up with the Thoughts of Tranſubſtantiation, the real Preſence, and Berengarius his Controverſie; that he imagines both Eaſt and Weſt were in the ſame manner affected with it then, and that the Ecchoes of it were heard throughout the whole World. But this is a meer fancy. There is in the World almoſt an infinite number of little Worlds (if I may ſo ſay) which divide and multiply themſelves according to the number and difference of Profeſſions and Intereſts. Every Affair makes a noiſe in its Circle; yet there are ſcarcely any but Hiſtorians, and ſome curious People, that inform themſelves in each particular circumſtance of Affairs, wherein they are not perſonally concerned; and yet they are often deceived in theſe Matters. I confeſs indeed Matters of Religion, are uſually more publickly known than other things; but beſides that they require time for this, it is moreover certain that theſe reports have their bounds in reſpect of places, and that ſometimes they ſhall make a great noiſe in one Country, and yet be little or not at all heard of in another. We may preſume this Affair of Berengarius was of this number; for after the Letters of Dedowin and Adelman, there paſſed eighteen years; as we have ſeen, without any mention of it in the Court of Rome; neither is there, as I know of, any Greek Author that takes notice of it. If, what Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes touching this great report, which paſſed over from Italy to Greece, was true, the ſilence of all the Greek Authors would be every whit as aſtoniſhing as that of Cerularius. For why ſhould not they mention it, being as much intereſſed as the Latins in Berengarius his Condemnation; ſuppoſing they believed Tranſubſtantiation? Why did they not complain of the Church of Rome's ſo long bearing with him, or do the ſaid Church ſo much right as to commend it for ſuppreſſing him? Peter the Patriarch of Antioch held at that time a correſpondence with the then Pope, he wrote to him, and deſended the Latins againſt the reproaches of the Greeks, as appears by his Letter to Cerularius; yet mentions not a word of this Condemnation, altho this offered it ſelf very pertinently to ſhew the care the Church of Rome took to preſerve Orthodoxy, and ſtifle Hereſies, ſuppoſing the Eaſtern People believed Tranſubſtantiation.
MR. Arnaud finding Berengarius his Affair would not do his Buſineſs, betakes himſelf to another Artifice. It concerns us not to know, ſay's he, whether Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 143.Cerularius, and Leo D'Acrida could be ignorant of Berengarius his Condemnation. Yet this was the Author of the Perpetuitie's Chief Argument, But, whether they could be ignorant of the Opinion of the whole Latin Church touching the Euchariſt, which was then by the Calviniſts own Confeſſion moſt clear, diſtinct, and determinate for the real Preſence. But let the Matter concern what it will, his Proof will be never the better. But inſtead of ſaying, for the real Preſence, he ſhould ſay, for Tranſubſtantiation; for our Queſtion touching the Greeks, being only on this Point, if Mr. Arnaud will make advantage of Cerularius, and Leo d' Acrida's ſilence, he muſt eſtabliſh that the Latins made it then an Article of their Belief. There is a great deal of ambiguity in theſe Terms of real Preſence; the Greeks do, and do not believe it, they believe as we already obſerved, a real Preſence of Virtue, but not areal Preſence of Subſtance. And even we our ſelves, who deny the real Preſence Mr. Arnaud means, profeſs to believe another, which we hold not only for real, but a thouſand times more real than that which Mr. Arnaud intends. If then he deſigned to explain himſelf clearly and to the purpoſe, he muſt ſay, that the Opinion of the whole Latine Church was plainly and diſtinctly for Tranſubſtantiation.
BUT 'tis not enough to ſay ſo, it muſt be proved, for endleſs and impertinent Stories will never ſatisfie our Reaſon. He tells us, that Cerularius having ſent his Letter, cauſed the Latin Churches at Conſtantinople to be ſhut Lib. 2. cap. 5.up, and took away from the Latin Abbots, and other Religious Perſons their Monaſteries. That in the following year, Pope Leo ſent Cardinal Humbert, and the Biſhop of Blanche Selve, and the Archbiſhop of Melphus in quality of his Legats to Conſtantinople, with Letters to both the Emperour and Patriarch. Which is no more than what we know already without Mr. Arnaud's telling us.
HE adds, That Humbert wrote a refutation of Cerularius his Letter by way of Dialogue, and amongſt the reſt, that the Azyme is made by invocation of the Trinity, the real and individual Body of Chriſt. There are ſo many faults to be reprehended in this Allegation, that a man ſcarce knows where to begin to refute it. Were his Tranſlation as it ſhould be, it would appear theſe words do not ſo clearly aſſert Tranſubſtantiation, as to give Cerularius an occaſion to reproach the Latins with it. For may we not underſtand that the Bread is made the real and individual Body of Chriſt, in as much as he has not two Bodies, but one, only? in the ſame ſence Saint Chryſoſtom ſay's, that Chryſoſt. Ep. ad Ceſ.although the nature of Bread remains even then when it becomes worthy to be called our Lord's Body, Yet do we not ſay, that the Son of God has two Bodies, but one. And in the ſame ſence Damaſcen ſay's, alſo, That when the Bread Damaſcen. I. piſt ad Zac. Doar. Humbert cont. Graec. Bibl. Patr. 1. 4 Edit.and Wine paſs into the growth of our Lord's Body and Blood, it becomes not two Bodies but one. Moreover Humbert ſay's not what Mr. Arnaud makes him ſay, viz. that the Bread becomes the Individual Body, his words are, Corpus Singulare, the Singular Body, that is to ſay, the Body which ſingly and only belongs to Jeſus Chriſt, and not to the Father and Holy Spirit; and there is ſo great blindneſs, or rather unfaithfulneſs in this Tranſlation, that I cannot ſuppoſe it to be Mr. Arnaud's. He has publiſhed it without doubt from the Collection of ſome of his Friends, and not from Humbert's Text; For how great ſoever his prejudice may be; I do not believe he would venture his reputation for ſo ſmall an advantage as might be expected from this falſe Tranſlation. Obſerve here what Humbert ſay's, The Azyme being thus prepared, is made by an hearty Invocation of the Holy Trinity, the real and ſingle Body of Chriſt. Not as the Theopaſchites would have it, the Body of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. Which it ſeems you believe likewiſe, ſeeing you ſay the Azyme does not participate of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit▪ as the Leavened Bread does. Leave this wicked Opinion, unleſs you will be condemned with the Theopaſchites. In the Commemoration of our Lord's Paſſion, the Holy and Impaſſible Trinity has nothing in common except the ſingle Conſecration, wherein all the Perſons co-operate: For the death of the Humanity only of the Son of God is celebrated in this viſible Sacrament, the Apoſtle ſaying, every time ye cat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye ſhew the Lord's death till he comes. Our Lord himſelf in this particular Commemoration, delivering the Bread to his Diſciples, ſaid to em, this is my Body which was given for you. Mine, ſay's he, which by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, I who am the Wiſdom of the Father, have built as a Temple in 46 days, in the Womb of the unſpotted Virgin. It now plainly appears what is the meaning of this Singulare Corpus Chriſti, which is to ſay, the Body which the ſecond Perſon only aſſumed, and not the Father, nor Holy Spirit. To make of this the individual Body of Jeſus Chriſt, to conclude from thence Tranſubſtantiation, is ſo groſs and ridiculous a miſtake, that had Mr. Arnaud met with the like in my Writings; in the humour he ſeems to be of, he would have made it the Subject of a whole Chapter. I ſhall only adviſe him to take more care another time; and not labour ſo confidently hereafter upon other Peoples Memories. This firſt Paſſage is attended by another almoſt of the ſame kind. He ſay's, ſay's he, that the Latins honouring the Body of Truth, that is to ſay, the Body of Chriſt, made of an Azyme, and in the Azymes, taſte with their Mouths and Heart how ſweet the Lord is. This, adds he, is clear enough, and a man muſt be very dull, not to underſtand this Language. I confeſs I am not quicker of apprehenſion than another, yet I underſtand very well Humbert's Diſcourſe without Tranſubſtantiation. We ſay, ſay's he, that the Azyme of the Chriſtians is very different from that of the carnal Jews, who obſerved and purſued the ſhadow of Truth, invited hereunto by the promiſe, and deſire of a Terreſtial Felicity, ſuch as a long Life, Riches, a numerous Off-ſpring, and ſuch like things. But as to us, honouring and retaining the Body of Truth, which is of the Azyme, and in the Azyme we taſte with our mouths and heart, how ſweet the Lord is, deſiring of him no more, but that he may dwell in us, and we in him eternally. Is not this to deride People, to alledge ſuch a Paſſage as this, whereby to eſtabliſh Tranſubſtantiation, and that ſo clearly too, that Cerularius ought to reproach the Latins with it? Had Mr. Arnaud minded, he might have comprehended that this Body of Truth, is nothing elſe but the Truth it ſelf, which is called the Body in oppoſition to the Shadow of the Jews, that it is of the Azyme, and in the Azyme, becauſe the Azyme is the Myſtery of it, that in partaking of it with our mouths and hearts, we taſte the ſweetneſs of the Lord, becauſe his Grace thereby is communicated to us, and that in fine this Truth, of which he ſpeaks, is our Spiritual Communion with Chriſt; as he explains it himſelf, in ſaying, that he dwells in us, and we in him, in oppoſition to the Terreſtial Felicity, which the Jews expected in the participation of their Azyme.
MR. Arnaud adds that Humbert believed Tranſubſtantiation; but it concerns us not to know whether he did believe it or not; but whether he did ſufficiently explain it to the Greeks, whereby to move Cerularius to make it the head of an Accuſation againſt the Roman Church.
THE Pope's Legats, ſay's he, excommunicated the Patriarch, and departed from Conſtantinople: I agree with him in this; The Patriarch would have them return to the end they might be torn in pieces by the People. This may be. He ſtirred up a Sedition againſt the Emperor that upheld them. I grant it. They ſent the Emperor a true Copy of the Excommunication they had read, in which they ſay, that as to the Pillars of the Empire, and its Honourable and Sage Citizens, they were moſt Chriſtian and Orthodox. All this concludes nothing. They blame not Cerularius in any ſort touching the Euchariſt; which ſhews they had not the leaſt thought that Cerularius differed from them in his Opinion about this Myſtery. Why muſt they blame him touching this Point, when both the Greeks and Latins at that time, uſed the ſame Expreſſions? Cerularius, ſay's he, afterwards, giving way to his Paſſion, wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch to animate him againſt the Latins; and makes no mention of their Belief touching the Euchariſt. I believe it. But this ſtill concludes nothing, unleſs it be ſhewed that Tranſubſtantiation was then eſtabliſhed in the Romane Church. This is the Point that ought to be proved, without any more words. For all theſe Narrations ſerve only to inform us, in what perplexity Mr. Arnaud finds himſelf to make out his firſt Proof. He carries his Readers backwards and forwards, from Eaſt to Weſt, and from Weſt to Eaſt again: when the Queſtion concerns the Opinion of the Greeks, he goes to ſeek it at Rome, amongſt the Latins: and when touching the Opinion of the Latins, he goes to ſeek it at Antioch and Conſtantinople amongſt the Greeks; and all this amounts to nothing at laſt, but mere Deluſion; for it proves nothing. Was ever ſuch Confuſion beheld in the entrance of a Controverſie, and eſpecially conſidering the noiſe there has been about it?
BUT it will be perhaps ſaid; How can we deny that Tranſubſtantiation was eſtabliſhed, and commonly held by the Church of Rome in Leo's time; that is to ſay, about the middle of the Eleventh Century? I anſwer, we can be no otherwiſe informed, than by the Expreſſions of the Council held under Nicholas II. which I already related, and which contain not Tranſubſtantiation. I believe there were then ſeveral particular Perſons that believed it; and took this way whereby to explain how the Bread is made the Body of Chriſt; but howſoever the Roman Church had not yet declared her ſelf otherwiſe than in general Terms; which could not offend either Cerularius, or his Greeks.
THIS is then another of Mr. Arnaud's Artifices, to perſwade us as he would do, that he is not, moreover obliged to prove, the Greeks believed Tranſubſtantiation, and that 'tis ſufficient to ſhew, that all the Patriarchal Churches were linkt in Communion with the Roman, when ſhe condemned Berengarius; and were not parted aſunder upon this occaſion; This, I ſay, is a groſs Deluſion, for not to mention here, that the Rupture was already made before the time of Berengarius his firſt Condemnation, or at leaſt before his Condemnation could be known in the Patriarchal Churches, as appears by what I alledged in the beginning of this Chapter, we muſt further obſerve, that of all thoſe Condemnations (which the Authors of the Office make to amount to Eight) there is never a one, but the laſt (which was made by Gregory VII. in the Year 1079.) which can be ſaid to eſtabliſh expreſsly, Tranſubſtantiation; ſo that the Separation of the Greeks being made ſince the Year 1053. that is to ſay, Twenty ſix Years before, this Preſumption (which Mr. Arnaud ſay's, is clearly on the ſide of the Roman Church) is void and fantaſtical, and cannot acquit him from giving us that Proof which we require of him.