The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Mr. Arnaud's Twenty firſt Illuſion, is, his charging me with maintaining the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Tranſubſtantiation. His Twenty ſecond, conſists in offering the Formulary of the Re-union propoſed to the Greeks by the Latins. Twenty third, in that he produces the Paſſages of Latiniz'd Greeks. Twenty fourth, in alledging ſuppoſed Authors, or at leaſt doubtful and juſtly ſuspected ones. The Twenty fifth, is his producing the Teſtimonies of ſeveral falſe Greeks link't to the Intereſts of the Latine Church.
HAD Mr. Arnaud left out of his Diſpute, touching the Greeks, the Illuſions I already obſerved (as it was very reaſonable he ſhould) he would have ſuppreſſed ſeveral whole Chapters, and abridged others, and by this means, we ſhould not have had ſuch juſt cauſe to complain of his prolixity. And we ſhould have had yet leſs, had he been pleaſed to retrench all that he has written to prove, the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Latins, in reference to Tranſubſtantiation. This is the moſt reaſonable thing in the World, for his charging me with attributing to them this ignorance, and the whole Sequel of his Hiſtories, Arguments, and Reflections, whereby to ſhew the abſurdity of this Suppoſition, all this I ſay is but a meer Illuſion. I never pretended the Greeks knew not what the Latins held on this Article; and he that ſhall read with a little more Equity than Mr. Arnaud has done, what I wrote in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity, will find, that I have been ſo far from aſſerting this Propoſition, that I have on the contrary, in ſeveral places, ſuppoſed they knew it. The Author of the Perpetuity having told me the Greeks and Latins lived together in ſeveral places, and yet 'twas never known, there was any Diſpute raiſed amongſt them on this Point; I anſwered, that the Greeks content themſelves with their own Belief, without making it a matter of conteſt with Strangers. Now this Anſwer ſuppoſes, that they are not ignorant of what the Latins hold. I likewiſe mentioned upon this account a Paſſage of Phaebadius, who tells us, that an humble Conſcience contents it ſelf with keeping its own Opinion, and ſuppoſes 'tis better to preſerve its own Faith, than to trouble it ſelf with examining the Belief of Strangers, which alſo ſuppoſes they knew the Opinion of the Roman Church, but did not trouble themſelves about it. This Author alledging afterwards the Re-union of the two Churches made in the Council of Florence, I expresſly acknowledged, that the Greeks ſeem, to have tacitly ſuffered the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, which does ſtill moreover ſuppoſe, they were not ignorant of it, for men are not ignorant of what they tolerate. The ſame Author producing the Anſwer of the Greeks of Venice, to the Cardinal de Guiſe's Queſtions; I ſaid, that 'twas an Anſwer contrived on purpoſe not to provoke Strangers; ever ſuppoſing, as 'tis evident, that they well knew the Doctrine of the Latins.
WHAT could then induce Mr. Arnaud to charge me with a thing I never ſo much as imagined, and the contrary of which appears throughout all the Sequel of my Diſcourſe? The Author of the Perpetuity, told us, that Perpetuity of the Faith, 3. part. cap. 8.Breerwood, who wrote a Book touching the diverſity of Religions; and exactly denotes all things in which he pretends they differ from the Church of Rome, yet dared not affirm, the Greek Church differed from the Latine in the Point of Tranſubstantiation. That he neither does pretend it of the Aſſyrians, or Melchites, Neſtorians, Jacobites, Eutychites, Copticks, Egyptians, nor Abyſſins, but only Anſwer to 2. Treat. 3. part. cap. 8.Armenians. Theſe are his Words, and this my Anſwer, As to other Churches, the Author of the Perpetuity alledges only the Silence of Breerwood, in a Treatiſe he wrote of Religions, wherein he does not obſerve, that either the Greeks, Aſſyrians, Melchites, Neſtorians, Jacobites, Eutychites, Copticks, Egyptians, nor Abyſſins, do differ from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the Point of Tranſubſtantiation. But certainly our Author is very bare of Proofs, that he muſt have recourſe to the Silence of a man that tranſiently obſerves the most noted Differences of Religions, contenting himſelf with ſaying, what Points ſuch a People hold, or poſitively reject, without proceeding to things which they do not believe by way of Negation, as not having heard of them.
THESE laſt Words, as not having heard of them, have it ſeems given occaſion to all this coyl. But firſt, Mr. Arnaud may conſider, if he pleaſes, that my Anſwer refers to other Communions, which are called Schiſmaticks, and that the Greeks are mentioned only accidentally and occaſionally. Which appears from my own Expreſſions, for having ſeperately handled what concerns the Greeks, paſſing to another Subject, I immediately add, As to what concerns People of other Communions, the Author alledges to us only, &c. Whence it is evident, that my intention reſpects only thoſe other Communions, that I name the Greeks only, becauſe they are comprehended amongſt the reſt in the Author of the Perpetuitie's Objection; but yet my Anſwer primarily reſpects only the other People. If it be ſaid, that the Objection including the Greeks amongſt the reſt, my Anſwer muſt include them alſo; that in effect it is general, and that otherwiſe I ſhould have left the Objection relating to the Greeks, without an Anſwer. I reply to this, that my Anſwer cannot be extended beyond the other Schiſmatical Communions, to the prejudice of my own expreſſions, which reſtrain and determinate it. A man would think People might be ſo juſt, as not to charge Perſons with thoſe things which are contrary to their expreſs Declarations. Mr. Arnaud might accuſe me for leaving the Objection drawn from the Silence of Breerwood, in relation to the Greeks without an Anſwer. He might have brought it again into the Diſpute, if he would, but he could not apply my Words to the Greeks, ſeeing I mentioned them in reference to the other Communions, in oppoſition to the Greeks, of whom I came from treating. What I ſaid before, and what I ſaid even there touching the other Communions, ſufficiently ſhewed what might be anſwered in this reſpect to the Objection taken out of Breerwood, it not being neceſſary to make thereof a particular Article, nor to comprehend them amongſt the reſt. I confeſs the ſence of my Anſwer in general may be extended as far as the Greeks, in obſerving the differences of them with other People, but to apply them to even the very leaſt of my Terms, and make the World believe that 'twas of them I ſpake, is that which Juſtice and Equity cannot ſuffer, having poſitively ſaid, as I have done, that I ſpake of other Communions.
BUT ſuppoſing my Anſwer was to be underſtood of the Greeks themſelves; could not Mr. Arnaud underſtand, that I ſpake of People in general, and not of particular Perſons, and meant that the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation has made no noiſe amongſt the People; that their Paſtors, never propoſed it to 'em in order to its being received by them, nor declaimed againſt it, to make them reject it; and in a word, that they never made of it an Article of Faith, nor Controverſie. My Sence appears by the bare reading of my Anſwer. Breerwood, ſaid I, has only tranſiently obſerved the common differences of Religions, contenting himſelf with telling us what People imbrace, or what they poſitively reject, without proceeding to the things they do not believe by way of Negation, as not having heard ſpeak of them. It is clear I diſtinguiſh three ſorts of Points, ſome which theſe People profeſs poſitively to believe, others which they profeſs likewiſe poſitively to reject, and the third which they do not believe, or expreſly reject. 'Tis in this third Rank, I put Tranſubſtantiation in reſpect of them. They never heard of it, as a Point they ought to believe, or an Errour they ought poſitively to reject. They meet not with it either amongſt the Articles their Religion teaches, nor amongſt thoſe which it oppoſes, and expreſly condemns. And this is what I call in reſpect of this People, the not believing a thing by way of Negation, as not having heard ſpeak of it. I ought not for this to be charged with an abſolute denial, that the Greeks never heard the Latins believed Tranſubſtantiation, for there is a great deal of difference betwixt theſe two things. I ſpeak of People in general, and not of particular Perſons, and I ſpeak moreover of Points which are not found either amongſt the Articles, which are to be believed, nor amongſt thoſe that are actually to be rejected; and not of thoſe concerning which we may be hiſtorically informed that other People hold them.
LET any man judge then of Mr. Arnaud's Character, and with what kind of Perſon I am concerned. Beſides what I come from obſerving, we ſhall immediately ſee how he abuſes what I ſaid, touching the Halcyon days of the Church. He catches at the leaſt expreſſions, and if he can turn any of 'em into a counter ſence, he makes thereof a matter of Triumph. This proceeding ſeems wholly unworthy a Perſon of his Reputation. Had he deſigned to inrich himſelf with the Spoyls of Allatius and Raynaldus, and to tranſcribe as he has done their Hiſtories, could not he find a juſter occaſion than this to introduce them into his Volum? Or if he could find no better, muſt the love he has to Stories, and the pleaſure he takes in impoſing on us, prevail over his Conſcience, which forbids him to charge me with a falſe meaning, with a Sence (as is apparent) I never had, and which has no relation to the Sequel of my Diſcourſe.
AND yet 'tis on no better Grounds than theſe, that he makes me draw Syſtems and build Machines; that he makes general Diviſions of the World, aſſembles Councils, ſends out Ambaſſadours, tranſports Armies, fills Jeruſalem with Pilgrims, preaches Croiſado's, and conquers the Holy Land, Conſtantinople and the Grecian Empire; that he fills the Eaſt with Biſhops, Abbots, Religious, and Latin Inquiſitors; that he introduces Princes, Kings, Emperours, and Popes, and ſets on foot Negotiations, makes Treaties of Peace, and Re-union between the two Churches; and all this to prove the Greeks were not ignorant the Latins held Tranſubſtantiation, which is to ſay, to prove a thing I never denied. Who could think that all this coſtly and ſtately Pageantry ſhould be carried about to ſo little purpoſe; and all theſe great Figures be put upon their motion without any neceſſity, to convince us of a thing we never denied? Yet is it true that 'twas only a falſe equivocation that has occaſioned all this preparation and buſtle, an equivocation, which had he but been pleaſed to conſult me about for a fuller meaning of it (ſuppoſing there were need of it) I could have ſaved him all this trouble of Tranſlating Allatius and Raynaldus, and ſeveral other Paſſages from the Greek of Pachimerus and Anne Comnenus.
I would have told him I never intended to deny, but 'tis poſſible the Greeks knew what was the Opinion of the Latins concerning the Subſtantial Converſion. But withal, that ſince the Eleventh Century to this preſent, this Nation has been ſo prodigiouſly ignorant and careleſs in matters of Religion, and ſo perplexed with their Temporal Affairs, that 'twould be no Paradox to affirm the greateſt part amongſt them knew little of what the Latins believe in this particular, ſeeing 'tis certain they ſcarcely know what they believe themſelves. That which I aſſerted in the beginning of this Controverſie touching their ignorance, confirms what I ſay. But obſerve here moreover what Thomas à Jeſu has written. The Greeks, ſay's he, ſince their Thomas à Jeſu de proc. Salv. omn. gent. lib. 6. cap. 5.Separation from the Catholick Church, are faln into a moſt deſperate ignorance, which will more plainly appear, if we caſt our eyes on the Ages which preceded the Separation, wherein Greece was the Mother of all Arts and Sciences. He afterwards relates a Paſſage taken out of Bozius, in theſe Words. Since the Sixteenth Century, when the Greek Church began to ſeparate from us, there has ſcarcely any Perſon been found amongſt them, excelling in any Science: 'Tis certain Gregory relates, that in the Emperour Andronicus his time (which is about 250 years ſince) there was not a Perſon in all Greece that was able to diſpute with our People about Religion; and now there is not one that can be truly ſaid to be indifferently learned. If any amongst them deſire to learn any thing, they muſt leave Conſtantinople, and come to the Colledge at Rome, which Gregory the Thirteenth built for the Greeks. All the Biſhops amongſt them are taken out of the Order of Monks, who have a Law amongſt them to this effect, that all thoſe that ſtudy Philoſophy ſhall be excommunicated, as testifies Belon in the firſt Book of his Obſervations. Now there is nothing more uſeful to men for the finding of the Truth than ſolid Philoſophy. And therefore, the Devil to keep the Greeks in this ignorance, has ſo ordered it, that the Biſhops are ſtill elected from amongſt the Monks, and that moreover the Monks ſhould lay this neceſſity upon themſelves of being ignorant.
'TIS likely Perſons in theſe Circumſtances do not trouble themſelves with Inquiries into the Opinions of the Latins touching the Myſtery of the Euchariſt; and in effect amongſt all thoſe that have written ſince the Eleventh Century to this preſent, (excepting the Latinizing Greeks) there will be found very few that mention the Belief of the Roman Church, touching the Converſion of Subſtances, which ſhews that they are not well inſtructed in it.
YET do not I believe this ignorance has been ſo Univerſal, but that there have been ſome from time to time, who ſufficiently underſtood the Opinion of the Latins, and eſpecially thoſe that have had moſt Commerce with them; as for inſtance, ſuch as negotiated the Re-unions, thoſe that conferred with the Emiſſaries, and were Aſſeſſors at the Council of Florence, and ſuch as were forced to live under the Juriſdiction of Latine Biſhops. Mr. Arnaud needed not trouble himſelf with proving this, for 'tis a thing we grant him.
SO that here are already ſeveral of Mr. Arnaud's Illſions, and yet we are not at the end of all thoſe he has impoſed on us, touching this ſingle Article of the Greeks.
WE may moreover reckon into this number the perpetual Quotation of this Form of a Re-union, which was ſo often offered to the Greeks, and which the Greeks have ſometimes received when they were at accord with the Latine Church. He tells us, that the Emperour Michael Paleologus his Deputies Lib. 3. cap. 3. pag 275.being arrived at the Council of Lyons, preſented the Emperours Letters to the Pope, containing in expreſs Terms the Confeſſion of Faith, which was ſent them by Clement the Fourth, and Gregory the Tenth, wherein Tranſubſtantiation is expresſly inſerted in theſe Terms. Sacramentum Euchariſtae ex Azymo conficit Romana Eccleſia, tenens & docens quod in ipſo Sacramento, Panis verè tranſubſtantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini Jeſu Chriſti. He adds, that this Profeſſion of Faith was ſworn to on the Emperour's part by George Acropolitus, and that the Legate of the Council of the Greeks preſented likewiſe a Letter to the Pope, as from the Metropolitain of Epheſus, and thirty Greek Biſhops, and that he ſwore in their name, after the ſame manner the Ambaſſador had done to imbrace intirely the forementioned Confeſſion of Faith, wherein Tranſubstantiation was expreſſed. He tells us moreover, that in the Confeſſion of Eaith, which Ibid. pag 277.John Veccus inſerted in his Letters aſwell in his own Name, as in the Name of the Greek Biſhops, that Tranſubſtantiation was expresſly contained in it, altho occaſionally upon account of the Azymes; credentes & nos ipſum Azymum panem in ipſo Sacro Officio Euchariſtae verè tranſubſtantiari in Corpus Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, & Vinum in Sanguinem ejus per Sanctiſſimi Spiritus Virtutem & Operationem. That they likewiſe do believe the unleavened Bread is tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Chriſt. He afterwards obſerves, this Confeſſion of the Greek Biſhops was not expreſſed in the ſame Terms, as that which was ſent thence by Clement the Fourth, and Gregory the Tenth; but that this difference has no after effect in reſpect of the Article of the Azymes, and that of Tranſubſtantiation, but that 'tis expreſſed more plainly than in the Confeſſion of Faith compiled by Clement.
SO that if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, we have here Tranſubſtantiation formally received and acknowledged by the Greek Church. But all this is but a meer Deluſion. This Confeſſion of Faith in the Latin of Raynoldus, from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed whatſoever he has alledged concerning it, has indeed theſe Words, Panis verè Tranſubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem, but as I alreay obſerved, in the Greek which Allatius cites Allat. de Perp. Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17.touching the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus, there are theſe Words, foreign, The Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Changed, is not tranſubſtantiated. I have already ſhown there is a great deal of difference between theſe two Terms. The Greeks hold that the Bread is changed into the Body, which is not the Point in queſtion; but whether they believe 'tis tranſubſtantiated. Mr. Arnaud was not ignorant of the difference between the Latine and Greek Copy of this Confeſſion of Faith, for he has taken notice of it himſelf elſewhere upon the Subject of the Re-union of the Emperour John Paleologus, and has no better defence for it, than ſaying, that the foreign of the Greeks, and the Tranſubſtantiatur of the Latins are Synonimous Terms. Why did he not mention this difference in this place, and wherefore has he grounded his Proof on the Latin Expreſſions? The Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, ſay's he, is expresſly inſerted in this Confeſſion of Faith. I will ſhew Mr. Claude Tranſubſtantiation ſolemnly approved by the Greek Church in the Lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 273. cap. 2.ſame manner as men approve things they ever believed, and of which they have not the leaſt doubt. And a little after. And thus I obliged my ſelf to ſhew him the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation ſigned and ſworn to by the Greeks. And this indeed he does ſhew us, if we only conſider the Latin Text; but if we conſult the Greek, we ſhall find quite another thing, than what he pretends. We ſhall find indeed the Latins do believe Tranſubſtantiation, and endeavour to inſinuate it amongſt the Greeks; but we ſhall likewiſe find that the Greeks depart not from their general expreſſions. For to tell us that foreign, and tranſubſtantiatur are Synonymous Terms, is what I deny, and have refuted already, and ſhall again refute in the following Diſcourſe. This whole Proof which Mr Arnaud has been ſo earneſt upon, reduces it ſelf to a thing which we do not deny him, which is, that the Greeks hold the Bread is really changed into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood. This Confeſſion of Faith informs us of no new thing, but that which I already acknowledged is to be found amongſt the Greek Authors. Why then muſt this be made a matter of Triumph? It remains ſtill to inquire whether they underſtand it of a change of Subſtance, which is our only Queſtion. Moreover Mr. Arnaud muſt not think to draw advantage from John Veccus the Patriarch of Conſtantinople's Letter in that the Confeſſion of Faith contained therein is not expreſſed in the ſame Terms, as that ſent by Clement and Gregory, which was ſigned and ſworn to by the Emperours Ambaſſadour, and by the Greeks Legat in the Council at Lyons, for it appears by reading this Letter, and comparing it with the Formulary of Clement and Gregory, that in reſpect of the Articles of Pennance, Purgatory, and the Sacraments, 'tis the ſame thing, and the ſame expreſſions, excepting ſome ſlight alterations which were neceſſarily made, either to make the Greek Church ſpeak in its own name, or to reſerve as they do the Cuſtom of Confirmation by the Prieſts, or elſe moreover to apply to their leavened Bread, what is not ſaid in the other, but only of the Azyme. But as to eſſential Terms, and thoſe that reſpect the Doctrinal Part, they are abſolutely the ſame, and we muſt make the ſame Judgment of them.
WE may likewiſe juſtly rank amongſt the number of Mr. Arnaud's Illuſions the Teſtimonies of ſeveral latinizing Greeks, who left their Religion to embrace the Roman. He cites Paſſages out of Emanuel Calecas, concerning Lib. 3. cap. 9.whom he ſay's himſelf, That he was of the Order of Fryar Preachers, and wrote four Books againſt the Errour of the Greeks touching the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt. He quotes Cardinal Beſſarion, and one Gregory, who both of 'em wrote againſt Marc of Epheſus in favour of the Latins to defend what paſſed in the Council of Florence. He alledges ſeveral Paſſages out of John Pluſiadenus, Gennadius, Scholarius, and a certain Religious man named Hilarion, all zealous Defenders of the ſame Council, all of 'em openly engaged in the Defence and Propogation of the Roman Doctrines. Every man ſees that ſuch kind of Perſons as theſe are no more fit to decide our Queſtion, than Thomas Aquinas would be, or the Trent Fathers, and that 'tis not fair to bring in ſuch Perſons for Witneſſes in this Controverſie.
MR. Arnaud will ſay without doubt he has alledged them only, becauſe they reproached not the Greeks with their not believing Tranſubſtantiation. But if he propoſed to himſelf no other advantage, it was not neceſſary for this to cite their Paſſages at length, as he has done, nor mark in great Characters the places wherein they aſſert the change of Subſtance, to dazle the Reader's Eyes. It were ſufficient to rank theſe Authors in general amongſt the Latins, and reduce the advantage he would draw from their Silence to this negative Argument, which we will examine in the ſequel of this Diſcourſe; which conſiſts in that the Latins never accuſed the Greeks for their not believing the ſubſtantial Converſion. But howſoever it were a juſt thing to lay aſide all theſe Paſſages, as abſolutely fruitleſs and impertinent, and if there be any reflexion to be made on their Silence, it ſhall be taken notice of in its proper place.
NEITHER is it leſs juſt to retrench from this Diſpute all doubtful Authors, which is to ſay, ſuch concerning whom we have no aſſurance, whether the Works attributed to them are theirs, nor indeed whether there were ever any ſuch Authors in the World. I put immediately in this Rank Samonas the pretended Biſhop of Gaza. Mr. Arnaud beſtirs himſelf to prove contrary to Mr. Aubertin's Conjecture, that in the Thirteenth Century, which is to ſay, in the time wherein this Archbiſhop of Gaza is reckoned to have lived, there were Greek Biſhops in Paleſtine. But he does not undertake to ſhew that Samonas was of this number, nor that any Perſon ever mentioned him. There are, ſay's he, five hundred Treatiſes of the Fathers, which muſt be rejected, if it were ſufficient to reſpect them as Apochryphal, that they were not cited by others. His five hundred Treatiſes I grant; but there are not five hundred Fathers of whom no body ever made mention, and which are not named by others. When a name of an Author is unknown to Authors that lived in the ſame Age, and thoſe that follow, this is certainly a ſufficient reaſon to make his Book ſuſpected. Mr. Arnaud then needed not find it ſtrange, if we place his Samonas in this order, till ſuch time as he has more clearly proved his Authority. Suppoſing Mr. Aubertin was miſtaken in his Conjecture, and that there were indeed Greek Biſhops in Paleſtine, when the Saracens poſſeſſed it, this does not conclude that Samonas was of this number, nor that his Diſpute againſt Achmet was real. Mr. Arnaud's Cuſtom is, that when he finds any trivial matter, altho of never ſo little importance to our Controverſie, to ſtick at it, and uſe his utmoſt skill thereon, to the end, that under the favour of theſe vain Triumphs, he may conceal his weakneſs in Matters of greater moment. Which is what he has done in this occaſion; for ſeeing he could not give any colour to the Teſtimony of this Samonas, he therefore falls upon Criticiſing; and heats himſelf to ſhew there were in the Thirteenth Century Greek Biſhops in Paleſtine, under the Empire of the Saracens, and by this pretence would obtrude on us this Paſſage of Samonas.
WE may likewiſe reckon amongſt this Rank of ſuſpected Authors, One Agapius, whom Mr. Arnaud ſay's was a Monk of Mount Athos, from whom Lib. 4. cap. 8.Mr. Arnaud has taken ſome Paſſages. I believe his Collections are true, and that he has faithfully tranſlated them. But what aſſurance have we this was not a counterfeit Author? Mr. Arnaud tells us, that he lately met with this Book written in Vulgar Greek. This accidental meeting does already diſguſt me, as if 'twere meer chance that brought him acquainted with this Author. And yet we know well enough how careful thoſe of the Roman Church are, to gather up theſe kind of pieces that are favourable to them; and which may ſerve them as well againſt the Greeks as Proteſtants, eſpecially ſuch as this, which expresſly denotes Chriſt's Subſtance under the Accidents and Appearances of Bread and Wine. They could find nothing ſo emphatical in any other Author; how then comes it to paſs they neglected this Agapius, and that in ſuch a manner, that, Mr. Arnaud who has his Correſpondents every where, in Italy, Greece, Sweedland, Moſcovia, and Syria, yet ſhould light of this Book only by Chance? He tells us this Book, was perhaps wrote during the time wherein Cyrillus was Patriarch, for Cyrillus dyed but in the Year 1638, and this Religious's Book was Printed at Venice till 1641. If this be all that can be ſaid in this Matter, every one will judge this is not ſufficient to give Credit to a Book. The Printing Preſſes at Venice are no more free from Fraud and Fiction, than thoſe of other Cities.
Tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri.
CYRILLUS his Confeſſion, offended the Latins ſufficiently enough to Oblige them to Oppoſe againſt him a Teſtimony ſo Expreſs and Authentick as this is. Being an Author, a Religious of Mount Athos, of this Mount which according to Mr. Arnaud is the Seminary of Religious for the whole Eaſt, and whoſe Faith he ſays, is that of all the Greek Churches, how then has it hapned they have ſo much ſlighted him, as not to produce him againſt Cyrillus: Caryophylus wrote a Treatiſe on purpoſe to Refute this Patriarchs Confeſſion; but he Apud Habert in Archierat.makes no mention therein of Agapius. Leo Allatius has outragiouſly uſed the ſame Patriarch in his Book, de Perpetua Conſenſione, and has not fail'd to deſcribe at length the Councils of Cyrillus de Berrhaea, and Parthenius; but he mentions not a word of Agapius. The aforeſaid Allatius wrote a Book againſt Dr. Creygton, wherein he indeavours to prove the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation. He has made a Collection of whatſoever favours his Cauſe out of all Authors, whether Prints or Manuſcripts. Mr. Arnaud knows it very well, ſeeing 'tis from thence he has taken his moſt ſpecious Arguments; but he tells us not a Word of Agapius, which makes me juſtly Suſpect, that 'tis the Work of ſome Impoſture: But be it as it will, 'tis ſilly to Triumph with it, till 'tis proved Authentick.
IN fine, to clear the Diſpute of all Impertinencies, and Illuſions with which Mr. Arnaud has peſtered it, we muſt retrench the Teſtimonies of the falſe Greeks, that is to ſay of thoſe, who having bin brought up in Latin Seminaries, (and being in their Hearts Romaniſts) yet Live in the Communion of the Greek Schiſmatical Church, and even ſometimes Poſſeſs the higheſt Dignities. Gerganus Biſhop of Arta in the Epiſtle before his Catechiſm complains In Refuta. Caryophr.very much againſt theſe ſort of People. He ſays they are ſecret Enemies, outwardly ſeem to be Greeks, but are Latins in their Hearts, and Caryophilus that relates this Complaint of Gerganus, agrees in this Particular. We have already ſeen by Report of the Jeſuits themſelves, that one of the chiefeſt Employs of the Miſſionaries in the Eaſt, is to gain privately the Biſhops and Prieſts, to make uſe of them upon Occaſion, or inſenſibly to inſinuate the Romiſh Faith into the Minds of the Greek Youth, under Pretence of teaching them Languages and Philoſophy, that by this means they may fill by degrees the Eccleſiaſtical Charges with their Creatures. We have already ſeen even by the Teſtimony of Allatius and Thomas a Jeſu, that this is the Advantage received from the Seminary at Rome, wherein Greek Children are brought up in the Opinions and Maxims of the Roman Church, and from whence they are ſent into their own Countries, to receive Orders from Schiſmatical Biſhops, to the end they may be promoted to Biſhopricks by the Schiſmatical Patriarchs, and carry on the Latin Intereſt under this falſe Pretence. I do not pretend to decide here the Queſtion whether this way of Proceeding be juſtifiable or not, this being not my Buſineſs: Let every Man judg thereof as he pleaſes. But I Affirm, 'tis not poſſible for People to be more diſingenuouſly dealt with, than we are by Mr. Arnaud, in making uſe of the Teſtimony of theſe Perſons, whereby to decide the Queſtion between us. If this be his way of Confounding Miniſters, and Triumphing at their Defeat, his Victories indeed will be eaſy, but his Triumph neither Honourable nor Juſt: Is it not a disingenuous Artifice thus to make uſe (as he hath done) of the Myſtery of the Miſſions and Seminaries to blind the World, imagining his indirect Dealing will ſcape being taken Notice of.
AND thus does Mr. Arnaud gloriouſly retayl out to us the Teſtimony of Payſius Ligaridius together with the Letters of Mr. de Pompone his Nephew. He firſt produces ſome Collections out of him, Tranſlated into our Language, and in fine has Tranſlated his Treatiſe into Latin, and inſerted it in his 12th. Book. Would we know who this Payſius Ligaridius is, obſerve what Mr. Pompone has writ of him in his Letter. He is a Greek, ſay's he, by Nation, and a Religious of the Order of St. Baſil: He was ſometime a Student at Rome and Padoua, and being returned from thence to Conſtantinople, was made Archbiſhop of Gaza in Paleſtine. Mr. Pompone ſeems to make this Acknowledgment with ſome kind of Conſtraint. I the rather tell you, ſay's he, whatſoever I know of this Archbiſhop, becauſe I do not doubt, but ſome Calviniſts here, have given notice of this Treatiſe to Mr. Claude, and informed him he ought to be Suſpected, ſeeing he was Educated at Rome, and went out Doctor at Padoua, ſo that he may think his Teſtimony ought to be rejected, being brought up in our Religion. Should we not have known then of Mr. Pompone, what kind of Man this Archbiſhop was, were it not for that he feared ſome Calviniſts at Stockholm would give an Account of him to Claude the Miniſter? Alas, we are not beholding to him for his Account, for we can be informed elſewhere, by a Latiniz'd Greek at Venice, who goes under the Name of Signor Gradenigo; obſerve what he lately Wrote concerning him. Payſius Ligaridius ſtudied at Rome, and when he left that City, was a Zealous Defendor of the Latins, but I heard ſince he has publickly abjured the Romiſh Religion, when made Metropolitain of Gaza.
TO give the World a more particular Character of this Perſon, and ſuch as are like him, it will not be amiſs to relate at large this Abjuration mentioned by Signor Gradenigo. Obſerve here then what Dr. Bazire an Engliſh Divine, (whoſe Teſtimony I have already Cited) wrote to me, who was preſent at Jeruſalem, when Payſius was made Archbiſhop of Gaza. In the Year 1646, ſay's he, during the Troubles in England, King Charles the firſt of Bleſſed Memory, ſent me over from England to France, to his Son then Prince of Wales, my now gracious Sovereign Charles the Second, whom God grant long to Reign. After an abode of two Years in France, I reſolved to make a long Voyage, and to viſit all Syria, Meſopotamia, and Paleſtine, which I did in five Years time. Being in the Year 1652 at Jeruſalem in the Temple of the Sepulchre, foreign, to pray and behold the Holy Places, in Imitation of that Alexander mentioned by Euſebius in the ſixth Book of his Eccleſiaſtical History, Payſius Ligaridius, came to me from the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, (whoſe Name likewiſe was Payſius,) to preſent me with a Cake, on which was deſcribed the whole Hiſtory of our Saviour from his Annunciation to his Aſcenſion, and in leaving me, Invited me to be preſent on the Morrow at his Spiritual Marriage; theſe were his Expreſſions, meaning his Inſtallment into the Dignity of Metropolitain of Gaza. The next Day being the fourteenth of September 'twas performed, and I was preſent at the Ceremony. The Patriarch ſat upon his Throne, which was hung with rich Turky Carpets, and under him ſat the Metropolitains, and a little lower the Biſhops, Archimandrites, &c. Whilſt the Office was Celebrating, Ligaridius rehearſed a Confeſſion of Faith, a Copy of which he afterwards gave me: Before his Conſecration, he twice or thrice, trampled under his Feet a Picture which repreſented a City ſcituated on ſeven Hills, with a two headed Eagle, ſoaring over it: The Latins there preſent were extreamly offended thereat, for they knew well enough this City repreſented Rome. After the Conſecration was ended, I withdrew into a publick Houſe of Entertainment in the City, where the Latins uſually reſorted, where being at Dinner, I ſhared my Cake amongſt the Company, giving part of it to the Popes Vicar, the Gray Fryers and Prieſt that dined with us, who kindly accepted it. But when I would have done the like to the Laity there preſent, they refuſed it with the greateſt Deteſtation, ſaying 'twas the Cake of that Schiſmatick Ligaridius, who even now trampled under his Feet the City and Church of Rome. After Dinner the Popes Vicar, who was a learned and honeſt Man, began a Diſcourſe with me touching the Invocation of Saints, and eſpecially of the Holy Virgin; and as I was about alledging to him a Paſſage out of St. Epiphanus, Ligaridius came in and interrupted our Diſcourſe. He began immediately to deſire the Company not to be offended at what he had done: his Excuſe was pleaſant, for he told us he thought of nothing leſs than the City of Rome in this Action, but by this Ceremony practiſed in the Greek Church, he meant the trampling under his Feet the Vanities of the World repreſented by this City, and the renouncing of them; Yet this Excuſe was not well taken by the Vicar, who was a wiſer Man than to be content therewith. When he was gon, he told me that he was a notorious Hypocrite, and received an Annual Penſion from the Pope, which he had paid him for ſeveral Years, but he ſhould have it no longer for the future. And this is this Payſius Ligaridius, of whom I ſhall ſay no more, but leave the Reader to judg of the Validity of ſuch a Mans Teſtimony.
ANY Man may likewiſe judg of the Writings of a certain Moldavian Gentleman, called the Baron of Spartaris, whom Mr. Arnaud Cites together with Mr. Pompone his Nephews Letter. In which amongſt other things there are theſe Expreſſions: He agrees in general with us in all things, excepting one Particular, namely the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt. He comes every Holyday to my Houſe to Maſs, and excepting the Creed wherein he forgets the Filioque, there is not a better Catholick in the World. Is not this the exact Character of one of thoſe falſe Greeks already mentioned by us, who are Greeks with the Greeks, and Latins with the Latins? Who knows not that the Greeks, I mean the Reconciled ones, as they are called, differ from the Latins, not only in that they omit the Filioque in the Creed; but likewiſe in the uſe of Leavened Bread, in the Communion under both kinds, and in abundance of Ceremonies? That thoſe called Schiſmaticks abhor carved Images, and Invoke not the Latin Saints, nor Believe Purgatory, reject the Primacy of the Roman and Biſhop, and will not Communicate with the Latins, and ſo greatly abhor their Sacrifice, that when a Latin Prieſt ſays Maſs on one of their Altars, they Waſh and Purify it ſeveral times, as having bin Polluted? Mr. Pompone was deceiv'd when the ſuppoſed the nearer his Barons Religion approached to that of the Latins, the more his Uncles Cauſe was advantaged, when on the contrary by this Means, the Quality of this Witneſs is diſcovered, and his Teſtimony appears plainly Invalid. An Exceſs of Zeal made Mr. Pompoue go too far, but thus it pleaſed God to order it, to the end our Innocency and Simplicity might not be Surprized with theſe kind of Deluſions. As to what remains, I ſhall only here Obſerve the Imprudence of his Witneſs, who aſſures us, that every Year on the firſt Sunday in Lent, which the Greeks call the Orthodox Sunday, the Patriarch of Conſtantinople excommunicates in his Patriarchal Temple in the Preſence of the Archbiſhops, and Biſhops, and alſo of the Ambaſſadors of Chriſtian Kings and Princes, all Hereticks, and eſpecially thoſe, ſays he, that Oppoſe Tranſubſtantiation; Mr. Arnaud has cauſed to be Printed in great Characters theſe Words, Maxime vero qui Tranſubſtantiationi adverſantur. Not Remembring that he himſelf related the Terms of this Excommunication, wherein there is not a word ſaid touching Tranſubſtantiation, nor thoſe that Oppoſe it. Were what the Baron Spataris ſays true, Mr. Arnaud has bin Treacherous to his own Cauſe in ſuppreſſing ſo important and deciſive a Clauſe, and has bin at a great deal of Pains to no purpoſe in all this Diſpute, ſeeing he might have produced this Excommunication and ſtuck to it.
THAT which we have already ſeen touching Payſius Ligaridius, and the Moldavian Gentleman, may ſerve as a Rule whereby to judge of the Teſtimony of ſome Greek Prieſts, under the Patriarchate of Antioch. The Care the Emiſſaries take to make Proſelytes in this Country, will make us ceaſe wondering that there ſhould be ſix Greek Prieſts found ready to acknowledg and ſign whatſoever was offered them. Moreover they live near the Maronites, who have bin (as it is well known) long ſince Reunited to the Church of Rome, and governed by Perſons who favour the Propagating of the Latins Doctrines. Cyrillus when Patriarch of Alexandria, ſeems to have foretold what has now hapned, in his Letter to Wytemboyard; The Principal, ſays he, of the Maronites profeſſes the Roman Religion, and the Patriarchate of Antioch lying near them, I am afraid it will be Corrupted, altho they are advertiſed of this Danger by that Patriarch, and alſo by my ſelf. As to the Synod held at Cyprus in the Year 1688: 'tis well known this Iſland has bin under the Direction of the Roman Prelate and Latin Biſhops, ſince the thirteenth Century to the Year 1571, in which time the Turks took it from the Venetians. We need not then wonder if the People thereof follow the Doctrine of the Latins, eſpecially conſidering the Pope has ſtill kept up his Emiſſaries there from that time. The two Treatiſes mentioned by Mr. Arnaud, carry with 'em ſuch Marks as will eaſily diſcover them: For the firſt of them begins thus, ſome generous Vide lib. 12. Mr. Arnaud.French Prieſts have addreſſed themſelves to us, and requeſted our Opinion touching the Holy Sacrament of the Euchariſt. The other, that it was Tranſcribed from the Acts of the Synod, at the Requeſt of the Reverend Father Francis de Briſac a Capucin and one of the Emiſſaries of the Holy Miſſion of Larnece. All this is only an Effect of the Miſſions; and Mr. Arnaud would have bin never the leſs eſteemed, had he made no uſe of theſe Teſtimonies, for ſuch kind of Proofs as theſe will never terminate the Difference betwixt us, ſeeing there are on the other ſide ſolid Reaſons, and authentick Teſtimonies againſt him.