The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 4 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The Teſtimonies of ſome Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud, touching the Belief of the Greeks, Anſwered.
IT appears already that Mr. Arnaud muſt have greatly abridged his Diſpute touching the Greeks, had he deſigned to clear it from all its Illuſions; and had reduced it into a leſſer Volumn ſtill, had he retrenched all the needleſs Matters it contains. I place in this Rank the Teſtimonies of ſome Proteſtants which he alledges, who ſeem to acknowledge, either by a formal Declaration, or by their Silence, that, the Greeks do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Tranſubſtantiation. I confeſs he has not made a Proof thereof, as knowing the Matter would not bear it, yet has wrote an expreſs Chapter about it, and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp, hoping by this means to make ſome Impreſſion on the Mind of his Readers, and prepoſſeſs them with this Imagination, that I alone amongſt all the Proteſtants deny the Greeks believe Tranſubſtantiation.
THE firſt he produces is Cruſius Profeſſor in the Univerſity of Tubinga, who ſays, that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood; but this is not Tranſubſtantiation, there being a vaſt Difference betwixt this and that. Cruſius relates the Terms which they uſe, and this is not Conteſted, the Queſtion is whether by theſe Terms, they mean a real Converſion of Subſtances: Which is what we deny.
HE offers us likewiſe ſomething out of Grotius againſt Rivet, and ſets again before us the Teſtimony of Forbeſius Biſhop of Edinburg. But we all know theſe two Perſons (altho otherwiſe learned enough, eſpecially Grotius) ſuffered themſelves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimſical Projects, in relation to the Differences between the two Churches, which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate, and thereupon wrote ſeveral things which they did not throughly Examine. Moreover Grotius in thoſe Paſſages alledged by Mr. Arnaud, ſpeaks not of Tranſubſtantiation in particular, and Forbeſius only ſays, that 'twas received by moſt of the Greeks, by moſt: Here's a Reſtriction, Mr. Arnaud ſays that Forbeſius does not prove it. But whether he proves it or not, we do not much matter, for 'tis not by ſuch a man, and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments. It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him, to ſee whether the Teſtimony of ſuch a man be ſufficient. He adds, he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Proteſtant, but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe, and as a great Traveller: that he quotes him as St. Auguſtin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknowledged by this Donatiſt, who was more ſincere than his Fellows.
BUT how comes he to forget ſo ſoon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him, in citing him? Forbeſius, ſays he, one of the moſt learned amongſt the Engliſh Proteſtants. What account does he think we will make of a Perſon whom he can neither alledg as a Proteſtant nor Catholick, and yet lived in the midſt of the Proteſtants, he alledges him, ſays he, as a learned Man, I grant he may be ſo. But was this learned Man a Jew, Turk, or Moor, whilſt Biſhop of Edinburg? St. Auguſtin never alledged Tichonius as a Perſon of this kind, that was neither Catholick, nor Donatiſt, but as a real Donatist, altho Tichonius ſincerely acknowledged a Truth which the reſt denyed, accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church, which acknowledg thoſe things others deny, altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profeſs.
FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud, derides the Inſolence of Hottinger, who Pag. 131.pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confeſſion, and ſhews it does in no wiſe contain the Faith of the Eaſtern Churches. Felavius does not ſpeak of Hottinger's Infolence, but on the contrary calls him Virum doctiſſimum, Clariſſimum Hottingerum. He grants not indeed with Hottinger, that Cyrillus his Confeſſion Praefat. ad Chriſtoph. Angel.contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church, and ſhews his Reaſons, but inveighs not againſt Hottinger thereupon, nor particularly mentions Tranſubſtantiation.
OF all thoſe that Mr. Arnaud alledges, there are only Sands, and Dannhaverus Profeſſor of Strasbourg, who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks, and Sands adds a term of Reſtriction, ſaying, that in the main, they do in a manner agree with the Church of Rome, in the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, &c. But for two Authors, who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection, how many others can we produce, who ſtick not to deny there's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins? For not to mention here Kemnitius, Boxornius, Hoſpinian and Epiſcopius, whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number, we may here name the famous Biſhop Morton, the Author of a Book intituled, Catholick Tradition, or a Treatiſe touching the Belief of the Chriſtians of Aſia, Europe, and Affrica. The Learned Saddeel for whom Henry the IV. had ſuch great Eſteem and Kindneſs. Mr. Meſtrezat, Monſieur Ulric Miniſter of Zurich, Mr. Hottinger Profeſſor in the ſame City, Mr. Robert Chreygton an Engliſh Doctor who publiſhed the Hiſtory of Syropulus, and ſeveral others which I mention not, becauſe 'tis not neceſſary to make an exact enumeration of them. It is ſufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the moſt Learned Proteſtants in this particular.
IF ſome amongſt them, as Chytreus, Breerwood, and Hornbeck for Inſtance, who diſcourſe of the Religion of the Greeks, ſay nothing concerning the Article of Tranſubſtantiation, Mr. Arnaud muſt not think to draw Advantage from their Silence. The reaſon of their Silence is, that they ſet not themſelves to the deſcribing any other Points but thoſe that have bin expreſly Controverted between the Greek and Latin Church, that is to ſay, ſuch Points as have bin openly and ſolemnly Debated on both ſides, ſuch as the Article of the Proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt, that of the Azymes, that of Purgatory, and ſome others. All that then can be gathered from this Silence is, that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Tranſubſtantiation, nor the Latins with the Greeks, and that both one and the other contented themſelves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expreſſions, without condemning one another. But as it does not hence follow, that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins, ſo we muſt not take the Silence of Chytreus, Breerwood, nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment, or tacit Confeſſion, that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches. Which is what I already anſwered to the Author of the Perpetuity, who would have prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood, in relation to the other Schiſmatical Communions. For I told him, that this Author does only tranſiently obſerve Anſwer to the Perp P 3 C. 8.the moſt common different Religions, contenting himſelf to ſay what People Imbrace, or what they poſitively and expreſly Reject, without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation, as not having heard of them. That is to ſay, as neither finding them in the Articles propoſed to 'em to Believe, nor in thoſe which they were made expreſly to Renounce, as I have already explain'd. Mr. Arnaud ſets himſelf againſt this Anſwer, and ſay's, I Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133.ſhew by this, that provided I ſay any thing 'tis enough, for I trouble not my ſelf whether it be Rational or not. But if he Believes my Diſcourſe to be Irrational, it lyes upon him to ſhow the Abſurdity of it, without Miſrepreſenting my Sence, and beating the Air as he does. There is certainly no Diſcourſe more reaſonable than that againſt which an Adverſary is forced to betake himſelf to Illuſions and Wranglings about Terms, for this is a ſign he cannot attack it fairly with downright Blows.
AS to Mr. Aubertin, of whom Mr. Arnaud ſay's, he has temper'd himſelf, and that altho he be otherwiſe one of the Confidenteſt Men in the World, in aſſerting Ibid. p. 137.Untruths, yet it appears he finds himſelf gravelled in the Subject of the Greeks, and therefore falls to ſearching Means to eſcape. I anſwer, Mr. Arnaud himſelf is one of the boldeſt Men in the World at accuſing Perſons, and yet proves his Accuſations the worſt of any man, as appears in this whole Controverſie, ſo that what he ſays touching Mr. Aubertin's Falſities, being grounded only on his own Word, ſignifies nothing, in reſpect of the Greeks; 'tis true that Mr. Aubertin has not throughly handled the Queſtion of their Belief, becauſe his Deſign did not oblige him to do it, for intending only to ſhew the Innovation which has bin made in the Church of Rome, in the Subject of the Euchariſt, he has ſufficiently done it without needleſs Enlargings on the Greeks. He ſays ſomething of them by the way, he explain'd ſome Paſſages out of Anaſtaſius Sinaite, Germane Patriarch of Conſtantinople, Damaſcen, the ſecond Council of Nice, Theophylact, Euthymius, Nicholas Methonienſis, Jeremias, and ſome others. 'Tis true he conjectured that the Error of the Weſtern people has communicated it ſelf to ſeveral of thoſe of the Eaſt, towards the end of the twelveth Century, there having bin a more free Commerce between them after the Conqueſt of the Holy Land. Yet has he ſufficiently ſhew'd, that altho the Expreſſions of the modern Greeks, appeared to him Obſcure, Exceſſive, and Different from thoſe of the Ancients, yet did he not believe, they embraced the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, and 'tis upon this ground, that ſpeaking of Cyrillus, he ſay's that he returned to the ancient Faith, and ſpake better of this Myſtery than others. This ſhews us he obſerved there was more Confuſion and Ambiguity in the others, and more Plainneſs and Diſtinctneſs in the Patriarch Cyrillus, but not that he believed the Greek Church received the Doctrine of the Subſtantial Converſion, nor that ſhe held the Subſtance of Bread ceaſes, for he expreſly maintains the contrary.
ALL the reſt of Mr. Arnaud's Diſcourſe conſiſting only of Heats and Invectives againſt me, and my Cauſe receiving no Prejudice thereby, I freely make thereof a Sacrifice to piety, and Chriſtian Meekneſs.