The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 1

The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages · Part · Book 5 · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP I.

Of the Moſcovites.

That the Moſcovites do not believe Tranſubſtantiation.

HAVING thus cleared up the Point in reference to the Greeks, I come now in order to the Examination of Mr. Arnaud's fifth Book, wherein he treats of the other Churches called Schiſmaticks, which are ſeparated as well from the Greek Church, as the Roman. The firſt of thoſe Churches which he Offers us is that of the Moſcovites, and he immediately acknowledges that ſhe makes up a part of the Greek one, and that the ſame p. 2Proofs which ſerve for the one, ſuffice for the other. But this acknowledgment ill agreeing with the Deſign, he had to make this the Subject of four Chapters; he ſay's afterwards, he thought himſelf obliged to treat of this at lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.large, as well for that the Fallacious arguings which Mr. Claude makes thereupon, deſerve to be repreſented; as that alſo, the Opinion of the Moſcovites appeared to him very Conſiderable in this matter. To ſpeak plainly, theſe are meer frivolous Pretences, as it will appear in the ſequel, and unleſs he imagined this Multiplication of Objects would contribute ſomething to his Glory, and make it more Illuſtrious; there can be no reaſon alledged for the mentioning of the Moſcovites apart, for if it be true theſe People profeſs to follow the Greek Religion, (as he ſay's;) aſſoon as ever we are ſatisfied of the Doctrine of theſe laſt, we need not trouble our ſelves any longer, concerning the Belief of the others. Yet we muſt accommodate our ſelves to Mr. Arnaud's method, and treat of the Moſcovites ſeeing he will have it ſo.

TO begin with the ſtate of theſe People, Moſcovia is a great Nation profeſſing the Chriſtian Religion, but otherwiſe extream Barbarous and Ignorant of the Doctrines of Chriſtianity. Some have queſtioned whether they may reaſonably be called Chriſtians; whereupon Mr. Olearius has Pleaſantly Voyage into Moſcovia, lib. 3. p. 234.ſay'd: That it may as well be queſtioned whether they are Men, ſeeing their Religion does not ſo greatly differ from that of other Chriſtians, as their Morals, and way of Living does from that of other Men; but as they ſhew themſelves Men by ſpeech, and Laughter, ſo in like manner they appear to be Chriſtians by Poſſevin Bibl. ſel. lib. 6. C. 5. and lib. de reb. Moſcov. Thom. a Jeſu. Lib. 6. C. 5. Olearius voyage Moſc. Lib. 3 p. 237. 234.Baptiſm, and the outward Profeſſion of the Chriſtian Religion. They refer themſelves upon all Accounts to their Prince as to their Oracle, ſaying when they be asked touching any Point, That God and their Great Czar know it, and that 'tis by the eſpecial Grace of their Czar, they are in Health, and can ſit on Horſeback. One of their Chief Maxims is to ſuffer no Preachers amongſt them, and in Effect they have none, but content themſelves with the reading of the Pſalms, ſome Chapters of the Scripture, and S. Athanaſius's Creed; to which they ſometimes add an Homely of S. Chryſoſtom, or the Life of ſome of their Saints. Mr. Olearius adds, That one of their Prieſts ſetting himſelf to Preach, and exhort the People out of the word of God to the duty of Prayer, the Patriarch depoſed him together with ſome other Prieſts who followed his Example; that he excommunicated them and ſent them into Siberia,

THERE are neither Accademy's nor Colledges amongſt them, and it would be a Crime puniſhable by the Laws of that Kingdom, for a man to Poſſev. ubi ſupra.apply himſelf to the ſtudy of Sciences. They have only ſome ſmall Schools wherein they teach Children to Write and Read, and perhaps a little Greek and Latine in one Corner of the Kingdom.

HENCE it is their Eccleſiaſticks are ſo Prodigiouſly ignorant that Olear. Lib. 3. p. 234.Mr. Olearius tells us; There is ſcarcely any amongſt their very Monks and Prieſts that can give an Account of his Faith, becauſe they have none to Preach the word of Olear. Lib. 3 p. 237.God to them. And therefore the Patriarch will not permit 'em to Diſpute about Religion, nor inform themſelves by means of Strangers. Poſſevin likewiſe tells us, that demanding of their Monks who was the founder of their Order; Poſſev. ubi ſupra.not one of 'em could return him an Anſwer. And thus are we informed in the Ambaſſage of the Earl of Carlile: The Religion of the Moſcovites is the Relation of the Ambaſſag. of the Earl of Carlile.ſame which the Greeks profeſs, for they follow their Faith, Rights, and Ceremonies; but they are ſo Ignorant, that they ſcarce know themſelves what Religion they are of.

p. 3THEIR Superſtition is no leſs than their Ignorance, witneſs their calling Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.their Images their Gods; ſaying when they enter into any Houſe, I eſt le Boch, where is the God? Witneſs likewiſe their re-baptizing themſelves every year, and not only their own Perſons, but in like manner their Images Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.and Horſes. And their giving a Teſtimonial or Paſs port in due form and manner to their Dead, atteſting, they have lived good Chriſtians and obſerved the Greek Religion, to the end that S. Peter in ſeeing their Teſtimonial may admit them into Heaven. Witneſs moreover that fabulous and impious Book, mentioned by Olearius, wherein they have corrupted the Hiſtorical paſſages of the Goſpel, adding thereto filthy and abominable Circumſtances, ſuch as is this amongſt others: That Mary Magdalen proſtituting her ſelf one day Olear. p. 249.out of Charity, her Action was ſo Meritorious in the ſight of God, that it expiated all her paſt ſins, and cauſed her to be Canonized in the Regiſter of Saints.

I could willingly forbear mentioning things of this Nature, did not I find that Mr. Arnaud in his Diſcourſes concerning theſe People, ſeems to repreſent us with an Idea of the moſt happy and flouriſhing People in the World.

THIS is, ſay's he, a great Kingdom almoſt intirely ſeparate from all others. Lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.This is a Nation which has ever had but little Commerce with the reſt of the Nations of the World, few Perſons Voyaging into thoſe parts, and few Moſcovites into Aſia and Europe. There was never in this Country a mixture of Perſons of divers Communions. It cannot be ſay'd the Latins have brought over their Opinions here by Croiſados; and 'tis obſerved by all Authors that theſe People are exceeding careful to preſerve their ancient Cuſtoms, and Doctrines. In fine, there is no Country in the World more tenacious of their Opinions, and which leſs eaſily admits a new one. The Church of this Kingdom is a Church purely Greek, and owes it's Converſion to the Greek Church, having received from her the Doctrine ſhe Profeſſes. There are ſcarcely any other Books read amongſt them, than ſome Greek Fathers tranſlated into the Sclavonian Tongue. The writings of theſe Fathers are expounded amongſt them; they have no other Sentiments than thoſe which Nature imprints in their Minds. Will not a man be apt to ſay in reading this Deſcription, that this Land is a kind of ſpiritual Canaan?

BUT what ſignifies diſguiſing of things at this rate? Beſides what I now related touching the Ignorance, and Superſtitions reigning in this Church; we need only obſerve what judgment Poſſevin who lived ſeveral years in Moſcovia makes of them. In reſpect of Schiſm, ſay's he, it cannot be imagin'd how deeply Poſſev. de reb. Moſcov. p. 24.they are ingaged in it, holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims, or rather, adding ſtill ſomthing to them, than abating any of them. It is the ſame with the Moſcovites as with thoſe who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle, the forwarder they go, the more they multiply their Errors, juſt as may be obſerved in the Innovators of our times. The Moſcovites having receiv'd their Schiſm from the Greeks have departed from 'em, and having no Books, nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies. And yet according to Mr. Arnaud, this is the only Country in the World for conſerving a Doctrine already eſtabliſhed, and the leaſt likely to embrace a new Opinion. The ſame Poſſevin tells us that the Great Duke Poſſev. de reb. Moſcov. p. 1.Baſil having cauſed a Greek Prieſt to come into his Country, whom the Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſent him, he threw him into Priſon, and would not releaſe him altho requeſted by the Turkiſh Emperor, becauſe the Prieſt told p. 4him, he found the Moſcovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church; and from that time, they had no more Recourſe to the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moſcovia. In another place, he obſerves expreſsly that they differ in ſeveral Ibid. p. 38.things from the Latins: Which cauſed Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia, Elucid. error. ritus. Ruth. Joan. Sacra.to ſay, that they abuſe in ſeveral things the Rights of the Greeks, and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks, which have departed from them. This propoſition of Sacranus may be exceſſive, but it may be well concluded thence, that the Moſcovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion, but, have not ſo carefully preſerved it, but that 'tis alter'd in ſeveral things.

THIS pretended firmneſs which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them, has not hindred the Greek Religion, from being corrupted amongſt them, neither has it hindred the Latins from uſing their utmoſt Endeavors, to introduce their Doctrines amongſt them; nor Poſſevin from laying his Deſigns in Order thereunto. It has not hindred the Popes from ſending their Emiſſaries amongſt Poſſev. de reb. Moſc Com. 1. & 2 Chap. 4.them, as I have already ſhow'd in the ſecond Book, nor from making uſe of Merchants, who under pretence of Commerce obtain an eaſier acceſs into theſe Countries, as appears by the Hiſtory of Paul Jovius, nor Arcudius Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Moſc.a Latiniz'd Greek, from ſpending twenty years in Lituania, Ruſſia, and Moſcovia, in the propogating of the Romiſh Religion, as he himſelf teſtifies Arcud. Epiſt. dedicat. ad Sigiſm.in his Letter, to Sigiſmond King of Poland, nor Seminaries from being ſet up in Lituania and other places, for the inſtructing of the Moſcovites Children in the Romiſh Religion, as Poſſevin tells us. This firmneſs does not hinder, Poſſev. Bibl. ſelect. Lib. 6. C. 1.but that they have made uſe not only of Polanders for the Reduction of theſe People, who hold a particular Commerce with them, but eſpecially, of the re-united Ruſſians who appear leſs ſuſpected to the Moſcovites; becauſe they Poſſev. Bibl. ſelect Lib. 6. C. 1.obſerve ſtill the Greek Rites. In fine this does not hinder the falſe Greeks, who having finiſhed their ſtudies in the Seminary at Rome, do return into Greece, from promoting the intereſt of the Roman Church, under the habit and diſguiſe of Schiſmatical Greeks, and from paſſing over from Greece into Moſcovia when occaſion Offers, as appears by the Example of Payſius Ligaridius, who wrote in Moſco it ſelf, his Treatiſe of the Euchariſt in favour of Mr. Arnaud, and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone.

IS not this then a deluſory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made, That it cannot be alledged, the Latins have brought their Opinions into theſe parts by Croiſado's? This is true, but if they have not brought them thither by Croiſado's, they have done whatſoever they have been able in order to the introducing them by Miſſions and Seminaries, by Commerce of Merchants, by Poland, Ruſſia, and Greece it ſelf which is their Mother-Church. Now can it ſeem ſtrange to us if with all theſe Machins, and by abuſing the Ignorance and ſtupidity of theſe People, they have been made to believe that Tranſubſtantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion, and conſequently one of theirs? And can it be imagined, we are ſuch Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People? What Mr. Arnaud adds: That there is ſcarcely any other Books Poſſev. de reb. Moſcov. Comm. 1.read amongſt them, than the Writings of ſome of the Greek Fathers tranſlated into the Sclavonian Language, does not well agree with what Poſſevin tells us, that they underſtand not any more of the Sclavonian Language, than what nearly relates to theirs, or that of Poland. What ſignifies the reading of Greek Fathers Tranſlated into a Language which the People underſtand not?

BUT let us ſee what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us, p. 5that the Moſcovites believe Tranſubſtantiation. The firſt he Offers is the ſilence of all Authors, that have written on the Religion of this Church, who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane: To enhance the Value of this Proof, he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Poſitive, whereby to maintain my Theſis. It is ſtrange, ſay's he, that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter, ſhould chooſe rather to devine the Opinion of theſe People on weak Conjectures, than to inform himſelf whether he might not meet in ſo many Books, that mention the Religion Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425.of the Moſcovites, real Proofs of what he would willingly find. He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading thoſe Books, and Proteſts he has not been guilty of the like, having read whatſoever he could find written on this Subject, eight Authors on one ſide, ſeveral Treatiſes on the other, ſuch as Poſſevin, Baronius, Raynoldus, Botter, Breerwood, Hornbeck, and ſeveral others.

THERE is no need of this Account. There being no body as I know of that queſtions Mr. Arnaud's induſtry; we on the contrary blame him for taking ſo much Pains for nothing. As to my own part believing as I do, that the World do's not much concern it ſelf, whether I am Diligent or Lazy, I ſhall not make this a matter of Debate, only ſay, that Mr. Arnaud with all his Reading will be no leſs perplexed than my ſelf, how negligent ſoever I am, ſhould either of us be put upon the producing of the Teſtimony of one ſingle Moſcovite Author, that expreſly mentions Tranſubſtantiation, either one way or other. If then by real Proofs, he means paſſages of the Moſcovites themſelves, I beg of him to ſhew me who are the Authors of this Nation, that have treated of the Myſteries of Chriſtian Religion, for excepting the Letter of John the Metropolitain of Moſcou, which Sigiſmond d' Herberſtein has Sigiſm. Com. rer. Moſc.publiſhed together with the Canons of another John, and the Anſwer of Niphon Biſhop of Novograd, I know none that have written about Religion, or any thing elſe, and theſe three Pieces aforementioned, are but five pages of Paper in all. But if by theſe real Proofs Mr. Arnaud means the Teſtimonies of thoſe who have deſcribed the Religion of theſe People, his Complaint has no grounds. We have already told him that Travellers, and thoſe that make Diſcourſes of diſtant Nations, give us ſeldom any other than a general Relation of their Opinions, without deſcending to Particularize what they hold or reject. So that there can be nothing certainly concluded from the ſilence of theſe Authors.

IT is to no purpoſe to ſay, that in the Compariſons they make of Religions, it is always with the Roman Catholick Religion, that they Compare all others, and that Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 427.in this Compariſon, the Principal differences are deſigned to be marked out. For ſuppoſing they all of 'em took this Courſe, it is certain they muſt reduce all theſe Principal differences, to thoſe which ſpring from an expreſs and actual Oppoſition, wherein on one hand the Roman Church profeſſes to believe ſuch a Point, and the Church which is compared with it, profeſſes on the contrary to oppoſe and reject it. So that we muſt not wonder if thoſe that have diſcourſed of the Religion of the Moſcovites have obſerved, that they hold as fabulous the fire of Purgatory, acknowledge not the Authority of the Pope, Communicate under both kinds, and give the Communion to Children, and yet have not obſerved that they do not hold Tranſubſtantiation. Theſe Points are openly controverted between the Greek Church of which the Moſcovite makes a part, and the Latine, but that of Tranſubſtantiation is not ſo. They do not teach it, neither yet do they make thereof a point of Controverſie.

p. 6IF there can be any advantage drawn from the ſilence of theſe Authors it falls to me. For being moſt of them Roman Catholicks, and knowing well the Importance of this Article, and how greatly controverted in our Weſtern parts, there is no Likely-hood if they had found it held, eſtabliſhed, and taught amongſt the Moſcovites, but they would remark as much, on purpoſe to gratifie in this the Roman Church, and indeavour to clear it from the reproach of Innovation; neither muſt Mr. Arnaud imagine, that he is the only Perſon that had in his Eye the Schiſmatical Churches for the defence of the controverted Points in our Europe. Theſe aforementioned Authors are not wanting to tell us of the Devotion which theſe People have for Images, the worſhip they give their Saints, their Prayers for the Dead, their faſtings, Monks, Confeſſion, extream Unction, and in a word of all particulars wherein they are agreed with the Roman Church, and are contrary to the Proteſtants. How then comes it to paſs they have forgotten that of Tranſubſtantiation? It is to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to ſay, that they do not particularly Remark the Articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, touching the Death of Chriſt, nor the others in the Creed, for beſides that this is not abſolutely true, there being ſome of theſe Authors, who declare the Moſcovites hold Athanaſius's Creed, and the ſeven firſt Councils, and conſequently the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. Beſides this I ſay, theſe Articles are not debated between the Romaniſts and Proteſtants, as the others are, and eſpecially that of the Converſion of Subſtances.

BUT ſay's Mr. Arnaud, we will ſhew Mr. Claude that they are not all of 'em ſilent on this Point, there being ſome that clearly affirm the Moſcovites Ibid. p. 426.hold Tranſubſtantiation. Which we are to Examine. He tells us then, that Paulus Jovius having obſerved they reject Purgatory, and diſown the Popes Supremacy, and follow the Greeks Ceremonies, makes a general Concluſion concerning all the other Articles, that they hold the ſame as we do: In caeteris Eadem, quae a nobis de Religione ſentiuntur conſtan…ſſime credunt. I think, adds Mr. Arnaud, that the Real preſence and Tranſubſtantiation are Articles P. 428.important enough to be comprehended under this general Propoſition. Were this a right conſequence it would likewiſe follow hence, that the Moſcovite Prieſts do not marry no more than thoſe of the Latins, for Paulus Jovius ſay's nothing of that. It would follow they baptized not with three Immerſions, and hold all other Baptiſm to be of none Effect, for Paulus Jovius does not remark this. Neither does he any more take Notice, that they reject the Confirmation of a Biſhop, hold faſting on Saturday to be a great Crime, abhor the eating of Creatures ſtrangled, and yet theſe Articles are as important in reſpect of the Moſcovites as any others, ſeeing they make them principal Controverſies, not being able to bear with them that are of contrary Opinions. Mr. Arnaud muſt not be ſo quick at drawing Conſequences, or imagine that Paulus Jovius has been ſo exact in all that Paul Jovius Com. de legat. Moſc.he has written concerning the Moſcovites. For he tells us, they have St. Ambroſe's works, St. Auſtin's, St. Jerom's, where St. Gregory's tranſlated into the Sclavonian Tongue, and highly reſpect them; and Poſſevin the Jeſuite tells us, that having made an exact inquiry into this particular, he could find no ſuch thing, neither believes the Name of theſe Authors is known to Poſſevin Com. 1. de reb. Moſc.theſe People, altho thoſe of St. Ambroſe and Gregory, may be ſeen in their Kalender, and that at the Princes Court, he could hear nothing of this.

SACRANUS a Chanon of Cracovia, adds Mr. Arnaud, who gives us p. 9the largeſt Catalogue he could of the Errors of the Moſcovites, ſay's touching the eigth Error. That according to the Moſcovites, the Body of our Saviour Lib. 5. c. 1. p. 431.Chriſt cannot be Conſecrated with Azymes, and on the ſixteenth Error. That they cut a Morſel of the Bread prepar'd for the Sacrifice into the form of a Triangle, and Conſecrate it to make thereof the Body of our Saviour Chriſt, in Corpus Chriſti conſecrant, and in the eighteenth Error, Conſecrant panem in Corpus Chriſti.

'TIS certain Mr. Arnaud makes a ſmall matter ſerve for a Proof. The Moſcovites Conſecrate the Bread, in Corpus Chriſti, into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or to be the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. They believe then Tranſubſtantiation; 'Tis evident for the Eſtabliſhing of this Concluſion, there is need of Ibid.ſomething more preciſe than this. But, ſay's he, this is a Catholick that ſpeaks thus, and who would be underſtood to ſpeak of the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that attributes this ſame Belief to the Moſcovites. When Sacranus or any other that profeſſes the Roman Religion ſpeaks as from himſelf, and the queſtion concerns his own Faith, we can eaſily believe that in a Diſcourſe of the Euchariſt, by the Body of Chriſt, he means the proper ſubſtance of this Body, for we know that this is the Sence, and Style of the Roman Church. But when he Diſcourſes of the Moſcovites, and the queſtion concerns their Faith, we believe that in ſaying they Conſecrate the Bread in Corpus Chriſti, he pretends no more, than to uſe the ſame Terms which the Moſcovites uſe, without concerning himſelf with the Senſe in which they take theſe words. They muſt be taken in the Senſe the Moſcovites give 'em. What Senſe is that? This Sacranus does not determine, and to go about to decide it, by what Sacranus himſelf believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illuſion.

AS to what John le Ferre Confeſſor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates, Moſcovit. Religion.that the Conſecration is performed amongſt them, by pronouncing our Saviour's words, and that they attribute to them ſo great Vertue, that aſſoon as ever they are uttered by the Prieſt, they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator; we muſt tell Mr. Arnaud, that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation, ſuch as is this le Ferre's. This Author aſſures us, that only the Biſhops amongſt the Moſcovites Adminiſter Confirmation, that they do it by the laying on of Hands, in making the ſign of the Croſs, and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead. That one of the chief Offices of the Prieſt is to Preach the Goſpel of Chriſt to the People, which they do not only every Sunday, but alſo on the Feſtivals of the Bleſſed Virgin and Apoſtles. That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion. That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory. Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate, as being Chriſt's Vicar, and St. Peters Succeſſor. That they freely aſſiſt at Maſs with the Latins. This is all falſe, as appears by other Relations of theſe People. Poſſevin Com. 2. de reb. Moſc.And therefore Poſſevin has not ſcrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongſt thoſe Authors, which are counted fabulous, becauſe, ſay's he, they have been miſ-informed, or did not write with a Deſign to diſcover the Venom, to apply thereunto a Remedy. What ſignifies then ſuch peoples Teſtimony.

NOT to take notice that theſe Terms, The Creature gives place to the Creator, are not ſufficient to make us conclude from hence Tranſubſtantiation. It being a general Expreſſion capable of divers Senſes. For when we ſhould ſay with Theodoret, that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature, or with St. Auſtin, that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament, or with the Greeks, that it is changed into the Vertue of Chriſt's body, the Creature will ſtill p. 10give place to the Creator without any Converſion of ſubſtance. So that howſoever we take John le Ferre's Teſtimony 'tis invalid; and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cauſe. But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors, John le Ferre muſt have his place amongſt the reſt.

I Confeſs that Laſicius the Polander that relates this Teſtimony, has taken it in the Sence of Tranſubſtantiation, and as we need not doubt but that the Deſign of John le Ferre, was to make the World believe that the Moſcovites hold this Doctrine, ſo likewiſe we muſt not find it ſtrange if thoſe that refer themſelves to his Authority, as Laſicius has done, do take it no otherwiſe. Had Laſicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's, he would have found it full of falſe Reports, and eaſily find his Authors main Deſign was to render the Moſcovite Religion, as Conformable as he could to the Roman; and by this means to deceive his Readers, and eſpecially, the Proteſtants whom he had at that time in his Eye. He would then have abſolutely rejected the Authority of ſuch a Man, who has palpably diſguiſed the Truth: He might at leaſt diſtinguiſh in reſpect of the Words in queſtion, Ferre's Sence, from the Sence of the Moſcovites themſelves, ſuppoſing they were their own Words. But this he has not done, altho he ought to have done it, and thence it is that on this bare Teſtimony without any other Proof, Laſicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moſcovites leaned towards Tranſubſtantiation. Whence it follows, we ought not lightly to Credit whatſoever a ſuſpected Author ſhall tell us, concerning the Religion of Strangers, but it does not follow 'tis true in the main, that the Moſcovites believe the Converſion of Subſtances.

WE muſt then come to the Teſtimonies of Dannaverus profeſſor of Strasburg, and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holſtein's Library-Keeper; Perſons of greater Reputation. Both ſay the Moſcovites hold Tranſubſtantiation: They put, ſay's Dannaverus, into the Wine contained in the Chalice, the Bread broken into pieces; they Bleſs it, and believe 'tis Tranſubſtantiated. They hold Tranſubſtantiation ſay's Mr. Olearius. So that here we have two expreſs Teſtimonies, and againſt which it ſeems there can be nothing alledged. As to Dannaverus, he has only followed Olearius's Authority, knowing no more of the Religion of the Moſcovites, than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors, as appears by his Treatiſe. But as to Mr. Olearius, he is a Perſon of great Learning, and has lived in thoſe Countries, and made it his Buſineſs to be informed of this Point, and who not only gives us this Account in his Book, but has likewiſe Confirm'd it, in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occaſion of this preſent Diſpute, and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph.

IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Teſtimony, and clear it from all Perplexity. And this will be done by conſidering his own Perpe. of the Faith Part 3. C. 8.Words, as well in his Book as Letter. Thoſe in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them, from the Original High-Dutch are, They believe Tranſubſtantiation, that is to ſay, that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Chriſt. Thoſe of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438.related by Mr. Arnaud: I wrote expreſly in the Relation of my Voyage, that the Moſcovites hold Tranſubſtantiation, that is to ſay, they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood. Diſtinguiſh then Mr. Olearius's Teſtimony, from his private Judgment, and you'l clear the Difficulty. His Teſtimony is, that the Moſcovites believe the Bread and p. 9Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt which he has denoted by theſe Terms, which is to ſay that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jeſus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, which he ſignifies by theſe following words. They hold Tranſubſtantiation.

SO that the whole of this Teſtimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood, and his ſaying that they believe Tranſubſtantiation has no other grounds than his own perſawſion that this is in effect a converſion of Subſtance. He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to ſay, They hold Tranſubſtantiation, ſays he, that is to ſay, the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood.

THIS that is to ſay explains what he means, and punctually determines what the Moſcovites hold. If to change and tranſubſtantiate are one and the ſame thing, his Propoſition muſt be received in its full extent, if they are not, the Change belongs to the Moſcovites, the Tranſubſtantier to the private ſence of M. Olearius. We then reſpectfully receive his Teſtimony without the leaſt queſtion of his ſincerity; but as to his particular Judgement, we hope he will be ſo equitable as to lay no neceſſity upon us to receive it. For ſhould we judge otherwiſe then he has done he will have no juſt cauſe to be angry. Neither had he any reaſon to be offended Anſwer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8.at the Anſwer I made the Author of the Perpetuity. That 'tis very likely he was miſtaken by falſe conjectures, and that having heard of the change of Bread, he imagined this was the change of Subſtance. which is the ſame thing I ſay now. The diſtinction which I make between his Teſtimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms, and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Juſtice will allow me. I can therefore ſee no reaſon for his ſtuffing his Letter with rough and paſſionate expreſſions, which agree not well with the Character he bears, and which I ſuppoſe he has learned of the barbarous People he has ſo long converſed with. Why would he have us believe, the change of Bread into the Body is the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, ſeeing we find on the contrary that this is the foreign of the Greeks, of which expreſſion we have ſo often already manifeſted the ſence; The Moſcovites follow the Greek Religion we grant, the Greeks ſay the Bread is changed, the Moſcovites affirm the ſame, the Queſtion is only whether to change is the ſame as to tranſubſtantiate. Now I have plainly diſplayed the difference betwixt theſe two Terms in reference to the Greeks; we muſt then conclude the ſame in reſpect of the Moſcovites. It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactneſs. For in the ſame place where he tells us the Moſcovites believe Tranſubſtantiation, he adds, that the reſt of the conſecrated Bread ſerves for Panis Benedictus. Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Subſtance of the body of Chriſt, but even in this he is miſtaken, for what ſerves amongſt theſe People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards conſecrated and called the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and not the Remains of the conſecrated Bread.

BUT to oppoſe againſt the private Judgment of M. Olearius ſomething yet more preciſe, I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation p. 10of the three Ambaſſages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject. 'Tis the Teſtimony of an Honorable Perſon, who lived a conſiderable time in thoſe parts, and ſince M. Olearius, who wanted neither Judgment, Sincerity, nor Curioſity to inform himſelf and us touching the belief of theſe people, in reference to Tranſubſtantiation, without the leaſt regard to the Diſpute between Mr. Arnaud and my ſelf, as having no other deſign then that of Relat. of the Ambaſ. of M. Carlile.diſcovering the Truth. Moreover, ſays he, I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions, namely, that they hold Tranſubſtantiation: and there are three Reaſons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion. For firſt, when we diſcourſe with them, touching the Conſequences of this Doctrine, they teſtifie their diſlike of it: and to maintain it, fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do. 2. 'Tis more then probable that if they believed Tranſubſtantiation, they would reſpect this Myſtery more than they do, and it would be very strange that in ſo ſuperſtitious a Religion as theirs is, they ſhould be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion, eſpecially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear, as we ſee it does amongſt thoſe of the Church of Rome. In fine, had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them, they muſt have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines. But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion. Let Mr. Arnaud then himſelf judge whether he may reaſonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication.

WE come now to the Teſtimony of Payſius Ligaridius, but having already conſidered it in the foregoing Book, we ſhall trouble our ſelves no farther with him. 'Tis not to be doubted but the ſame thing may be done in Muſcovia as in Greece, that is to ſay there may be perſons brought in and ſettl'd there who finiſh'd their Studies in ſome of the Seminaries erected for this purpoſe. 'Tis certain whoſoever ſhall addreſs himſelf to theſe Perſons (who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome, and ſworn to obſerve it's Confeſſion of Faith, but ſent on purpoſe to communicate it to others, prevailing by means of their Ignorance) whether ſoever they be, whether in Muſcovia or Greece, their Teſtimony ſhall not be wanting. But every body knows the Value of them. Let us paſs on then to the Moſcovite Prieſt, that accompanied, not long ſince the great Dukes Ambaſſador to his Majeſty of France, who after Dinner, as 'tis ſay'd, at the Arch-Biſhop of Sens, was deſired to declare what the Moſcovites held concerning the Euchariſt. There may be ſeveral conſiderable Reflexions made on this Relation; but not to enter into particulars, I ſay the Teſtimony of this Perſon is not ſufficiently Authentick to decide our Queſtion. We have already ſeen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moſcovit Prieſts are ſo ignorant in general that there is ſcarcely any amongſt them can give an account of their faith, or knows the Religion profeſſed in other Countries. Theſe are two Characters that do not well agree with the uſe which Mr. Arnaud would make of this Prieſt. For to determine whether Tranſubſtantiation be an Article of the Moſcovite Religion, it ought to be known on one hand what it is the Latins call Tranſubſtantiation, what they ſay and believe of it, and on the other, what the Moſcovite Religion aſſerts touching the Euchariſt. 'Tis no hard matter to make an ignorant Prieſt that ſpeaks of a change of Bread into the Body of Chriſt believe tha… he acknowledges a Tranſubſtantiation. But not to wander from the point in hand, there is all the likelyhood in the World that that which paſſed at the Arch-Biſhop of Sens is a meer Illuſion. To judge of it we need only attentively conſider the Expreſſions of the Relation which Lib 12. P. 75.Mr. Arnaud has produced. After Dinner they withdrew into the Arch-Biſhops p. 11Chamber, where we began to Diſcourſe them touching the different Cuſtoms of their Church, touching their Patriarchs Communion with the other Grcek Patriarchs, concerning Faſtings, Caelibacy, Prayer, their Liturgy, &c. But in fine the Arch-Biſhop deſirous to come to the main Point of which he was moſt deſirous to be informed, prayed the Interpreter to tell him word for word what he was going to demand; having laid this ſtrict charge on the Interpreter, he deſired them to tell him their Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Euchariſt. The Moſcovite Prieſt anſwers without the leaſt haeſitation (which a little ſurprized us, for he had hither to ſtood as it were upon his Guard, as if he had feared the engaging too far in ſome point of Controverſie, leſt he might thereby endanger his Reputation) That it was the real Body and Blood of Chriſt, and that after the Prieſt had uttered theſe words of our Saviour, this is my Body; the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and having ſaid the ſame in reſpect of the Cup, the Wine is changed into his Blood. When the Interpreter had ſaid this, the Arch-Biſhop bad him tell him exactly word for word what the Prieſt had told him. The Interpreter told the Moſcovite Prieſt what the Prelate deſired, whereupon he repeated the ſame words the ſecond time by the Interpreter. And for aſ much as he expreſſed that the Bread and Wine were tranſubſtantiated into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, he was asked whether the Moſcovite Prieſt uſed a word which in his Language had the force of that of Tranſubſtantiated in ours. He replyed, yes, and repeated the Moſcovite word which ſignifies this, in looking on the Prieſt and Secretary, who both of them made Signs that this word was proper in their tongue and ſignified a change of Subſtance.

THE reſult of this Diſcourſe is 1. That the Prieſt ſaid 'twas the real Body and Blood of Chriſt, and that the Bread was changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood. 2. That he repeated only the ſame words the ſecond time. 3. That the Interpreter added, that the Bread and Wine are tranſubſtantiated. 4. That it was the Interpreter that profeſt the Moſcovite word had the force of that of Tranſubſtantiation. 5. That for a farther Confirmation, touching the force of the Word, he required the Prieſt's and Secretary's conſent by a bare look, without ſpeaking to them. 6. That the Prieſt and Secretary anſwered him by a ſign without ſpeaking. 7. That this ſign ſignified this word was proper in their Tongue and ſignified a change of Subſtance.

IT is to be obſerved that this Interpreter was a Monk, not of the Moſcovite Religion, but the Roman; and of the order of Jacobins, and that he explained in French what the Moſcovites ſaid in his Language, and in Moſcovit what M. the Arch-Biſhop of Sens ſaid in French, for the Moſcovites underſtood no more the French, than the French the Moſcovit. Upon this remark which is beyond controul, for 'tis a matter of Fact well known throughout all Paris, I deſire Mr. Arnaud to tell me why this Interpreter having returned the Anſwer of the Moſcovite Prieſt, which he twice repeated in the ſame Terms without any Alteration, when he had I ſay given it in theſe words, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the Wine into his Blood, wherefore did he add that the Bread and Wine were tranſubſtantiated? Wherefore when he was asked whether the Prieſt uſed a Word which in his Tongue had the force of Tranſubſtantiation, did he demand by a bare look the conſent of the Prieſt and Secretary to the Yes, which he anſwered, ſeeing the Prieſt and Secretary who underſtood not French, neither underſtood the Tranſubſtantiated which he added, nor the Queſtion put to the Interpreter, nor the Yes, he anſwered? Do they in Muſcovia ſpeak by ſings or were p. 12they agreed before hand that this look ſhould ſignifie tranſubſtantiated? How could the Prieſt and Secretary anſwer to that which they did not underſtand, why by ſigns, and why muſt this ſign which anſwered a very obſcure Queſtion, ſignifie Tranſubſtantiation? Certainly we are but ſorry people here in the Weſt in compariſon of theſe Moſcovites, that can treat of one of the moſt important Articles of Religion by ſigns and nodds, without knowing the point in queſtion; had Mr. Arnaud and I learnt this Secret our Diſpute would not be ſo tedious. Now if this be not deluſory I know not any thing that I can call by that name.

'TIS certain the Moſcovites profeſs to follow the Greek Religion although they have in ſome ſort altered it. Which I told the Author of the Perpetuity, and this I did not aſſert upon light grounds, although Mr. Arnaud is pleaſed to ſay I did; ſeeing I ſaid no more than what he himſelf acknowledges. This is a common Principle to us both, 'tis true, we draw hence different conſequences, but as matters are now ſtated and cleared, any man may eaſily judge which of us two has beſt grounded his Sentiment.

I ſaid likewiſe that Laſicius affirms the Armenians although they deny Tranſubſtantiation, yet do reverence the Sacrament more religiouſly than the Ruſſians; whence I drew this Concluſion, that 'twas not likely the Anſwer to the P. 3. C. 8.latter of theſe who are more cold in their Devotion ſhould extend their Belief farther than the others, and that the others ſhould have more reſpect for a Subſtance of Bread than theſe ſhould have for what they eſteemed the proper Subſtance of the Son of God. I know not what could oblige Mr. Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448sArnaud to ſay, That it is ſcarcely to be imagined how many Diſguiſements and Falſities there are in this Argument. I deſigned no more by all this than the drawing of a juſt Conſequence from a True Principle. 'Tis certain that Laſicius ſay's two things, the one that the Armenians of Leopolis deny the Bread and Wine loſe their Nature, In Sacramento Euchariſtae elementa Naturas ſuas amittere negant. Theſe are his words, the other Joan. Lazic. Relig. Arm.that they reverence the Sarcament more religiouſly than the Ruſſians, Sacramentum religioſius Ruſſis venerantur, theſe are alſo his words. Whence I conclude 'tis not likely the Ruſſians or Moſcovites believe Tranſubſtantiation, the reaſon is ſufficiently evident, to wit, that thoſe that believe the Sacrament to be the proper Subſtance of the Son of God, cannot but ſhew it more Reſpect than thoſe that believe it to be a Subſtanee of Bread.

IT is to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to ſay, that my Argument ſuppoſes Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448.according to this Author, the Armenians do neither hold the real Preſence, nor Tranſubſtantiation, and that if I do not ſuppoſe this, nothing can be leſs reaſonable than my Diſcourſe. For if the Armenians, adds he, together with the Subſtance of Bread do moreover admit the real preſence of Chriſt, it is no wiſe improbable but that they have a greater reſpect for the Euchariſt than thoſe that do not admit this Subſtance of Bread. The reſpect of the Euchariſt comes only from the Preſence of Chriſt: and the preſence or abſence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto.

I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas. Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly oppoſite to his, Contrariatur, ſay's this Author, venerationi hujus Sacramenti ſi aliqua p. 13Subſtantia creata eſſet ibi quae non poſſet Adoratione latriae adorari. 'Twould be Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaeſt. 75. Art. 2.contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament, were there any created Subſtance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria. Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud ſays: Mr. Arnaud's Propoſition ſay's that the reſpect due to the Euchariſt proceeds only from the preſence of Chriſt, and that the preſence or abſence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto, and Thomas aſſures us on the contrary that if the Subſtance of bread were preſent, it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament, whence it follows according to him, that thoſe that hold the Subſtance of Bread ceaſes to be, ought more to reverence the Sacrament than thoſe that believe it remains. So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real preſence this ſignifies nothing to my Argument. 'Tis clear according to Laſicius that they do not believe Tranſubſtantiation, and conſequently 'tis clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament, yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiouſly than the Moſcovites. How then can the belief of Tranſubſtantiation be attributed to the Moſcovites, for if they held this Doctrine they muſt have a greater veneration for the Sacrament than the others. This Argument cannot be otherwiſe denyed than by oppoſing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. So that with drawing my ſelf out of the Liſts I ſhall offer in my ſtead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud, or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas, that is to ſay, the Maſter by the Diſciple or the Diſciple by the Maſter.

MOREOVER our Queſtion touching the Moſcovites relating only to Tranſubſtantiation, 'tis evident it would be a Digreſſion from the Point in hand to diſcuſs the intire paſſage of Laſicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Preſence. It will appear by what we ſhall ſay in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular. The Queſtion now concerns only the Moſcovites; and what Laſicius ſays concerning their worſhipping leſs religiouſly the Sacrament than the Armenians is uncontroulable, conſidering the teſtimonies we have produced in the ſecond Book, of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia, John de Laſco Arch Biſhop of Gneſne, and Scarga the Jeſuite; who expreſsly depoſe that the Ruſſians of whom the Moſcovites are a part, do indeed adore the Bread before its conſecration, but afterwards ſhew it no reſpect nor veneration, ſcattering the Crums thereof on the ground. It is to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to ſay that that which hinders them from giving the Euchariſt after conſecration an external honour is, that the Conſecration is performed in a place ſeparate from the people, and that 'tis out of reſpect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for ſome time of the ſight of this Myſtery 'Tis evident theſe are mere Subter fuges. Did they worſhip the Sacrament with an internal adoration, they would declare as much themſelves, and eaſe Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of ſearching their Secret thoughts. They would ſhew it by ſome expreſſion of external Reverence, and for this effect expoſe the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People, the People would at leaſt make profeſſion of adoring it before they received it, and the Prieſts would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had conſecrated it. Yet do theſe Authors abſolutely ſay that they give it no adoration. This, ſays Mr. Arnaud, Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432.is not ſo, for Oderbornus tells us that the Prieſt comes from the Sanctuary and walking leaſurely ſhows the People that which he has conſecrated in ſecret: that then the People fall down on their Knees the Prieſt ſaying to 'em in the Moſcovit Language, Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt whom the p. 14Jews unjuſtly put to death. But we have ſhewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently miſtaken, having taken a Ceremony which is uſed before the conſecration of the Bread, as if it were uſed after this Conſecration. The Moſcovites even as the Greeks do but once ſhew the People the Bread and Wine, taking one turn round the Church before the Conſecration, which they call the great Entrance. If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others, and if he does know it, he ſhews little ſincerity, in deſigning to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's miſtake.