The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
Of the ARMENIANS.
That the Armenians do not believe Tranſubſtantiation: First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Chriſt was ſwallowed up by the Divinity.
WEE ſhall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians, Lib. 5. C. 5.as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion; as that likewiſe what he alledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellenſis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jeſu a Neſtorian Biſhop, deſerves not our conſideration. The Teſtimony of Abraham Echellenſis is of no credit, and I refer my ſelf thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has ſet him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow, a Lyer and Impoſtor. Theſe two perſons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Seminary of the Maronites, both endeavouring to advance the Roman Intereſt, but falling out about the Edition of the Bible in Syriack, Gabriel thought himſelf obliged to tell Abraham his own and publiſh his defects, he therefore puts forth a ſmall Book which he calls, Commonitorium Apologeticum, wherein he repreſents him in the aforementioned manner. He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome, for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites; impoſing on Prince Fachraddin, for cheating the Duke of Florence, and with his being baniſhed his own Country, his Impriſonment at Florence for his Crimes, and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his ſhame to Print thoſe Letters he received from Mount Liban, Rome, and Florence which give an Account of his Life. But beſides there is not any thing in theſe paſſages but may well agree with the Hypotheſis of the Greeks, ſuch as we have ſhewed it to be in the two foregoing Books as will appear to him that ſhall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book, and apply to them the Anſwers I made to ſeveral other ſuch like paſſages, which are needleſs here to be repeated.
WEE muſt come then to the Armenians, I ſhall inſiſt the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has diſcourſed much about them, as for that they are a great people, and an entire Church by themſelves. They are long ſince ſeparated from the Greek Church, and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion. Yet are they both extream ignorant of the deſign of Chriſtianity, and the ignorance of the Armenians ſurpaſſes that of the Greeks as appears from the Teſtimony cited in my ſecond Book. I will add that of the Biſhop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave, ſay's he, a Viſit to the Patriarch of the Relat. of Miſſionarys and Voyage of French Biſhops by M. Francis Pallu. Biſh. of Heliopolis.Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monaſtery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no leſs obſtinate than ignorant. I found there amongſt others a certain Perſon who having been in Poland had ſome ſmatterings of Latine, I would have diſcourſed with him touching the Principal Hereſie of Eutichus, but he cunningly avoided it. I left this Monaſtery little ſatisfied with theſe Religious, who ſhow little Piety, although they profeſs much, and live auſterely. So Cyrillus Patriarch of Conſtantinople, deſcribing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eaſtern Chriſtians, with which Epiſt. Viror. Eruditor. Epiſt. 2. Cyrill. ad Wytenbog.the Greeks held no communion, to wit, the Armenians, Coptics, Maronites, and Jacobites, ſay's amongſt other things, that they live like Beaſts, and are ſo prodigiouſly Ignorant that they ſcarce know what they believe themſelves.
THE Latins have long ſince uſed their utmoſt power to bring over theſe Armenians to 'um, and ſubmit them to the See of Rome. They have for this purpoſe ſent Miſſions which they have renewed, or augmented as Occaſion required. They have taken the courſe of Seminaries, and from time to time accordingly managed the Intereſts of Princes and Kings of Armenia, and that not ſeldom with Succeſs. So that as there are at preſent two ſorts of Greeks, the one called the reunited ones, and the other Schiſmaticks; ſo there are likewiſe two ſorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians, for in the Eaſt they call all the Latins of whatſoever Nation they be Franks; the others thoſe that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, or Catholicks as they term them, and are called only Armenians.
OUR Queſtion only then concerns theſe laſt, and to know whether they do, or do not believe Tranſubſtantiation. The firſt Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm, is, that Tranſubſtantiation is inconſiſtent with the Hereſie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profeſſion. They hold there is but one ſingle Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, which is the Divine, that the humane Nature was mixt or confuſed in the Eſſence of the Divinity. How then is it poſſible that having this Opinion they can at the ſame time believe the Subſtance of Bread to be changed into the Subſtance of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt? For if our Saviour Chriſt has no longer a Body, if the humane Nature do's no longer ſubſiſt according to them, this would be to charge them with the greateſt Abſurdity, that is to ſay, a manifeſt contradiction, to imagine they believe the change in Queſtion; ſeeing to believe it, it muſt be neceſſarily ſuppoſed, not only that our Saviour Chriſt has a Body, but likewiſe that his Body is diſtinct from the Divinity.
MR. Arnaud who ſaw the Force of this Argument would prevent it Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454.by two Anſwers, which we muſt diſtinctly examine one after another. The firſt amounts to this, That ſuppoſing the Armenians were real Eutychiens, yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconſiſtent with Tranſubſtantiation, or that they do not admit it after their Faſhion. For although they ſay there was but one Nature in our Saviour Chriſt after the Union, and that the Human Nature was ſwallowed up by the Divine, yet do they aſſert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men; that the Apostles converſed with our Saviour as a man, that the Jews took him for a man, that they crucified him as a man. Whence he concludes that this ſwallowing up of the Humane Nature conſiſted rather according to the Eutychiens, in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature, than in the annihilation of Nature it ſelf taken for the Subſtance and internal being. That this manifeſtly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens, and by the Eutychiens themſelves. For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest diſtance from the Catholick, yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt the Son of God, and who was incarnate, and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God.
APPLYING this afterwards to the Queſtion of the Euchariſt, he ſay's, that they believe with all other Chriſtians, that this ſame Jeſus Chriſt born of the Virgin, ſeen in the World, crucified, and riſen, is really preſent in the Euchariſt, that the Bread is really changed into this Jeſus Christ. But denying as they do, that the Body of Jeſus Chriſt was a diſtinct Nature from the Divinity, ſo they will not allow the Bread which is tranſubſtantiated into Jeſus Chriſt to be any other Nature than the Divinity, that is to ſay, a deified Body, a Body mixt and confuſed with the Divinity by the loſs of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Subſtance. Mr. Arnaud do's likewiſe promiſe us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more diſtinctly explain wherein conſiſts this ſwallowing up of the Humane Nature according to the Eutychiens.
I know not what elucidations he may one day give us, but if they be no better then what he now tells us, they will be of no great uſe, for 'tis certain there was never a more crude diſcourſe than that which he now gives us: Firſt, What ſignifies the telling us that the Eutychiens acknowledged the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men, that the Apoſtles converſed with him, as with a man, and that the Jews took him for a man? what ſignifies this to the proving that they did not deny the inward ſubſtance of the Humanity remained in Jeſus Chriſt, but ſaid only that all the natural Proprieties which they call Nature was changed? There would be more likelyhood in concluding from hence the contrary, viz. that according to the Eutychiens the inward Subſtance was changed, and the natural Proprieties remained; for if we really diſtinguiſh theſe Proprieties, from the Subſtance, it is immediately on them and not on the inward Subſtance, whereon depends ones being a man, and being taken for ſuch. So that Mr. Arnaud in ſaying the Apoſtles converſed with our Saviour as a man, and that the Jews took him for a man, eſtabliſhes a principle which not only concludes nothing of what he pretends but rather the contrary, which does ſhew in my opinion that he was in great perplexity when he wrote this Chapter. 2. Do's he not know that the Eutychiens, and eſpecially the Armenians when they are urged by paſſages of Scripture which attribute to our Saviour Chriſt all the out-ward Characters of a real Man, that he was born, converſed with his Apoſtles, eat and drank, was dead and riſen again, that his Soul was oppreſſed with ſadneſs, &c. whence we conclude he had a real humane Nature, anſwered, that all theſe things happened only in appearance, and that it was the Divinity it ſelf that aſſumed all theſe External Forms, which yet had in themſelves no reality. Pope John the ſecond ſpeaking of the Doctrine of the Eutychiens, We Epiſt. John. 2. Epiſcop. Rom. ad Arien. &c. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. edit 4.confeſs, ſay's he, that the Holy Vigin is properly and truly the Mother of God incarnate and born of her. I ſay properly and truly to the end it may not be imagined that he took of the Virgin a Phantaſme or not real Fleſh according to the Doctrine of the impious Eutychiens. The followers of Eutyches and Harmenop. de Sect. Ar… 5. Nicephor. Calliſt hiſt. Eccleſ. L…b. 18 C. 48. Raynald. ad an. 1341.Dioſcorus, ſay's Harmenopulus, affirmed the Son of God was made man in appearance, having only one Nature, Nicephorus Calliſtus confirms the ſame thing. The wretched Eutyches, ſay's he, did indeed acknowledge God to be born of the Virgin Mary, and that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and ſo far his Doctrine is ſound and true. But he likewiſe held that the Fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt was feigned, that the Word was changed and made Fleſh after an immutable manner, that he feigned in appearance the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation, and that whatſoever of corporeal appeared in him was only a Phantaſme and Fiction. The ſame thing appears in reſpect of the Armenians from the Information which Pope Benedict the twelfth gives us of their Errors. For the twenty eighth Article has theſe words. The Armenians knowing not what anſwer to give the paſſages of the Goſpel which aſſert our Saviour had a real humane Body after his Reſurrection, foraſmuch as they affirm that at the moment of the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divinity, anſwer that the will of God as it pleaſed wrought all theſe things, by which it ſeemed he had a Humane Body, altho in effect he had none. And in the following Article. Altho the Armenians hold that after the Union there was only in our Saviour Christ the Divine Nature into which the Humane Nature was converted, yet they ſay, and hold that the Divine Nature ſo depended on the will of Chriſt, that he did with it what he pleaſed. Cyrillus in his Letter to Witembogard relates he held a conference with one of the chief of the Armenian Doctors named Barſabas, in the Temple of Jeruſalem, before all the people, and that the Subject of their Diſpute was, Whether our Saviour Cyril. Epiſt. 2. ad Witem. in Epiſt. viror, eruditor.Chriſt converſed with men, and died in appearance only foreign, becauſe adds he, The Armenians believe he ſuffered death foreign, in appearance and not really. The Jacobites who are Eutychiens as well as the Armenians ſay likewiſe the ſame thing on this Subject according to the Relation of John Cotovic. They affirm, ſay's he, that the Fleſh which Itinerar. Hier. & Syria Auct. Joanne Cottovico. Lib. 2. C. 6. P. 202.Chriſt took was not of the ſame Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Fleſh but into I know not what ſeeming and phantaſtick Fleſh, and that he rather ſeemed to be a man, and born and dye than really to do ſo. So that they teach that all the Myſteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Paſſion, Reſurrection of Jeſus Christ, his Aſcention into Heaven, and his ſecond coming are bare Semblances and Appearances, and by this means make all theſe Myſteries meer Illuſions. This is the true Opinion of the Eutychiens. So far are they from giving Mr. Arnaud Reaſon to conclude that they conſerve in Jeſus Chriſt the inward Subſtance of the Humanity, that on the contrary it appears they have only recourſe to theſe vain appearances to defend themſelves againſt the paſſages of Scripture by which is proved againſt them the Reality of the Humane Subſtance in this Divine Saviour.
III. WERE their Sentiment ſuch as Mr. Arnaud ſuppoſes it to be, how comes it to paſs they have never declared as much? Whence is it they have ever ſay'd the humane Nature was ſwallowed up by the Divine, that it was changed into the Divinity, mixt and confuſed with the Divinity, without ever minding to clear up this difficulty in ſaying that by Nature they underſtood not the inward Subſtance, but only all the inward Proprieties, and that they confeſſed this Subſtance remained intire? How comes it that thoſe who diſputed againſt them, or that have related their Errors never made this pretended Diſtinction of Mr. Arnaud, nor declared this new Sence in which the word Nature is to be taken, to wit, for all the natural Proprieties, diſtinct and really ſeparate from the inward Subſtance? Whence is it that Mr. Arnaud having ſo ſharply inveighed heretofore againſt the Equivocations of the Greeks and Latins, now thinks fit to admit a perpetual one between the Orthodox and Eutychiens, the one taking the Term of Nature in one Sence, and the other in another, and diſputing ſo many Ages againſt one another without explaining themſelves and underſtanding one another? For it does not appear from Authors that wrote againſt the Eutychiens, that they took in this occaſion the term of Nature for the Natural propriety in oppoſition to the inward Subſtance, as it pleaſes Mr. Arnaud to ſuppoſe without proof. It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Subſtance it ſelf with it's Proprieties. Gelaſ. Epiſc. Rom. adverſ. Eutych. & Neſt. ibid.If the humane Subſtance, ſay's Gelaſius, has ceaſed to be, the Humanity having been transfuſed or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine, it follows that the humane form having no longer it's proper Subject has ceaſed to be likewiſe. And in another place of the ſame Treatiſe. If they do not deny, ſay's he, that Jeſus Chriſt was real man, it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Subſtance, for otherwiſe he would not be real man. Vigil. Lib. 5. contra Eutych.When you ſay, ſay's Vigilius, that the Word and Fleſh are but one only Subſtance it ſeems that you inſinuate there are two Perſons in our Saviour Chriſt. And a little farther, If the Word and the Fleſh are one and the ſame Subſtance according to your Opinion, there would be two Perſons, one of the Word, and the other of the Fleſh, who would have one and the ſame common Nature. Theodoret diſputes in the ſame manner againſt them by ſuppoſing they affirmed that the Humane Subſtance was ſwallowed up by the Divinity, and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2.from the Euchariſt in theſe words, The Body then of Jeſus Christ keeps it's firſt Form, Figure, Circumſcription, and, in a word, it has the Subſtance of a Body. Euthym. Parop. Tit. 20.Euthymius hereupon relates a paſſage of St. M…ximus which expreſly aſſerts, that Eutyches confeſſed the Unity of the two Natures, but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12.in Eſſence, introducing a confuſion of Natures. Even Cardinal Perron himſelf altho a great Zealot for Tranſubſtantiation, acknowledged this truth, that the Eutychiens held, the humane Subſtance ceaſed to be in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. For he ſay's that the Orthodox Chriſtians maintained againſt the Hereticks that this Subſtance remained, becauſe the Form, Figure and Circumſcription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Chriſt without the natural Subſtance was to be found in him. Whoſoever believes Mr. Arnaud muſt acknowledge the World has been groſly miſtaken in imagining that the Eutychiens aboliſhed the Humane Subſtance in our Saviour Chriſt when they ſay'd the created Nature was ſwallowed up in the Abyſs of the Divinity, whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties. And it muſt be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not diſcovering this miſtake in the Orthodox Chriſtians, and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would coſt them ſo little. But to ſpeak better, It muſt be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no ſuch great enemy to Equivocations, for when he has need of them, he can well diſpence with them, how terrible and dreadful ſoever he has made them in other occaſions, wherein he believed it was his intereſt to eſtabliſh there could not be any ſuch between the Latins and Greeks.
IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455.of Anaſtaſius Sinaite, that they did howſoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion, the very Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God, there is far greater reaſon to ſay that by this Body they meant a Myſtery which repreſented the Body ſwallowed up by the Divinity, than to ſay they meant his very Subſtance. For if what Mr. Arnaud ſay's of them be true that they were Eutychiens fartheſt off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now ſaw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Subſtance ſubſiſted diſtinct from the Divinity. Why then ſhall we not expound what Anaſtaſius Sinaite makes the Gayanites ſay, by what good and conſiderable Authors relate of the Eutychiens, rather than to give the lye to theſe Authors, and correct what they ſay by the Diſcourſe of ſuch an impertinent Perſon as Anaſtaſius, whom Mr. Arnaud himſelf has been forced to deſpiſe in citing him, as appears by what we have ſeen in the preceding Book?
THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's firſt Anſwer. Let us ſee whether there be any more Strength in his ſecond. It conſiſts in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456.that the greateſt part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens; that is to ſay, they did not in any wiſe admit the confuſion of Natures, that they condemned Eutyches, and that their Error conſiſted only in their refuſing to uſe the Expreſſion of the two Natures, aſſerting our Saviour had but one.
THIS is a Queſtion of fact which muſt be decided by the Teſtimony of Authors. We ſhall ſee hereafter who are thoſe that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour. We muſt only here obſerve that he unjuſtly exclaims againſt Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk, and one Iſaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmleſly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians; So that at preſent we ſhall lay aſide the Authority of theſe two Perſons, ſeeing he is pleaſed to except againſt them, and betake our ſelves to other Witneſſes for the ending of this difference. Here are others then which are not to be contemned, whether we regard their number or quality. The firſt is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the ſeventh Century. There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epiſt. ad Euchiſtium. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit. 4.Treatiſe of his under the Title, De peſſimorum Armeniorum peſſima Religione. He exactly enough deſcribes in it the Errors of this Nation, and amongſt others mentions this, that they hold the confuſion of the two Natures of Jeſus Chriſt, in the Union. Itidem, ſay's he, & in duarum Chriſti Naturarum Unione confuſionem decernunt. He ſay's likewiſe they hold the Divine Nature is paſſible, that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has ſuffered; and altho they durſt not openly explain themſelves, yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do, for they take three Croſſes, and faſtning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity. Now here is (according to Mr. Arnaud) a third Impoſtor, that falſly accuſes the Armenians to believe the confuſion of Natures. He muſt be excluded as well as Eutychus and Iſaac; but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions againſt Authors.
TO Nicon we muſt add Nicephorus Calliſtus a famous Hiſtorian amongſt the Greeks; who ſpeaking of theſe ſame Armenians refers the original of their Hereſie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites; and adds, ſometimes they ſay the word aſſumed an incorruptible Body, uncreated, heavenly, impaſſible, ſubtile, which is not of the ſame Subſtance with ours, yet has all the Accidents of Fleſh, in appearance and after Nicephor. Cal. hiſt. Eccleſ. Lib. 18. C. 53.the manner of a ſpectrum. Sometimes likewiſe they affirm the Fleſh of the Word was converted into the Nature of the Divinity, and became conſubſtantial with it. They do for the moſt part deny the Word aſſumed a humane Body of the Virgin, and ſay that having been changed without a Change, and made Fleſh he has only paſſed through the Virgin, and faſtned his Divinity to the Croſs; and altho it be neither finite nor circumſcribed yet he has depoſited it in the Sepulchre. They deny the Birth of Chriſt according to the Fleſh, affirming it hapned in appearance only. In the Celebration of the Euchariſt they uſe the Azyme and not Bread. They put no Water in the Chalice, deſigning to repreſent thereby that there is but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt; whereas we by the mixture of Water with Wine, repreſent the Union of the two Natures. It cannot be more clearly affirmed that the Armenians are real Eutychiens, ſeeing he not only attributes to them the believing that the humane Nature was converted into the Nature of the Divinity, but made conſubſtantial with it: But he is too a terrible Calumniator, if we believe Mr. Arnaud. Howſoever let us proceed.
GUY Carmus who lived about the year 1340. and has exactly reckoned up the Errors of the Armenians in his Book of Hereſies; expreſly tell us Guido Carmel ſummam de haereſ. de haer. Arm. C. 22.they follow the Opinions of Dioſcorus, denying with him the two Natures of Jeſus Chriſt, to wit the Divine and Humane, in the Unity of Perſon. That they admit only one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, that is the Divine; one Will, and one Operation. And in the twelfth Error he remarks They held that after the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine; ſo that as there is but one Perſon in Jeſus Chriſt, ſo there is but one Nature in him, to wit the Divine, and that they cruelly perſecute thoſe that hold there are two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt, the Divine and Humane.
IN the year 1341, the then Pope cauſed this Information to be drawn up, touching the Errors of the Armenians which we have already mentioned, and ſhall have farther occaſion to diſcourſe of hereafter. The ſecond Article has theſe words, That there was held heretofore a Council in Armenia, wherein aſſiſted the Catholick, that is to ſay, the Patriarch of the Armenians, with their Biſhops, Doctors, and the Patriarch of the Suriens. Raynald. ad an. 1341.That in this Council was rejected the Council of Chalcedon, eſpecially becauſe it had determined we muſt believe there are two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt; to wit the Humane and the Divine, and one only Perſon ſubſiſting in two Natures. That the Council of the Armenians had on their ſide determined, that as in our Saviour Chriſt there is but one only Perſon, ſo likewiſe is there in him but one Nature, to wit the Divine, one only Will, and one Operation; that they anathematiſed thoſe that affirmed the contrary, and perſecuted them not only by impriſonments, and loading them with Chains, but even to the putting them to death. That in this Council they had condemned Pope Leo and his Letters to the Fathers of Chalcedon, and Flavian the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, becauſe he aſſerted therein two Natures and one Perſon, two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Chriſt. That in fine they Canonized Dioſcorus whom the Council of Chalcedon had condemned, and the Armenians celebrated his Feſtival three times in a year as a Saint; and curſed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon which had condemned Dioſcorus. The twentieth Article bears, That the Armenians believe and hold, that the Eternal Son of God begotten of the Subſtance of the Father, has united to himſelf the Humane Nature, and was made man, yet in ſuch a manner that, in the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature; and as there was after the Union but one Perſon in Jeſus Chriſt, ſo is there but one Nature in it, to wit the Divine and not the Humane, That they curſe all thoſe who ſay the contrary; ſo greatly deteſting thoſe that hold the two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt after the Union, to wit, the Divine and humane, that if any Baptiſed Armenian amongſt them ſayd this, they would not communicate with him; but eſteem him as a Heathen; and upon his Return to the faith of the Armenians, rebaptiſe him neither more nor leſs then if he came from Paganiſm; and after this ſecond Baptiſm lay twenty years Pennance on him. And in the twenty firſt Article. The Armenians believe and hold that becauſe after the Union of Natures in Jeſus Chriſt, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine, in ſuch a manner that from that very moment there was only the Divine Nature in him,) the Divinity has been paſſible and impaſſible, mortal and immortal, according as our Saviour himſelf pleaſed, and that thus he has ſuffered and is dead in the Divine Nature becauſe he would, having no humane Nature when he ſuffered and dyed. Do's Mr. Arnaud imagine we ſhall reſt contented when he ſhall tell us, that all theſe things are meer impoſtures?
EUGENUS IV. inſtructing the Armenians in Council of Florence Ad Calcem Concil. Florent.ſufficiently ſhews he takes them for real and perfect Eutychiens; for he chiefly apply's himſelf to ſhew them the deciſions of the Council of Chalcedon, and teach them that our Saviour Chriſt is conſubſtantial with us, and having took on him a real humane Nature, this Nature has ſubſiſted, and do's ſtill ſubſiſt, in the hypoſtatical Union, without confuſion or converſion. We need but read this Diſcourſe to find that it's drift is to oppoſe againſt the Errors of the Armenians, the contrary Doctrines which muſt be held to be conformable with the Church of Rome; and that one of the principal points he deſigned to inſiſt on, was that of the two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt, againſt the Hereſie of Eutyches. And this is the opinion of Spondan. annal. Eccleſ Tom. 2. ad Ann. 1434.Mr. Sponde Biſhop of Pamiez. He do's not give them, ſay's he, in his Decretals, all the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, but contents himſelf (as I take it) with thoſe wherein they erred, or of which they doubted. And firſt he gave them the Symbol of the Councel of Conſtantinople, with the Addition of the Filioque, to have it ſung in Churches, then the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, touching the two Natures of Jeſus Chriſt in Unity of Perſon. Thirdly, the Definition of the ſixth Council touching the two Wills, and two Operations in our Saviour Chriſt. Fourthly, becauſe the Armenians had acknowledged hitherto only the three firſt Councils that of Nice, Conſtantinople, and Epheſus, rejecting thoſe that were held afterwards, he ſhews them that the Council of Chalcedon which they believed favoured the Neſtorian Hereſie, did as well condemn Neſtorius, as Eutyches, and that they muſt receive it.
PRATEOLUS who made a Catalogue of all the Sects, ſay's, Prateol. Elench. Haeret. de Armen.that 'tis eaſie to conjecture by reading of Hiſtory why the Armenians have ſeparated themſelves from the Church. That 'tis becauſe of the Council of Chalcedon, for this Council condemned Eutyches and Dioſcorus whoſe Opinions they followed.
JOHN Cottovic a Famous Traveller that relates what he learnt from Cottovic-Itiner Hieroſ. et Syri. Lib. 2. de Armen.the Armenians themſelves, tells us, That the Armenians as well as the Jacobites, acknowledge but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, one Will and one Operation, and ſay the Humanity was ſwallowed up in the Abyſs of the Divinity, in ſuch a manner that the Divinity and Fleſh became but one and the ſame thing.
IT is in the ſame Senſe that Pietro Della Valle comparing the Armenians The Voyages of Pietro Della Vallé. Tom. 3. P. 107.with the Georgians, ſay's, That 'tis not to be doubted but the Georgians are better Chriſtians then the Armenians, who hold the Errors of Dioſcorus whoſe Opinions are far more Pernicious, groſs and numerous, than thoſe of all the other Chriſtian Nations in the Eaſt.
IT ſeems to me likewiſe that Perſon muſt be extreme obſtinate that will Epiſt. 2. ad Wy. temb.not acquieſce in the Teſtimony of Cyrillus the Patriarch of Alexandria, (already mentioned) who lived in the midſt of thoſe people, who aſſures one of their Doctrines is, that all theſe humane Accidents, which the Goſpel denotes in our Saviour Chriſt, as for Inſtance, to be born, to have converſed with men, to be dead, &c. did not happen to him really but only in appearance foreign. How great averſion ſoever Mr. Arnaud may have to Cyrillus his Perſon, I do not believe he imagins, that this Patriarch had our Diſpute in his mind, nor wrote upon my Account his Conference with the Armenian Doctor Barſabas; we may therefore gather from his Teſtimony, that the Armenians are perfect Eutychiens; for if they believed there was in our Saviour a real humane Nature, which is to ſay, that he was real man, and the whole Difficulty conſiſted only in the Term of Nature, which they would not receive, why ſhould they affirm that his Converſation here on Earth, his Death and Reſurrection were only in appearance? 'Tis evident they admit theſe falſe and deceitful Appearances, only becauſe they deny the reality of the Subſtance, or Humane Nature.
HOW willing ſoever Thomas a Jeſu has been to mollify the extravagant Thom. a Jeſu. de procuranda ſalute omn. Gent. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17. Letters from forrein Countries to the Procur. of the Miſſions.Opinions of the Eaſtern Sects, yet he tells us of the Armenians, That they believe but one Nature, one Will and one Operation of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. And Barbereau the Jeſuit, an Emiſſary of Constantinople writing to one of the Society teſtifies the ſame thing. What ſhall I ſay, ſay's he, of the Armenians that are here (at Conſtantinople) to the Number of above ſixty thouſand in a more deplorable condition than the Greeks? For beſides that they are as ignorant as them, they have a particular Hereſie which diſtinguiſhes them from others; for they hold there is but one Nature in our Saviour Chriſt, and keep ſo firm to this Opinion, that 'tis a crime amongſt them, ſo much as to mention the contrary. He do's not ſay 'tis a bare Equivocation in the Word Nature, as Mr. Arand would perſwade us, but a Hereſie, a falſe Opinion, and an Opinion of which they are ſo greatly conceited, that they hold the contradicting of it a Crime. But how can this be if they condemn Eutyches and Dioſcorus, and affirm not the Humane Nature was confounded and ſwallowed up in the Divine: if they grant the Humane Nature as well as the Catholicks, and their Error conſiſts only in refuſing to uſe the expreſſion of the two Natures, as Mr. Arnaud aſſures us.
BUT after all theſe Teſtimonys I think I may re-ſtabliſh the Authority of Euthymius Zigabenus the Greek Monk, and that of Iſaac an Armenian Catholick, who have both of 'em Written againſt the Schiſmatical Armenians, and ſay the ſame thing as the reſt. Mr Arnaud ſays, they prevaricate and impoſe on their Readers, but what I now come from relating ſufficiently juſtifies them from this Accuſation. After the Councel of Chalcedon, ſays Euthymius, the Armenians at the Inſtigation of one Hilarius Mandacanus, and other Prophane Prieſts that were with him, ſeparated themſelves Euthym. pan. tit. 20.from the Catholick Church: and having embraced the impious Opinion of Eutyches, Dioſcorus and other Monophyſical Hereticks that hold only one Nature in our Saviour Chriſt, they added thereunto ſeveral other impious Doctrines, to make their Hereſie as it were more Compleat and Famous. For they ſay our Saviour Chriſt took on him a Body which was not of the ſame ſubſtance as ours, that his is Incorruptible, Impaſſible, Subtil, Uncreated, and Heavenly, which ſeemed to exerciſe the Humane functions, as to See, Eat, and Drink, and yet did none of all theſe things. They ſay moreover that the Fleſh of Chriſt was changed into the Divinity, and made of the ſame Eſſence with the Divinity it ſelf. That as a Drop of Honey or Vinegar caſt into the Sea is not ſeen, do's no longer ſubſiſt; ſo the Body of Chriſt being ingulphed and ſwallowed up in the Ocean of the Divinity, keeps no longer its own Nature and propriety; and thus there are not two Natures in Chriſt, but one alone, which is wholly Divine. And there fore they deny the Sacrifice of Bread, which is the fleſh of Chriſt, to be the Body of Chriſt, but call it the Body of the Divinity. That when they are convinced and constrained by ſtrength of Argument, to acknowledge our Saviour Chriſt to be both God and Man, they do it by diſſimulation, for how can they ſeriouſly acknowledge him to be Man, ſeeing as I already mentioned they affirm his ſubſtance to be different from ours. They change, ſays Iſaac, the traditions of the Catholick Church, and the mysteries of Chriſt according to their blaſphemous fancy; they do not call the Communion, or the Sacrifice of Bread which is the fleſh of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the Body of Chriſt as he himſelf has called it, but the Divinity.
MR. Arnaud may ſay as long as he pleaſes that theſe two Authors miſrepreſent the Armenians in charging them with believing the Humane Nature to Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 3. 455.have been ingulphed by the Divine, and to be pure Eutychiens. What reaſon has he to think the World will be ſatisfied with this anſwer, as if it were ſufficient for the rejecting of Authors to bring againſt them bold accuſations, without any ground or proof; and humorouſly maintain that what they affirm is falſe?
BREEREWOOD, ſays he, and other modern Authors ſay as much. Ibid. P. 456. Breerewoods. inquirys. C. 24.As to Breerewood tis true he ſays, that it ſeems by their confeſſion touching the Trinity, ſent by the Mandate of the Catholick of Armenia to the Patriarck of Armenia about fifty years ſince, that they have wholly renounced this Fancy. But this confeſſion on which Breerewood grounds his ſuppoſal is at moſt only the private ſentiment of this Catholick of Armenia, and not that of this Church. If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head, without any Proof, his bare word is not to be preferred before the Teſtimony of other Authors, whom we have already alledged: that which we have ſeen of Cyril, and his diſpute againſt Barſabas in the preſence of all the People, and in the very Temple of Jeruſalem is later than the confeſſion he mentions. And ſo is that alſo which Cottovic relates. The Letter of Barbereau the Jeſuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Biſhop of Heliopolis which ſays (as we have already ſeen,) That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a viſit reſided near the City of Herivan, in a famous Monaſtery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no leſs obſtinate than ignorant, and being deſirous to confer with one of theſe Monks on the principal Point of the Hereſie of Eutyches, he cunningly ſhunned the occaſion. This Relation I ſay is Dated 1668. All theſe Teſtimonys ſhew us, that the Armenians do ſtill keep their Ancient error, and have in no wiſe changed their belief.
BUT ſuppoſing they were changed within theſe fifty or ſixty years as Breerewood imagins, yet would what Euthymius, Iſaac, and other Authors ſay be no leſs true, on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Teſtimony. For if it be true as Breerewood ſays, that they have now renounced that Fancy, they had it then heretofore, for People are not wont to renounce thoſe Opinions which they never held: ſo that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jeſus Chriſt to ſhew they do not believe Tranſubſtantiation do's ſtill continue in full force as to the time paſt; and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence, is, that it is poſſible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and paſs over to another which is quite Oppoſite, without any noiſe or diſturbance; whence it follows that the pretenſions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impoſſibility of a change are vain and groundleſs. As to thoſe other late Authors Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks of, when he pleaſes to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em, but there's no body but ſees, after what I have related, that he ought not to ſpeak ſo generally as he has done, That other Modern Authors are agreed therein, ſeeing, John Cottovic, Pietro Della Vallé, Cyrillus, Thomas a Jeſu, Barbereau, the Biſhop of Heliopolis, are late Authors, and yet aſſert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms.
NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cauſe by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia, and ſent to the Emperour Emanuel; nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch; altho it were true that this Letter has theſe Expreſſions, we hold there is but one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, not in confounding it, as Theorien. Dial. adverſ. Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco. lat. tom. 1.Eutyches does; nor in denying Chriſts humane Nature like Apollinairus, but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote againſt Neſtorius, in ſaying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate. But we muſt not immediately Imagine that this was the ſentiment of the Armenian Church. It was the Patriarchs in particular, as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien. For after Theorien had for a long time diſputed that, our Saviour had two Natures, two Wills, and two Operations; the Patriarch himſelf confeſſed this had been ever his Opinion ſince he read the ſacred Writings. Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inſerted in his Letter to the Emperour, that there was but one only Nature in Jeſus Chriſt; The Patriarch anſwered, that he had at that time in his thoughts the inſtance which is commonly made uſe of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul, and yet is ſaid to have but one Nature, altho the two Natures of which he conſiſts remain without confuſion, and change; and that he believed St. Cyril meant the ſame. In fine he told him he would ſhew him a ſecret which had not yet been Divulged amongſt his People? That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John, who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophyſits; which is to ſay, to thoſe that believe only one Nature in Jeſus Chriſt; and that he had the writings of this John, together with the approbation of another of his Predeceſſors named Gregory; who added thereunto theſe words, I believe likewiſe what the holy Patriarch has here written, and Anathematiſe thoſe that do not believe it. It is evident by all theſe circumſtances that the belief of the two Natures in Jeſus Chriſt thus united to make thereof but one, was not the publick ſentiment of the Armenian Church, but the private Opinion of the Patriarch, who diſputed with Theorien, and that he had taken this Opinion from the ſecret writings of this John and Gregory.
BUT it will be perhaps here demanded, how this perſon could in conſcience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment. To anſwer this Objection, I need only give the Character of this perſon, ſuch as it appears to be in this ſame conference, and this will more confirm the truth of what I now ſaid. This, ſays he, do I intend to do, I will immediately write to all the Armenian Biſhops whitherſoever they be to aſſemble in Council. And when met, I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians, and which in effect do ſeem to favour them. Then will I propoſe on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me, and at first will take the Armenians part, and diſpute against you. But inſenſibly and by degrees, and with great caution, will begin to diſcover the Error of the Armenians, which has hitherto ſo greatly obtained amongſt them. I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book, and all the other Proofs you have furniſhed me with. In fine, I will declare my ſelf openly for the Greeks (or to ſpeak better) I will contend for the truth againſt the Armenians. I hope by Gods aſſiſtance my ſheep will hear my voice and follow me, ſo that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd. If all the Biſhops ſhall be for me, nothing will be more welcome to me: But if not, I will notwithſtanding confirm the true Doctrine together with thoſe on my ſide; and ſend to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and ſigned by my Biſhops, containing the Orthodox Faith. Now this writing ſhall contain amongſt other Articles this ſame, That we receive the Holy, and univerſal Council of Chalcedon, and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd. That we Anathematiſe all thoſe Anathematiſed by that Council; eſpcially, Eutyches and Dioſcorus, and Severus, and Timotheus Aylurus, and in general all thoſe that have oppoſed this Council. This Diſcourſe plainly ſhews that this good Patriarch was a little Jeſuitical, and did not make it a caſe of Conſcience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council; much leſs in his Church. But 'tis likewiſe Eaſy to gather hence that the ſentiment which he in the beginning propoſed in his Letter to the Emperour, and which occaſioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church, but his own particular, for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks conſiſted only in the uſe of ſome terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did, there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this deſign. It would have been ſufficient to ſhew plainly that it was but an Equivocation, a miſ-underſtanding, or at moſt but a queſtion concerning words, which muſt not hinder the effects of Chriſtian Charity. Neither was there any Neceſſity of promiſing the Emperours Deputy that there ſhould be inſerted in this new confeſſion of Faith an expreſs Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches, and Dioſcorus, if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions.
IT appears then from what I have ſaid, that Eutymius and Iſaac were neither Impoſtors, nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Hereſie of Eutyches; and ſaid their belief was that our Saviour Chriſt had no real Humane Nature; but that his Humanity was ſwallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature. After the depoſition of thoſe Authors I mentioned, there can be no reaſon for the calling in queſtion a thing ſo certain: now it hence manifeſtly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Tranſubſtantiation of the Latins, that is to ſay, the converſion of Bread into the ſubſtance of the Body of Chriſt, ſeeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body; and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpoſe.