The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Armenians examin'd.
BUT here are, ſay's Mr. Arnaud, certain and poſitive Proofs which ſhew that the Armenians have ever effectually believed both one Lib. 5. C. 6. p. 457.and the other Point, and that there is no reaſon to accuſe them of denying the real Preſence or Tranſubſtantiation. Which we ſhall now Examine in this Chapter.
HIS firſt Proof is taken from the Teſtimony of Lanfranc, who diſputing againſt Berengarius ſay's, that the Greeks and Armenians, and generally all Chriſtians hold the ſame faith as the Roman Church. But Mr. Ibid.Arnaud has not conſidered that Lanfranc do's not directly impute Tranſubſtantiation either to the Armenians, or Greeks, he imputes it to 'um only by a Conſequence drawn from their glorying all of 'um that they receive in the Sacrament, the real Body and real Blood of Jeſus Chriſt taken from the Virgin. Now we have ſeen as well by the Relation of Carmes, as from the Information of Benedict, that the Armenians gave this expreſſion a ſence wholly contrary to Lanfranc's Conſequence, ſo that this Proof has bin already invalidated by the Teſtimony of the Armenians themſelves.
THE Second is taken from the Berengarians never alledging they were of the ſentiment of the Armenians, or any other Eaſtern Church. Yet was it impoſſible but they muſt know what was their Opinion, ſeeing that Perſons Voyaged from all parts of Europe into the East, and this would have bin a ſpecious pretence to the Henricians and Albingenſes to avoid the rigour of thoſe puniſhments they underwent. But to diſcover the weakneſs of this reaſoning we need only remember that in the 14 Century under John XXII. Benedict XII. and Clement VI. it was held in the Weſt for an undoubted truth that the Armenians denyed Tranſubstantiation, and the real Preſence, as we have already ſeen in the foregoing Chapter. That 'twas the unanimous Report of the Armenians themſelves who were in the Court of Rome, and of the Latins which had bin in Armenia. Yet altho the Diſciples of Berengarius were rigorouſly perſecuted in that age, we do not find they ever juſtifyed themſelves by the example of the Armenians, nor that the Court of Rome handled them leſs ſeverely upon the account of this conformity. We find on the contrary, their adverſaries have reproached them with following the Hereſie of theſe Eaſtern People, as appears by what I have already related concerning the diſputes of Thomas Waldenſis againſt Wicliff, ſo that that was objected againſt them as a Crime which Mr. Arnaud would have them make uſe of for an Apology.
THE III. and IV. Proof are no more concluſive than the two firſt. Ibid. p. 459.They contain that Gregory VII marking in particular the Errors which the Armenians ought to condemn to the end they might be received into the Communion of the Church, makes no mention of any Error againſt the real Preſence and Tranſubstantiation. That in the year 1145. The Patriarch and Biſhops of Armenia ſent Embaſſadors to Pope Eugenius II. to render him all kind of Submiſſion, and make him judge of the differences which they had with the Greeks. That if this Pope had believed they were in the Error of Berengarius, he would not have bin contented to inſtruct them in the Ceremonies of the Church and manner of Celebrating the Sacrifice. That Othon of Friſinga who relate this Hiſtory would never have concealed ſo important a circumſtance. I anſwer that Gregory VII. Baron ad. con. 114.particularizes only four Errors, for which he Cenſures the Armenians. I. That they mix no water with their Wine in the Chalice. II. That they compound the Chream with Butter, and not with Balm. III. That they reverence Dioſcorus as a Saint, altho he was condemned. In fine, that they added the (ſign) of the Croſs to the Triaſagios after the manner of Hereticks. How many other Doctrines and Cuſtoms have the Armeuians beſides theſe four Articles, which the Roman Church do's not approve of? They hold the Opinions of Eutyches. They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original ſin. They deny Purgatory. They ſtill offer Sacrifices after the manner of the Jews. They condemn third Marriages, for as bad as Fornication. They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation. They do not hold the Conſecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jeſus Chriſt. They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and ſeveral other Points which ſeperate 'um from the Latins, and of which neither Gregory VII. Eugenius III. nor Othon of Triſinga make any mention. Which ſhews there can be drawn no Concluſion from their ſilence, and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting theſe kind of Proofs.
THE V. is taken from ſome expreſſions of a Catholick of Armenia, Ibid. p. 460.who ſay's, in the conference of Theorien, that the Wine becomes by Conſecration the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and that the Son of God is Sacrificed within the Church for the Salvation of the World. But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends. For firſt we have already ſhewed him that this Catholick ſpake of his own head, and not from his Church. And moreover, what he ſay's do's neither conclude the real Preſence, nor Tranſubſtantiation. The Wine becomes by its Conſecration the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt in repreſentation and myſtery, according to the expoſition which the Armenians themſelves give to theſe ways of ſpeaking, as we have ſeen in the foregoing Chapter, and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion, inaſmuch as the action of the Euchariſt is a Myſtery which repreſents his death. Let Mr. Arnaud conſult (if he pleaſes) the Marginal Note which is on the ſide of this laſt paſſage, and he will find the ſolution of his Difficulty. The Greek Text has foreign, the Latin, Mactatur intus Theorien. Dial. adver. Armen.Dei filius pro totius mundi ſalute, and the Marginal Note, hoc eſt, repreſentatur in ſacra caena mactatio Chriſti.
THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croiſado's the Popes Ibid. pag. 462.held a laſting and ſtrict Union with the Church of Armenia. That the Catholick of Armenia, yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who ſent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia, and that as well this King, as Gregory the Patriarch of Armenia, ſent an Ambaſſador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church. That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and thoſe of Armenia. That Pope Innocent excommunicated the King of Armenia at the requeſt of the Templars, and ſome time after gave him Abſolution. That this Union laſted during Gregory IX. his time, and Clement VI.
BUT what is this but a telling of Stories, and copying out of Raynadus at any rate. If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be ſufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation, 'twill be ſufficient to conclude likewiſe that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themſelves to correct them, or make the leaſt inquiries about them. They were ſatisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Armenia's acknowledging their Authority, hoping by this means to introduce hereafter quietly amongſt them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins, and in the mean time made uſe of 'em in other occaſions. The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the obeyſance of the Roman See, and in the mean time procured the aſſiſtance and protection of the Latins, whoſe power was then Formidable throughout the whole Eaſt. But this did not hinder the Armenians from keeping ſtill their Doctrines and Cuſtoms, as appears by what we have ſeen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII, Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expreſly mentions, That the Prieſts and Biſhops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during ſome years to thoſe that had bin Baptized by the Latins, and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament. And the 86 Article. That the Armenians ſay, and hold, that ſince the Council of Chalcedon, the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Neſtorians over the Neſtorians, or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks, that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewiſe theirs. And the 99th Article; that the Armenians perſecute thoſe amongſt them who have been Baptiſed according to the form of the Latins, and hold the Faith of the Roman Church, and that they ſay the Roman Church Errs, and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith. And the 117th. Article. That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds, nor its Sacraments, and Blaſphemes againſt the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals, ſaying they are Hereticks. That the Catholick of Armenia minor ſay'd, the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads. And altho they preach againſt Simony, yet do they grant no favour without committing it; that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themſelves undefiled in Armenia minor, except the King and ſome Perſons of Quality who held the Roman Faith. 'Tis then to no purpoſe for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held ſo ſtrict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians, ſeeing they did at the ſame time ſtir up all France againſt the Albingenſes, and cauſed 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword. Theſe excellent Reaſons do not hinder, but that the Armenians held ſtill all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII. And II. that amongſt thoſe Opinions, that which denys Tranſubstantiation and the real Preſence is plainly remarked. III. That altho the Kings and ſome Perſons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion, yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion, even to the blaſpheming the Roman Church, the Pope, and his Cardinals, according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd. IV. In fine it will not be found, that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Armenians any particular Renunciation of their Errors, be they what they will. It ſeems either theſe Popes ſuppoſed the Armenians had abſolutely the ſame Faith as the Roman Church, or diſſembled theſe Errors, in hopes, as I already ſay'd, that in eſtabliſhing their Authority in Armenia, they might introduce amongſt them the Religion of the Latins, by means of their Emiſſaries which the Kings favoured, and to whom ſome Biſhops gave liberty to preach, as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict. The Catholick of Armenia minor, ſay's this Article, Conſecrating Six Biſhops has drawn from them a Publick Act, in which they ſolemnly promiſe, to ſuffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue, and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers, who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Dioceſs, or Province. Moreover he obliges every Biſhop he Conſecrates, to Anathematiſe the Armenians that deſire to become true Catholicks, and obey the Roman Church. He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eaſtern Church, and calls himſelf Pope, acting in this quality in the Eaſtern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria.
AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry, and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46… 466.ſilence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Tranſubſtantiation, we may anſwer him that their ſilence ought not to come in competition with the Teſtimony of ſo many Authors, who expreſly affirm they deny it. Moreover Brocard ſpeaks not of their Opinions, and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion, without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines. But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonſtrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croiſado's, ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject; altho the Armenians, ſay's he, promiſed obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco hiſtor. Orient. cap. 79.and Roman Church, when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry, and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Biſhop of Mayence, yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Cuſtoms. And theſe were their Reunions with the Roman Church.
'TIS true there was in thoſe Times one of their Kings named Hayton, who marvellouſly favoured the Latins, and perhaps 'twas he of whom Mr. Arnaud ſpeaks, who took on him at laſt the Habit of St. Francis. But be it as it will, this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia, but in vain. Obſerve here the words of the Information of Benedict Art. 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton aſſembled all the Doctours and Biſhops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church, and diſpute with the Legat which the Roman Church had ſent; But the diſpute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romaniſts ſide, and that the Armenians were in an Error, and therefore ever ſince, the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church. Yet were not the Biſhops Doctours and Princes ſatisfied with this, and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book againſt the Pope and his Legat, and againſt the Roman Church, in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Hereſy. He ſays that Pharaoh's Embaſſadour, meaning the Legat, returned home with ſhame. &c. 'Tis to be obſerved that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of paſſionate Invectives againſt the Pope and his Church, yet was receiv'd in Armenia, as if it had bin the Canons of the Apoſtles.
WHICH conſidered, I ſee no reaſon to prize ſo much theſe feign'd Submiſſions which the Kings of Armenia have ſometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embaſſadors, as for inſtance ſuch as was that of King Oſinius paid to John XXII. by a Biſhop who in the name of the King, and his Kingdom, made ſuch a profeſſion of faith as they deſired. To make this a proof, as Mr. Arnaud do's, is either to be ignorant, or diſſemble the Genius of this Nation. The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs, made no ſcruple to ſend to the Pope Perſons, that promiſed him whatſoever he deſired, but as ſoon as ever the danger was over, and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they deſired, they made a mock at their promiſes, as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King, and Catholick of Armenia, as we have already obſerved in the preceding Chapter.
WHICH has bin well obſerved by the Author of the Book called the Ambaſſage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa. The Religion, ſay's he, The Ambaſſage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Tranſlated by Mr. de Vicqfort. p. 193.of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha, who are Armenians by birth, is the Chriſtian, together with the Opinions which the Pope ſuffers them to retain. But to ſpeak the truth there are very few that reverence, or acknowledge the Pope; almoſt all of 'um obſtinately retaining their own ancient Religion. For altho ſeveral of the Biſhops and Prieſts of their Nation that have paſſed over into Europe, (moved thereunto by their extream poverty, their expences in travelling, and intollerable perſecutions of the Turks, during the continual Wars between them and the Perſians,) have often offered to obey the Roman Church, yet when this was to be concluded, they have ſtill fallen off, and refuſed to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch, obſtinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys. This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a ſecret to us.
THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Perſon named Gerlac, who belonged to the Ambaſſador ſent from the Emperour to Conſtantinople, about an hundred years ſince. This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Diſcourſe he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople, and amongſt other things he tells us, They hold that the real Body of Jeſus Chriſt is preſent in the Sacrament in its proper Substance (He means the ſame as they of the Auſbourg Confeſſion) In caena Domini verum & Substantiale Corpus & Sanguinem Chriſti adeſſe dicunt, ſed videntur Tranſubſtantiationem probare. But upon the reading of this Letter, it will ſoon appear that, this Patriarch with whom he diſcourſed, gave him his own private ſentiments, and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion. For he tells him, that he believed and confeſſed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, contrary to what the Greeks hold. Yet do's it appear from the conſtant teſtimony of Authors, who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians, that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks againſt the Latins. So ſay's Guy Carmes, the information of Benedict XII. Prateolus, Breerewood and ſeveral others, and therefore the firſt thing Eugenius IV. did in the Council of Florence, when he gave his inſtructions to the Armenians, was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque. Beſides this Gerlac's Patriarch expreſly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity, that is to ſay, of the preſence of the Humane Nature in Jeſus Chriſt, whereſoever the Divinity is, which is not the real belief of the Armenians, as we have already ſufficiently proved. Gerlac adds, That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Univerſal Church, which is not true, as appears as well by the information of Benedict, as by the Teſtimony of ſeveral other Authors. 'Tis moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Subſtantial Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doctrine of the Ubiquity, which grants this Body to be every where, and by Conſequence in the Sacrament. And as to Tranſubſtantiation, he do's not abſolutely impute it to 'em, but ſay's they ſeem to admit of it, videntur, ſay's he, Tranſubſtantiationem probare. Let the reader judge whether this Tranſlation be faithful. It appears, is an expreſſion which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident, whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Anſwers our Engliſh word It ſeems, gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour, but which is not abſolutely out of doubt, of a thing which we may think to be true, but of which we have no certainty. 'Tis likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change, which the Armenian Patriarch made uſe of, but in effect this Term do's not ſignify a Tranſubſtantiation, and 'twas only Gerlac's prejudice which perſwaded him it did.
THE ſame prejudice may be obſerved in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words, I was informed, ſay's he, by the Patriarch of Armenia who viſited us at Schamachia a City of Media, that the Armenians, held Tranſubſtantiation. Now believing Tranſubſtantiation, that is to ſay, the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis not to be queſtioned but they hold the true and real Preſence. His Authority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to ſay, as it was in reſpect of the Moſcovites: If you deny his explanation, his Teſtimony ſignifies nothing.
AS to the atteſtations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church, and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him conſulted, and of Uſcanus Vardapet an Armenian Biſhop who was not long ſince at Amſterdam, we know very well there's little heed to be given to theſe ſort of People teſtimony; who never come into the Weſtern parts but upon the Account of ſome Temporal intereſt; and never fail to Anſwer as you would have them. The Latins and the Popes themſelves have bin often deceiv'd, and if I may not be believed, let Anthony de Goureau an Emiſſary of the Miſſion of Hiſpaham be conſulted, who in the Hiſtory he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Perſia tells us, that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence, the Armenians reunited themſelves, and the greateſt part of the Greek Church Anthony de Goureau's Relation, Book 3. Ch. 3.likewiſe, yet theſe People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requiſit in a matter of that importance; on the contrary they were ſo little mindfull of it, thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats, that I do not find amongſt them the leaſt ſign of this reduction, nor any thing which this Council decreed, nor Obedience thereunto recommended. There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions. And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Univerſal Fabrick ſhould ſay, that the Armenians almoſt in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council, ſeeing not ſo much as the name of it was ſcarce ever heard by the Biſhops or Patriarch, nor have they altered any of their Cuſtoms either good or bad, for this many Ages. But perhaps this Author was informed of this by ſome Armenians paſſing throughout Europe, or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade, who for the moſt part return anſwers according to the deſires of thoſe that aſk 'um, and that they may not fail therein, do very often ſpeak contrary to truth, which the Biſhops and Prelates of theſe Schiſmaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope, promiſing their Flocks ſhall yield Obedience to him, but at their return home, they ſoon forget their engagements. Let any one then judge of what weight the atteſtations of theſe People are, and whether the Diſcourſes of Hacciadour and Vardapet, are to be preferred before ſo many other convincing Teſtimonies which aſſert the contrary of what they affirm.