what it believes or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe or that the representative Church that is to say the Councils or the Pope cannot err The first of these two Principles is natural the second is of a Supernatural Order I handle not at present this Point whether they are false or true at the Bottom it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so difficult and require so much time that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them is plainly to deride them I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter where I shall make it appear that 't is impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it 's built It suffices me to say that People are not commonly so regular in things which they believe by a distinct Faith but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries The Author of the Perpetuity tells us that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular There has bin made on this Subject I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity there have bin Catechisms compiled intit'led Catechisms of Grace Which evidently shew it has bin believed that it was not impossible to make the People recieve by way of Illustration or Addition Articles which they knew not before whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms if the People cannot of themselves either diminish or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith This Principle is not then so certain but that it may be doubted of nor so clear or evident in it self that the most simple may be ascertained in it having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it AS to the second it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils or Popes is not so easie that the most simple People may master it All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it If this Church hath this she hath it by a particular Priviledg which must be examined before it be received For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle which is that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible because she saies so and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true because she is infallible Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Authority this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable by things independent on the Church of Rome and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Conclusion For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith now she affirmeth she is infallible from whence it follows that she is so A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense will never be convinced by this Argument The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living before it can be supposed that such a one or any other will receive its Doctrine founded on this Principle Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities for if it be proved by way of Scripture it is not so plainly described therein but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense They are controverted Places and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judgment Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition and a Judgment accordingly he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture in relation to what is produced on either side NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments he that endeavours to do this engageth himself yet farther into tedious Prolixities and Difficulties which surpass ordinary Apprehensions In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question This Infallibility saith he Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible we must prove that it is supernaturally so either by the Principles of Faith or by a long Series of Arguments Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence And 't is for this Reason that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Priviledge Mr. Arnaud testifies as much for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular that is to say of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question Reason saith he doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility So that this Author meaning the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority or on abstracted and remote Arguings he must then necessarily contain himself within the reach of things in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error on any Point which it proposeth But it 's evident to Sense that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors relating to matters of Faith seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Sense there needs more abstracted and remote Arguments to prove it whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this Much less are they fit for this should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition for it would be to send them far enough in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils to be informed in this matter besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently their Testimony upon this account would signify nothing IT is then manifest that common Apprehensions not being able to ascertain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge as I come now from proving nor in the Point of popular Infallibility as I have already hinted and which I shall do
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
thereupon to call him hominem subdolum Christianis rebus quae ad Latinos spectabant infestum iniquum Ration Temp. Part 1. C. 8. C. 21. adeo ut cum Saracenis in eorum conspiraret exitium that is to say a Person so deceitful and cruel to the Latine Church that he conspired its Ruine together with the Saracens yet should favour the Latins in his Empire and endeavour to procure the Re-union of its Church with the Roman But Allatius unties the Knot by shewing us in the Acts of Alexander the third that the Allat ubi Supra Design of this Emperor was so to bring it about that the Pope who was at Variance with the Emperor Frederick should take away from him the Latin Empire and render it to the Greeks to whom Manüel affirmed it did justly belong and for this Effect he sent Embassadors to the Pope and the Pope sent back together with his Embassadors the Bishop of Ostia to negociate this Affair at Constantinople Howsoever it was it sufficiently appears that all these different Interests yielded the Latins fit Opportunities to plant their Doctrines amongst the Greeks EMANUEL'S Intrigue was so far carried on that he assembled a Allat de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 2. Idem Ibid. Council at Constantinople where the Reunion of the Churches was proposed Some say the Latins required no more of the Greeks but the Acknowledgment of the Popes Authority the grant of Appeals and the Commemoration of him in the publick Prayers of their Church Others say the Latins would have intirely subjected the Greeks to their Wills and Customs That which is certain is they could not Agree and that the Emperor himself lent his helping Hand to separate them yet not daring to Anathematise Ancyr an apud Allat Ibid. the Latins because saies a Greek Author Cited by Allatius they were a great and famous People AFTER the Latins had established their Empire at Constantinople the Greeks withdrew into Asia where they chose an Emperor and Patriarch and the Affairs of the Latins falling to decay there was an after Tryal made upon the Greeks touching a Reunion Mr. Arnaud observes that the Pope wrote about it to Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople and 't is very L. 3. C. 2. likely he forgot not to sollicite the Emperor who was then John Ducas He sent two Dominicans and two Franciscans who caused an Assembly to be called for this Effect but to no purpose For each of them had his particular Interest and Design in this Affair THE Pope intended to subject the Greek Church to himself and the Emperor endeavoured to hinder the Pope from favouring the Latins who held Constantinople and to Regain this City as the Greeks did some time after Mathew Paris gives an account of these Letters of the Patriarch to the Mat. Par. in Henrico 3. Pope and of the Popes to the Patriarch concerning this Negotiation THEODORUS Lascaris succeeded John Ducas in the Year 1255. Raynald ad ann 1256. numb 47. Pope Alexander the fourth fail'd not to sollicite him to a Reunion he sent him an express Legate for that purpose but this Emperor soon died whereupon this Affair was no farther prosecuted ALLATIUS observes there was then a Greek Patriarch Named Blemmida Allat de Cons Perp. L. 2. C. 14. who was a Learned Man and very Zealous for this Union with the Latins MICHAEL Paleologus obtaining the Empire and having a while after made himself Master of Constantinople endeavoured above all others at L. 5. C. 1. P. 255. a Reunion with the Latines Mr. Arnaud acknowledges that having united himself to the Church of Rome he forced by all manner of Severity the Bishops and Religious Greeks to do the same This Prince Contracted a particular Friendship with Gregory the Tenth before he came to the Popedom according to Allatius which gave him the greater Facility to Negociate with the Allat de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 15. Church of Rome He sent several times his Embassadors and the Pope his Legates in order to a Reconciliation He held several Councils on this Occasion Ibid. and Inflicted the greatest Torments on those that had the Courage to resist him and promoted others who embraced this Union these are Allatius his own Words He falsly accused John Veccus Treasurer to the Church of Constantinople and caused him to be Imprisoned because Veccus had said in his hearing that altho the Latines were not respected as Hereticks yet were Pachymer Hist Lib. 5. C. 12. they such nevertheless which so greatly provoked this Emperor as caused him to think of nothing but Revenge And for as much as Veccus had sheltred himself in the Temple of St. Sophia and the Emperor daring not to Violate this Asylum he wrote to him very kind Letters intreating him to come to him which Veccus had no sooner endeavoured but was apprehended and carried to the Tower where he was sollicited to joyn with the Idem C. 13. Latins THIS Prince made and unmade Patriarchs at his Will he usurped saies the Historian Raynaldus the Ecclesiastical Authority placing and displaing Raynald ad ann 261. Num. 32. Vide. Pach. Patriarchs at his Pleasure He first of all constrain'd Arsenius to resign up his place to Nicephorus and after the taking of Constantinople he recalled the same Arsenius who had excommunicated him for what he had done against John Lascaris the Son of Theodorus to whom the Empire did of Right belong and whose Eyes he had caused to be put out and seeing he could not prevail on this Patriarch he raised up false Witnesses against him and caused him to be deposed in a Synod and Germain chosen in his place Germain not being sutable to his Humour he so far prevailed with him as to obtain a voluntary Resignation to Joseph but Joseph not consenting to the Reunion with the Latins nor the sending of Deputites to the Pope with whom the Emperor had charged them to conclude this Affair he caused him therefore to retire into a Covent upon Condition that if this Matter broke off he should enter again into his charge of Patriarch Now the Deputies being returned with the News of the Reunion accomplished the Emperor chose this same above named John Veccus who at length suffered himself to be won either by the reading of some Books put into his Hands or by the Miseries he had suffered during a long Imprisonment and hope of a contrary Usage Yet Veccus did not please him long IT would be a difficult matter to relate here all the Violences and Cruelties of Michael against those that withstood the Reunion of the two Churches It will be sufficient to relate here two or three of them by which we may judge of the rest He Imprisoned Holobulus Rhetor of the Church of Constantinople whose Office according to Codinius was to Interpret the Holy Scriptures and caused him to be cruelly Scourged and at length a Pachymer L. 5.
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
dead in it self They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality recommending Hope Charity Humility Chastity Temperance Sobriety and condemn Pride Envy Hatred Variance Drunkenness Calumny Magick Divinations c. HERE we have without question very commendable endeavours but they reach no farther than the instructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality These Fathers in their greatest zeal to reform both themselves and others make no mention of the Real Presence 'T was not then above fifty years when the Dispute was very hot on this subject and Books were wrote on both sides Yet it seems they took no notice of it much less determin to instruct the people in what they ought to hold of it All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greatest parr spent their lives Now this shews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from these essays of a Reformation for supposing they had their whole effect they extended not so far as the question of the Real Presence because they suppose either that the people were not ignorant of it or that the Pastors were themselves so persuaded of it that t was needless to instruct them in it or exhort them to instruct their Flocks in it But what likelihood is there that this in numerable multitude of people of both Sexes and of all Ages and conditions of life that knew not their Creed nor the Lords Prayer and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Christian Religion should know the Doctrin of the Real Presence Were they all in those days born imbued with this Doctrin What likelihood is there those Abbots that knew not the Statutes of their Monasteries and who to excuse themselves from reading 'em when offered to them were forced to say nescimus literas were not likewise greatly ignorant of the Mystery of the Eucharist What reason is there to say the Pastors themselves were commonly instructed in it seeing Odon Abbot of Clugny as we have already seen testifies that those who pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paschasus his Book THERE were likewise other Reformations made in this Century but they served only to establish some order in the Monasteries and the observance of particular Statutes under which the Religious are obliged to live by their profession and this does not hinder but that ignorance and carelesness were very great in respect of the Mystery of Religion AS to the Conversions 't is certain there were some but Mr. Arnaud knows very well the greatest part of 'em were wrought by force or the interests and intrigues of Princes And thus those that were converted might well embrace their Religion implicitly or in gross without troubling themselves with particular Doctrins as the greatest part of the People of the Roman Church do at present In the year 912 according to Matthew of Westminister Rollon or Raoul Duke of Normandy embraced the Christian Religion to espouse Gill the Daughter or Sister of Charles III. King of France In the year 925 Sitricus King of Denmark caused himself to be Baptised to espouse Edgite the Sister of Etelstan King of England but a while after he returned to Paganism In the year 926 Elstan having vanquish'd in Battle several petty Kings which were then in England obliged them and their Subjects to receive the Christian Faith In the year 949 Otton King of Germany having subdued the Sclavonians these people redeemed their lives and Country by being Baptiz'd In the year 965 Poland was converted to the Christian Faith by the Marriage of Miezislaus its King with the Daughter of Boleslaüs Duke of Bohemia John XIII Anti-Pope to Benedict V. sent thither Gilles Bishop of Tusculum to establish under the Authority of the King his Religion in that Country In the year 989 Adalbert Arch-Bishop of Prague went into Hungary to endeavour the conversion of those people but this was under the authority and power of Geisa King of Hungary who was converted by commerce with Christians whom he freely permitted to live in his Kingdom So that all these conversions about which Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity make such a noise to advance the glory zeal and knowledg of the Bishops of the 10th Century do not at all conclude what they pretend LET the Reader then joyn all these things together and judg which of us two has most reason Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impossible that the belief of the Real Presence supposing 't were a novelty in the Church could make any progress therein in the 10th Century without Disputes and Commotions or I who maintain that these progresses were not only possible but easie to be conceiv'd First There were Disputes on this subject in the 9th Century which is a matter of fact not to be denied Secondly Altho the question was therein agitated yet was it not decided by any Council nor by the Church of Rome nor by any other publick Authority Thirdly Those of the 10th Century fell into a very confused knowledg of the Mystery of Christian Religion in general the People the Religious and the greatest part of the Priests and Bishops lived in very gross ignorance and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge as we have fully proved Fourthly Ecclesiastical Discipline was wholly laid aside in this Age and the temporal state of the Church lay in a perpetual and general confusion Fifthly It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Presence was therein preached in several places Sixthly It also appears that that of Paschasus was so too and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles and Pastors exhorted to read Paschasus his Book to be instructed in the Mystery of the Eucharist Seventhly To which we may add that the persons that taught the Real Presence in this Century were people of great credit and authority Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbishop of Canterbury and was in great reputation Th' other Odon who had such an esteem for Paschasus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny a restorer and reformer of several Monasteries of whom Baronius says That he was chosen by God as another Jeremiah Baron ad an 938. to pluck up destroy scatte◠plant and build in that wretched Age. ALL these matters of fact being clearly proved as they are what impossibility is there that the Doctrin of Paschasus which he taught in the 9th Century as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church confirming it as much as he could by several passages of the Fathers taken in a wrong sense no publick Authority having condemn'd it should have followers in the 10th That these his Disciples finding ' emselves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance carelesness and confusion reign'd have themselves communicated
consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people this very thing should shew that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation wherein there 's no deceit to be feared the best which one can do is to keep to the Word of God THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin Now says he Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change and the benefit of it depends on circumstances which are mutable but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature that which is true at one time being so always Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change So adds he to introduce a new Discipline 't is not necessary to deceive the world nor shew 't is ancient but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de disguised which is oftentimes impossible In fine the belief of a Doctrin necessarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion whereas one may embrace a Discipline different from another yet without condemning that which one leaves THERE are several things to be said to this discourse For first It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual immutable and necessary at least as to necessity of precept and such is the Communion of both kinds Secondly There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice and Doctrins The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin because of two parts whereof a Religion consists to wit the Doctrins and Practices these last are most popular Thirdly There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins and are in such a manner the dependances and consequences of 'em that 't is impossible to change them without also changing the Doctrins and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds for it was anciently grounded on this belief that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People as appears by Paschasus his own testimony Drink ye all of it says he to wit as well the Ministers as other Lib. de Corp. Sang. Domin c. 15. c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon Comperimus de cons dist 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989. Believers and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practise It is not well done says the same Paschasus to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood This Mystery says Pope Gelasius cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege It is a mere abusing the world says Mr. Arnaud to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings recited by Gratien and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius himself who was at the head of the Church of Rome who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the producing of a Testimony of a Pope It is Gratien says he that relates it Is it the less authentick for that Gratien did not invent it to serve us we did not inspire him with it and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it This passage adds he may receive several rational explications I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications but we should know whether these explications be just Mr. Arnaud should propose 'em and then we might examin ' em This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer to what 's alledg'd touching that subject THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appendant to a Doctrin for the ancient Church had this custom because she believ'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants S. Austin says so in express terms Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum Aug. de Peccat rear remiss lib. 1. c 24. participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church To the end says he its authority may be with plausible pretences trampled Page 990. under foot and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud did before me Missam facio says he Augustini Innocentii Maldon in Joan. 6. Binn not in Epist Innoc. primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistam etiam infantibus necessariam What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé It appears says he that Innocent ' s opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years and which was followed by S Austin was that the Eucharist is necessary to little Children But seeing the command to receive the Eucharist does not oblige those that cannot receive it and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it the Church instructed by the use of several Ages and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd not only that the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to Children but that it ought not to be given ' em I know adds Mr. Arnaud that there are on this subject some passages of Page 990. S. Austin and Innocent the First which are difficult But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them To the passages of S. Austin and Innocent Mr. Arnaud might add others which will admit of no explication as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles of the Author of the Hypognosticks of Gregory the Second of the second Council of Toul and some others And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now
found nothing in 'em of what he saw at first I confess they may be understood in this sense that this affair was politically manag'd and with respect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome and regain the peoples good will and that this is a worldly wisdom But 't will not be found in 'em That the Author of the Perpetuity did not write by persuasion but only thro policy as Mr. Arnaud imagin'd This he will not find Why then does he extend my words beyond their natural signification and why does he wrong a man so scandalously on the imagination he said what he did not We understand says he The Book entituled The Port Royal and Geneva of Intelligence against the most holy Sacrament of the Altar this language He shews plainly he does not understand it seeing he charges me with saying what I did not and draws his Commentary only from himself and not from my words Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed against him wherein he is accused for formally opposing the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence by a proposition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Eucharist has been publickly in a Letter treated as suspicious that he has been told That if he be unwilling Answer to the request presented to the King c. Book 2. ch 6. p. 187. together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva he must change the act of the adoration which they perform assisting at the Mass to the Elevation of the Host for they say only I adore thee raised on the Cross at the general judgment and at the right hand of the Father without any mention of adoring him being present in the Church Had I severely applied my self to what he says somewhere in his Book on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philosophy That God sees in the matter in the figures and forms only a different order of parts to conclude thence that this proposition overthrows the existence of accidents without a subject in the Eucharist and consequently that 't is contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome as it has been observ'd in a Letter Printed not long since what tempests must I not have expected seeing for having only hinted that there might be some policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raised such a great disturbance Mr. ARNAVD protests he will never for my sake dispense with the Book 11. ch 9. p. 1132. rules of Justice that he will never devine my secret intentions Let him not then pretend to read in my heart nor attribute to me a mystical sense which I never intended nor is contained in my words All those that believe Transubstantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour Amongst those that are how many do betake themselves to other matters Is it not then a very likely matter that a person who is at liberty to write on any subject but pitches upon Transubstantiation is it not I say very likely his choice of this point is grounded on some worldly policy and carnal considerations In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very just and innocent And this is all that my words signifie to pretend to know more of my mind is to attempt a thing which is possible only to God and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do that he might have some colour for his passion Mr. ARNAVD I hope will suffer me likewise to tell him that what I said touching some words of the Author of the Perpetuity which I believed were not very advantageous to the common mysteries of our Religion do neither respect his person nor the main of his sentiments which I never pretended to handle but only his expressions which I judged and still do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we cannot shew enough respect We ought all of us to be very circumspect in our ways of speaking to give no oecasion to the open enemies of the Gospel truths which we joyntly profess This is my opinion and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we should be offended to hear these questions Why are the immortality of the soul and everlasting bliss so hidden and as it were so buried in the Books Perpetuity of the Faith refuted part 1. of the Old Testament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews Why did not Jesus Christ declare his Divinity in such clear and precise terms that 't were impossible to elude them What may the Pagans say on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin and this inconceivable transmission of a crime which is a spiritual and voluntary action to all the Sons of him that committed it altho they could not have any part in his action and of this dreadful condemnation of all humane nature for the fault of one man Can he think it strange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the mystery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner Were a man in this point to be guided by his reason he must needs start back at these inconceivable verities Should he pretend to make use of its lights to penetrate them she will only furnish him with arms to combat them Who can but be offended at the propositions which are in this last work of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of proofs which I alledged out of the Book 10. ch 6. p. 1042. Holy Scripture for the Trinity That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because he accompanies these proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition But that these same proofs are infinitely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority without possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority That Mr. Claude Page 1043. who alledges the best part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy yet in such a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert ' em I do not believe these questions or propositions are justifiable take 'em how we we will but supposing they were it must be granted they are conceiv'd in such rough dangerous and excessive terms that 't is for the publick edification to avoid 'em yea and to censure ' em BUT in fine we must leave these Personal Differences which cannot but be displeasing And therefore we will come to the Preface of my Answer to Father Noüet which seems to have much incensed Mr. Arnaud and seeing he seems to be much concerned at it we will endeavour to satisfie him about it What then does this Preface contain which is so troublesom and grievous I confess we have mention'd a matter of fact in
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
their own Belief but as Witnesses of the common Belief of the Church I confess their Authority dependeth on Reasonings and that it may be questioned but besides it would not hence follow that the Proofs drawn from Arguments in this matter that is to say on the Churches Belief would be more certain than their Testimony seeing their Testimony may be established on a Reasoning stronger than these Proofs and consequently may be preferable to them I say besides all this this Point of the Fidelity of the Fathers is a Principle we have the Advantage of supposing against Mr. Arnaud seeing that hitherto the Church of Rome hath never questioned it and that we take the Fathers only from his Hands and descend to the Examination of their Testimony only out of complyance with him as I have already mentioned so that to speak properly we have no more to do but only to know what hath bin their Doctrine Now this is another matter of Fact of which we think we can be informed by our Eyes and by the Light of common Sense and we cannot imagine without a great Mistake that there hath bin more perspicuity and certainty in the Proofs drawn from Arguings whence I may conclude again that we are at Liberty to reject these Proofs without troubling our selves with any farther Examination of them IT appeareth then clear enough I think that Mr. Arnaud's second Chapter is but a vain Amusement And I cannot but be troubled finding my self obliged to alleadg several things which cannot but be grievous to them who shun Contention But I could not but mention them to follow Mr. Arnaud to the end he might not take Advantage by my leaving him unanswered WHAT he saies concerning pretended Proofs of Fact viz. That they are often invalidated by Proofs fetched from Arguments toucheth not our Question For there is no body denys that Reason doth not sometimes correct a Mistake in Sense and sometimes again invalidates the Deposition of Witnesses whether by making it appear that these are False-Witnesses who impose on us or else in shewing they themselves are mistaken or lastly that their Testimony contains quite another thing than what is pretended But altho that Proofs of Fact ought to be tried by Arguments to know their Goodness yet doth it not follow that when the Question respects a matter of Fact but that the way of Proofs is to be preferred before that of Arguments on the same Subject it doth less follow that when Persons are prevented by Proofs of Fact that they can be made to alter their Judgments by simple Proofs drawn from Arguments without shewing them that their pretended Proofs of Fact are not good What he addeth concerning the Proofs of Fact that they are all of 'em reducible in some sort to Proofs of Reasoning is not true in reference to immediate Proofs and whatsoever there may be of Truth in this yet is it useless because the Question is not about a general Comparison of Arguments with Proofs of Fact but concerning the Comparison applyed to the Fact it self which the Proof establisheth and which lies now in Debate All the following Discourses touching the Fidelity of Historians the Battle of Canes of Pharsalia of Philippes Actium Caesar Pompey and the City of Constantinople are Digressions which our Dispute hath nothing to do with The Proofs of the Truth of Moses's Miracles and them of the Resurrection of our Saviour are good but they belong not to our Subject If the Question concerned the proving the Fidelity of the Fathers Testimony we would consent to the making use of Arguments after the same manner as they are made use of to prove the Fidelity of Moses and the Apostles Testimony But this is not the Point our whole Question is only to know what the Fathers have believed and for this Arguments are far less fit than Passages faithfully collected from their own Writings Mr. Arnauds Hypothesis that all our Quotations of the Fathers have bin foysted in them by John Scot and his Followers is as he is pleased to express it on another Occasion a Fantastical Hypothesis from whence he can draw no Advantage and what at farthest can have no Ground but in the Disquisition of the Passages themselves And lastly his Conclusion that the Proofs of Fact and the Proofs taken from Arguments are either to be valued or slighted as they are either Obscure or Evident False or True Vain or Solid and that 't is by the Quality of the Proof and not by the kind of them that we must judge this is I say a disingenious Conclusion for it is true that Proofs are estimable or despicable by their Quality and not by their Kind but their Kind and the Matter to which they are applied serve to foreshew us their Quality and their Quality being foreknown rendreth them Estimable or Contemptible A Proof drawn from Arguments being made use of to subvert a matter of Fact which is found established by the sight of our Eyes and common Sense bears in this simple Comparison a sufficient Number of false Characters to make us conclude that it belongs to the number of those subtile and loose Proofs Mr. Arnaud mentions which evaporate of themselves and vanish out of the Mind Lib. 1. C 2. P. 10. as the Ayr doth out of our Mouths it not being necessary to enter into a more particular Examination of them Seeing then we have Reason to suppose our Proofs are good and Substantial as I made it apparent in my first Chapter we may likewise well conclude in this that the Author of the Perpetuity's Reasonings are vain and groundless and consequently to be rejected without troubling our selves any farther with them CHAP. IV. My fourth Observation Justifi'd viz. That we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments to make them Invalid IT will be needless to prove this Observation seeing Mr. Arnaud acknowledgeth enough to establish the Truth and Justice of it We do not in any wise pretend saith he to deny him he means me the use of his Proofs of Fact if he hath any provided he makes a right use of them and follows the Rules of Reason in so doing He may then Conclude Lib. 1. C. 2. P. 15. as long as he will that the Alteration in Question is possible in making it appear if he can That it hath actually hapned He may deny the Impossibility of a thing by proving its actual Existence All this is allowed him neither are we so unreasonable to deprive him of these kind of Proofs He wrongs the Author of the Perpetuity in charging him with such a Thought This Acknowledgment is not of so small Importance but that it deserves to be considered for it perfectly overthrows the Author of the Perpetuity's real Design and makes all those great Hopes he conceived of his Method to vanish away in two or three Periods We have allready seen that he hath offered it as a sufficient Means
more fully in the end they cannot remain in the Church of Rome with a safe Conscience there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands such as are Birth Education Interest Custom and the Example of others which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation They are then obliged to range themselves on the side of the Reformists from whom they receive for a Rule things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry and moreover where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace If it be replied that we must first satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures I answer first that this Principle doth not fall under Debate seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World but only to the particular Opinions of Christians for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly I answer that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures than other Churches seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible she must evidence her self to be a Church which she cannot do if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her and she will not take the Pains to prove it besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture and consequently they suppose its Divinity But in fine I say the Characters of Divinity which shine in all parts of these Writings are so lively and so many in Number that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them if they apply themselves to the Consideration of them with a pure Heart and unspotted Conscience Now this is it to which the meanest Capacity is obliged as well as the greatest and if they do it not their Damnation is just and their Impiety without Excuse AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly But to return to the principal Subject of our Dispute we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud in that he takes it not ill I endeavour to prove by several Passages that the Alteration pretended to be impossible is real and true The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it and if he doth agree to it he must suffer me to draw this Consequence that I could have hindred the Effect he promised himself from his Method which is to make us confess if we are not extream Obstinate that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament is the same with that of all Antiquity This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us and the Production of some Passages of my Writings starteth a particular Debate which Mr. Arnaud approveth for he only complains I have not produced them in a right manner but mained and dislocated from their Consequences and that I have concealed all those which might be opposed and understood But this Complaint is Unjust and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment which is That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins whose Proofs I take upon me to defend If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio into a Preface neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer which contains no more than thirty Pages I never pretended that my Abridgment alone should absolutely determine his Thoughts I know this cannot be expected but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers I design'd to shew them of my Communion what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties the matters of Proof with which it is furnished their Nature and Force do contribute that Truth to it which an Abridgment ought to have and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the same with that of the Fathers and that there has bin made an Alteration for the Principles of this are marked out and their Consequence doth plainly appear that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist for we may easily conclude from what I said that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridgments which allways refer to another work in supposing that the Principles they mark out are clearly established in that Book to which they refer and from whence they draw their Conclusion And this is all that can be desired in this matter but yet this is a way of concluding and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist I confess that to determine his Judgment we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion we must go to the Spring and see whether what is supposed issues thence but it doth not thence follow that the Abridgment is in fault nor that it should be esteemed as a Heap of Difficulties and indeed it would not be an Abridgment if in effect it did not abridge some other work wherein the Matter is handled at large A Heap of Difficulties to speak properly is a Collection of several Objections which are formed against a Doctrine without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections and in short without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled It is certain that in a Controversy this manner of proceeding is confused and captious and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind for as to my part I find that it hath all the Characters of it For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist
one and the other are obliged to render themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Perpetuity because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them but as unevident and uncertain and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Capacities and grounded on the Light of common Sence it may be understood by all in general This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter IN the sixth Chapter he extends his Pretention a great way farther for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side he will not suffer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53. being necessary for this saith he to enter into an Examination of all those Passages without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People observe after what sort he declares his meaning He saith then that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other these two contrary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments and hinder us from determining and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity which leading us hither Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect and pass over to the Catholick Religion first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal Original Successive and Catholick Society from which we must never make aschisme Secondly because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors before we separate from it and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that Society we are of to keep in it Thirdly because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry of the ordinary Vocation and Authority and that the Ministers who have not been above a hundred years standing have none of these things Fourthly because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity and consequently to return to the Church of Rome they ought to serve for Examples to the Judicious it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong Lastly he confesseth that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid and so by consequence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author of the Perpetuity and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not we are so different in our Apprehensions that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project I have found nothing at all therein of Reason nor coherence of Parts neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest FIRST methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World in proposing as it were from us a Difficulty which weakens our Cause altho it do's not concern us For I do not pretend that one of our Communion into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity and who is able to read it is absolutely obliged before he forms his Judgment thereupon to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs with those of that Treatise I maintain that he may reject these last by the general Consideration alone which he may make without entring into the Examination of each Particular because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity which are grounded on common Sence Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted and that if we take the trouble to examine them 't is out of Condescension not Necessity IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the several ranks of Men who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity For the greatest part of them in our Communion judging this Perusal needless will not mind it for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26. heard the Owners Experience of it would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation by Arguments offered only on one side in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions The least which ought to be done by them who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion is to hear both Parties and weigh their Reasons I answer that these Persons I mentioned will act very Justly and Reasonably in doing what I said For there being two Questions the one touching what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other touching what has bin believed by the Primitive Church The first Question being once dispatched we need not trouble our selves about the second Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith This is it which judgeth us all and had the Author of the Perpetuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him but instead of this he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages and perswades himself that henceforward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to when they say in general that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages may be decided three ways First by the Rules of Christian Charity Secondly by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises and cares of his Providence Thirdly by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People is needless It is enough to a well meaning Person that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe touching the Eucharist and thereupon charitably presumes that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Errors It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church that he would never forsake it have had their
or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
contained only that the Bread is really changed as we shall make it appear hereafter NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries and that the quality of the Persons who make these attestations does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church all these pieces are too new whereon to build alone a Tradition from the â—â—â—venth Century that is to say since six hundred years WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them which shall be done in its place but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument which is drawn from that the usual expressions of the Greeks I mean the clearest of them and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist only consist in general terms Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions seeing the belief of the substantial conversion as I have already established it is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is not possible but that a Church which believes it and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's BUT this Argument I now produced ought to be attended by this following consideration which will farther evidence its strength and solidity Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith the seven first general Councils to wit that of Nice against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great that at Constantinople against Macedonius under Theodosius that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine and his Mother Iréna Now 't is certain there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transubstantiation for what is produced concerning the first at Nice That we must conceive by Faith that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World lies ou this holy Table that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood This I say as any man may see is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book wherein he relates it And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances as that of Gregory the Seventh held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine and in fine that of Trent which established the preeeding decisions the Greek Church receives none of these nor makes any account of them They all commonly say say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed and the Priests make the people believe that at the end of the seventh Council an Angel descended from Heaven testifying that whatsoever concerned our Faith was therein perfected and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided Leo Allatius likewise only mentions seven Councils which they approve They have say's he in great esteem Allat de prep cons lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils and hold them inviolable they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians Guag in Mosc descrip which is the same as that of the Greeks relates their Belief is that 't was concluded in the seventh general Council that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils should remain firm for the time to come and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema wherefore adds he they say that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first are accursed perverse and desperately defiled with Heresie Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia tells us likewise that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art 9. the seventh saying they are not concerned in them seeing they were held without their consent SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour that there De uno past part 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded and that whosoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accursed Mr. Basire whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter confirms me in this matter by his Letter In publica say's he Graecorum professione non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recipiunt quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical And Metrophanus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration We only receive say's he the seven Oecumenical Councils and as to the particular Councils we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Councils and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversion are two things very inconsistent with each other especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd And in effect it seems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils and not amongst the common customs or practices which are still observed altho not expresly determined or amongst the Points which being minute and inconsiderable
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
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 IF 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 constanâ—â—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 the 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 'T IS certain Mr. Arnaud makes a small matter serve
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 't is 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 CHAP. III. The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question and needs not to be confirmed by others yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Transubstantiation nor the real presence THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms The Guido Carmel suma de Heres de Her Arm. Cap. 12. Twenty second Error says he of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pronounced on the Bread and Wine the Body of Jesus Christ is truly and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood but established them only as a resemblance and figure And in another place Arguing against their Opinion The Armenians says he have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass to wit and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ They thus expound them the true Body that is to say the true resemblance of the Body but this exposition will not pass because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ as the Image of a Man is not a real Man Man is the true Image and resemblance of God but he is not true God by Nature if then this be only the resemblance and not the truth or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say it cannot be called the true Body The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony ask e'm why they can give you no other reason but this That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken 'T is indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions as a most trusty Servant and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days being Prior General also of his order Inquisitor General of the faith and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence were he not well assured of it What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22 that is to say in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys and especially Armenia Raynald ad ann 13. 18. whose King Ossinius embraced the Roman Religion receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony bethought Perp. of the faith part 3. Ch. 8. himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstantiation Despensus Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him and 't is likely he grounded himself on their testimony But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up and the Authority of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity I will not dissemble says he that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable and therefore has chose rather of his
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. 46â— 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 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was 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. 'T is 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
Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paschasus to his face how knows he this that he can be so confident of it Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it No. But 't is because Paschasus says Audivi quosdam me reprehendere I am inform'd that some blame me Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence and that an Author may speak thus altho he was told of his fault to his face In fine who inform'd Mr. Arnaud that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew which were publish'd not till thirty years after A frivolous reason as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em and endeavours to defend himself It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud NOT only adds he he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors Page 850 851. Friends and Brethren but he still believed the whole Church was on his side For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his unknown adversaries of whom he had notice by the Authority of the whole Church and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Ecclesiam He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur In short he accuses those as highly criminal who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue contrary to the consent of the whole Earth Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes universaliter verum esse fatentur I answered the Author of the Perpetuity That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all question the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief and from the Churches saying in her Canon Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi to which the people answered Amen That there 's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin but which are not so greatly favorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin HERE says Mr. Arnaud is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude ' s invention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less and to distinguish by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot distinguish Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church either this proposition that 't is the common Doctrin of the Church is so clear and evident that the Adversaries themselves must grant it or it is not so clear nor evident but that 't is questionable As to the first case a man need not trouble himself to prove it for it s taken for a Principle and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting For instance When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect but also for all men in general that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just according to the present condition of their ability that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of the Communion it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church that there needs no proving 'em and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles there 's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles and he would have only hence consequences drawn against him As to the second case that is to say when 't is not clear that this is the Faith of the Church and that this point is in dispute both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses one which regards precisely the present Church which is to say the Church in the time of the contest the other which respects the Church in the preceding times which is to say before the controversie it may also receive two sorts of proofs some which refer to the present time others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us When a man proves for the time present he alledges testimonies of the modern Church when he proves for the past time he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good or bad conclusive or not conclusive TO apply this to the matter in hand I say That Paschasus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ Audivi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromittit and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sangainis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin multi dubitant says he several times And in fine others that erred thro ignorance which is to say that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed Quamvis plurimi says he dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta And a little lower Quamvis ex
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we
Durham who says only Propter hanc infamiam taeduit eum Franciae and supposing it were in the Text of Simeon 't would only denote that it was his conjecture that John Scot left France for the displeasure he had to find himself accused of Heresie neither do I know whether taeduit thus uttered be not an expression too weak for a man whom the trouble of seeing himself accused of a crime so capital as is that of Heresie must make to have passed from one Realm to another The third term ut fertur denotes only 't was said that John Scot was stabb'd to death with Pen-knifes But the fourth Martyr aestimatus est does not denote any thing doubtful and plainly signifies that he was held for a Martyr which appears from what William of Malmsbury adds Quod sub ambiguo ad injuriam sanctae animae non dixerim cum celebrem ejus memoriam sepulchrum in sinistro latere altaris Epitaphii prodant versus To build hereon conjectures of the falsity of this History is very idle IN fine the Argument which the Author of the Dissertation draws from the silence of Berenger and his Disciples who never mention'd the History of the Martyrdom of John Scot is of no weight First We do not know what Berenger and his Disciples have said the greatest part of their Writings never coming to our notice Secondly There 's no inconveniency to suppose that the memory of the Martyrdom of John Scot hapning in a little place as is Malmsbury more than 150 years before the Disputes of Berenger became not so publick in France that Berenger and his Disciples must needs know it We know there are scarcely any remains of the famous Monastery of S. Angilbert nor is he in the Catalogue of the Saints Frustra tamen Angilbertum quaeras ut innumeros tutelares nostros sanctos Syntagm de Nith inter moderna sanctorum syntagmata said the deceased M. Peteau Counsellor in the Parliament of Paris A man may say the same thing of Ingelramnus or Angilramnus who wrote the Book of Images under the name of Charlemain and who pass'd for a Saint For his name was in fine forgotten But thirdly Supposing Berenger and his Disciples had a particular notice of the Martyrdom and Holiness of John Scot all that can be concluded from their silence is that oftentimes every thing is not said on a subject which may be said How many times have our Authors alledged the Books of Images under the name of Charlemain without publishing the quality of Saint which has been given to this Prince Has Paschasius the adversary of John Scot been mention'd as a Saint by Lanfranc and his other partners in their Disputes against Berenger Yet is it certain he was made to pass for one at Corbie and this circumstance has been observed by Alanus and Sirmond But says the Author of the Dissertation Ascelin would not De Euch. p. 1. c. 21. In vita Pasch have treated John Scot as an Heretick he would have put a difference between his Book and his Person had he believ'd he pass'd for a Martyr and Saint in the Church I answer that this remark concludes nothing unless that Ascelin suffered himself to be transported by his passion and prejudice but Ascelin's transports do not at all invalidate the credibility of the Martyrdom and Holiness of John Scot. And as to our Author's remarking that neither does Ingulphus speak of this Martyrdom we need only tell him that all Historians do not say every thing Ingulphus says but one word of John Scot in treating of another subject He denotes none of the circumstances of his life he relates only that he was called into England by Alfred and settled at Aetheling Yet is it true that he gives him the Title of a most holy Monk IT is then certain that the silence of these Writers can neither diminish the Artic. 7. truth of the relation which William of Malmsbury makes touching the Martyrdom of John Scot nor the esteem of his Holiness in that Church wherein he lived IT is certainly no less vain and irrational for the Author of the Dissertation to set himself as he has done on criticising on a passage of Thomas Fuller and a testimony of Hector Boetius Deidonan For supposing that Thomas Fuller and several with him were mistaken in saying that the martyrology which makes mention of John Scot in the 4th of the Ides of November was Printed at Anvers in the year 1586. whereas it was Printed in 1583. by the command of Gregory XIII supposing 't were true that this Martyrology was not the Roman which neither Fuller nor Mr. Claude have affirm'd supposing it were moreover true that Baronius has not taken away the name of John Scot from the Roman Martyrology and tho the words of Henry Firtsimon cited by Fuller and Varoeus were not well understood yet is it certain First That Molanus Professor in Divinity at Louvain has put John Scot in his Appendix to the Martyrology of Vsuard publish'd at Anvers in 1583. Secondly That Mr. De Saussay Bishop of Toul has likewise set him down in the Martyrology of the Gallican Church and that both of 'em thought themselves oblig'd to follow Deidonan who says that John Scot was set down in the Catalogue of Saints by the sacred Authority of the Popes Thirdly It may be that Arnaud Wion saying that the name of John Scot is to be seen in the Roman Martyrology has taken that of Vsuard for the Roman one And in effect the learned are agreed that the Martyrology Vide Vales append ad Euseb Hist Vsuard was adopted by the Roman Church and that there has not been any such Martyrology as we have since Galesinus and Baronius Fourthly Supposing Arnaud Wion was mistaken in his conjecture yet is it still certain that he has placed John Scot in the rank of the Saints of the Order of S. Benet wherein he has been followed by the learned Hugo Menard in the Text of the Martyrology of the Order of S. Benet given the publick which he confirms in the first Book of his Observations on this Ad 4. id Nov. Martyrology Fifthly Alford the Jesuit has follow'd Hugh Menard and has not sought all these subterfuges of the Author of the Dissertation for he has rank'd John Scot in the Catalogue of Saints in his Annals of England Printed at Liege in 1663. wherein having mention'd him as a Martyr A. 884 n. 4. indic Chron. he acquiesces in the judgment which the Bishop of Toul made of him who placed him in the rank of Saints in the Appendixes of his Martyrology A TABLE OF AUTHORS Alledged in this Book Note That the first Figure denotes the Part the second the Book and the third the Chapter A. D. Luc d' Achery Not. ad vitam Lanfranc 2. 6. 9 10. Albertin de Sacram. Euch. lib. 1. c. 30. 2. 5. 11. lib. 2. p. 322. 1. 4. 9. Alcuinus