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
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript He wrote a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Virgin against three Infidels We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touching the Eucharist was father'd on the famous Raban as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book and that Raban was of a contrary opinion to Paschasus But without such appearance and without any ground proof or Witnesses we must be gravely told that Berenger or his Disciples who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing have fathered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome and which is in effect John Scots and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition which no body before ever imagin'd what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation as I shall shew hereafter In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing 't is evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation In effect if he had not this consideration how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd seeing he himself supposes that 't is John Scots First Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece Secondly That 't was so before at Paris by a kind Durand Troar de Corp. Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest cap. 31. Epist ad Berenger in Lanf oper of Synod who censured it in the same terms Thirdly That another Council at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil Fourthly That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood as Hincmar and Ascelin say Fifthly That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Paschasus Sixthly That in the 12th Century Cellot's anonymous Author testifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century Seventhly That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him Eighthly That in effect Bertram's Book was attributed to Oecolampadius Ninthly That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes Tenthly That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em not being able to admit the Doctrin have affirm'd it has been altered In fine that the Author of the Dissertation himself acknowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buckler for 'em which 't was their interest to preserve at the expence of the greatest fraud and treachery DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself that the Councils of the 11th Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one That Pope Leo IX Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were deceived in it that Berenger nor his Adversaries nor his Disciples have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dispute and that in fine the 12th Century remain'd in as great an ignorance I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do which is to say that it is obscure and perplexed in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it But that I may handle more fully this point I intend to establish clearly two things First That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is in effect Ratram's and not John Scot's Secondly That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram TO confirm this truth I shall first bring as convincing proofs as can be brought for these kind of Facts Secondly I shall produce the acknowledgment of the most learned Romanists who have acknowledged this verity even since some of 'em have question'd it Lastly I shall shew that this is not a discovery which Vsher first made and that whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation brings against that Prelates proofs cannot overthrow them See here the proofs FIRST Sigebert a Monk of Gemblou attributes in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to the Author of the Book of Predestination Now this Book of Predestination is acknowledged to be Ratram's And in effect altho Suffridus Petrus who caused Sigebert's Catalogue to be Printed has inserted the name of Bertram in his Edition he does himself remark that two Manuscripts one of the Abby of Gemblou the other of the Priory of Vauvert had distinctly the name of Ratram and not that of Bertram This testimony of Sigebert is considerable for three reasons First Because he was one of the most inquisitive Historians of his time as appears by his Chronicle Secondly Because he did not write his Catalogue till he had spent the greatest part of his life in the reading of the Authors of which he speaks in his Catalogue Thirdly Because that having lived a great while in the 11th Century for he died but in the year 1113. he had a particular knowledg of what passed in the Disputes between Berenger and his Adversaries and the Authors which were alledged on either hand AS Trithemius in his Catalogue has followed Sigebert excepting that he spoke more particularly of the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination it is plain that altho it has likewise the name of Bertram or Bertramnus he design'd Ratramnus and that the rather that 't
acknowledgment that Bertram is no other than Ratram an Author in whom these three things meet if we compare the Title of the Book with what Authors say that have spoken of this Religious This is the judgment of the Divines of Doway whom Vsher has only followed AFTER the Divines of Doway and Bishop Vsher who discovered this truth more distinctly Mr. De Marca was one of the first who lent his hand to it as appears from his Treatise in French of the Eucharist wrote before the year 1640. and publish'd by Monsieur the Abbot Faget his Cousin Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has since likewise follow'd the same sentiment Erotem p 132. Dissert Hist p. 134. in his Treatise of good and bad Books Mr. Mauguin acknowledges it likewise in his famous defences of Grace wherein he has been follow'd by Mr. Hermon a Canon of Beauvais under the Title of HIERONYMVS AB ANGELO FORYI Cellot the Jesuit agrees in this point with Mr. Epist 3. S. xxiii seq opp ad hist Goth. p. 569. col 2. Herman and Mr. Mauguin altho he elsewhere opposes the later in several things De Luc d' Achery and Mr. De S. Beuve have equally testifi'd they were of the same opinion the one in his Preface on the first Tome of his Spicilege th' other in his Manuscript Lectures on the Eucharist 'T IS true that since the late conjecture of Mr. De Marca became publick to wit that John Scot is the Author of the Work of our Lords Body and Blood and not Ratram De Luc seems to yield to this novelty and has Praefat. in T. 2. Spicil Part 3. c. 5. T. 1. de Script Eccl. p. 53. T. 2. p. 06. Triumph of the Euchar. p. 18 63 66 68 94 95 96 97. since been followed by the Author of the Perpetuity who speaks of it in a doubtful manner and by the Author of the Dissertation which I examin But a while after the learned Jesuit Labbeus opposed this conjecture of Mr. De Marca as handsomly as he could in a Book which he dedicated to him For in this Book he takes indifferently Bertram and Ratram for one and the same Author Mr. Pavillon also ingenuously acknowledges in his Book against Mr. Daillé that Ratram and Bertram are but one and the same person citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The famous Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament book 5. ch 2. p. 264. Jesuit Noüet against Mr. Claude shews in this matter the same sincerity as Mr. Pavillon and Mr. Arbusti has follow'd them in his declaration HOWSOEVER it be after the reasons which I have alledged I believe I may affirm with all these learned men of the Church of Rome that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same Author It only then remains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Dissertation offers most considerable against some of these reasons TO one of these reasons viz. that the Religious of Corby being named Artic. 2. of the Dissert on John Scot. Ratram and Cellot's anonymous Author saying that Ratram wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord known under the name of Bertram is then Ratram's to this reason I say our Author answers that altho Cellot caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous wherein are mention'd Paschasus his Adversaries yet 't is not thus found in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor but in the first there 's Intramus and in the second Ratramnus Cellot having caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed contrary to what the Manuscripts bear BUT this answer is not sufficient First Cellot has caused his Anonymous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy who had taken it from a Manuscript of Corby and not from the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor Secondly These two Manuscripts which are apparently false are not so considerable as the Manuscripts of the Anonymous mention'd by Vsher and others which have all of 'em the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscript De Success Eccles p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666. of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bears the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscripts of the Catalogue of Sigebert of which we have spoken The Intram of the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor is the Transcribers fault who has disfigured the name of Ratramnus just as his Babanus is the famous Raban TO another reason drawn from Sigebert who makes the Author of the De Success Eccl. c. 2. Book of Predestination to wit Ratramnus the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of whom in effect two Manuscripts represent the name of Ratramus instead of Bertramus to this reason I say the Author answers First That the work of Bertram of Predestination is different from that of Ratramnus because that according to Trithemius the work of Bertram contain'd only one Book and was not dedicated to Charles the Bald whereas that of Ratram is dedicated to him and contains two Books Secondly That all the Editions of Sigebert having constantly the name of Bertram we may believe that a fault has slipt into the Manuscripts of Gemblou and of Vauvert where we have the name of Ratramnus BUT these two Answers are not satisfactory As to the first Trithemius as well as Sigebert says positively in two places that the Book of Bertram of Predestination is dedicated to Charles the Bald and brings such reasons for the proof of what he says that there 's no way to avoid the force of his testimony Secondly Either our Author supposes that Trithemius saw a Treatise of Predestination under the name of Bertram which contain'd only one Book or he will have him not to have seen it as he believes that Trithemius has not seen the Book of our Lords Body and Blood If Trithemius has seen this Treatise of Predestination what is become of it since Trithemius his time How comes it to pass no body ever heard of it but this our Author If Trithemius never saw it why will our Author give credit to his testimony when the question concerns this Book of Predestination and yet will not have us believe what he says of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thirdly Our Author abuses the passage of Trithemius Trithemius has follow'd Sigebert and by librum seems to understand opus a work without having respect to the number of the parts of which it is composed unless we will suppose that one number has escaped the Printer and that instead of these words de Predestinatione j. we should read de Predestinatione jj which is very possible and of which there are an hundred examples in the Catalogue of Trithemius now in question OUR Author's second Answer is something worse than the first I
with its consequences as the Adoration the Sacrifice c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable Heresie Now 't is certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot. HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram I might pass by whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture of Mr. De Marca and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca no man of learning nor any of Berenger's enemies either in the 11th Century or in the following made this discovery seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust that he might handsomly leave it if he were forced It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a forein Title Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity THESE proofs are 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other AS to the first our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to Ibid. sect 1. Berenger whence he believes one may gather that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book and that small enough that a man cannot presently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fathers and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose that amongst others John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory which begins with these words Perficiant in nobis and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin whom he principally made use of as Berenger insinuates he forms his conclusion in these terms Specie geruntur ista non veritate And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram are either uneflectual for his design or want a foundation 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark They must if they are endued with common sense from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs These two Characters then are too general and wide And for the two last considerations 1. Who doubts that two Authors one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other as Ratram may have read that of John Scot may not cite the same authorities Ratram and Raban have done it as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot 2. 'T is not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors and should he have said it this character would be too general there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th Century who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors 3. Our Author ought not to propose as a character of identity that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis as John Scot has done for to speak properly this conclusion Specie geruntur ista non veritate is not of Bertram nor of John Scot but the Text it self of the Prayer which bears Vt quoe nunc specie gerimus veritate capiamus now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion and that they could neither of 'em do it in a more natural manner than in forming it thus Specie gerunter ista non veritate We must also observe and that as Ascelin relates that John Scot cited this Orison under the name of S. Gregory whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words it is not so great in respect of the construction of ' em Bertram having these words In specie geruntur ista non in veritate and John Scot these Specie geruntur ista non in veritate which proves that these are two different Authors THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger who informs us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France and that this King was Charlemain Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram which is dedicated to Charlemain and was written by his order BUT these conformities conclude nothing not the first because 't was very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject one who dwelt in his Palace to wit John Scot and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination to wit Ratramnus This Character is too general Not the second for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist were inscribed Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem but only Ad Carolum Regem which is what one may recollect from Sigebert from the Abbot Trithemius from John Bishop of Rochester and the De Script Eccl. catai c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog in
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
or at least doubtful and suspected ones The five and twentieth is his producing the testimony of several false Greeks link'd to the interest of the Latin Church 258 CHAP. IV. The testimony of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud touching the Belief of the Greeks answered 269 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation examin'd 272 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments A particular reflection on what past in the Treaties of Râ—union and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards 293 CHAP. VII Several passages of Greek Authors cited by Mr. Arnaud examin'd 306 CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make in the 12th Century considered Several passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors examin'd 319 CHAP. IX Several passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascen examin'd 429 CHAP. X. An examination of the advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the 8th Century upon the subject of Images the one at Constantinople the other at Nice 339 CHAP. XI Several circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice examin'd 355 The Second Part. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the Belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismatics of the Belief of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of these Churches on the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP. I. Of the MOSCOVITES THat the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation Page 1 CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Human Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallow'd up by the Divinity 14 CHAP. III. The testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation 26 CHAP. IV. Testimonies of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 38 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's proofs touching the Armenians examin'd 44 CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Coptics and Ethiopians that they hold not Transubstantiation 50 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's eighth Book touching the sentiment of the Latins on the mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700 till Paschasius his time examin'd 61 CHAP. VIII An examination of these expressions of the Fathers That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ 71 CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence 89 CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 98 CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's consequences 106 BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church touching the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. THE state of the question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence 119 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's proceedings considered His unjust reproaches also examin'd 131 CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud 143 CHAP. IV. A Defence of the fifth rank against Mr. Arnaud's Objections 154 CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's ninth Book An examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation 163 CHAP. VI. Mr Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution examin'd The state of the 12th Century 172 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of forgetfulness examin'd The examples of the insensible changes alledged in answer to the Perpetuity defended 188 CHAP. VIII That Paschasius Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections answer'd 198 CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasius was an Innovator 214 CHAP. X. Of Authors in the 9th Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Christian Drutmar 229 CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the 9th Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot 242 CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his 11th Book 259 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 Corby 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 277 CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca does not at all make it the more probable 282 CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram 284 CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is of John Scot 292 CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the name of Bertram examin'd 299 The Second Part. That the Authority of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram will be still of great weight if we suppose John Scot to be the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was greatly esteemed both in his own age and in the following ones 303 CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the employs of John Scot 306 CHAP. VIII That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr 311 The end of the Table 1683 Coenantibus ejs accepit Iesus panem et benedixit at fregit deditque discipulis fuis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est And as they did eat Iesus took the bread and when he had blessed he broke it and gave it to the Disciples and said take eat this my body Mat. 26. AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist defended BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed CHAP. I. That I have reason to take for granted as I have
Roman Church having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essential Points I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact which do now and then escape him after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron and Bellarmin and Mr. Arnaud himself not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude but as Persons who affirm things from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé and sundry others of our Authors Now 't is evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom nor to relate all the words which may make it known for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing but to tire the Reader 's patience and trifle away the time It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me seeing I published this illustration in my Answer to Father Noüel which altho well known to him yet has it not stopt him in his carreer concealing my Justification neither more nor less than if I had said nothing IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist notwithstanding whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted Which is what I take upon me to maintain He say's that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts Arcud lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying this is my Body this is my Blood he then shews them little or no respect at all he bows not his head neither does he adore them nor prostrate himself before them nor lights Candles nor makes any Reverence Mr. Arnaud answers the question concerns not the Adoration in it self but the time of the Adoration Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission which both one and the other do as soon as the Consecration is performed that as to what concerns the second the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration and the Greeks later to wit at the Elevation of the Hoste which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate THAT we may examine this Answer we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks than his bare word or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence but this is what 's in question and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucharist immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary and that in their intention this is a sovereign honour But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence and to perswade us the Greeks do this is a plain abuse for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts and guessing at their thoughts Those that have this inward reverence to the Eucharist do certainly shew it by some outward Sign and the Greeks shewing none Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter SACRANUS Scarga and Caucus who lived amongst the Greeks were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence for had they known any thing of it they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence Respect or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration nor would they call them as they have done Heretical and Prophane People Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration knew nothing of this This inward Reverence had its residence and operations in their Souls and yet they knew nothing of it for had they known it they would never return such an Answer None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret but if he gives us not other Proofs it is to be feared his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite or Ceremony which is used as he say's at the Elevation of the Hoste and see whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned The Greek Liturgy has these words That the Priest and Deacon adore three times in saying thrice with a low voice O God be propitious unto me a sinner The Author of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sacrament Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's that the Priest adores and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are in saying thrice softly Lord be propitious to me a sinner My Answer was that I found in Goar ' s Book of Rites and Answer to the second Treatise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies not this Term of Lord but that of God which shews that this Adoration terminated it self in God and not in the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist But he ought to proceed sincerely it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore but it is likewise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O God be propitious to me a sinner from whence 't is plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist AS to Arcudius's Testimony who tells us that the People prostrate themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis Holy Things are for Holy Persons and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria we need not be much concerned thereat being a Person prepossessed and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant Goar in not in S. Joan Chrysost Miss pag. 153. Arcudius say's Goar altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of
which the Divinity is joyned to change it But were this the sence of Nicholas Methoniensis what would this contribute to the clearing up the doubt proposed to him The Question is whether the Flesh and Blood would not appear if they were in the Sacrament and Nicholas Methoniensis answers that the Bread and Wine are the matter changed by the Divinity which effects this change This is certainly a very strange way of speaking to say he joyns his Divinity to them to signifie that he transubstantiates them We see few People thus express themselves But supposing this what relation has this to the Doubt he pretends to resolve If the Flesh of Christ were in the Sacrament say these Dubitants it would appear we should see it I answer say Nicholas Methoniensis according to Mr. Arnaud's Comment that the Bread and Wine are the matter which is changed and that the Almighty power of God changes them Can any Answer be more ridiculous This Author must certainly lost his Wits to make such a Reply They do not ask him what the matter is that is changed nor what the efficient cause of this change but why if it be use Body of Christ it does not appear to be Flesh but Bread Matter Cause efficacy contribute nothing to the solving of this Doubt This Gloss then of Mr. Arnaud's is absurd and if we suppose Nicholas Methoniensis spake sence it must be granted that his meaning is that the Bread and Wine remaining Bread and Wine are yet notwithstanding made the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of their Union to the Divinity and not otherwise Whence it follows that it must not be expected they should appear to be Flesh and Blood because they are not so in respect of their Matter or Substance but only by their Union to the Divinity which makes them in some sort to be the same thing with the Body and Blood THIS Opinion seems to be derived from Damascen whose expressions I desire I may have leave to mention altho we must use them also in another place For 't is certain that to judge aright of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend so far Mr. Arnaud has himself observed that John Damascen is another Saint Thomas amongst the Greeks and has been ever the rule of their Doctrine touching the Eucharist Elsewhere he assures us That we need only read the Treatises of the Modern Greeks to find that they Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 155. Lib. 2. cap. 12. wholly conform themselves to the Sentiment and Expressions of this Father This then is a Principle with Mr. Arnaud so that to convince him touching the Belief of the Greeks there is a kind of necessity lying upon us to consult this Father OBSERVE here then what he say's in his Fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith The Bread and Wine are not the Figure of the Body and Blood of Damascen de Orthod fid lib. 4 cap. 14. Christ God forbid but they are the deified Body it self of Jesus Christ the Lord himself saying unto us this is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood He had said before to the Jews if ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you for my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And then again He that eateth me shall live Draw we near then with trembling with a pure Conscience a firm Faith and it will be unto us according to the constancy and firmness of our Faith Honour we it with a perfect purity of Body and Soul For it is double Approach we towards it with a fervent desire and placing our hands in manner of a Cross receive we the Body of him that was crucified for us Let us put it on our Eyes Lips and Forehead and take we thus the Divine Coal to the end our Devotion being inflamed thereby our sins may be consumed and our hearts inlightned and that by the participation of this Divine Fire we may our selves become inflamed and deified Esaias saw a Coal Now a Coal is not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire So the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one being that of the Body and th' other that of the Divinity annexed thereunto So that to take them together it is not one only nature but two THESE Words clearly shew that Damascen means that the Bread in the Eucharist which is the Body of Jesus Christ is double because 't is joyned to the Divinity that 't is not mere Bread but Bread united to the Divinity consisting of two natures one of Bread and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned to it in like manner as Esaias his live Coal was not meer Wood but Wood in conjunction with Fire Now this is what is exactly contained in my Proposition that the Bread and Wine keeping their proper nature are joyned to the Divinity according to the Greeks MR. Arnaud who saw the force of this Passage that he might get clear off it has bethought himself to say that the Duplicity which Damascen mentions must be understood as meant of Jesus Christ himself who consists of two Natures He rehearses the Passage in hand to these Words Duplex Lib. 7. cap. 4. pag. 654. est enim and then adds it is plain that hitherto these Words relate to Jesus Christ and his true and real Flesh and that 't is of him it is said Duplex est enim which is to say that he is composed of two Natures and a little farther It plainly appears that Saint John Damascen ' s Design is to exhort us to a double Ibid. purity of Soul and Body to honour the double Nature of Jesus Christ and to show that we receive in the Communion this double Nature So that these Words non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati corpus autem unitum divinitati non est una natura sed duae una quidem corporis alter a conjunctae Divinitatis are the Exposition of what he said before that Jesus Christ was double And that which he shews us is that this double nature of Jesus Christ has been signified by the Coal which Esaias saw and that we receive this Divine Coal BUT all this is but an Errour and cunning Evasion of Mr. Arnaud who was not willing to consult the Greek Copy of Damascen for 't is true indeed these Latin Words Duplex est enim may refer to Jesus Christ or his Flesh because the Latin word Duplex is of all Genders so that being taken in the Masculine it relates to Christ himself and in the Feminine to his Flesh But had Mr. Arnaud been willing to consult the Greek Text he would have found no pretence for this evasion For there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
real presence of the Body of Christ acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper There has hapned upon the Account of this Translation a very Remarkable circumstance You must know then that Mr. Arnaud in the first edition of his Book having made an Objection to himself concerning this Passage of Herbert and heightened it asmuch as he could to the saying he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it being so considerable as to startle most People that he thought there could Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. First Edition be nothing replyed to such an express passage and that this Author seemed to speak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themselves Having I say proposed this Objection he Answers that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calvinistical Translator That having desired some of his Friends to Translate from the Original English whatsoever related to the Armenians in that Book he found by their Translation that not only he does in no wise speak of the real Presence but that almost all the discourses contained in the 249 th and 250 th page were foysted in by the Translator who made his Dreams and Fancies pass for the Relations of a Traveller That 't is likely he has done the same in several other places so that this whole Book is rather the Translators Romance than the true account of a Voyage This Discourse being very disingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman who has ever manifested in his Writings and Conversation an exemplary sincerity it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having seen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly justifyed himself from it And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embassadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew Herbert's Book in English Printed at London 1638. by Rich. Bishop wherein is precisely these words They administer the Lords Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine and deny a real Presence They allow but our two Sacraments Having produced this Original he caused a Letter to be Printed and directed to me in which he complains of the injustice Mr. Arnaud has done him and protests he is not of that Temper to make use of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofesses as knowing it abhors them and makes no difference between the cheats which the Modern Divinity of some call pious and the falshood that destroys the Soul of him that utters it He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expressions and refutes his Calumnies and offers for his justification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related ' um Afterwards he says he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now justify that in the Original English there is no mention of the real Presence nor affirm 't is a mere imposture of the Calvinistical Translator That he also affirms whatsoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250 concerning the Baptism of the Armenians their Proselytes Fasts Images Priests their Belief touching Purgatory their Superstitions and Efforts which the Jesuits have made to subject them to the See of Rome is really contained in the Original English there being nothing of his Invention in all this And to justifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Language THIS so well grounded defence has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accusation Printed in the First He has retrenched all those Injurious Discourses against the Reputation and sincerity of Mr. Vicqfort and acknowledged his Translation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original He has at the same time discovered to us the cause of his mistake to wit that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634 th' other in 1635. in which the Author contained himself within the Relation of his Voyage and the Second in 1638 wherein he had added several particulars relating to Religion and History those whom he consulted had seen only the first Edition but that Mr. Vicqfort Translated from the Second in which was found the Passage in question I am far from being of that Humour to insult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occasion nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors who mean not the least hurt to him I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own rashness in grounding a charge of this importance on a supposition he has found to be false without considering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one But he must suffer me to tell him that what he has inserted in his Marginal Notes is not a sufficient excuse for him the French Translation says he making no mention of two different Editions of this English Book we could not Divine it Much less could Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition the Translator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impostour for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book These kind of Accusations pronounced with such confidence do suppose a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the least pains in this respect he might have easily discovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book and found what he has bin since shewed He needed not divine but certainly inform himself for this Book being Printed at London in 1638 and being moreover famous in that kind he might have been soon satisfyed concerning it But supposing he could not he ought not presently to call a Person a Deceiver But rather to have proposed his doubts and require a solution of Mr. Vicqfort himself and not thus rashly charge a Gentleman that never offended him I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology did not the interest of my cause oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Discourses if they be not upheld by solid and convincing Proofs which they never are as appears from this whole dispute BUT laying aside this contest see we what Mr. Arnaud offers against the Authority of Herbert who expresly affirms the Armenians deny the real Presence We matter not says he the advantage which the Calvinists C. 8. 2. Edition would make of this Testimony of Herbert who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book has added what he pleased touching the Religion of those People through whose Countrys he travelled without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them for he only says what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect who have treated of them as Breerewood has done Those Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Armenians do fully solve this Point And not to mention others there is no comparison between a Calvinist who speaks in his own cause and according to his interests without Authority and proofs and a Lutheran such a one as Mr. Olearius is who speaks against himself and
the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
naturally arises in the minds of all men May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects and yet have been used for different ends and on different occasions 'T is not good reasoning to conclude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough and sufficiently subject to change either in regard of divers People or Ages and the occasions the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccountable too SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a general reason why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation I mean in the Eucharist for so the Fathers have called it Is it not sufficient 't was a general interest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound respect the words of Jesus Christ who has said of the Bread This is my Body and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them These two interests are general belong to all times and all Nations and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was BUT in fine supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly I say 't is sufficient 't was a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons and not necessarily in those of all men For there have been weak Christians at all times and in all places the Church having never been without 'um and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucharist that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ that it procures us the remission of our Sins the Grace of Sanctification the hope of Everlasting life that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour this doubt I say easily arises in the minds of weak persons who as I have already said are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sacrament wherein there only appears Bread and Wine Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ were only used to prevent this doubt to strengthen the weak in this regard and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church WERE there any body now says he tempted with this doubt and Page 783. needed to be strengthened against it does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucharist and whether he fills it with his efficacy He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ nor of rejecting it in these here I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters whom he introduces without any occasion or reason would not consult common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms supposing they doubted of Transubstantiation or the substantial presence Why should they not say We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or we doubt whether the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite expressions Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms by saying We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous stated according to my sense in Palladius How are the gifts said a Religious Pallad Hist Laus cap. 75. person able to sanctifie me I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented as appears by Cyril of Alexandria God says he changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Apud Vict. Ant. Miss AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE and by Elias of Crete God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Elias Cret in Greg. AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ in reference to the question of the Conversion and the substantial Presence and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue For Walafridus Strabo an Author of the 9th Century having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book De Virtute Sacramentorum says afterwards in the Text of the same Chapter Valafridus Strabo de rec Eccles cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10. by way of confirmation That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert altho he lived in the 12th Century that is to say in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church yet said That the Bread is rightly called and is TRVLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ Crucified Dead and Buried Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reason to be so positive in affirming
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
confute those that durst not shew themselves SEEING therefore on one hand the Doctrin of the Real Presence taught in the 10th Century and on the other the contrary Doctrin preached and publickly held it seems to me we may say with boldness that this Century was mix'd and Mr. Arnaud cannot give us a greater prejudice against his way of arguing by pretended moral impossibilities than to use them in a case wherein the matter of fact so plainly appears 'T IS moreover very strange that Mr. Arnaud should endeavour to persuade us 't was not possible there could be in this Century ignorant people that had no other than a confused knowledg of Gospel Mysteries after the testimonies we have brought him of so many Authors who unanimously depose the contrary Does he expect we will believe him sooner than William of Tyr an Historian of the 12th Century who tells us speaking of the 10th and 11th That the Christian Faith was decayed amongst those who William of Tyr. lib. 1. cap. 8. called themselves Christians that there were therein no more justice equity or any other virtue that the world seem'd to draw towards an end and was about returning to its former Chaos that the lives of Church-men were no better than the peoples for the Bishops grew negligent of their charge were dumb dogs that could not bark Does he hope we shall give a greater deference to his reasons than to the testimony of Hérivé Arch bishop of Rheims an Author of the 10th Century who assures us that Christian Religion was nigh decayed Prâ—f ad Concilium Trosl and standing as it were on the edg of a precipice We have says he in the Council of Trosly scarcely any good order observed amongst us the whole state of the Church is overthrown and corrupted and not to spare our selves we that ought to correct the faults of others are as bad as the rest we are called Bishops but do we do the office of a Bishop We leave off Preaching we behold those committed to us forsake God and plunge themselves in all manner of lewdness and yet are silent we reach not forth to 'em the hand of correction If at any time we tell 'em that which does not please 'em they answer us in the words of our Saviour the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his seat c. So that in this manner are we struck dumb and the Lords flock is lost are drowned in vices and exposed to the cruel teeth of wolves There being no body to shew 'em the way of life how can it be but they must wander into the paths of error Thus in them is accomplished what is said by the Prophet This ignorant people shall be struck with jealousie and again My people are gone into captivity because they had no knowledg Where are they who are converted by our Preaching and have brought forth fruits worthy of repentance Who is the man that by hearing us has left his luxury covetousness or pride This good Bishop who deserves without doubt for his zeal not to be Concilium Trosl cap. 3. comprehended amongst the number of others describing in a decretal of his Council assembled at Trosly the condition of the Monasteries of his time says That as well the Monks as the Nuns lived without Rule and Discipline applying themselves to worldly affairs that some of 'em were constrained by necessity to return into the world again that the Monasteries were possess'd by Lay-Abbots who lived therein with their Wives Children Soldiers and Dogs that the Abbots were not in a capacity t' examine the Rules of their Convents to read or understand 'em and if at any time the Book was offered 'em their reply was Nescio literas He afterwards represents the violence of those that ravish'd the goods of the Church persecuted and put to death the Priests forcibly took away their Neighbors Estates laying snares for the innocent putting 'em to death and plundering their houses and says the number of these latter was infinite and that they imagin'd 't was a gentile thing to live by Rapine Afterwards he turns his discourse to the Ravishers of Virgins and Women and those that contracted clandestine and incestuous Marriages and shews the number of these was not small Thence he comes to the scandalous conversation of Priests with Women to perjured Persons Quarrels Murthers and in fine concludes by an exhortation to the Bishops his Suffragans to do henceforward their duty Alas says he Ibid. in Epil alas thro our negligence and ignorance and by the neglect and ignorance of our Predecessors and that of our Brethren who are still living several do perish in their Vices and at this time there are an infinite number of people of both Sexes Ages and Conditions ignorant of the Faith know not their Creed or Pater noster How can these people supposing they were of honest conversation do good Works having not the foundation of Faith And what excuse can we make for our selves when they die they enter not into life for they are unacquainted with it but they enter into eternal death which they cannot avoid being without Faith for the just live by Faith We are then as Gregory says the murtherers of these people that perish whereas we should be their guides to save them For 't is for our sins this multitude are degenerated because we carelesly neglect the giving them the instructions of life Will Mr. Arnaud now persuade us 't was impossible there should be persons in the 10th Century that had only a confused knowledg of Christianity THE ignorance says he of the mystery of the Eucharist cannot subsist with Book 9. ch 7. pag. 915. a million of Preachers of the Real Presence and a million of people that rejected it When Mr. Arnaud is in his Closet a million of Preachers costs him no more than thirty and his Commission is as soon given to a great number as a small But what is most admirable is that when we come to count these Preachers of the Real Presence we do not find 'em to be above four or five at most one of which as I already observed plainly tells us that those of his time that personated learned men had small knowledg of this mystery till they read Paschasus his Book which must be according to him the fountain of their light 'T is moreover to be observed that what I now alledged of Hérivé in the Council of Trosly is of the year 909 that is to say in the beginning of the 10th Century Now it is certain the darkness waxed greater after this Century but we see to what degree it arrived then Most of the Abbats knew not how to read The Pastors left off Preaching to and instructing of the people and an infinite number of people of either Sex both young and old could not say their Creed nor the Lords Prayer during their whole lives Methinks it cannot be well concluded hence there were at
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
and dispers'd it in the minds of several without resistance and thus this Doctrin has made in the space of these hundred years insensible progresses establishing it self by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th as an innovation this Doctrin found it self the strongest and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin What difficulty can be rais'd against this Hypothesis which may not be casily solved If it be said that Paschasus did not propose any thing but what all the faithful already distinctly knew and believed Paschasus himself will answer for me that he has moved several persons to the understanding of this Mystery which supposes that before his time 't was not sufficiently known and that he discovered things of which the people were ignorant Odon will answer for me that the most learned had but little knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist if they had not read Paschasus his Book If it be said his Doctrin met with no contradiction Paschasus himself will tell you that some blamed him for attributing more to the word of Christ than the truth it self has promised us and 't is hereon he disputes against his Adversaries Should a man deny that the two Doctrins that of Paschasus and that of his Adversaries were both taught in the 10th Century he will I think be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given and in effect there 's no great likelihood that the Doctrin of John Scot and Bertram who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France and that of Raban three persons of great note in the Church should be thus extinct in so short a time without any Councils condemning it without the Court of Romes concerning her self with it without the interposition of temporal Princes and that there should I say remain no trace of it in the 10th Century He that shall think it strange that the people of the 10th Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation need only call to mind the ignorance wherein the people lived for when a man does not know what the Church believes 't is no hard matter for him to be deceived and to take that which she does not believe for what she does That man that questions this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have given of it Should any man alledg it to be strange such men as an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny should be deceived 't is easie to shew the weakness of this objection by th' example of several that are men of better parts than those now in question who now take for the Doctrin of the Church what is not so The Disciples of Paschasus found in his Book such specious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em and 't is a thing ordinary enough to be surprized by false colours Should it be said to be impossible but that the Disciples of Paschasus knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in several places have openly condemned it and disputed against those that held it First I answer I do not know whether we may absolutely say there was no dispute about it for there may be disputes and we not know of 'em but supposing there were not I answer that seeing 't is no Miracle that disputation should cease sometimes in an enlightned Age amongst learned and zealous men without any Conversions on either side 't is much less one in a dark and troublesom Age wherein persons thought of nothing less than disputing The Disciples of Paschasus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paschasus his Book to all persons and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles If it be likewise said that those that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to dispute against those that follow'd that of Paschasus I must say so too but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do because they have not always that zeal knowledg or industry which they ought to have How should they dispute one against another who left for the most part their Flocks without Pasture without Instruction without Preaching Howsoever this is as I said a thing certain that there were persons in this Century who held the Doctrin of Paschasus and others that of Bertram Whether they disputed or no it concerns me not to know 't is sufficient for me that this Age held both these Doctrins which I think cannot be denied When two opposite Doctrins are taught and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance to speak after the manner of men and according to the terms of our Dispute 't is equally impossible either of them should get the upper hand because they want that understanding which is requisite to to make aright judgment and moreover if the one be asserted by persons of Authority and great Reputation it is almost impossible but this will carry it away from the other Whence it follows the progress of the Real Presence in the 10th Century has been not only possible but easie and even unavoidable To which if we add another matter of fact which is that we do not find there were Disputes in this Century on this subject whence we will conclude that these progresses we speak of have been made in an insensible manner at least in our respect which is to say that if there were any noise or contests the knowledg of 'em never came to us which suffices to decide the question between us two AND this is what I had to say touching the state of the 10th Century in respect of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence I take no notice of those violent accusations which Mr. Arnaud brings against our Morals under pretence we do not reckon Piety to consist in affected Penances and outward Mortifications which for the most part have more shew than substance We praise and recommend as earnestly as we can the practice of Fasting but believe it better to abstain from Vice than Meats the use of which God has given us with sobriety We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him to make good use of his Estate and endure Poverty without envy murmurings and repinings to live holily in Caelibacy and chastly in Marriage to carry our selves justly to our Inferiors and obediently to Superiors But we do not approve of mens withdrawing themselves out of that rank and order wherein providence has placed them nor making of particular rules and binding men to th' observance of 'em by Vows nor that the Rich should ransom their sins by great offerings to Ecclesiastical persons who have no need of 'em â—or of Voluntary Poverty much less that men should imagin to satisfie the Almighty for their sins and merit any thing of him by these kind of observances 'T is not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
learned but a very honest man a bold defender of the Dissert c. 17. Catholick Faith against all Innovators and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority What likelihood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropolitan and such a man as Hincmar who was countenanced by the King would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Abbot IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say That Paschasus clearly testifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books For this cannot be collected from his expressions unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud Let those says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew that will extenuate the term of Body hear me those that say that 't is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church and that 't is not his true Blood imagining they know not what that 't is in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood and make the Lord a lyar saying that 't is not his true Flesh nor his true Blood by which we declare his true death whereas truth it self says This is my Body And a little lower I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 't is not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing but that it is Sacramentally so a certain virtue of his Flesh and not his Flesh the virtue of his Blood and not his Blood the figure and not the truth the shadow and not the Body And in another place a little further I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly because I understand that some rereprehend me as if I would in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Christ attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises And in his Letter to Frudegard Sed quidam says he loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt quaecunque possunt ne credant quoe veritas repromittit opponunt dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile visible hoec autem inquiunt quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt nec palpari ideo corpus non sunt si corpus non sunt in figura carnis sanguinis hoec dicuntur non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi sanguinis quoe caro passa est in cruce nata de Maria Virgine Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence That he had several clear and solid objections offered him whether by word of mouth or writing or by Books or bare discourses he does not inform us But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection dispute censure and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion Opponunt says he quoecunque possunt Ecce quam bene disputant dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem Audivi quosdam me reprehendere c. Do men thus express themselves when they would represent private discourse But says Book 3. ch 8. p. 843. Mr. Arnaud Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard assures that altho some are deceived thro ignorance yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery I answer that the sense of Paschasus is that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery to wit that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according as 't is express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi and by the words of Christ This is my Body Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ and to the terms of the Liturgy but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy and to those of Christ explain'd themselves very plainly against him for there 's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em They confessed that the words were true and could not be question'd without a crime but yet this hindred 'em not from setting ' emselves against the sense of Paschasus Paschasus pretends to draw advantage against 'em by their acknowledging the words imagining the words were plainly for him but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him nor against the sense he gave these words This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds just as if any one having said that there 's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there 's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses But pray why must these be secret discourses during Paschasus his life seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal question to wit whether Paschasus was an Innovator Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church which gives says he such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence Book 8. ch 9. in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it He adds That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it according to the state of their time do overthrow this ridiculous Fable To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries and Latin Authors of the 7th and 8th for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires Let 's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us HE has recourse next
with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressions endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpetuity and which is not necessary to repeat here Mr. Arnaud answers That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is that these Sacramental Page 866. expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence But if they do agree 't is by constraint and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms When Paschasus says for example In pane vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi potestate divina peragitur What violence must not be offered these terms to accommodate them to the change of the substance of Bread For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour is an expression which naturally includes this sense that the substance remains with its colour What violence must not be offered these other terms Caro Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est sed judicium quod percipio quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation For naturally these terms signifie that 't is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions altho that in effect they were contrary to him whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the other assures us that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church in such a manner that he has opened the way to others The first idea which these words present us with is that Paschasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly and in plain and precise terms for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond And 't will signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that these passages mean only that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in Book 8 ch 10. page 867. several of the Fathers Writings according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Vnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers so he has been follow'd by all that came after him This answer is an illusion for 't is far from completely answering Sirmond's words Genuinum says he Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus explicuit Invita pasch ut viam coeteris aperuit qui de eodem argumento multa postea scripsere He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers but that he first explain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church Before him according to Sirmond this true sentiment which is to say the Doctrin of the Real Presence for this is what he means was a confused and hidden matter Paschasus was the first who brought it to light and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him Till his time this way lay hid he found it first entred into it and by his example moved others to do the same Now this is the honestest confession imaginable that Paschasus was the first Author of this Doctrin for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church and this way are nothing else but the Real Presence and he was the first discoverer of it There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity nor of S. Cyril in respect of the Incarnation nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks but it can never be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church for it was explain'd and distinctly known before them The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead acknowledged two Natures and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time and S. Austin's and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me and which he has endeavoured to answer But besides these there are also some others which he has past over in silence and of which 't will not be amiss to put him in mind I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger which makes Paschasus precisely as we do the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine Sententia says he imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi Apud Lanfranc lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini The opinion or rather folly of the Vulgar of Paschasus and Lanfranc that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Consecration Lanfrac who cites these words says a little after that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome 't was known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem injustissime nihilo minus assertum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi And his Letter to Ascelin You are Tom. 2. Spic in not advitam Lanfran ad Luc. D' Actery says he of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature contrary to the Gospel contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle if you are of Paschasus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in
his imagination that the substance of Bread does no more subsist in the Sacrament of our Lords Body Sapis contra omnes naturoe rationes contra Evangelicam Apostolicam sententiam si cum Paschasio sapis in eo quod SOLVS sibi confingit Sacramento Dominici Corporis decedere panis omnino substantiam Now on one hand this shews Mr. Arnaud's injustice which attributes to the modern Ministers th' invention of this History which makes Paschasus the first Author of the opinion of the Real Presence and on the other this gives a great presumption that what the Ministers say touching Paschasus is true seeing in the 11th Century when the Dispute about the Eucharist grew hot people said the same thing then we do now We see Paschasus in the 9th Century charg'd with Enthusiasms and Visions in the 11th respected as the Father of Transubstantiation as he that drew it only from his own fancy these two matters of fact are moreover confirm'd by I know not how many other considerable matters hereunto relating And Mr. Arnaud comes telling us confidently that he marvails we should dare still attribute this Innovation to Paschasus and that our proofs are mere sophisms and conjectures not worth the minding THE anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has publish'd furnishes us with a 9th proof in his way of defending Paschasus For having said That some assert what we receeive from the Altar is the same as that which is Cellot in append ad Hist Cottesch born of the Virgin and that others deny it and say that 't is another thing he adds a little after Now for those which say 't is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin or say 't is another thing we shall relate the several opinions of the Holy Fathers which do indeed appear to be different but yet be satisfactory enough were they fully understood with discretion Now I speak of Paschasus Ratbert Abbot of Corby who whether he was required or provoked for 't is uncertain which has wrote on this matter a Book of about an hundred Chapters which he has fill'd with several Authorities of the Fathers and under the name of S. Ambrose has therein establish'd that what we receive from the Altar is entirely the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross risen from the Sepulchre and is at this day ossered for the life of the world Raban in his Epistle to the Abbot Egilon and one Ratram in a Book dedicated to King Charles argue sufficiently against him saying that 't is not this same Flesh which they prove by the testimony of S. Hierom which says that the Body of Jesus Christ may be said to be in two manners and by the Authority of S. Augustin which says that this term may be taken three ways And because they maintain that in S. Ambrose ' s Books we do not find it exactly thus we shall relate not only the passage of S. Ambrose without any alteration but also those of S. Augustin S. Hierom and others in the manner we found 'em to the end that having considered them it may appear to those to whom it shall please God to reveal it that these great men did not differ one from another in opinion and that in the Catholick Church we must all have the same mind without the least Schism Hitherto we do not find that this defender of Paschasus has recourse to the publick Belief of the Church of his time or protests that Paschasus has offered nothing but what all Christians did generally agree to except some small number of troublesom Disputers who denied in secret what they dared not contradict in publick as Mr. Arnaud speaks .. We find on the contrary that he denotes those which held the Doctrin of Paschasus under the name of some and the opposite party under the name of others Dicentibus quibusdam idem esse quod sumitur de altari quod illud quod natum est ex Virgine aliis autem negantibus This is not the language of one who was persuaded the whole Church spake like Paschasus But this will still further appear if we consider what this same Author adds afterwards for having alledged some passages of the Fathers which he believ'd favour'd Paschasus Hoec ideo says he posita sunt si forte per ea simplicitas Paschasi Ratberti possit excusari unde maxime ab obloquentibus Rabano Ratramno sugillari videtur quid dixerat eandem esse carnem quoe de Altari sumitur de virgine generatur quoe quotidie adhuc pro mundi salute immolatur I have brought these passages to see whether one could not excuse the simplicity of Paschasus Ratbert especially in respect of that particular for which he is blamed by his Adversaries Raban and Ratram for saying that what we receive from the Altar is the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and is still every day immolated for the salvation of the world Now let any man seriously tell me whether people are wont to defend after this manner one who has the whole Church on his side excepting some troublesom rash Disputers Is such a ones simplicity endeavoured to be excused by any body Do we say in such a case if perhaps it may be excusable Do people place on one hand irreconcilable Adversaries who defame him and on the other simple excuses and excuses offered in a fearful and doubtful manner Si forte simplicitas Paschasii possit excusari Let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases the discourse of this anonymous Author offers such an idea of the Adversaries of Paschasus as of persons that delivered themselves openly in the Church who had then advantage over Paschasus even to the defaming him for teaching the Real Presence and furnishes us at the same time with the idea of Paschasus as of a man who must be excused upon the account of his simplicity but yet his expressions may be defended by some passages of the Fathers Now these two ideas plainly enough shew that Paschasus was an Innovator THERE are other proofs in my Answer to the Perpetuity which I do not think necessary to repeat here having nothing more to add to ' em We will pass then to Authors who were Contemporaries with Paschasus to know of them whether they taught the same Doctrin as he did CHAP. X. Of Authors in the Ninth Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Chstriian Drutmar WE may now say I hope with some kind of confidence notwithstanding Mr. Arnaud's insultings that Paschasus was an Innovator This is a truth sufficiently clear'd by what I have already done in the two preceding Chapters But to make this if possible more plain we must make some few reflections on the Authors which were of the same Century as Paschasus besides what I already said of 'em in my Answer to the Perpetuity For if it appears that these Authors have not held the same language as he did
and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries But in short if we will consult Mr. Arnaud he will tell us on the contrary Book 8. ch 11. Page 870. that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it but that this does not appear to be true That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconarist but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence Thus these Gentlemen who so greatly insult over us when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History or conjecture do not always agree among themselves one says Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus and th' other protests 't is not likely to be true TO clear up this confusion we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius and judg of his Doctrin from it self He tells us then first That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass are transacted Praesat ad lib. de Offic. Eccl. as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion as he himself commands us saying Every time you do this do it in remembrance of me and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine is in Sacrament of Christ the Bread the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ as the Bread the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ It appears from these words that in the stile of Amalarius to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it and hold the place of it for this is precisely what these terms signifie The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion and these other terms the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ When then he adds that the Bread the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ it is clear he means they stand in stead of it and represent them and this resemblance which he inserts afterwards between the Bread the Wine and the Water and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em confirm the same thing and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves Mr. ARNAVD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch 4. p. 783. sense and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucharist but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this distinction and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine that he represents therein our Saviour Christ and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions To be in Sacrament according to him is to represent and stand for the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ they are not then really this Body and Blood AMALARIVS himself does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book â— ch 7. page 834. place saying That the Priest bows himself and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence because Agapius has made use of it and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist and that wherein he has been in his Passion and that wherein he now is in Heaven For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions But all this is but a mere evasion Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state holds the place of himself in another state He ingenuously says that which is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ he has already told you that 't is Bread and Wine which are immolated and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26. signifie our Lords Body and when Jesus Christ has said This is the Cup of my Blood he meant his Blood which was in his Body as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup he represents the Body of Jesus Christ which is risen from the dead by that which the Priest or the People eat is represented this Body of Jesus Christ which is still on the Earth to wit his Church and by that which remains on the Altar is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre to wit the faithful dead IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch 4. p. 785. men because she believes 't is our Lords Body and Blood and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction For 't is true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the Eucharist is because 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this is not a matter in contest the question is only to know in what manner this is 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words Credimus Ibid. naturam simplicem panis vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem scilicet Corporis Sanguinis Christi We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature to wit of the Body and Blood of Christ For his sense is not that there 's made a real conversion of one nature into another but that there 's made a mystical conversion by which 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Body
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
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
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE might confirm the same truth by comparing the Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram were that trouble any way necessary But I believe this is sufficient to persuade those who weigh things IT is certain that our Author produces a reason to shew that Ratram is not the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He draws it from the silence of Hincmar This silence says he discovers so evidently th' injustice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Bertram to him that supposing we had no other proofs to justifie him this here will be more than sufficient to take away all suspicions which within these few years have been entertain'd touching his integrity in the Faith There is no likelihood if we believe our Author that Hincmar who on one hand was animated against Ratram and wrote against him a great Book concerning Predestination and this expression Trina Deitas and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion of John Scot who said that the Eucharist was not our Lords true Body but only its figure and memorial would not have reproached Ratram on this subject had he believed him the Author of this Book which goes under the name of Bertram seeing this Book yielded occasion enough to a passionate enemy as Hincmar was to charge him with this Heresie BUT this reflection is but a silly one First from one word which Hincmar has uttered against John Scot in favour of Paschasus we must not conclude that Hincmar was at full liberty to write against Ratramnus and t' encounter him as an Heretick Secondly I do not see why Hincmar should be so mightily transported against Ratram who spake without heat and mentioned not any of those against whom he wrote If Hincmar was transported against Ratram on another subject it does not hence follow he must be always in the like passion on all subjects which he had to debate with this Religious Thirdly This our Author supposes without reason that Hincmar was in a condition to insult over Ratram on the question of the Eucharist as he did in that of Predestination and there is herein a great deal of difference When Hincmar was so greatly transported against Ratram 't was because he had the Council of Cressy on his side 't was because Maug Dissert Hist p. 141. John Scot declared himself for him against Gothescalc and Ratram 't was because the famous Raban had prejudicated in his favour in a Council held at Mayence in 848. but there was nothing like this in the question of the Eucharist John Scot had declared himself against the sentiments of Paschasus the King knew it and kept him in his Palace which was a sufficient prejudice against Hincmar The famous Raban consulted by Heribold Bishop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain that is to say great Almoner had clearly taken part against the sentiments of the same Paschasus and the learned Church of Lyons who had persecuted John Scot whilst he defended the opinions of Hincmar touching Predestination ceased molesting him when he combated the sentiments of Paschasus on the Doctrin of the Eucharist Fourthly Our Author supposes with the same rashness that Hincmar believed this Controversie to be as important as it is at this day which is contrary to all probability For First Hincmar contents himself with criticising on the opinion of John Scot in very soft terms he does not call it Heresie but novelty of words whereas Raban and Hincmar term'd the opinion of Gotthescalc on the Divine Grace Heresie and Schism Secondly If we come to compare what Hincmar says against Ratram on the trina Deitas shall we not find that what he says against John Scot contains nothing so outragious Hincmar was a friend of Raban's who wrote a Letter to Egilon Vide Dissert Hist Maug p. 357 358. Penit. cap. 33. Abbot of Prom and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Sens against the Doctrin of Paschasus he was a friend of this Raban who had opposed him in his answer to Heribold publish'd by Stewart Hincmar always mentions Heribold T. 1. Maug p. 21. with a great deal of respect even after his death altho Heribold was so far from being of Paschasus his opinion that in the later ages the name of Heriboldiens was given to the Disciples of Berenger as we find in the Writings of Tho. Waldensis Fifthly If this silence of Hincmar proves T. 2. de Sacra c. 61. that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord because Hincmar would have reproached him with it what judgment must we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Bertram's altho the Church of Lyons which wrote so fiercely against him has not reproached him with it Why did not also Prudentius do it in his Treatise against Hincmar and Pardulus Was not this the ready way to decry these two Bishops to reproach them that they made use of the Pen of a profest enemy to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation Why did Nicholas the first suffer this Heresie growing in the bosom of Charles the Bald without warning this Prince of it That same Nicholas who concerned himself so much in the affairs on this side the Mountains and used all means to inform himself of ' em Nicholas the first shall bestir himself in the affair of Rothadus of Soissons in that of Hincmar of Laon where the point was only about Discipline and remain unconcerned in the business of John Scot altho he erred in the Eucharist He shall take notice of the affairs of Ebbon of Reims and those whom he had ordain'd and not take any notice of a question agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald in which this Prince did interest himself He shall know that Raban had opposed the Real Presence by publick Writings that he to whom Raban wrote was become Arch-Bishop of Sens that an Arch-Chaplain had erred in this matter and all this without being concerned The fault which our Author commits in this reflection on the silence of Hincmar proceeds from his not minding two things the one is that we must not always ground our selves on peoples proposing their sentiments in advantageous terms and speaking the opinion of their adversaries with disdain and contempt This is particularly the stile of Hincmar in every malter he treats of as it has been already observ'd by Mr. Mauguin and Mr. De la Motte which cannot be unknown to our Author Dissert Hist p. 357 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers part 5. p. 297. For example he always treats Gotthescalc as an Heretick altho it be believ'd at Port Royal that Gotthescalc defended only S. Austin's Doctrin on the matter of Grace THE other is that our Author has conceiv'd that the censure of Hincmar against John Scot imports that Hincmar believ'd the Real Presence
head seeing that when he will he most clearly explains his notions without contradicting himself but that these are only stratagems of a Philosopher who was more a Pagan than a Christian he affirms the same may be found in Bertram's Book which seems in twenty places to deviate from the Doctrin of the Real Presence and which yet seems in as many places to approve of it so that a man does not know where to have him BUT the two parts of our Authors remark contradict and oppose each other For if John Scot had naturally a confused and perplexed mind how comes it that he clearly explains his thoughts when he will and keeps firm when he pleases without contradicting himself This is not the character of a confused and perplexed head Secondly We ought not to believe that as soon as an Author falls into contradiction which has sometimes hapned to the Fathers themselves as every body knows and especially in matters which have perplexed John Scot and wherein he has contradicted himself he then makes use of the stratagems of a Philosopher that is more a Pagan than a Christian Thirdly Our Author impertinently feigns that Bertram has affected obscurity and ambiguous expressions This Bertram be he who he will was certainly upheld by King Charles the Bald and Heribold the chief person of the Gallican Church was of his sentiment as well as Raban and what is more remarkable it appears that he defended the publick Doctrin of the Church Fourthly Our Author should not alledg the judgment of the Centuriators of Magdebourg to shew this Book to be obscure in the judgments of those of our own party If the Centuriators have suspected some expressions of Bertram's Book we know that from 1537. Bulinger cited it with Elogies Moreover that some of the Doctors of the Roman Communion have mention'd Bertram's Book as if it made Commentar in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190. for them This is purely th' effect of this prejudice which has made them produce the writings of Raban as if Raban had been of their opinion altho 't was well known in the 12th Century that Raban wrote against Paschasus The Censurers who condemned Bertram's Book and who are publick persons are sooner to be believed than private men OUR Author remarks again a second character of the genius of John Scot which he believes is in Bertram's Book to wit these arguments put in form this crowd of Syllogisms and Enthymemes heapt up one upon another these Maxims and these Principles drawn from the Philosophy of Aristotle For as he shews by the testimony of S. Prudencius Bishop of Troy and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons this is the way of John Scot in Disputes he pretends that all this form of reasoning is to be met with in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord of which he produces three instances BUT this other conformity is as ill grounded as the preceding ones I confess that the way of John Scot is very argumentative One may observe it in his Books of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus have reproach'd him But I do not see that because there are some Philosophical Arguments in Bertram's Book our Author produces but three and those also contain'd in the same Period he must immediately draw this conclusion therefore the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is John Scot's Nor yet had Bertram named any where Aristotle which John Scot failed not to do as appears in several places of his Manuscript Treatise of Natures But Bertram has not so much as the name of this Philosopher YET seeing our Author puts us upon considering the genius of these Authors let us shew a little what is the genius of John Scot and that of Bertram's whence it will clearly appear there 's nothing so absurd as to make John Scot Author of the Book of Bertram Here are some of their Characters BERTRAM follows the holy Scriptures and the Fathers as he protests De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. lib. 4. p. 167. in the beginning and John Scot prefers reason before any Authority He makes this a Maxim whence he particularly esteems Philosophy and sends us at every moment to the Writings of Aristotle He does thus in his Treatise of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus justly upbraid him BERTRAM follows closely his subject without letting it go out of sight and John Scot makes frequent Digressions as we see particularly in his Manuscript Treatise of Natures BERTRAM seems to stick to certain Authors as S. Hierom S. Augustin S. Fulgencius Isidor S. Gregory and John Scot affects others as S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen whom he confounds with S. Gregory of Nysse S. Ambrose the counterfeit Denis the Areopagite Boetius S. Maximus So that a body may say one of 'em apply'd himself to the Latin Fathers and the other to the Greek ones whom he preferred before the Latin ones as he himself affirms in his Treatise of Natures BERTRAM's Latin style is polite enough for the Age he wrote in and I find but one Greek word in his whole Treatise and which he alledges only because 't is found in a passage of S. Isidor which he cited Whereas Epist ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epist Hiber De Honest dis l. 24. c. 11. John Scot affects a Greek phrase and manner of speaking and intermixes his Latin with a great many Greek words which render his style very singular and difficult as it has been observed by Anastasius the Library Keeper and Petrus Crinitus BERTRAM has no barbarous words whereas John Scot seems to affect them BERTRAM makes use only of Authors known for Orthodox John T. 1. Maug â— 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112 113. Scot declares that he will not scruple to borrow Arms from heretical Books BERTRAM pertinently cites all along the holy Fathers whereas the other quotes them with much less coherence BERTRAM has a particular deference for S. Augustin as may be seen at the end of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood whereas John Scot De Natur. l 5. p. 343. does not so much matter his Authority but that he often prefers the Greek Fathers before him refuting S. Augustin by their Authority BERTRAM might have combated the opinion of Paschasus by an infinite number of Arguments taken from Philosophy which he does not do whereas John Scot makes use every where of Philosophical Arguments even T. 1. Maug p. 111 112. 182. to the mixing of 'em with matters which seem to claim an exemption from ' em THAT which distinguishes 'em yet more is that Bertram delivers himself in a most plain manner on the verity of the human nature of our Saviour since 't was exalted up into glory by the Resurrection He teaches that his Body was visible and palpable whereas John Scot in his Book of Natures defends the impalpability of our Lords Body so that one may say Lib. 2. p. 75 76. 99. he fell into
the error of Origen on this question I might moreover shew that John Scot according to his genius and hypothesis must without doubt have written in a quite different manner from what Ratram has done and this is a remark which I made on an hundred places in his Manuscript Dialogue of Nature when I read it For he rejects Lib. p. 17 18. 20 21 22 23 24. 2â— 30. 35. 37 38 39. 42. 46 47 50. 56. Lib. 2. p. 76. Lib. 2. p. 162. 178. Lib. 4. p. 292. 297. 300. 306 3â—7 Lib. 5. p. 343. 345. 348 350. 364. therein almost all the consequences of Paschasus his Doctrin in a very convincing manner but yet very different from the method of Bertram Here is an instance thereof he maintains from the authority of S. Maximus that bodies have no Blood when they are glorified which does accommodate it self with the hypothesis of John Damascen but not with those of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation as every body knows Who doubts but he would have used this argument on this question I might produce several others but since this matter would carry me off too far and that I have not the Manuscript by me I shall therefore content my self with the remarks which I have made believing them sufficient to shew that the genius of John Scot was wholly different from Bertram's CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the Name of Bertram Examin'd SEEING that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is a piece of Ratram's and not of John Scot we shall not be apt to suppose as the Author of the Dissertation does that Berenger or his Disciples first publish'd this Writing under the name of Bertram And truly it is a hard matter to know the commendations which Hildebert Bishop of Mans and since Arch Bishop of Tours has given Berenger and to fall into a suspicion so injurious to the memory of this great man Hildebert describes Berenger as a person Cujus cura sequi naturam legibus uti Et mentem vitiis ora negare dolis Virtutes opibus verum proeponere falso A man that follows these Maxims and those who are taught by him are far enough from all manner of deceit I need only then shew that supposing Bertram's Book were John Scot's the effect would not cease to be near upon the same because John Scot has been a man of great note and authority in the 9th Century But because our Author imagins that the name of Bertram under which this Book has first appeared proves clearly that it is not Ratram's it is fitting before this to consider his Observations THE first of which amounts to this that Sigebert Trithemius and Dissert Art 3. sect 3. Cellot's Anonymous which are the only Authors who have spoken of Bertram attribute to him no other works than those of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination of which these two first Authors make no mention in speaking of John Scot altho it be most certain that John Scot has written two Books on these same subjects whence he concludes that Bertram is a fictitious Author which at bottom is no other than John Scot. Thus does the Author of the Dissertation argue BUT there is nothing solid in this remark First The Book of John Scot of Predestination is dedicated to Hincmar and Pardulus whereas Sigebert remarks expresly that that of Bertram or of Ratram was dedicated to Charles the Bald as we see in effect in the Impression of this Book of Ratram which Mr. Mauguin has publish'd Secondly Trithemius confirms in two places the Text of Sigebert altho in another place he says also that Bertram's Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was dedicated to Charles which Sigebert was silent in Thirdly It is false that Cellot's Anonymous had the name of Bertram he has always Ratram's in the Manuscript of Corbie and in the two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor we find that in one place this Anonymous gives for adversaries to Paschasus Rabanus and Intramus and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus neither in one nor in the other of these two places has the Transcriber the name of Bertram which would be strange if the Title which this Book has had since the 11th Century were that of Bertram and not that of Ratram as we affirm Fourthly It is false that Authors speak but of two pieces attributed to Bertram Trithemius says in two places that Bertram De Script Eccl. fol. 57. in chron Hirsaug wrote several other Books Fifthly The silence of the Anonymous is impertinently alledged touching the other works of Bertram seeing he has not the name of Bertram and should he have had the name his drift would not carry him to speak of any other Writing of Bertram but that of the Eucharist Sixthly If Sigebert mention'd not the Book of the Eucharist which John Scot wrote by the order of Charles the Bald there can be nothing concluded hence unless it may be affirm'd by the same reason that his other works as that of Natures have been attributed to other Authors Seventhly There is nothing more natural than to say that Trithemius has comprehended the Books of Predestination and of the Eucharist of John Scot when he says Joannes dictus Erigena scripsit quoedam alia Ibidem THE second remark of this Author is that those who speak of Bertram Dissert ibid. do not know him particularly nor agree about his true name that Sigebert who in some Manuscript Copies calls him Ratram does not denote the quality he had which he is wont to do in speaking of other Authors that the Abbot Trithemius who speaks of Bertram in three places could not say in what Diocess nor in what Monastery he made himself so famous altho he always made these kind of remarks in speaking of th' Illustrious men of the order of S. Bennet so that there 's reason to believe that he too lightly made the Elogium of Bertram whose works were apparently unknown to him in fine that the Anonymous who designs the other Authors by their qualities as Raban Heribold Paschasus Egilon speaks of Ratram as of an unknown person Ratramnus quidam denoting that he knew nothing of him but that his name was Ratram or Intram as speak the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor BUT our Author is mistaken in his suppositions First It is not true Sigebert gives constantly to the Writers of which he speaks the Ecclesiastical qualifications they had the contrary appears from the 84. 91. 93. 94. 103. and other Chapters of his Catalogue Secondly I know not what Trithemius was wont to do in his second Book of Writers of the Order of S. Bennet I never saw this work Yet the little certainty which I found in the judgment of our Author on the custom of Sigebert makes me believe that he has not judged better of that of Trithemius In the main I
am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen or not seen the Writings which he attributes to Bertram Yet I cannot but observe here the vanity Hieron ab ang Forti Epist 3. p. 63. of mens judgments In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige Mr. Herman to believe that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is the most Orthodox piece in the world And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration Thirdly It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram not knowing him but by his Book makes him not an Author unknown to others For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous who lived in the 12th Century we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm p. 148. Math. Westm ann 889. apud Baron A. 1118. sect 29. Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Historians of the 12th and 13th Century and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod at the end of the 12th Century that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the 9th Century and well known by Lewis the Debonnair by whose order he See Labb of Writ Eccles in Amalar. wrote The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Sigebert and turned it into Attularius Trithemius speaks of him in his Catalogue under the name of Hamularius and after an hundred Disputes he remains still in a manner unknown Fourthly It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers who have written the name of Ratram He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names of Bertram of Bertramnus and of Bertrannus that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus or Intram I know not whether he speaks in good earnest or to deride us But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 't would have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered to undertake the confirming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord wherein might be seen these different names THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Dissertation Ibidem offers is that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences and which approach so near to impossibilities that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Author proposes to find that all this is nothing First It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th Century there were two Authors one named John Scot known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin The other called Ratramnus whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers was corrupted into that of Bertram or Bertramnus or Bertran as that of Amalarius has been into Attularius that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus Ammonius and Annonius under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus not sercet as our Author affirms but open ones in writing against his Doctrin The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus as Raban and Ratramnus Thirdly It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist and on Predestination There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination publish'd by Mr. Mauguin We know that in the 11th Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist and without doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books and those of his Disciples have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus who is mention'd in the 12th Century as an adversary to Paschasus is yet extant under the corrupted name of Bertram Fourthly Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald and the other composed by his Order Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys and was always greatly esteem'd by him Fifthly It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus their judgment was so considerable in their time that Hincmar and Pardulus two famous Bishops oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks which Pope Nicholas had sent them Sixthly It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald the Title of Charlemain I have shewed that they have not done it but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject and in the same dispute Seventhly It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to contain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size Eighthly There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same subject have used the same Witnesses the same Orison which was said every day in the Service than that they have drawn the same conclusions and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same but very near one another Paschasus bragged in his Letter to Frudegard that this Orison was made for him which caused all his Adversaries to examin it and urge the proper terms of it against him without changing any thing therein Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors any body will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philosophy and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Arguments put in form by Enthymemes by Maxims and Principles drawn from
Philosophy I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence Our Author himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council because it opposes it Eleventhly There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved and the Book of John Scot burn'd there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties and thus the Book of Ratram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd IN fine twelfthly There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation to wit that of one of these Authors which is Bertram there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity neither in respect of his quality nor his name altho his Book has remain'd and that the quality of the other to wit John Scot should be well known altho his Book be lost It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion which the name of Bertram had produced and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight supposing John Scot were the Author of it For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer THE SECOND PART That the Authority of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram will be never the less considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was in great esteem both in his own and succeeding Generations THERE are so many things which advance the repute of John Scot that one may well wonder Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Dissertation should mention him with such lessening terms and persuade themselves that to diminish the credit of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord they needed only to attribute it to John Scot. For he was a person who by his merit had gain'd the esteem and affection of Charles the Bald which is to say of a judicious Prince who took to heart the interests of Religion as Ratramn praises him in his Book of Predestination These two things says he exalt your Majesty in a manner really illustrious T. 1. Maug p. 29. That you seek after the secrets of the heavenly Wisdom and burn with Religious Zeal And indeed this Prince deserv'd the Title of Orthodox which Concil apud Vermer T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735. was given him by a Council held in 869. Henry a Monk of Auxerre praises him also for his knowledg and piety as we see in the Epistle Dedicatory in the Life of S. Germain of Auxerre related by Du Chene and Baronius But Hist Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect 10 11. amongst other things he commends him for having drawn over into France Learned Ireland meaning thereby John Erigena that is to say John the Irish man according to the Observation of Alford the Jesuit in his English Annals HE that wrote the lives of the Bishops of Auxerre describing the advantages which Heribald had in his Youth reckons for a great happiness that he was brought up under the tuition of John Scot. He applied himself T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4â—5 says he to John Scot who in that time imparted to the Gauls the Rays of his Wisdom He was a long time his Disciple and learn'd from him the art of knowing divine and human things and to judg rightly of good and evil THE Authority of John Scot was so considerable in the 9th Century that Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Reims and Pardulus Bishop of Laon who found themselves engaged in sharp Disputes touching Predestination and Grace with Gotthescalc believ'd they could not do better for their party than to oblige John Scot to write on these two subjects He did so in effect and T. 2. Maug 132. altho the choice which he made of the worst side drew on him the censures of the Councils of Valence and Langres and that Hincmar himself defended him but weakly yet did he keep up his credit and Charles the Bald set him upon translating the works which bear the name of Denis the Areopagite HIS Reputation maintain'd it self not only in France but passed over into Italy and Rome it self Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper gives him particular Commendations in a Letter which he wrote to Charles the Bald. I speak says he of John Scot of whom I have heard say that he is a Saint Syll. Epist Hyber n. 33. p. 64. seq It is a work of the Spirit of God to have made this man so zealous as well as eloquent WE may likewise here add the kindness which Alfred King of England had for him and the Employs which this Prince gave him but of this I shall discourse hereafter I shall only say that John Scot was in effect worthy of the esteem and affection which the world shewed him his Wit was lively and piercing he was not only a profound Philosopher but also very well read in the Fathers and especially the Greek ones which was very rare in the 9th Century wherein the learning of the greatest men was bounded by the knowledg of S. Hierom S. Augustin Gregory the Great Isidor of Sevil and their skill lay in copying out these Authors word for word IN fine we may moreover observe in favour of John Scot that altho his Book of the Eucharist was condemned in the Councils of the 11th Century yet the reputation of the Author was perpetuated in the following Ages as appears from the authentick Testimonies which all Historians give him I shall not relate here what Ingusphus William of Malmsbury Simeon of Durham Roger de Hoveden Matthew of Westminster and Florent of Worcester have said of him we may find this in the Answer to the first Part 3 ch 3. Treatise of the Perpetuity WE need only add to these testimonies First that of the Manuscript of the Library of S. Victor which has for Title Memoriale Historiarum Tempore eodem fuit Joannes Scotus vir perspicacis ingenii mellitoe facundioe qui rogatu Caroli Calvi jamdudum verbo ad verbum Hierarcham Dionysii de Groeco in Latinum transtulerat post super eundem librum fecit commentum fecitque librum de naturoe divisione librum de Eucharistiâ qui postea lectus est condemnatus in Synodo Vercellensi â Papa Leone celebrata eodem
lib 4. adv Oecol Indic Belg. Censurers of Doway in reference to the Book of Bertram whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius and Charles the Bald altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain had the Manuscripts for title Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem And for that of John Scot it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time and having an Inscription almost alike Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain Sigeb Catol c. 85. 99. De Script Eccl. fol. 53. 55. Praefat. gener in vit Sanct. c. 4. sect 7. Labbe de Script Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. seq what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 't is by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Vsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknowledg in respect of Vsuard BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same Because says our Author if we suppose that this Title is equally false 't is very difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books which in other respects had so great resemblance And if it be pretended that the Title is true it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different persons to meet in giving it this Title THIS difficulty is a small one we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald but affirm it not to be so strange a thing that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning as having been the restorer of it The examples which I alledged prove the thing possible seeing they prove it to have hapned Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was AS to Durand of Troarn I see moreover less reason why our Author Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 9. should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur concilio soluto discessum est For if it be true as our Author will have it that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned yet was it not so evident a matter that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger which as our Author believes agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram which he treats as obscure and perplexed there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council wherein was condemned for heretical what only ought to be esteemed obscure BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc who reproaches Berenger that as soon as the Council assembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot and blaming that of Paschasus Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful for 't is not credible the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot even to the condemning his Book to the flames had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris at Verceil and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot OUR Author pretends in the last place that seeing Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin and the rest of the Writers of the 11th Century mention only John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their condemnation one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot. BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies In effect supposing that in the 11th Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Raban in the time of Berenger Lanfranc and Ascelin MOREOVER our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors for it appears by the testimony of Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus Paschasus was therein either named or at least apparently meant which is not so in the Writings of Bertram who handles matters in a less polemical manner and never names Paschasus nor seems to give the least hint of him which has apparently tended to its preservation And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author TO establish the second to wit that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot our Author pretends that the several Article 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius that is to say of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd or dissimulative which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of and affects to contradict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment and avoid censures He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures and in his Book of Predestination whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Bertram is John Scot's It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused