Formulary of Clement and Gregory that in respect of the Articles of Pennance Purgatory and the Sacraments 't is the same thing and the same expressions excepting some slight alterations which were necessarily made either to make the Greek Church speak in its own name or to reserve as they do the Custom of Confirmation by the Priests or else moreover to apply to their leavened Bread what is not said in the other but only of the Azyme But as to essential Terms and those that respect the Doctrinal Part they are absolutely the same and we must make the same Judgment of them WE may likewise justly rank amongst the number of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions the Testimonies of several latinizing Greeks who left their Religion to embrace the Roman He cites Passages out of Emanuel Calecas concerning Lib. 3. cap. 9. whom he say's himself That he was of the Order of Fryar Preachers and wrote four Books against the Errour of the Greeks touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost He quotes Cardinal Bessarion and one Gregory who both of 'em wrote against Marc of Ephesus in favour of the Latins to defend what passed in the Council of Florence He alledges several Passages out of John Plusiadenus Gennadius Scholarius and a certain Religious man named Hilarion all zealous Defenders of the same Council all of 'em openly engaged in the Defence and Propogation of the Roman Doctrines Every man sees that such kind of Persons as these are no more fit to decide our Question than Thomas Aquinas would be or the Trent Fathers and that 't is not fair to bring in such Persons for Witnesses in this Controversie MR. Arnaud will say without doubt he has alledged them only because they reproached not the Greeks with their not believing Transubstantiation But if he proposed to himself no other advantage it was not necessary for this to cite their Passages at length as he has done nor mark in great Characters the places wherein they assert the change of Substance to dazle the Reader 's Eyes It were sufficient to rank these Authors in general amongst the Latins and reduce the advantage he would draw from their Silence to this negative Argument which we will examine in the sequel of this Discourse which consists in that the Latins never accused the Greeks for their not believing the substantial Conversion But howsoever it were a just thing to lay aside all these Passages as absolutely fruitless and impertinent and if there be any reflexion to be made on their Silence it shall be taken notice of in its proper place NEITHER is it less just to retrench from this Dispute all doubtful Authors which is to say such concerning whom we have no assurance whether the Works attributed to them are theirs nor indeed whether there were ever any such Authors in the World I put immediately in this Rank Samonas the pretended Bishop of Gaza Mr. Arnaud bestirs himself to prove contrary to Mr. Aubertin's Conjecture that in the Thirteenth Century which is to say in the time wherein this Archbishop of Gaza is reckoned to have lived there were Greek Bishops in Palestine But he does not undertake to shew that Samonas was of this number nor that any Person ever mentioned him There are say's he five hundred Treatises of the Fathers which must be rejected if it were sufficient to respect them as Apochryphal that they were not cited by others His five hundred Treatises I grant but there are not five hundred Fathers of whom no body ever made mention and which are not named by others When a name of an Author is unknown to Authors that lived in the same Age and those that follow this is certainly a sufficient reason to make his Book suspected Mr. Arnaud then needed not find it strange if we place his Samonas in this order till such time as he has more clearly proved his Authority Supposing Mr. Aubertin was mistaken in his Conjecture and that there were indeed Greek Bishops in Palestine when the Saracens possessed it this does not conclude that Samonas was of this number nor that his Dispute against Achmet was real Mr. Arnaud's Custom is that when he finds any trivial matter altho of never so little importance to our Controversie to stick at it and use his utmost skill thereon to the end that under the favour of these vain Triumphs he may conceal his weakness in Matters of greater moment Which is what he has done in this occasion for seeing he could not give any colour to the Testimony of this Samonas he therefore falls upon Criticising and heats himself to shew there were in the Thirteenth Century Greek Bishops in Palestine under the Empire of the Saracens and by this pretence would obtrude on us this Passage of Samonas WE may likewise reckon amongst this Rank of suspected Authors One Agapius whom Mr. Arnaud say's was a Monk of Mount Athos from whom Lib. 4. cap. 8. Mr. Arnaud has taken some Passages I believe his Collections are true and that he has faithfully translated them But what assurance have we this was not a counterfeit Author Mr. Arnaud tells us that he lately met with this Book written in Vulgar Greek This accidental meeting does already disgust me as if 't were meer chance that brought him acquainted with this Author And yet we know well enough how careful those of the Roman Church are to gather up these kind of pieces that are favourable to them and which may serve them as well against the Greeks as Protestants especially such as this which expressly denotes Christ's Substance under the Accidents and Appearances of Bread and Wine They could find nothing so emphatical in any other Author how then comes it to pass they neglected this Agapius and that in such a manner that Mr. Arnaud who has his Correspondents every where in Italy Greece Sweedland Moscovia and Syria yet should light of this Book only by Chance He tells us this Book was perhaps wrote during the time wherein Cyrillus was Patriarch for Cyrillus dyed but in the Year 1638 and this Religious's Book was Printed at Venice till 1641. If this be all that can be said in this Matter every one will judge this is not sufficient to give Credit to a Book The Printing Presses at Venice are no more free from Fraud and Fiction than those of other Cities Tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri CYRILLUS his Confession offended the Latins sufficiently enough to Oblige them to Oppose against him a Testimony so Express and Authentick as this is Being an Author a Religious of Mount Athos of this Mount which according to Mr. Arnaud is the Seminary of Religious for the whole East and whose Faith he says is that of all the Greek Churches how then has it hapned they have so much slighted him as not to produce him against Cyrillus Caryophylus wrote a Treatise on purpose to Refute this Patriarchs Confession but he Apud Habert in Archierat
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
Testimony of Honorius D' Autun who attributes it to Bernoldus or Bertoldus Honor. August de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin Exercit. 9. de Diacon cap. 1. pag. 169. col 2. s 5. a Priest of Constance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th Century This Bernoldus is he that continued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote several Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII which shews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Dispute So likewise Morin acknowledges 't was written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author yet grants he was the Corrector of it and that he put in and Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor out what he thought good to make it more according to the relish of the Church in his time Neither shall I insist upon the Liturgy published by Illyricus being a very uncertain piece either as to its antiquity or purity as Menard has observed BUT not to enter into this discussion it suffices me to say that the name of the Body of Jesus Christ attributed to the Eucharist does no wise conclude what Mr. Arnaud pretends which is that 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance Does he think we have forgot so many illustrations which the Fathers even those of the 7th and 8th Century have given us Isid hisp Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment in Marc. 14. in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. touching this way of speaking as for instance what S. Isidor says That by the command of Christ himself we call Body and Blood that which being the Fruits of the Earth are sanctified and become a Sacrament And elsewhere The Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jesus Christ because it makes the Blood in the Veins Bede holds the same language The Bread and Wine do mystically represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread strengthens the Body and the Wine produces Blood in the Flesh The same Author on the 6th of the Romans teaches after S. Augustin That if the Sacraments had no resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments they would not be Sacraments that 't is by reason of this resemblance we give them the names of those very things which they signifie and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacarment of his Blood his Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith One of these passages is a thousand times more considerable and decisive of our Question than whatsoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies because these passages are formal explications of these other expressions which attribute to the Eucharist the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and any man of sence will never be prevail'd on by this confused heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jesus Christ or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament as soon as he shall hear Isidor Bede or some other famous Author of those Ages in question who explains to him these ways of speaking We must rather believe those Authors when they expound themselves than Mr. Arnaud who heats himself to little purpose and would prepossess the world with his own notions and fancies MOREOVER Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of so many other expressions so frequent in the Liturgies and Authors of these same Centuries mentioned by us which call the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the mystery of our Lords Body the Sacrament of his Incarnation the Sacrament of his Humanity the mystery of his Humiliation the Sacrament of his Passion the image of his Sacrifice which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings It is certain that these passages wherein we find these expressions are as so many Commentaries that help us to a right understanding of the others whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage because 't is very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament which is a sign a memorial and an image the name of the thing which it represents according to the observation of S. Isidor himself We are wont says he to give to Images the names of those things which they Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20. represent Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themselves and we stick not to attribute to them the proper name As for instance We say this is Cicero that Salust that Achilles this Hector this the River Simois this Rome altho these are only the Effigies or Pictures of them The Cherubins are heavenly powers and yet these Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Testament to represent such great things were not otherwise called than Cherubins If a man sees in a dream a person he does not say I saw the Image of Augustin but I saw Augustin altho Augustin in this moment knows nothing of this Vision and Pharaoh said he saw ears of Corn and Kine and not the images of these things 'T IS easie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament and Bela hom estiu de temp Dom. 13. Dom. 17. Dom. 24. alibi passim id Expos Alleg. in Cantic Cantic cap. 3. de tab lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal 3. Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ for they signifie that the Bread and Wine are signs or figures that represent the Body and Blood which Jesus Christ assumed for our sakes abasing himself so far as to be our Brother and suffering the Death of the Cross to Redeem us Thus must we understand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament calling it the mystery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation for he means 't is an action wherein by mystical Symbols men represent his Incarnation We cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times the Sacrament or mystery of his Passion for his passion is only therein figured or represented We must then understand by the Sacrament or the mystery of his Body the figure or representation of his Body And in effect what S. Austin said on the third Psalm That Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Isidor expresses in this sort That Jesus Christ gave to Isidor in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed quest in 2 Reg in Ps 3. his Disciples the mystery of his Body And Bede in two places of his works expresses himself in the same manner as S. Austin that he gave the figure of his Body which shews they took these terms the Mystery of the Body the Sacrament of the Body the Figure of the Body for one and the same thing Now these expressions give us easily to understand what
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
several places that those who introduce new Opinions by way of addition or explication of the ancient ones do not openly declare 'em to be new but on the contrary endeavour to make 'em slip in by means of received expressions besides this I say this humility of Paschasus relates not to the things themselves which he wrote nor his sentiment for he could not term them scarcely worth his Readers perusal whether they were new or not But this relates to the manner of writing 'em according to what he says to Frudegard Celare non debui quoe loqui ut oportuit minime potui BUT pass we on to the second proof which shews Paschasus to be an Innovator 'T is taken from the effect which his Doctrin produced in several persons minds which was that they opposed him I have discoursed Comment in Matth. 26. says he of these things more at large because I am informed some people have blamed me as if in the Book which I publish'd of the Sacraments of Christ I would give more to his words than they will bear or establish something else than the truth promises These censurers proceed further for they opposed a contrary Doctrin against that of Paschasus to wit that 't was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure in Sacrament in virtue Which Paschasus himself tells us Let those says he that will extenuate this term of Body hear Ibid. They that tell us 't is not the true Flesh of Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church nor his true Blood They tell us or rather feign I know not what as if 't were a certain virtue of the Flesh and Blood He afterwards repeats two or three times the same thing They proceeded so far as to accuse Paschasus of Enthusiasm twitting him with having a young mans vision as we remark'd in the foregoing Chapter For this is what may be justly collected from these words to Frudegard You have at Epist ad Frud the end of this Book the sentiments of the Catholick Fathers which I briefly marked that you may know that 't is not thro an Enthusiasm of rashness that I have had these Visions being as yet a young man Supposing Paschasus taught nothing but what the whole Church believ'd and commonly taught the Faithful whence I pray you came these Censurers The whole world lived peaceably during eight hundred years in the belief of the Real Presence all the Preachers taught it all Books contain'd it all the Faithful believ'd it and distinctly knew it there not having been any body yet that dared contradict it and yet there appear persons who precisely oppose it as soon as Paschasus appeared in the world But who so well and quickly furnish'd 'em with the Keys of figure and virtue which Mr. Arnaud would have had all the world to be ignorant of and th' invention of which he attributes to the Ministers Why if we will believe him they were people that dared not appear openly that whispered secretly in mens ears and yet were so well instructed that they knew the principal distinctions of the Calvinists and all the subtilties of their School But moreover what fury possessed them to attack thus particularly Paschasus who said nothing but what all the world knew even the meanest Christian and what all the world believ'd and who moreover had no particular contest with them They could not be ignorant that the whole Church was of this opinion supposing she really did hold it for as I already said the Doctrin of the Real Presence is a popular Doctrin It is not one of those Doctrins which lie hid in Books or the Schools which the learned can only know 'T is a Doctrin which each particular person knows if he knows any thing Why then must Paschasus be thus teas'd If they had a design to trouble the peace of the Church why did they not attack its Doctrin or in general those that held it which is to say according to Mr. Arnaud the whole world Why again must Paschasus be rather set upon than any body else Does Mr. Arnaud believe this to be very natural Are people wont to set upon a particular person to the exclusion of all others when he has said no more than what others have said and what is taught and held by every body Is such a one liable to reproaches and censures Are we wont to charge such a one with Enthusiastical rashness and pretence to Visions It is clear people do not deal thus but with persons that have gone out of the beaten road and would introduce novelties in the Church 'T is such as these whom we are wont to accuse to censure and call Enthusiasts and Visionaries and not those that neither vary from the common terms or sentiments TO elude the force of this proof Mr. Arnaud has recourse to his Chronology Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861 862. He says that the last eight Books of Paschasus his Commentaries on S. Matthew were not written till thirty years after his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini That he speaks therein of his Censures as persons that reprehended him at the very time he wrote this Commentary Miror quid volunt nunc quidam dicere and that it does not appear he was reprehended before seeing he did not attempt to defend himself Whence he concludes That this Book which Mr. Claude says offended the whole world as soon as 't was made was publish'd near thirty years before 't was censur'd by any body I have already replied to this Chronology of Mr. Arnaud Supposing there were in effect thirty years between Paschasus his Book and the Censures of his Adversaries 't will not hence follow that his Doctrin received a general approbation during these thirty years for perhaps this Book was not known or considered by those that were better able to judg of it than others Printing which now immediately renders a Book publick was not in use in those times and 't is likely Transcribers were not in any great hast to multiply the Book of a young Religious of Corbie which he at first intended only for his particular friends Supposing this Book was known it might be neglected thro contempt or some other consideration as it oft happens in these cases altho a Book may contain several absured and extraordinary Opinions because it may not be thought fitting to make 'em publick till it afterwards appears there are persons who be deceiv'd by it and that 't is necessary to undeceive them Moreover what reason is there to say that the censures of these people hapned not before the time wherein Paschasus wrote his Commentary on S. Matthew 'T is because says Mr. Arnaud he says Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere But this reason is void for this term nunc according to the common stile of Authors does refer it self rather in general to the time in which Paschasus lived than precisely to that in which he wrote
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
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
of these pretended Principles and their consequences and wherefore must this neglect have the Title of the Perpetuity defended For my part who de not believe my self bound to follow this example I have examin'd whatsoever I found of importance in Mr. Arnaud be it never so difficult If I have changed his method in some places it hath been to lay down a better more short and natural as when I joyned his 7th Book which treateth of Greek Authors from the 7th Age to the 11th to the general Dispute touching the Greek Church to avoid doing twice the same thing or when I referred his sixth Book touching the distinct belief of the Presence or Real Absence to the question of the impossibility of a change because that in effect this distinct belief was not invented but for this purpose or when I remitted what he said of Paschasius and the Authors of the 9th Age in the second part of his 8th Book to the account of the Innovation because this was its proper place But even in this I have not at all weakened Mr. Arnaud's proofs nor the less exactly examin'd his Book AS to what further remains the Authors which I have made use of cannot be suspected by Mr. Arnaud seeing they are for the most part either Greeks or persons of the Roman Communion or Authors of former Ages which neither one nor other of 'em have written with any foresight of our debate I have alledged but very few Protestants and they such of whose sincerity there is no reason to doubt Mr. Arnaud and his friends have not done the same who have cited in this Controversie Acts and Attestations sent by the Emissaries such as the Acts of a Synod of Cyprus the Profession of Faith of six Priests belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch and such like particulars in the 12th Book of the Writings of the Greeks Armenians or Nestorians latinis'd as of Manuel Calecas of John Plusiadene of Adam Nestorian and of Hacciadour an Armenian Patriarch now resident at Rome the testimonies of the Scholars of the Seminary of Rome as of Paysius Ligardius of Abraham Ecchellensis and of Leo Allatius c. They have likewise frequently made use of him that has lately continued Baronius named Odoricus Raynaldus a Priest of the Oratory at Rome but if any would know of what authority this Author is he may be inform'd by this description He is a man of little wit of no judgment no sincerity no credit who takes matters upon trust with an unsufferable boldness and delivers the most unjustifiable pretensions of the Court of Rome with the same confidence as if they were Articles of Faith who citeth Authors known to be the most partial and passionate of all others as Poggius Blondius Turrecremata and such like as unreprovable witnesses and by following whose Testimonies we shall be obliged to condemn the best of men even those whom God hath own'd by Miracles who for want of proofs makes use of unjust clamours and outragious declamations unbecoming an Historian who ought never to be led by passion And in short such a man than whom there was never any less fit for so important a work as is an Ecclesiastical History And this is the true Character of this Author Who would imagin that persons who believe what I now rehearsed and who desire the whole world to be of the same judgment with them should make use of him in a dispute so important as this and take from him the greatest part of their Relations And yet these are the Gentlemen who quote him at present with so great confidence after they themselves have represented him in the manner I mention'd It was either Mr. Arnaud or some of his Remarks on the 18th Tome of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Rodoricus Raynaeldus Aug. contr Faust lib. 32. ch 16. Friends who under the name of several Divines have taken the pains to publish their Animadversions on this History after a diligent perusal of it Whereupon may we not justly apply to them that of S. Austin to Faustus Who is there that having decried a witness as false and corrupted will ever again produce his testimony If we believe him and believe him not according to your fancy it is not him whom we believe but you And if we must needs believe you what need is there of your producing other witnesses We shall see what these Gentlemen will do henceforward for should they take the same course again as they have taken already in this occasion should they pretend to quote no other Authors but what are decried false Greeks Scholars of the Seminaries persons won to the interests of Rome or Proselytes of its Doctrin and remitted to its Sea this would be as much as to say that their Authority would have a greater share in this Controversie than Reason and perhaps they might be let alone to talk to themselves it being very unreasonable that a man should be continually employed in combating Phantasms and fighting with Shadows For to maintain faithfully and solidly the Hypothesis of the Author of the Perpetuity This was most necessary to be prov'd That the Real Presence and Transubstantiation were establish'd and commonly held in all Christian Churches when Berengarius his Disputations were on foot for which end a thousand attestations of persons now living would be of no use These attestations may serve to shew that the care which hath been so long taken and which is still continued to introduce insensibly the Doctrins of the Roman Church into other Churches by the ways which I have observed in my second Book and especially by their Missions and Seminaries hath not been altogether fruitless But this is the greatest absurdity of all to conclude from thence that the Doctrins in dispute were every where established in Berengarius's time or that they were perpetual There is reason to hope that the world will not suffer it self so easily to be cheated and what hath here been done will sufficiently manifest the Truth WE live not now in the times of ignorance and darkness wherein mens credulity is easily abused Our Age is an enlightned one and its notices are clear and penetrant and we should soon see the downfal of several ancient Errors were they not supported by the affinity which they have with mens temporal interests God will break off this alliance when it shall seem good in his sight but it is our duty to keep firm in his truth and prefer the honor we receive from it above all the advantages of the earth and beseech him that he would reconcile those to it by his Grace who are far from it that all of us may have but one heart to fear him and one and the same mouth to glorifie him A TABLE OF CHAPTERS BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity has follow'd CHAP. I. THAT I have reason to take for granted as I have done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against
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
of them how it has come to pass that the Church of Rome has altered the antient Doctrine they will answer their Salvation depends not on this Knowledg but that it must needs be it has made an Alteration seeing it believes at this day what it ought not to believe and which without doubt hath not bin believed heretofore as they judge out of Charity to the Antients Should they be urged to tell how this has hapned they will answer again this is not an account wherein their Salvation is concerned and that this Question ought to be proposed to those Persons who know it and in all this they will have Reason If this Treatise be offered to those of the second Rank that is to say to them who are learned and have had the Curiosity of informing themselves and to whom properly the second Question belongs they will likewise answer they have no need of this Method having already informed themselves by a natural and direct way which is of more value than all these Conjectures or if they have not done it they will do it being not so silly as to shut their Eyes and reject the Evidence of their Senses to betake themselves to a Method wherein there can be nothing but Confusion to be expected and these last will have Reason too BUT saith Mr. Arnaud we must suppose that the Proofs of the Treatise are evident for they cannot be supposed false till such time as they are examined You ought then to have begun here wherefore your Exceptions signify nothing I answer that these Suppositions are not juster than his Arguments For if these curious Persons whom I mentioned have already taken the Pains they ought whereby to ascertain themselves in the Proofs of Fact they will be prepared to judge that the Arguments of the Treatise are false and captious because that moral Impossibilities such as these are and in such a Subject as this cannot subsist against Proofs of Fact which are immediate certain and evident as ours are If they have not yet taken this Pains I say that without examining whether the Proofs of the Treatise be good or bad they will only mind the Method and by comparing it with that of Discussion if they are men of Reason they will prefer this last before the other because that 't is in effect most natural in it self and more certain in its Proofs WHAT shall we do then with the Treatise of the Perpetuity which has made such a Noise in the World Will it be of no use There are a crue of People in the World who are curious and idle both together who are willing to know the Opinions of former Ages on these famous Articles about which Europe is at this day divided but yet will be at no Pains for this because Labour is distasteful to them and they have other things to do It is then for such Persons as these this Treatise has bin written For it courteth them and presents it self to 'em whether at Ease or in Business it only desires them to spend two Hours on its Reading whereby to decide a Point of this Importance The Style of it is curious and enticing and its Expressions emphatical it winneth on the Mind and leads it insensibly where it pleases All this flatters mens Curiosity and Lazyness both together But if this sort of People loved their Salvation as we may suppose they ought we should then have but two or three things to say to them First that they beware of these short Methods which favour at the same time two Inclinations which seldom agree I mean Idleness and Curiosity For we cannot arrive at any certainty in these kind of Questions if we do not earnestly apply our selves to them for Labour and Knowledg do always go together and it commonly happens that they who thus promise us such great Knowledg without any trouble do cheat us two ways for they lead us into tedious Prolixities and dreadful Difficulties and at last having tired us they leave us as wise as we were at first AND this is exactly the case of the Treatise of the Perpetuity if we rightly consider it for it promises us immediately nothing but Perspicuity Facilities and Convictions it being made up of undenyable Truths Yet let a man take but the Pains to examine only his fixt Point which is his first Supposition on which the whole stress of his Book lies and he will find that 't is impossible to be certain in it I mean the Year one thousand fifty three wherein Berengarius was at first condemned and in which time the Author of the Treatise pretend's the universal Church was agreed in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence Now to be satisfied in this particular we should have an exact Knowledg of the eleventh Century to the end we may discern whether this Condemnation of Berengarius was the real Effect of the Churches Union or only that of a Party which was then the strongest at the Court of Rome We should know each particular matter of this great Affair that we may be able to judge whether humane Interest had no share in it whether those that were concerned in it did not act against their Consciences and whether the Procedings were just and regular We must examine the State of Princes Ecclesiasticks and People to be satisfied in this supposed Union We should have before us the Writings of Berengarius and others who held the same Opinions to understand their Arguments and Defences But all these things are impossible We have no other account of this History than what some interessed Writers have bin pleased to give us and in which there are Relations justly suspected to be false The secret Designs and Motives which then prevailed are out of our reach We know scarcely any thing more of the Persons who then made up the Church but that they were the greatest part of them buried in profound Ignorance The Writings of Berengarins and his Followers are lost for there has bin Care taken to extinguish the Remembrance of them In short this is an Abyss wherein we behold nothing whereby we may be able to affirm with any certainty that the whole Church was united in the Belief of Transubstantiation and the real Presence For a man to give Credit to any Relation of Berengarius's Adversaries who bragged that their Opinion was that of the whole World it would be to be over Credulous in any Affair of this Importance and so much the more because the contrary appeareth by substantial Proofs which should be examined before we rest satisfied in them SO that here we are already sufficiently perplexed in the first Particular and shall be no less in the others If we would be ascertained in the Proofs of the Treatise we should know perfectly the Tempers of the People their Condition and principal Circumstances in the Ages which preceded the eleventh Century We should know how the Body of the Ecclesiasticks was composed
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
Nicetas Pectoratus and Theophilact Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran of Thomas Aquinas and all the School-men and in short of the Council of Trent with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Zonaras Nicetas Choniatus Cabasilas and Jeremias and you 'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed and on the other no such thing I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine who had a particular Commerce with the Greeks and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere neque voce neque re De publicis instrumentis puta Symbolis confessionibus catechismis c. intelligi volo quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem neque in eorum vel unico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocis ut rei ipsius priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae vel vola vel vestigium Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror quoniam non sum nescius quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli illam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intrusisse qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation I mean in their publick Symbols confessions and catechisms c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transubstantiation or the thing it self signifi'd thereby which Doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers I matter not some private Doctors amongst them for I know that a certain Monk of the number of these false Greeks had secretly inserted the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation in his Catechism which I saw at Constantinople but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks It will be perhaps replied that Mr. Basire is a Protestant and consequently to be suspected in this case but besides that he is a person deservedly honoured for his integrity and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice and moreover a Divine and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession being a person of great Learning and one that dwelt long in those Parts and had not only the curiosity but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates besides this I say Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground that he is a Protestant seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew and Mr. Picquet and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn I suppose there 's no body doubts but that Mr. Arnaud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks and 't is certain had he found any passages containing in express Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would not omit them Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book is but a meer Sophism imposing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and Latins by Michael Paleologus and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses wide Consequences and negative Arguments which at bottom conclude nothing For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact we expect thereupon Testimonies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud and the impossibility wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World CHAP. III. The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion The Fourth that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion discovered THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist are these They call the Symbols the holy gifts the holy things the ineffable mysteries the body and blood of Jesus Christ the sanctified bread the particle or parts the pearl and the like They say that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is the real Body of Jesus Christ AND to express this change they use the Terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to change Now 't is certain these expressions whether we take 'em severally or joyntly cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation For besides that being general they are capable of several particular sences and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined as may be justified by a thousand Examples if it were needful besides this I say our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determinate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms unless it evidently appears from something else that they had this particular sence in their minds I confess that in this case that is to say if it appears they have had a particular sence in their minds we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence how general soever they may be but if they come not up to this we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning We know for example that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is commonly believed when then we are told that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that 't is changed into the Body of Christ although these words are general yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ But had she not
contained only that the Bread is really changed as we shall make it appear hereafter NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries and that the quality of the Persons who make these attestations does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church all these pieces are too new whereon to build alone a Tradition from the â—â—â—venth Century that is to say since six hundred years WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them which shall be done in its place but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument which is drawn from that the usual expressions of the Greeks I mean the clearest of them and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist only consist in general terms Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions seeing the belief of the substantial conversion as I have already established it is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is not possible but that a Church which believes it and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's BUT this Argument I now produced ought to be attended by this following consideration which will farther evidence its strength and solidity Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith the seven first general Councils to wit that of Nice against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great that at Constantinople against Macedonius under Theodosius that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine and his Mother Iréna Now 't is certain there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transubstantiation for what is produced concerning the first at Nice That we must conceive by Faith that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World lies ou this holy Table that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood This I say as any man may see is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book wherein he relates it And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances as that of Gregory the Seventh held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine and in fine that of Trent which established the preeeding decisions the Greek Church receives none of these nor makes any account of them They all commonly say say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed and the Priests make the people believe that at the end of the seventh Council an Angel descended from Heaven testifying that whatsoever concerned our Faith was therein perfected and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided Leo Allatius likewise only mentions seven Councils which they approve They have say's he in great esteem Allat de prep cons lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils and hold them inviolable they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians Guag in Mosc descrip which is the same as that of the Greeks relates their Belief is that 't was concluded in the seventh general Council that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils should remain firm for the time to come and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema wherefore adds he they say that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first are accursed perverse and desperately defiled with Heresie Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia tells us likewise that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art 9. the seventh saying they are not concerned in them seeing they were held without their consent SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour that there De uno past part 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded and that whosoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accursed Mr. Basire whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter confirms me in this matter by his Letter In publica say's he Graecorum professione non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recipiunt quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical And Metrophanus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration We only receive say's he the seven Oecumenical Councils and as to the particular Councils we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Councils and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversion are two things very inconsistent with each other especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd And in effect it seems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils and not amongst the common customs or practices which are still observed altho not expresly determined or amongst the Points which being minute and inconsiderable
amongst them And 't is in fine from their proper Testimonies I have clearly shown that that which the Greeks hold touching the Eucharist is not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which is the chief and only thing I had to do Yet shall I answer in the following Book all Mr. Arnaud's vain Objections as briefly as I can for considering what I already established 't is easie to judge that his Arguments will not prove invincible Demonstrations as he would perswade the World BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted CHAP. I. Mr. Arnaud's First Proof taken from Cerularius his Silence examined The rest of his Illusions discovered AFter what I have established in the two former Books it will be no difficult matter to answer Mr. Arnaud's Objections and shew as I promised that all his endeavours to demonstrate the Greek Church ever believed Transubstantiation are ineffectual and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends And this shall be the subject of this Book Which I shall divide into two Parts in the first I shall examine what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to prove his supposition since the Eleventh Century to this present and in the second consider what he has alledged for the same purpose from the Seventh Eighth Ninth and Tenth Centuries IN the first Part of this Book I shall handle four principal Heads under which I shall exactly gather whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has dispersed in his Second Third and Fourth Books and part of his Twelfth Book wherein he has treated on some Particulars respecting this Question OUR first Remark shall be touching some of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions besides those we already discovered in the former Books It is certain we may justly so term all the Parts of his Work but more especially what he has written touching the Greeks for 't is all delusory But at present we mean to apply this Term to certain things only wherein his Artifice plainly appears and which are wholly inconsistent with that sincerity wherewith Controversies ought to be managed THE second Head contains the Testimonies of some Protestants whom Mr. Arnaud has alledged which seem in effect to attribute to the Greeks the Belief of Transubstantiation THE Third shall contain the Negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of both Greeks and Latins that is to say they never disputed one against another on this Article of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist IN the Fourth we shall explain all the Passages Mr. Arnaud has taken out of Greek Authors and from which he would infer by dint of Argument that the Greeks hold this Conversion of Substances TO begin at his Delusions the First or to speak better the Twelfth after those we already discovered consists in that he would have us upon the account of his own bare word without any Proof suppose that when Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida wrote their Letter against the Church of Rome Leo the Ninth the then present Pope had already condemned Berengarius and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of this censure But 't will not be amiss to hear him speak himself To shew say's he the consent of the Greek Church with the Roman Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 139. in the Subject of the Eucharist we have made use in the refutation of Mr. Claude ' s Answer of the contest which arose in the year 1053. between Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida on one hand and Pope Leo the Ninth and the whole Latine Church on the other For these Persons altho such passionate adversaries against the Western Church upon the account of the Azymes yet never reproached her as erring in the Mystery of the Eucharist altho they wrote against the Latins AT THE SAME TIME AND AFTER Pope Leo had censured Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil whence we conclude they were agreed with the Latin Church in the Doctrine of the real Presence which she so loudly asserted at that time This is Mr. Arnaud's first Proof which he has set forth to the life in the best colours wherewith his Eloquence could furnish him having turned it several wayes by his usual dexterary in amplifying and exaggerating the Subjects he handles IT is certain that to make this Argument valid he must clearly establish before all things that Berengarius his Condemnation preceded Cerularius and Leo of Acrida's Letter and preceded it to a very considerable time to shew that these Prelates were well informed of it and had reason to mention it in their Letter for without this we can conclude nothing from their Silence Yet Mr. Arnaud has not troubled himself with the clearing up this matter of Fact contenting himself in saying only that Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy A man would then think this was a Point out of doubt and at which Mr. Arnaud has no need to stop a moment having judged it evident beyond contradiction in his Chronology But he will be much startled to find there is nothing more uncertain than his supposition and moreover that there is nothing more unlikely than what he say's TO be ascertained in this Matter we must know that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's Letter was written in the Year 1053. as Mr. Arnaud and all the World grants We must moreover know that although Baronius and Binius attribute the two Condemnations of Berengarius to the Year 1050. 3 Years before Cerularius his Letter was written yet there are Authors that are better informed in this Matter than Baronius and Binius who refer these two Condemnations to the Year 1053. being exactly the same Year wherein the Letter was written And these are such Authors whose Testimony will go far with Mr. Arnaud Being those that published the Office of the B. Sacrament that is to say this same Office to which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity in its primary Design was to serve as a Preface as a Preface as we have been already twice informed Observe here what they say Neither Malmesbury nor Baronius have exactly observed all the Office of the B. Sacrament Hist and Chron. 11. Cent. Councils which were called touching this Heresie of Berengarius The first of them was held at Rome by Pope Leo the Ninth the second at Verseil in the Month of September in the same Year under the same Pope We cannot doubt after the Testimony of Lanfranc in his Book against Berengarius but that these two Councils were held both in the same Year But some as Baronius and Binius will have this Year to be 1050. others the Year 1053. First because Sigibert say's that Pope Leo held two Councils in 1050. but he immediately observes likewise this was only to reform the abuses of the Ecclesiasticks
Conversion to the Greek Church having received from her the Doctrine she Professes There are scarcely any other Books read amongst them than some Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Tongue The writings of these Fathers are expounded amongst them they have no other Sentiments than those which Nature imprints in their Minds Will not a man be apt to say in reading this Description that this Land is a kind of spiritual Canaan BUT what signifies disguising of things at this rate Besides what I now related touching the Ignorance and Superstitions reigning in this Church we need only observe what judgment Possevin who lived several years in Moscovia makes of them In respect of Schism say's he it cannot be imagin'd how deeply Possev de reb Moscov p. 24. they are ingaged in it holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims or rather adding still somthing to them than abating any of them It is the same with the Moscovites as with those who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle the forwarder they go the more they multiply their Errors just as may be observed in the Innovators of our times The Moscovites having receiv'd their Schism from the Greeks have departed from 'em and having no Books nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies And yet according to Mr. Arnaud this is the only Country in the World for conserving a Doctrine already established and the least likely to embrace a new Opinion The same Possevin tells us that the Great Duke Possev de reb Moscov p. 1. Basil having caused a Greek Priest to come into his Country whom the Patriarch of Constantinople sent him he threw him into Prison and would not release him altho requested by the Turkish Emperor because the Priest told him he found the Moscovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church and from that time they had no more Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moscovia In another place he observes expressly that they differ in several Ibid. p. 38. things from the Latins Which caused Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia Elucid error ritus Ruth Joan. Sacra to say that they abuse in several things the Rights of the Greeks and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks which have departed from them This proposition of Sacranus may be excessive but it may be well concluded thence that the Moscovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion but have not so carefully preserved it but that 't is alter'd in several things THIS pretended firmness which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them has not hindred the Greek Religion from being corrupted amongst them neither has it hindred the Latins from using their utmost Endeavors to introduce their Doctrines amongst them nor Possevin from laying his Designs in Order thereunto It has not hindred the Popes from sending their Emissaries amongst Possev de reb Mosc Com. 1. 2 Chap. 4. them as I have already show'd in the second Book nor from making use of Merchants who under pretence of Commerce obtain an easier access into these Countries as appears by the History of Paul Jovius nor Arcudius Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Mosc a Latiniz'd Greek from spending twenty years in Lituania Russia and Moscovia in the propogating of the Romish Religion as he himself testifies Arcud Epist dedicat ad Sigism in his Letter to Sigismond King of Poland nor Seminaries from being set up in Lituania and other places for the instructing of the Moscovites Children in the Romish Religion as Possevin tells us This firmness does not hinder Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. but that they have made use not only of Polanders for the Reduction of these People who hold a particular Commerce with them but especially of the re-united Russians who appear less suspected to the Moscovites because they Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. observe still the Greek Rites In fine this does not hinder the false Greeks who having finished their studies in the Seminary at Rome do return into Greece from promoting the interest of the Roman Church under the habit and disguise of Schismatical Greeks and from passing over from Greece into Moscovia when occasion Offers as appears by the Example of Paysius Ligaridius who wrote in Mosco it self his Treatise of the Eucharist in favour of Mr. Arnaud and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone IS not this then a delusory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made That it cannot be alledged the Latins have brought their Opinions into these parts by Croisado's This is true but if they have not brought them thither by Croisado's they have done whatsoever they have been able in order to the introducing them by Missions and Seminaries by Commerce of Merchants by Poland Russia and Greece it self which is their Mother-Church Now can it seem strange to us if with all these Machins and by abusing the Ignorance and stupidity of these People they have been made to believe that Transubstantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion and consequently one of theirs And can it be imagined we are such Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People What Mr. Arnaud adds That there is scarcely any other Books Possev de reb Moscov Comm. 1. read amongst them than the Writings of some of the Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Language does not well agree with what Possevin tells us that they understand not any more of the Sclavonian Language than what nearly relates to theirs or that of Poland What signifies the reading of Greek Fathers Translated into a Language which the People understand not BUT let us see what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation The first he Offers is the silence of all Authors that have written on the Religion of this Church who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane To enhance the Value of this Proof he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Positive whereby to maintain my Thesis It is strange say's he that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter should choose rather to devine the Opinion of these People on weak Conjectures than to inform himself whether he might not meet in so many Books that mention the Religion Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425. of the Moscovites real Proofs of what he would willingly find He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading those Books and Protests he has not been guilty of the like having read whatsoever he could find written on this Subject eight Authors on one side several Treatises on the other such as Possevin Baronius Raynoldus Botter Breerwood Hornbeck and several others THERE is no need of this Account There being no body as I know of that questions Mr. Arnaud's industry we on the contrary blame him for taking so much Pains for nothing As
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
Reflection THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th Century when the contests of Berengarius hapned to determine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first We have likewise seen in the 7th Chapter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words What can we think of all these circuits but that they are illusions which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins and mount up to them from the later Ages It is then certain that these ways of reasoning these suppositions and arguments from the bottom to the top are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion which is that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church The second Reflection 'T IS consonant to reason to imagin that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body or not having been agitated with great heat those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers and endeavoured to turn them to their sense This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and confirm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances We see but too many examples of this It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences The Divisions of Christians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity When Scholars are become Masters they no longer look upon themselves as Scholars but Doctors and in this quality 't is no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions which they endeavour to establish on the testimony of those that preeeded them and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em and as to the Doctors there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly and engage them into his opinions which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church The third Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's third proposition is conceived in these terms Lib. 10. cap. 3. That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catholicks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike To establish this proposition he says there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect different The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions and to shew they are not alike The second is to discern them by opinion by a simple view of the mind and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed Applying afterwards this remark to his subject he says that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Transubstantiation and reality and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions and that opinion has so well distinguished them This is the summary of his third Chapter The first Reflection WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions and the things themselves by opinion as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences where there are no real ones I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a metaphorical sense this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as different expressions but it does not follow that they be different in effect unless it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever conformity there may be between them A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding as if they were alike such expressions as are not so and then again take for different expressions such as be alike As we never pretended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things so Mr. Arnaud must not pretend they are right in every thing The second Reflection THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the different expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike is deceitful For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of reason 't will be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages wherein the Fathers lived and that of persons to whom they spake and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation and the others which we produce as being alike in a metaphorical sense and we will see what use we must make of his Rule But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed will be an apparent deceiving of our selves seeing 't is not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine The fourth Consequence THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth which is Book 10.
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
that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane persons much less can it be concluded hence there were then but three sorts of persons the Paschasists the Bertramists and those that pass'd from one opinion to another 'T is sufficient says Mr. Arnaud to tell Page 916. Mr. Claude in a word that to act as he must suppose they have done they must not have been men but some other kind of Animals and such creatures as we never heard of To which I answer that if he will not allow 'em to be Men he shall make Satyrs or Centaurs of 'em if he will for as to my part I must suppose 'em to be what they are If he does not find the Paschasists had zeal enough for the Real Presence he ought to impart more to 'em if he can And if the Bertramists have not well discharged their duty we for our share must deplore their stupidity seeing we cannot help it But howsoever 't is certain there were Paschasists and that there were Bertramists and 't is likewise as certain that the Pastors carelessness and the People ignorance were both very great These are matters of fact against which 't is in vain to dispute All that can be rationally said is that the ignorance of the one and the carelessness of the others made 'em agree in the subject of the Real Presence I mean they disputed not about it because they wanted ability to do it as well as zeal and industry Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to persuade us that the disorders Book 9. ch 9. page 957. of the 10th Century were no greater than those of the others and that the state of the Church in this world is to include in the same external Society both living and dead Members Stubble and Wheat 't is a necessary consesequence of this state that a man may reproach every Age with several disorders and that each time of the Church may be respected as having two different faces according as a man casts his eyes upon the good that credit it or the wicked that dishonour it WHAT he says is but too true and so 't is too true that the 10th Century has improved the former errors for besides that the common disorders have appeared in it in a different degree there were particular ones in it which the preceding Ages were not acquainted with Never was there such an ignorance before which the Council of Trosly then denoted The neglect of the Bishops and Priests was never so great as that Council Elfric Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William of Tyre describe it Covetousness never reigned so much amongst the Monks and Priests as Polydor Virgil testifies it did then Such an universal degeneracy as we find attributed by Authors to those times we never yet heard of There were never seen in the Church of Rome the like disorders as those that were observable throughout this whole Century Such a relaxation of Discipline in the Cathedral Churches the superintendency of which was committed to Children of 5 10 12 and 14 years was never before known Most Writers that have mention'd it are Historians that design'd not to pass censures or aggravate in general the degeneracy of men but to remark the particular characters of this Century which distinguish them from the rest And therefore they call it the unhappy Age an Age of lead the iron Age an obscure and dark Age an Age of darkness and ignorance a most wretched time wherein the just were not to be found and wherein truth had for saken the earth an Age in short wherein hapned a general decay of all virtues 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say again 't was an Age of Zeal Fervour Book 9. ch 7. page 947. Conversions Reformations in Princes in Princesses in Bishops in Religious Persons and in the People For first 't is certain that in respect of those which Mr. Arnaud speaks of that their Zeal their Fervour their Conversions their Reformations such as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em dispute amongst themselves of the Real Presence On one hand was taught as we have already observed That there 's a great difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ suffered and that which is Consecrated in the Eucharist that the one is born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Nerves and is endued with a reasonable Soul but that the other which is his spiritual Body consists of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul That as in the Water of Baptism there are two things to be considered one that according to nature 't is corruptible water and the other according to the spiritual mystery this water has a salutary virtue so the Eucharist according to the natural understanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature and according to the spiritual virtue life is in it it gives immortality to the Faithful 'T was taught that the Bread and Wine are spiritually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Manna was changed into his Flesh and the water of the Rock into his Blood That the Bread is not in any wise the same Body in which our Saviour suffered nor the Wine the Blood which he shed for us but his Body and Blood spiritually In this Age were several passages of the Fathers collected and urged against Paschasus touching the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ On the other hand the Pastors were exhorted to come and learn in Paschasus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of Miracles were likewise wrought to confirm those that doubted of the Real Presence but we do not find they disputed about it one against another If the reason which I offer from the ignorance and negligence of the one and the other does not well relish with Mr. Arnaud let him give a better I 'll gladly receive it provided he denies not certain matters of fact against which no arguments must be offered THE Zeal Fervour Conversions and Reformations which he attributes to the 10th Century hinder not the truth of what we observed concerning the Religious living without Rule their Abbots being married and Lay-men the Bishops neglecting to instruct their Flocks and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer and living and dying in this ignorance This is a matter of fact attested by Witnesses of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Roman Church was for this whole Century in a fearful disorder as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity and Baronius too when he tells us Our Saviour Bayon annal Eccles Tom 10. ad ann 612. Christ slept then in his Ship He slept and made as tho he saw not these things he let them alone he arose not to take vengeance and that which was worse there were no Disciples who by their shrieks should awake the Lord sleeping for they were all asleep themselves What think you were the Cardinals Priests and Deacons that
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
Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paschasus to his face how knows he this that he can be so confident of it Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it No. But 't is because Paschasus says Audivi quosdam me reprehendere I am inform'd that some blame me Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence and that an Author may speak thus altho he was told of his fault to his face In fine who inform'd Mr. Arnaud that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew which were publish'd not till thirty years after A frivolous reason as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em and endeavours to defend himself It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud NOT only adds he he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors Page 850 851. Friends and Brethren but he still believed the whole Church was on his side For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his unknown adversaries of whom he had notice by the Authority of the whole Church and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Ecclesiam He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur In short he accuses those as highly criminal who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue contrary to the consent of the whole Earth Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes universaliter verum esse fatentur I answered the Author of the Perpetuity That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all question the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief and from the Churches saying in her Canon Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi to which the people answered Amen That there 's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin but which are not so greatly favorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin HERE says Mr. Arnaud is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude ' s invention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less and to distinguish by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot distinguish Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church either this proposition that 't is the common Doctrin of the Church is so clear and evident that the Adversaries themselves must grant it or it is not so clear nor evident but that 't is questionable As to the first case a man need not trouble himself to prove it for it s taken for a Principle and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting For instance When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect but also for all men in general that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just according to the present condition of their ability that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of the Communion it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church that there needs no proving 'em and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles there 's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles and he would have only hence consequences drawn against him As to the second case that is to say when 't is not clear that this is the Faith of the Church and that this point is in dispute both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses one which regards precisely the present Church which is to say the Church in the time of the contest the other which respects the Church in the preceding times which is to say before the controversie it may also receive two sorts of proofs some which refer to the present time others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us When a man proves for the time present he alledges testimonies of the modern Church when he proves for the past time he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good or bad conclusive or not conclusive TO apply this to the matter in hand I say That Paschasus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ Audivi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromittit and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sangainis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin multi dubitant says he several times And in fine others that erred thro ignorance which is to say that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed Quamvis plurimi says he dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta And a little lower Quamvis ex
I hope will not take it ill if I design this whole Chapter to answer them This Book consists either of passionate invectives against me or defences against some of my Complaints or accusations against me As to the passionate expressions I concern not my self with 'em I leave 'em to the publick judgment and Mr. Arnaud's private conscience It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his stile according to the lovely idea which he himself has given us of the true Eloquence which is says he discreet modest Book 11. ch 8. page 1128. judicious sincere true which serves to disentangle things and not to confound 'em which clears truth and offers it in such a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart which inspires motions that are just reasonable proportionable to the things which we handle which has no other lustre but what serves to discover truth no strength but what is borrowed from her He will examin I hope at his leisure whether he has observed all these grave characters and whether his eagerness to overcome has not transported him sometimes into such strange convulsions as are wholly contrary to all morality and decency AS to his defences I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be just and warrantable but to the end it may not be said I desire to be believed on my own bare word let a man judg of 'em by these examples The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion alledged this reason that Trithemus praised this Author To this I answered that he praised him because in effect he deserved it and that this only increased his authority My sense is plainly that he prais'd him because he knew his reputation was great in the 9th Century that his Book was therein well entertain'd and his memory honored in the following Ages For this is what must be understood by being in effect praise-worthy and this is likewise what the terms of my answer insinuate having added that this only increased his authority which is to say that this testimony of Trithemus shewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time Whereupon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true sense of my words imputes to me another which is that I said Trithemus who believed the Real Presence praised Bertram for opposing it which is a ridiculous sense and infinitely distant from mine This is the subject of my complaint and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud What is says he the sense of these words Book 11. ch 3. p. 1105 1106. Trithemus praised Bertram because he was indeed praise-worthy Do they signifie that he praised him from his own knowledg or from the opinion of others It is clear they have only the first sense and not the second All is clear which Mr. Arnaud speaks but let us see how he proves it To commend any one from the testimony of another is not to commend him because he is in effect praise-worthy seeing there are several people which we do not in effect judg to be praise-worthy altho thought worthy of praise by others To commend a man because he is in effect worthy of commendations is proceeding on a just and true ground and on the reality of things and not on reports and popular opinions This is a pitiful defence for 't is certain there are people who are not judged to be praise-worthy altho they be praised by others but I say that there are others which are deemed praise-worthy in effect only because we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived and in the following ones without being blamed by any body Do not most people thus believe S. Cyprian S. Hierom and S. Augustin praise-worthy not for having read their Books nor examin'd their Doctrins but as knowing they were esteem'd by their own and following Ages and that their memory was never withered in the Church Now this is what I say that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book to wit that he had the esteem of his Age and that his memory was respected in the following ones IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say that I ought not to suppose without proving it that such an Author as Trithemus who writes a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and gives particular praises to an Author does it barely from the relation of others and that the presumption is on the contrary that he has read his Book and speaks of it from his own proper knowledg This I say is to no purpose for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues and would draw a conclusion from the praises of Trithemus to establish well his Principle to prove that Trithemus has praised Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini and not to me who answer to prove that he has praised him because he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th Century Were a man to judg hereof by presumptions they would be rather for my supposition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity for we know very well that those who make Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention The Commendations of Ratram whom we affirm to be Bertram could not be unknown to Trithemus and we have right to suppose that Trithemus has not distinguish'd Bertram and Ratram as two different persons till the Author of the Perpetuity has shewed us the contrary THE second complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity respects Mr. Blondel whom this Author impertinently accuses to have fallen into contradiction in that he supposes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calvinist and on the other that the Synod of Cressy which condemned Amalarius was of the same mind which according to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifest contradiction Observe here his words Usher an English Protestant supposes that Amalarius held Perpetuity of the Faith sect 2 p. 80. the Doctrin of the Catholicks and therefore would have it thought that 't was the Doctrin of the Real Presence which was condemned in Amalarius by the Synod of Cressy and by Florus Deacon of Lyons And a little lower Blondel suffering himself to be deceived by the desire which he had to raise up adversaries against Paschasus fell on this subject into one of the most palpable contradictions imaginable For finding on one hand advantage from Usher ' s Page 82. opinion who makes the whole Synod of Cressy who condemned Amalarius to consist of Calvinists he takes this part and supposes with him that the Council of Cressy held the Calvinists Doctrin and were contrary to Paschasus But finding elsewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuscript of the Book of Divine Offices of William of Malmsbury that Amalarius Raban and Heribald wrote against Paschasus not considering that
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
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
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
anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit unde sicut dicit Lanfrandus ipse in fide desipuit Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat à graphiis suis ut fertur perforatus martyr oestimatus est Secondly That of Petrus Crinitus De honesta Discipl 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30. who speaks of him in almost the same terms Thirdly That of Naucler Alfred says he had enriched the College of Oxford especially with John Scot as with a Divine Star which he drew over into England from France where he was in favour with Charles the Bald. If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Roman Church in the 11th Century but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th Century wherein he lived and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons and the terms of the Council of Valence and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament yet did not accuse him on this Article Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Doctrin of the Eucharist turns the business into admiration and offers a pitiful reason of this silence I cannot sufficiently wonder says he that leaving Append. ad Hist Gothesc p. 583. the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist these droans for thus does he call those of Lyons should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination This shews adds he that they did not matter so much the defending of the Faith as the ruining the Party of those of Reims which is to say of Hincmar and his friends who had condemned Gotthescalc But both his astonishment and reason too would equally vanish if he would have taken notice of what every one sees that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th Century but in the 11th was that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th Age and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the Artic. 1. of his Dissert o◠John Scot. same of John Scot's name and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eucharist was not condemned in the 9th Century He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue entituled Of Natures the Author of which is this same John Scot and that this Book is full of Errors He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care and draws from 'em these two consequences 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies having been only tanght by a particular person who had no followers that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew because that on one hand it is full of Errors and on the other we do not find it was condemned AS to the first I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's and that there are Errors in it but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head but herein only follow'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and Latins as S. Basil S. Gregory of Nysse and S. Ambrose the pretended Denis the Areopagite and S. Maximus which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church John Scot cites them on each of these opinions he sets down their passages which made William of Malmsbury to say That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult questions provided he be excused in some things in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins by reason of his following too much the Greeks AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures and that of the Eucharist of the same Author First The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons because 't was wrote at the entreaty of a particular person to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had excited much clamour in the Church Secondly Altho the Book of Natures had been known the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers whose names are venerable in the Church we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention altho they have not approved all their sentiments But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation and Real Presence the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles would have been his only and not the Fathers and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book and openly condemning it Thirdly The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the common road and reach of sense whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament which is continually before the eyes of Christians for supposing as I said the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as the Roman Church believes them at this day and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church The King himself by whose order he wrote would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the borrow'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the reputation and authority of John Scot's name and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram should be in effect of John Scot this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot. THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with
follow'd Baronius may be respected as doubtful But to conclude hence that John Scot and John the Abbot of Aetheling were two different persons is very absurd AFTER all two things clearly enough shew that this whole criticism of the Author of the Dissertation who puts a difference between John Scot and John the Abbot of Aetheling is merely imaginary and that in effect they are but one and the same person The first is That amongst the persons of the 9th Century who were in any wise famous in France we find no mention of this pretended John whom Alfred sent for The other that 't is evident Asserus who was Contemporary of John Scot has made no mention of him if John Scot were not the Abbot of Aetheling which is very strange seeing it cannot be denied but John Scot was a most famous man much respected by Alfred and consequently well known to Asserus who lived in the same Court IF we consider these two reasons with an unbiassed mind I am persuaded they will be found stronger than all the conjectures of our Author It is true one may yet form a difficulty which our Author has not taken notice of which is that Asserus seems to say this John of whom he speaks was Assassinated by his Monks at Aetheling whereas William of Malmsbury and the Historians who follow'd him assure us that John Scot was kill'd by his Scholars at Malmsbury and there interred But it is certain there could be nothing more easie than to confound the circumstance of the place wherein John Scot was assassinated and take it for another William of Malmsbury who is the first of those who laid the Scene of this Tragedy at Malmsbury recorded it near 250. years after it hapned Asserus does not say John Scot died on the spot and it will not seem impossible that having been wounded at Aetheling he was carried to Malmsbury or dying at Aetheling his body was carried thither or having been Abbot of Aetheling and Malmsbury both together as it was commonly the custom of that time for one man to have several Abbies this might give occasion to this difference Howsoever it be it is far more reasonable to conclude from the conformity of the relation of Asserus and William of Malmsbury touching the main of th' event than from one only History to make two by reason of some slight diversity which is between 'em on the circumstance of the place And this seems the more likely because as I have already said we have the formal testimony of Ingulphus an Historian of the 11th Century who assures us that this John the Abbot of Aetheling was no other but John Scot. CHAP. VIII That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr IT 'S certain the death of John Scot was respected as a kind of Martyrdom T. 1. Maug p. 739. Append. p. 585. Aunal Angl. Ann. 883. sect 41. Du Val a Doctor of Sorbon Cellot and Alford Jesuits have maintain'd this against the unjust suspicions of Genebrard and some others Why then does the Author of the Dissertation pretend in his 6th Article that this Martyrdom is a thing doubtful THERE be two sorts of proofs which confirm the truth of this the one real and the other verbal The real is a stately Monument which was Guill Malmsb. de gest Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 4. p. 24. set up for him in the Church of Malmsbury and was to be seen there before the 12th Century with this Inscription Clauditur hoc tumulo sanctus Sophista Joannes Qui ditatus erat jam vivens dogmate miro Martyrio tandem Christi conscendere regnum Quo meruit sancti regnant per soecula cuncta William of Malmsbury has well conjectured that these Verses were ancienter than his time Scabri quidem says he moderni temporis lima carentes sed ab antiquo non ita deformes TO this proof we must add the testimony of Gotzelin who has inserted John in his Catalogue of English Saints which he made in the beginning of the 12th Century S. Adelmus Joannes Sapiens in loco qui dicitur Adesmibirig Usser de success Eccl. c. 2. WHEREUNTO we may add the testimony of almost all Historians 'T is thus the continuer of Bede speaks as also William of Malmsbury Simeon of Durham Roger de Howden Matthew of Westminster Helinaud the Monk of Froidmond the Author of Memoriale Historiarum whose passage I have related Vincent de Beavais Antonin Arch-Bishop of Florence Baronius and several other modern Authors that have follow'd them TO all which the Author of the Dissertation answers that he acknowledges the holiness of this famous John as well by the Epitaph spoken of by William of Malmsbury and the Historians who have written after him as by the Catalogue of Gotzlin but denies this John to be the same John Scot. He pretends then that William of Malmsbury who first attributed to John Scot what agreed only to another John a Martyr was to blame in doing it that the Historians who followed William of Malmsbury ought not to have followed him and that in effect William himself offers wherewithal to refute what he himself says To fortifie this conjecture he observes that the Martyrdom of John Scot was unknown to Berenger and those of his Party who could not have been ignorant of it neither would have failed to take notice of it especially since the condemnation of John Scot under Nicolas II. Whence he concludes that the same of the Martyrdom of John Scot was dispersed up and down by his Disciples and that this was not the sentiment of the Church in which John Scot died BUT there are few people who will remain satisfi'd with these conjectures of our Author For first If this John the Martyr of Malmsbury be not John Scot who was he then How comes it people have so universally lost the knowledg of him since William of Malmsbury has confounded him with John Scot Did he live before John Scot or since How could William's mistake cause all England to lose the knowledg of him How comes it no body ever discovered the error of William Whence is it that William himself could not meet with any thing to undeceive him when he sought into the Antiquities of his Convent for the making his History 'T is very strange that in a matter of fact a person who has written at Paris in 1669. should pretend to know better whos 's the Tomb was that was seen in the 12th Century at Malmsbury than William of Malmsbury who lived in this same Convent and who apparently omitted no enquiries for his satisfaction IT is probable that William was not the first Author who mention'd the Martyrdom of John Scot. For the continuer of Bede whose Book was Printed at Heidelberg in 1587. formally mentions it and the Author of the Dissertation believes that he who continued this work of Bede is different from William I confess that Vossius has been mistaken in fixing this Author to
the year 1080. seeing it is certain he lived till the beginning of the 12th Century But it does not follow from the error of Vossius that he was posterior to William This Continuer clearly denotes that he was Contemporary to Guitmond now Guitmond preceded William of Malmsbury for this latter wrote in 1142. whereas the other died about the end of the 11th Century or at the beginning of the 12th That if there be found several things alike in this Continuer and in William it is more reasonable to say that William has taken from the Continuer than to say the Continuer has taken from William and that the rather because William has enlarged his History farther than the other by thirty years which is the natural Character of a later Historian BUT supposing William of Malmsbury be the first who has spoken of the Martyrdom of John Scot this does but the more confirm the truth of this History for writing as he did in the very place and in the same Convent wherein what he relates hapned 't is just to believe that in this Narration he has offered nothing but what was grounded on authentick Acts or on a Tradition which in his time pass'd for an undeniable truth in this Convent IT is to no purpose for the Author of the Dissertation to distinguish what this William of Malmsbury has taken from the ancient Monuments of his Church and what he has added thereunto of his own He ought not thus to make of his own head this distinction on an Historian of the 12th Century and to tell us precisely here 's what he has taken from the Monuments of his Church here 's what he has added thereunto of his own There was one John that suffered Martyrdom and was reputed a Saint this is of the ancient Monuments of the Church of Malmsbury but that this John was John Scot is an addition of William This distinction of our Author is bold enough and was in effect unknown to Simeon of Durham to Roger de Howden to Matthew of Westminster and to all those other Historians which I have already denoted who all certainly believ'd that the Martyrdom of John Scot related by William of Malmsbury was a truth of History which is beyond question HIS telling us that William was the first Historian who gave to King Alfred two Masters of the name of John the one surnam'd the Saxon Abbot of Aetheling the other surnam'd Scot and since a Martyr First William does not say formally that this was two different men John the Saxon and John Scot nor that one was surnam'd the Saxon and the other Scot he says only in one place Joannem ex antiqua Saxonia oriundum and in another Joannes Scotus Neither must one necessarily conclude from his discourse that he regarded them as two different men as will appear if we take notice of what he wrote and of the occasion which has oblig'd him the first time to make mention of this John as it were transiently reserving himself to speak of him more amply afterwards as he has done But when we should suppose that William would distinguish these two Johns this makes nothing to th' establishing what he relates of the Martyrdom of John Scot's being a fable of his own invention on the contrary this very thing would help to establish that knowing two Johns and distinguishing them he must have better known what ought to be said of both one and the other Neither can it be said that he made two Johns Tutors of Alfred for when he speaks of John who was Abbot of Aetheling he does not say that he was the Tutor of Alfred he says this only under the name of John Scot. AS to what the Author of the Dissertation has remark'd that Anastasius in his Letter written to Charles the Bald in 875. seems to speak of John Scot as of a man already dead which shews that he was not the Tutor of Alfred seeing that this Prince gave not himself to learning till in the year 884. Neither is it moreover likely that so Religious a Prince would make use of such a man as John Scot who was decried as an Heretick driven out of th' University of Paris at the earnest pursuit of Nicolas I. as holding Doctrins contrary to the principal Fundamentals of Christian Religion I answer first That our Author returns continually to his fabulous History as if John Scot could have been driven out in the 9th Century from the University of Paris which began only in the 12th Secondly It is certain that Anastasius speaks of Erigenus as of an holy and famous man Virum says he per omnia sanctum which does not shew that he was thought then unworthy of being the Kings Tutor nor that he was decried at Rome for an Heretick Thirdly Seeing that John Scot was very much esteem'd by Charles the Bald he might be so too by Alfred Son of Aetelwolph Son in law to Charles the Bald. And in effect William of Malmsbury testifies that he had seen the Letters of Alfred wherein this Prince treated John Scot with great esteem and affection Alfredi munificentia ministerio usus ut ex scriptis Regis intellexi sublimis Melduni resedit and this is a mere mockery to make these Letters pass for fictious ones fram'd by the friends of John Scot and Berenger Fourthly It is not true that Anastasius speaks positively of John Scot as of a man already deceased and supposing it were he might think so by reason of his great age or some false report of his death In fine our Author absurdly supposes that Alfred did not betake himself to learning till the year 884. he has faln into this mistake for want of considering that altho Asserus and some of those that have follow'd him have attributed to this year what they have said of the Piety of Alfred and his applying himself to learning yet this happens merely from their recapitulating what hapned since the year 868 till 884 as I have already observ'd NEITHER is there more strength in the Argument which our Author draws from some terms which William of Malmsbury makes use of in relating the History of the Martyrdom of John Scot. Hoc tempore creditur fuisse Joannes Scotus propter hanc infamiam credo taeduit eum Franciae à pueris quos docebat ut fertur perforatus martyr aestimatus est He pretends that these terms are doubtful fears and suspicions and that these ways of speaking are likely to make one doubt of the truth of this relation BUT all this deserves no answer First The Author of the Dissertation has mixt Simeon of Durham's Text which bears Propter hanc infamiam c. with that of William of Malmsbury who relates this fact as a thing evidently certain And in effect the first term creditur refers to the time wherein John Scot lived in England The second credo is added by the Author of the Dissertation being not the Text of Simeon of