Ligaridius what kind of man 1. 266 Patriarch Greek of Jerusalem Excommunicates every year the Latin Church 1. 206 Poor are Jesus Christ himself 2. 74. seq Point fixt of the Author of the Perpetuity impossible c. 1. 45 Policy hindered the Greeks and the Latins in the Council of Florence to treat of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and the Substantial Presence 1. 197 Paschasius proposes his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not well understood 2. 172 Paschasius acts by way of opposition and contradiction in respect of his Adversaries 2. 172 Paschasius taught the substantial Conversion and Real Presence 2. 198 Paschasius never vaunted that his Doctrin was that of the Church of his time 2. 225 Paschasius endeavours to justifie himself from the charge of Enthusiasm and rashness 2. 210 Paschasius was an Innovator 2. 214 Paschasius acknowledges that before him men were ignorant of his Doctrin 2. 214 Paschasius accused of being a Visionary Enthusiast c. 2. 219 Paschasius his Adversaries affirm that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue 1. 314 Paschasius offers his Opinion as a Paradox 2. 224 Paschasius and Bertram contrary 2. 255 Paschasius submits his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard 2. 225 Paschasius Author of the Doctrin of the Real Presence according to Bellarmin and Sirmond 2. 226 Paschasius defamed by his Adversaries by reason of his Doctrin 2. 228 Preface to the Answer of Father Nouet justifi'd 2. 269 Proofs negative opposed against those of Mr. Arnaud 1. 272 Proofs of fact cannot be overthrown c. 1. 17 Proofs immediate stronger than mediate ones 1. 17 Proofs which consider a thing in all respects stronger than those which consider it only in one 1. 18 Proofs of ones eyes and senses more certain than those of ratiocination 1. 18 Proofs of fact stronger than those of argumentation applied on the same fact 1. 22 Prayers of good people according to the Greeks help the damned 1. 279 Proper Body the meaning of it apply'd to the Sacrament 2. 73 Proper and Properly are apply'd to Subjects wherein there is no propriety of substance 2. 75 Proper has several significations 2. 75 Q. QUestion 's of right how they ought to be decided 1. 9 Questions of fact how they ought to be decided 1. ibid. Questions of Faith ought to be decided by the Scripture 1. ibid. Questions on the Eucharist two the first touching what we ought to believe of it and the other touching what has been anciently held about it 1. 36 Question touching the Greeks is not whether they believe what we believe but whether they believe what the Roman Church believes 1. 110 Question of the possibility or impossibility of the change frivolous 2. 163 R. RAban and Bertram have not opposed the Stercoranists 2. 253 Reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity are at most but probabilities 1. 20 Recapitulation at the end of the Greek Liturgy wherein there is nothing said of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 1. 142 Receive Jesus Christ and to be sanctifi'd according to the Greeks is one and the same thing 1. 149 Receiving Jesus Christ is caused say the Greeks only by the good dispositions of the Soul 1. 15 Revelation of Jesus Christ to S. Bridget 1. 79 Rupert's opinion in the 12th Century 1. 288 Russians ignorant 1. 70 Roman Church condemns not several Opinions which yet she does not approve 1. 278 S. SAcraments ought to be establish'd immediately on the Word of God Pref. Sacraments their number not regulated by the Greeks 1. 208 Sacrament and Mystery what those terms signifie in the Writings of the Fathers 2. 72 Sacrament may be considered either in opposition to the thing whereof it is a Sacrament or conjoyntly with it 2. 96 Sacrament in how many senses it may be said to be truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 79 Samonas a suspëcted and doubtful Author 1. 264 Scaliger's Colloquies 1. 38 Sanctification of the Bread compared to the Dye which Wool takes 1. 194 Seminaries for the Eastern People at Rome and elsewhere 1. 103 Seminaries the advantages which the Roman Church receive thence 1. 104 Sense its language not contrary to that of Faith on the subject of the Eucharist 2. 67 Sense its language literal and without a figure 2. 67 Sentiment real of the Greeks touching the change which happens in the Eucharist 1. 218 Sense metaphorical of a proposition to be oft received 2. 111 Sense first and natural of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ c. is the Sacramental one 2. 157 Sense natural of Propositions is determined by the matter in question 2. 158 Sense of our Saviours words perplexed by the Schoolmen and Casuists of the Roman Church 2. 101 Sense of our Saviour's words cannot be found out by the common people in the consent of all Churches 2. 99 Sense particular cannot be attributed to persons who explain themselves only in geoeral terms 2. 123 Signs take their names from the things which they signifie 2. 73 Synods of Cyril de Beroa and Parthenius against Cyril supposed pieces c. 1. 210 Silence of the Greeks from whence Mr. Arnaud takes his argument has neither evidence certainty nor necessity 1. 277 Silence of the Greeks concludes nothing 1. 278 Sociniens interessed against the Fathers 1. 39 Stercoranists who they were 2. 246 Stercoranists could not believe the Substantial Presence 2. 248 Supplement which Mr. Arnaud pretends one should make to the expressions of the Fathers is absurd 2. 68 Suppositions of what use in a dispute 1. 4 Supposition which Mr. Arnaud makes that the Real Presence was believ'd in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries is unreasonable and captious 2. 63 Suppose we ought that in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence was held 2. 64 T. TErms metaphorical which use has made proper 2. 11 Terms true and Truly are apply'd to several things 2. 76 Theophylact's passages explain'd 1. 309 Translator and a Paraphrasist their difference 1. 359 Treatise of the Perpetuity is a real mass of difficulties 1. 36 Transubstantiation and the Real Presence considered in a Church wherein they are held 1. 41 Transubstantiation is the precise determination of the manner of the change of the Bread 1. 120 Transubstantiation is not a speculative Doctrin 1. ibid. Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are not synonimous terms 1. 124 Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence were the points which first separated the Greeks 1. 245 Transubstantiation was not believ'd by several before the Council of Constance 1. 288 Treatise of the Perpetuity very proper for persons that are curious and lazy 1. 45 Treatise of the Perpetuity illusory in what it promises 1. ibid. Turks favour those who gave them most Money 1. 105 V. VIrtue Bread chang'd into the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 233 Version of the New Testament of Mons c 1. 145 Vicq Fort Translator of Herbert's Voyages 2 41 Voyagers do not say that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation W. WIttembogard one of the chief of the Arminian party 1. 39 Wicked in the sense of the Greeks receive not the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 146 Word of the Gospel is truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 78 Word of the Gospel more truly the Body of Jesus Christ than the Eucharist 2 78. Words of Jesus Christ carry not our minds to the Real Presence by a primary idea 2. 113 FINIS ERRATA PART I. PAge 7. read as already mention'd for as I already mention'd p. 9 l. 4. r. the for that p. 12. l. ult r. their for these p. 34. l. 1. r. of for which p. 38. l. 1. r person for persons p. 38. l. 45. r manners for manner p. 39. l. 13. r. Critick for a Critic p. 46. l. 23. r. an for any p. 57. l. 1. r. self for selfs p. 90. l. 5. r. than for but p. 95. l. 4. r. are no for yet no p. 97. l. 1. r. altho schismatical for altho the Schismatical p. 11◠l. 25. r. we shall see by for we shall by l. 30. r. and which for and that which p. 124. l. 40. r. Latins say for Latins says p. 158. l. ult r. his not inserting the Greek for forasmuch as he has not p. 165. l. 1. r. which is for which most 181. l. 26. r. rational for national p. 203. l. r. wood for word p. 210 l. 1. r. signs for sign p. 223. l. 29. r. pursue for puruse p. 225. l. 24. r. expression for expressions p. 243. l. 1. dele Preface p. 153 l. 10. r. those that held p. 365. l. 7. r. was not printed p. 274. l. 14. r. and yet taste p. 279. l. 17. r. silence on the rest for silence the rest p. 291. l. 23. r. became not angry for became angry p. 336. l. 35. r. only the Divinity p. 330. l. 22. r. colours really for colours are really PART II. Page 6. at bottom of the page r. and for where p. 27. l. 11. r. Romanists persecuted for that persecuted p. 47. l 31. r. the union for of the union The Printer to the Reader THE absence of the Translator and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser Escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of Pardon if his Escapes be not laid on the Translator and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary Understanding may amend and a little Charity may forgive R. Royston ADVERTISEMENT RItes of Funeral Ancient and Modern in use thro the known World Written Originally in French by the Ingenious Monsieur Muret. To which is added A Vindication of Christianity against Paganism All Translated into English by P. Lorrain London Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1683. The Contents of the said Book THE Funeral Rites of the Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Turks Chineses Americans Of some Islanders Of the Tartars Living Sepulchres Fiery Sepulchres Water-Burials Airy Obsequies Burials above Ground The Funeral Rites of the Ancient Jews Modern Jews Schismaticks Christians A Discourse concerning the Right of Burial and Laws on that behalf THE END
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we
refer our selves to the testimony of Sigebert He himself calls it the little Book published by the Protestants under the name Epist ad De Luc d' Ach. T. 2. Spicil of Bertram and attributed to Ratram by Sigebert and Trithemius He believed likewise he had gotten a certain proof that since the 9th Century this Book bore the title of Ratram because the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot reckons Ratram one of Paschasus's Adversaries And Mr. De Marca took this anonymous Author for an Author of the 9th Century as Perron also thought What remedy is there to these inconveniencies which appear to be of so great consequence For for to take the part of Mr. Mauguin and to say that the Book in question contains nothing but what is conformable to the belief of the Roman Church is even according to him an unwarrantable assertion TO extricate himself out of these perplexities Mr. Marca believ'd it best to maintain that John Scot was the true Author of this Book that 't was John Scot himself that fathered it on Ratram and that Cellot's anonymous Author being ignorant of this fact was deceived in what he wrote of it And this is the happy invention by which Mr. De Marca thought he might procure great advantages to his Party First He reduces both Paschasus his Adversaries to one which already diminishes the number of ' em Secondly He delivers Paschasus from the hands of an adversary who was constantly held for a most Orthodox Divine in his time Thirdly By this means he decries this Book it self by attributing it to an Author who in the 9th Century drew on himself some Censures from the Councils of Valence and Langres touching the questions of Grace and whom the Roman Church condemned in the 11th at Verceil and at Rome on the matter of the Eucharist Fourthly He discharges his Church of the reproach of having condemned in the 11th Century and still at this day condemning a Doctrin which was taught in the 9th by an Orthodox Author such as was Ratram Again the name of John Scot has appeared to him very proper for the giving some colour to his discovery because that in effect John Scot wrote likewise a Book on the subject of the Eucharist which he dedicated to Charles the Bald and that this Book is lost whether by chance or on purpose as it has also hapned to others we cannot guess WE may with great likelihood say that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have had the same interests as Mr. De Marca But we may also add that they have had a particular reason which much contributes to make 'em embrace Mr. De Marca's opinion and maintain with him that Ratram is not the Author of the Book in question but John Scot or Erigenus Mr. Claude has Answer to the Perpetuity part 3. ch 1. shewed them in the famous Dispute which they have had that having once esteemed Ratram for the Oracle of his time and for the great defender of the Orthodox Doctrin of Divine Grace 't is not fair to refuse his testimony now on the Eucharist and treat him as an Author of small importance that this is an exposing of a man's self plainly to the reproach of injustice and lightness They must then deliver themselves at any rate from the importunity of this Book and absolutely deny that 't is Ratram's But the way to do it handsomly is difficult seeing the Author of the Perpetuity seems to have acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same person and that he was the real Author of the Book in question To get out of this vexatious suit a Religious of S. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd opportunely offers himself He sends a Dissertation touching John Scot and Bertram wherein he makes a third Party between Mr. De Marca and the Author of the Perpetuity to wit that the Book is John Scot's but an obscure and perplex'd piece Mr. Arnaud adopts this Dissertation and publishes it at the end of his Book So that properly neither the Author of the Perpetuity retracts nor Mr. Arnaud who contradicts him but an anonymous Religious who gives us his conjectures And by this means all is made whole again and the Confession which the Author of the Perpetuity has made is no more at farthest than the error of one man 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 THAT which the Author of the Dissertation has changed in the conjecture of Monsieur De Marca to make it a little more tolerable may be reduced to these three things First He will have the supposition of this Book to be made not by John Scot himself in the 9th Century as Mr. De Marca says but by Berenger or those of his Party towards the end of the 11th Secondly He pretends that in respect of the Title the supposition has not been made barely under the name of Ratram but that those who have made the change have made the Book pass under the name of Bertram or that of Bertramnus or under that of Ratram or Intram or Ratramnus or perhaps under several of these different names but indifferent Copies Thirdly He will have it to be in respect of the sense of the Book but an obscure and perplex'd piece whereas Mr. De. Marca openly acknowledges it to be heretical incapable of a good explication and justly censured BUT we cannot conceive how Mr. De Marca's conjecture will appear more probable by these new corrections In effect if it be unjust in Mr. De Marca to accuse without proof witnesses or ground and even without any probability John Scot of an imposture so great as this is what judgment must we make of the accusation which Mr. Arnaud brings under the name of the Author of the Dissertation against Berenger or his followers Who has revealed to him the mystery of this supposition which he so historically deals out to us Where are the Adversaries of Berenger who have reproached him with this deceit or those of his Party Where are the Manuscripts which help him to this discovery 'T is apparent there needs a great stock of confidence to form accusations of this consequence without any proof For my part I may accuse the Disciples of Paschasus with more likelihood for having attributed their Masters Books to names of far greater renown than his Whilst I write this I have before me the Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin of which in fine we know Paschasus to be the Author Yet has this Book passed hitherto for S. Hildephonsus's Arch-Bishop of Toledo and in a Manuscript which I have by me it appears that this supposition is made designedly by a Priest of the 10th Century named Gomezan who pretends that this Book was brought from Spain by a Bishop called Gotiscalc and this good man has carried on the supposition so far as to
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
done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against the Book of the Perpetuity till Mr. Arnaud hath shewed them to be Invalid ALthough the Passion which appeareth throughout Mr. Arnaud's whole Book doth in a manner perswade me that his Censures are not always reasonable yet shall not this hinder me from examining them with a composed Mind If they are found just I ought to make my Advantage of them without minding the sharpness which accompanies them and if they are not the Interest of my Cause requires I should endeavour to manifest the Injustice of them by a modest and Christian Defence AND this Method I intend to use not only in the beginning but likewise in all the following parts of this Work which I dedicate to the discovery of Truth and the advancement of Gods Glory who is the Author and Father of Lights and of Truth IT is certain saith Mr. Arnaud in the beginning of his Book that provided Mr. Claude may be granted the Priviledge which he immediately lays hold on of inventing and supposing what he lists he takes a very sure way to conclude from thence what he pleases I only admire that while he fancies he has this peculiar Liberty he yet still busies himself in writing Books For he can absolutely determine all our Differences with a great deal less trouble For he has no more to do but only immediately to suppose that the Reason is on his side and that the Catholicks are in the wrong and so the whole Controversie will be at an end and thus may he satisfie himself with writing half a Page instead of an entire Answer for it decideth the whole 'T is but supposing that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath gotten the Victory over the Romish Schools and that he has manifested to all the World the Change the Roman Church hath made That the Proofs are clear strong and numerous which make the Change sensibly apparent and that he hath not been opposed with any other than false and imaginary Reasonings What need is there then of any other reply and to what purpose does Mr. Claude take upon him all this Trouble Calvinism hath now won the Day and Catholick Religion is utterly Routed THE right of opposing to the reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity the Proofs of the matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book and to speak our Thoughts concerning it is not so marvelous nor such an extraordinary design that Mr. Arnaud should need raise such a Contest about it This Author having undertaken to make us confess if we are not desperately obstinate that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity and having made use of no other reasonings for this purpose but those which are taken from the moral Impossibility of this Change which we believe hath hap'ned Common Sense convinces us that he is bound to examine the Proofs of Matters of Fact on which the Opinion he would root out of our Minds is established for till then all his Arguings will be to no purpose Neither can we justly be denied the Liberty of mentioning these Proofs according to our real Thoughts For seeing we offer them against the Author of the Perpetuity only as a prejudication which hinders us from heark'ning to his Arguments it is therefore very requisite we should speak our Thoughts about them to the end that if this Author continues in the design of bringing us to an acknowledgment of what he pretends he especially take care to remove as much as in him lies those things which render all his other Endeavours ineffectual I do not at all doubt if mens Minds were free from Prejudice but it would be granted that Mr. Aubertin's Book doth perfectly decide the Controversie touching the Eucharist It being a complete Piece in which this matter is searched to the bottom He hath answered those who have treated on this Subject before his time and yet his Book has layn even to this present unanswer'd which is a sufficient Reason to presume he hath gotten the better and that his Proofs let Mr. Arnaud say what he will are plainly evident and numerous but for as much as it is needful for the ending of a Difference and quieting Contradiction to suppose Principles granted by both Parties and seeing the Church of Rome doth neither agree in the Proofs nor in the Change here in Question I do thereupon freely confess the Controversie lyes still open in this respect and that in general we cannot stop any mans mouth by the simple supposition of the Strength and Solidity of that Book for every Man is at liberty and hath Right if he pleases to examine and answer it BUT had not Mr. Arnaud suppressed a great part of what I wrot on this Subject as well in my first as second Answer it would immediately appear I have bin so far from making such a claim as that wherewith he chargeth me that I have every where expresly maintained the contrary SEEING that Mr. Aubertin has made it appear by express Passages taken out of the Fathers these are the Words in my first Answer That Transubstantiation was unknown to the antient Church we may then well conclude there has hap'ned a Change especially considering that this same Transubstantiation was not heard of till the 11th Century Now considering this for a Man to Philosophize on the impossibility thereof is to give himself a great deal of Trouble to no purpose If there yet remain'd any thing farther to be done it would be to shew that the Passages produced by Mr. Aubertin are either false or alleaged impertinently against Transubstantiation but to pass by these matters of Proof which are clear express and conclusive to adhere to I know not what kind of pretended impossibility this is to trifle with the matter in hand OBSERVE here again what I said in my second Answer We had reason to hope that the Author treating my Abridgment in the respects and relations which the sequel of its Reasons oblige him to should have applyed himself unto one of these two things EITHER to make it appear that Mr. Aubertin ' s Proofs on which we have relyed are false and of no force or that the Consequence which is pretended to be drawn from them is untrue That is to say it do's not follow a thing is possible altho it be made apparent that this very thing has actually hap'ned WHEN a man makes Suppositions of this kind how absurd is it to say such a one puts himself in Possession of any Priviledge or usurps that marvelous Right of terminating Differences or deciding Controversies by groundless Suppositions For I not only give this Author of the Perpetuity the liberty of opposing Mr. Aubertin's Proofs and to shew if he can the falsity of them but I conjure him so to do being engaged thereunto by the consideration of his own Reputation and the necessity of this Course to end the Controversie Now if this may be stiled
way to obtain the end of what he designs Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity as will appear in the following Chapter We have reason to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions he I say who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusations against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method upon the Defects I found therein provided I establish Truth and Reason But this doth not well agree with what he saies here That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject but only this That he lay down good Principles and draw thence true Conclusions For the falsity of Principles or Consequences proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter or Form of an Argument in Particular than in a Method in General CHAP. III. THE third Observation justified viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has bin to blame in pretending to overthrow the Proofs contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere Conjectures MR. Arnaud seems unwilling to grant That the Author of the Perpetuity has endeavoured to invalidate our Proofs of Matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by his Arguments and thereupon has only proposed the Question in these Terms viz. Whether a man may not argue against matters of Fact And takes it for granted Lib. 1. Ch. 2. he may in some particular Cases It is then our part to shew he wanders from the Point and that the Author of the Perpetuity has not only designed to oppose but even overthrow by his arguings our Proofs of Fact so that the Question now is whether this Endeavour of his is just or unjust whether according to a regular Course or contrary to it AND for this purpose I shall only desire Mr. Arnaud to consider That the Design of the Method or advantage expected by it as it hath bin expresly declared in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise Is to bring any unprejudiced Person to acknowledge the Church of Rome ' s Belief touching the Eucharist to be the same with that of all Antiquity and this new Method is proposed to remedy an Inconveniency usually attending that ordinary Method called Discussion wherein it frequently happens that men seldom sufficiently comprehend the strength of Proofs because they are not considered in their right order which ever so placeth them as that they mutually assist and fortifie each other I need but entreat him likewise to remember the first Title of the Treatise before it was printed when it was put into my Hands to be answered which was as follows A Treatise containing an easie Means to convince Hereticks by shewing them there has no alteration bin made in the Churches Belief touching the Eucharist as I already observed in the Preface before my Answer Lastly I have no more to request of him but only to remember the new Title under which the first Treatise and them which followed were published which is The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist For what else can be expected from a man that promises to make us confess the Church of Romes Belief is the same with that of all Antiquity and hopes to convince us of the Truth of this but that he should invalidate all our Proofs of matters of Fact by which we think we have established the reality of an Innovation Would Mr. Arnaud grant me the favour to suppose a while that I am not obstinate and I will likewise on the other hand suppose I was mistaken in Mr. Aubertin's Book and that the Perswasion I had of the truth of his Proofs concerning an Innovation hath bin false Now should the Author of the Perpetuity pretend that his Method is able to undeceive me and dissipate all the false Impressions which Mr. Aubertin's Proofs have wrought in my Mind should he I say pretend to this he has imagined as I have already mentioned that he is able by his Arguments to invalidate our Proofs and again on the other hand if he pretends not to do this he hath bin certainly to blame in saying He would convince Hereticks and make them acknowledge if they are not Invincibly Obstinate the Perpetuity of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence We shall see by what follows whether or no Mr. Arnaud has upheld the honour of so great a Design or whether he has not abated something of it I shall content my self at present with only shewing the pretension of the Author of the Method IT cannot be alleadged in his behalf he had not these aforementioned Proofs in his Mind but only offered his own which he judged conclusive for besides that when a man lays down a Method as sufficient to produce an effect he ought consider whatsoever may hinder the producing of this or the contrary Effect We may farther observe he assaults Mr. Aubertin's Book in this Treatise wherein are contained these Proofs concerning which he could not pretend Ignorance seeing they make up the greatest part of that Book It ought moreover to be considered that he refuteth as I already said in the foregoing Chapter an Account whose whole strength is grounded on these Proofs of matters of Fact an Account which taketh them for its Foundation and borroweth from them whatsoever it would perswade and refutes it not in opposing other Proofs after the same manner but by Arguments Whence it follows he imagins his Arguments are sufficient to overthrow these Proofs it being impossible if they stand firm but that the account of the Change or Innovation should do so too Mr. Arnaud's way of shifting the Question that he might draw on the Reader to another matter is so plainly evident that I need not give him the least hint of it For there is certainly a great Difference betwixt barely Opposing Arguments against our Proofs and pretending to invalidate them by Arguments The first of these may be done without thinking on the second these Arguments may be examined and compared with our Proofs without any other Pretence than the keeping the Mind in Suspence and hindering it from determining on either side Had the Author of the Perpetuity kept himself within these Bounds we should have answered him after another sort but he hath extended his design so far as to bring us to a final Acknowledgment The Question then is not so much about his bare Opposition altho that shall be shewed him at length to be useless and that he cannot expect any advantage from it for the Debate at present consists either in the Justice or Injustice of his Design when he imagined this Opposition was sufficient to convince us notwithstanding our Prejudices against it occasioned by Mr. Aubertin's and other Ministers Proofs BUT to state the Question clearly it ought to be farther supposed that we compare not here the Proofs drawn
more fully in the end they cannot remain in the Church of Rome with a safe Conscience there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands such as are Birth Education Interest Custom and the Example of others which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation They are then obliged to range themselves on the side of the Reformists from whom they receive for a Rule things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry and moreover where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace If it be replied that we must first satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures I answer first that this Principle doth not fall under Debate seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World but only to the particular Opinions of Christians for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly I answer that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures than other Churches seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible she must evidence her self to be a Church which she cannot do if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her and she will not take the Pains to prove it besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture and consequently they suppose its Divinity But in fine I say the Characters of Divinity which shine in all parts of these Writings are so lively and so many in Number that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them if they apply themselves to the Consideration of them with a pure Heart and unspotted Conscience Now this is it to which the meanest Capacity is obliged as well as the greatest and if they do it not their Damnation is just and their Impiety without Excuse AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly But to return to the principal Subject of our Dispute we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud in that he takes it not ill I endeavour to prove by several Passages that the Alteration pretended to be impossible is real and true The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it and if he doth agree to it he must suffer me to draw this Consequence that I could have hindred the Effect he promised himself from his Method which is to make us confess if we are not extream Obstinate that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament is the same with that of all Antiquity This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us and the Production of some Passages of my Writings starteth a particular Debate which Mr. Arnaud approveth for he only complains I have not produced them in a right manner but mained and dislocated from their Consequences and that I have concealed all those which might be opposed and understood But this Complaint is Unjust and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment which is That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins whose Proofs I take upon me to defend If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio into a Preface neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer which contains no more than thirty Pages I never pretended that my Abridgment alone should absolutely determine his Thoughts I know this cannot be expected but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers I design'd to shew them of my Communion what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties the matters of Proof with which it is furnished their Nature and Force do contribute that Truth to it which an Abridgment ought to have and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the same with that of the Fathers and that there has bin made an Alteration for the Principles of this are marked out and their Consequence doth plainly appear that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist for we may easily conclude from what I said that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridgments which allways refer to another work in supposing that the Principles they mark out are clearly established in that Book to which they refer and from whence they draw their Conclusion And this is all that can be desired in this matter but yet this is a way of concluding and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist I confess that to determine his Judgment we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion we must go to the Spring and see whether what is supposed issues thence but it doth not thence follow that the Abridgment is in fault nor that it should be esteemed as a Heap of Difficulties and indeed it would not be an Abridgment if in effect it did not abridge some other work wherein the Matter is handled at large A Heap of Difficulties to speak properly is a Collection of several Objections which are formed against a Doctrine without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections and in short without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled It is certain that in a Controversy this manner of proceeding is confused and captious and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind for as to my part I find that it hath all the Characters of it For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist
may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs and Difficulties brought against them and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture strength of Reason and plain Instructions of their Ministers may give to the mystical Expressions which were then in use These are things wholly different I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of He needed not be brought in question for this seeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter in the beginning of my Answer I affirm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers is in it self a way which is indirect preposterous and very tedious wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings These are my Words and Mr. Daillé has said no more and I do still affirm that if a man examines these Passages apart and protests he finds no obscurity in them we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and which resulteth from an exact consideration of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other is undoubtedly on our side whether these particular Passages which seem at first to be difficult are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them or when their Difficulty should remain it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the certitude of this general Judgment which I mentioned for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity they give us the like Examples in other Matters and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them and satisfy a mans Mind BUT he saith that neither the Romanists nor the Protestants have any reason Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of laâ—e the Discourses of the antient Fathers written by them upon other matters several years before What he saith is true for we should be to blame should we take them for declaratory Sentences But this hinders not but we may still conclude they held not Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because that if they had held these Doctrines they would not have expressed themselves as they do Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines that they held them â—ot Neither does this moreover hinder but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose when he undertook to shew this pretended Contrariety which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me But Mr. Daillé ' s Design saith he is to shew in general that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies and especially in that of the Eucharist Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it because these Difficulties he mentions do shew this way is long and troublesom and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps This I do not deny but on the contrary do ever affirm that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is necessary they would easily be able by the Guidance of common Sense to make this Evident and certain Judgment That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I. IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 't is because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance by making of them contradict one another But return we to the rest of our Observations CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Arnaud assures us viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé ' s Mind that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touching the Eucharist by the Writings of the Fathers seeing they are so obscure and intricate that it is a hard matter to make them agree cannot refuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity in case they judge them evident whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere on the one hand and on the other all they who cannot judge by themselves will acquiecse in these Proofs This Pretension is as ill grounded as the former For there being as I already said two Questions before us the one touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church the first of these which is that of Right respects in general all them of our Communion but the second for as much as it may be decided by History only respects them amongst us who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves So that the Prolixity Difficulty and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions whereon depends that of our Controversies seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought to satisfy their Curiosity neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs they will answer they have no need of it being satisfied with the Word of God and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church they will answer that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity and our Saviours Promises But if we proeeed farther and suppose it be enquired
what was the Humour and Temper of them who held the first Rank even how far their Credit and Authority reached what kind of Instructions they gave the People and after what manner the People received them We must likewise examine the nature of the Change we speak of by what degrees we suppose it has bin introduced by how many ways and means it may be said to be possible For if all this be not distinctly known how can it with any Confidence be affirmed that this Change is impossible Moreover before it can be affirmed as an undoubted Truth that had an Innovation touching the Eucharist bin attempted the People would have risen into Tumults the Religious clamour'd against it the Ecclesiasticks opposed it and the Councils taken notice of it and in short the Bands of an external Communion would have bin broken how many particulars must be cleared up first We ought to know what kind of Zeal People had for the Glory of God in those Days whether the effects of this Zeal could not be hindred by I know not how many things which occur in these different Orders of men whom I mentioned as Ignorance in some simplicity and meanness of Spirit in others the fear of disturbing the publick Peace the Favour or Hatred of Persons and several other humane Causes which set men on acting or desisting from it We should likewise have a true and particular Account of the Condition of the schismatical Churches at that time when Berengarius was condemned which is not an easy matter as will appear in the sequel of this Discourse In a Word to attain the ends of the Design of this Treatise when even its Proofs should be Substantial and Conclusive a man must be more knowing than an Angel for unless we knew the Thoughts of all mankind for the space of two hundred Years together or could raise the Dead to inform our selves by them of what they have done and what they have not done it is not otherwise possible to be at any certainty But it will be perhaps answered we must judge according to the Light of common Sense and what we see in our times to which I reply that even common Sense shewes us that there is no certainty in these kind of Proofs and that the Experience of our own Age contradicts them And when it should be imagined that all these Difficulties are surmounted I come then and trouble this Victory with my Aubertin and Proofs of Fact requiring before the Question be decided that my Objection be answered Now should Mr. Arnaud pretend my Objection is groundless and that I should be silenced in being told that these Proofs have bin considered and their pretended Clearness appears only to them who suffer themselves to be transported by the Enthuthiasms of my Rhetorick I shall make him answer that I speak here only of curious and lazy People to whom the Treatise of the Perpetuity is offered as a short Method to ease them of the lengths of a way of Discussion which sort of Persons cannot say they know all our Proofs I shall tell him moreover that the reading of my Book has not yet so far transported People with Enthusiastical Raptures as the reading of his has done to his immortal Praise For there are Latin Verses under this very Title of Enthusiasms which Mr. Arnauds Friends its seems have not bin ashamed to print in which there appears all the lively Characters of a Poetical Fury For they speak of his Book as of the Sun which contains in it self a great measure of the Divine Light His Lines are called new Darts of the Sacred Cupid and his whole Book is said to be full of God Puro Numine mi Libelle Plenus It is compared to our Saviour himself when he came down from Heaven and is said to have done the same Miracles there is one of its Readers introduced who being filled with its Divinity cries out Numen ecce Numen ibi Numen Mr. Arnaud is termed Vir sacro numinis entheatus oestro and his Wit Mentis vigor entheus and again he is set forth to us as an Hercules armed with Coelestial Weapons trampling all things under his Feet conquering the Conquerours themselves and triumphing over the Triumphers In short France is congratulated upon the Glory it receives Tanto prodigio superba fulge felix prodigio futura tanto All which considered has not Mr. Arnaud pertinently mentioned Enthusiasms Certainly never the Tripos of Delphos nor the Grove of the Sibyl Cumeé inspired such like Ravings BUT to return to the matter in hand Is it not possible will some say to be ascertained of the matter in Question by some way less tedious and intricate than the examination of such a great Volum as Mr. Aubertin's Book Yea without doubt for to know as much as is necessary to the satisfying of a mans Mind he need but judge according to the instincts of Charity and the Confidence he ought to have in our Saviours Promises Now if a man keeps to these Principles he will draw a Conclusion as satisfactory as can be desired The Promises of our Saviour assure us that his Spirit shall be with the Faithful to the end of the World and Christian Charity obliges us to believe that the Fathers are of this Number From whence I conclude that there has ever bin a considerable number of true Christians whose Faith has not bin corrupted by damnable Errors This is a sure Conclusion and sufficient to satisfy my Mind I conclude likewise that the Fathers have bin of this Number this is a Judgment of Charity and is sufficient to acquit me of my Duty Should it be told me if I proceed farther it would be to give my self a great deal of Trouble viz. to Read Study and Meditate to compare the Proofs of both Parties and if this offends me I can complain of no body but my self that is to say of my own Lazyness or Curiosity IT is then neither just nor necessary to require any other abridged Methods than those which I now observed Yet it must not be thought but that there may be such offered it being no difficult matter For 't is but loosing from the Body of the Dispute one of those captious Arguments which seem to decide the whole Controversy by the Decision of one only Point Which the Author of the Perpetuity has done for he has singled out Bellarmins Argument of the Impossibility of a Change and proposed it with greater Enlargments tho with less Force than he and this is all the Mystery of this great Method of Prescription So that this is not such a famous Undertaking seeing every little Sophister could do as much Take the Argument of the silence of the Fathers on Transubstantiation and the real Presence insist largely thereon write a Treatise on it and here 's then an abridged Method Take the Argument of the certainty of our Senses shew that the Fathers supposed it as an inviolable
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
of Rome and in fine may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Example Which is the Summary of the first Chapter II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect and contrary to Nature seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book and that after an indirect and artificial Manner which lies as a Prejudication against him Which is the Summary of the second Chapter IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds does nothing less than this whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless Which are the Contents of the third Chapter V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity in pretending to defend him and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise VI. That these Methods of Prescription which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in are vain and ineffectual and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short certain and easy to the meanest Capacities whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers are tedious difficult uncertain and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome VII That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact which I offer'd in my first Answer has bin regular and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter VIII That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity in relation to the Learned and Unlearned and to those he terms the Obstinate are groundless Imaginations which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters IX And lastly that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter BOOK II. Wherein is shown that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek and other Eastern Churches touching Transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist and must endeavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insultings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Triumph seeing all the World knows it For the Author of the Perpetuity has 2d Part of the Perpetuity C. 5. P. 256. already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing is continually charging us with Absurdities Rashness Confidence Convictions Demonstrations and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs He tells the World in his Preface that he hath left us no reason P. 11. to doubt in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christian Churches in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation He tells us moreover in L. 2. C. 2. P. 113. another place that this is a Point most clear and evident and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy we should confess as much our selves and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World it had already gotten the Name of Invincible like to that Legion of old under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pretended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations Now if it be enquired of Mr. Arnaud what Advantage he can expect from this whole Controversy He will tell us it is the Interest of the Catholick Church and that be L. 2. C. 2. P. 115. will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of his Hand seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World That God preserves all these Christian Societies altho divided from his Church and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite extinguisht amongst them to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have hitherto made use of this Argument he will tell you that no In his Prefa P. 10. one yet hath exactly handled this matter Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church and this Proof which is one of the most famous she hath whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion in respect of this Mystery was reserved for Mr. Arnaud and that the Divine Providence has not withheld for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise which was to be the Admiration of the Universe You must not then think it strange if he himself after this hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes and Dedicated even to the Head of the Romish Church and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World And this Honour has not bin wanting to it THE Author of the Enthusiasms says that as the Son of God before his Birth purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner and having wrought this Miracle left the Virgins Bosom to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book when as yet in the Bosom of its Author has replenished a great Man with its Divinity and having begun its Miracles by this Conversion was published in the time of this late Peace made in the Roman Church So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum numine numini libellum aequare ut gravibus licet Poetis Iis omnibus diem subibis O quantum omnibus
Belpherus the Satrapas of Persia and Assyria against Romainus Sur-named Diogenes Emperour of the Greeks JAMES de Vitry who makes almost the same Observations touching Jacobus de Vitriacâ— L. 1. C. 14. Gods Displeasure against his Church addeth moreover a thing very likely which is that the Carelesness and Ignorance of the Prelates and the several Heresies which had then Infected the East occasioned the succesfulness of the Mahometan Religion LEO Allatius discoursing of the State of the Greeks during the twelfth Allat de Eccle Occid Orien Perpe Consens L 2. C. 13. Century tells us that after the Death of the Emperor Emanuel the Grecian Empire began every Day to Decay either by the Incursions of them of the West and the Barbarians of the East or else through the softness and delicacy or Tyranny of the Emperors or Avarice of their Ministers and frequent Insurrections of the Nobility till such time as at length this Empire was miserably oppressed by the Armies of the Latins Religion it self likewise was involved in the Ruin of the Empire for matters were no longer determined by Reason and Honesty but by Rage and Hatred which transported mens Spirits into Rashness and Fury At that time all things were in Confusion Divine and Prophane the Just and Unjust were mixt together without any Discrimination and these Christians who had indeed no more of Christianity but the Name instead of obeying the Doctrine of the Church minded nothing but how to be revenged on their Enemies WILLIAM de Rubruquis an Emissary sent by Pope Innocent the fourth Ruâ—â—n quâ—s his Voyage C. 13. to the Tartars in the Year 1253. Relates that the Allains which are saith he a kind of Christians that speak the Greek Language and have Grecian Priests but are so Ignorant that they know not any of the Ceremonies belonging to the Christian Religion and scarcely have learned any thing more than the Name of Christ. THE Author of the History of the Council of Florence relates a matter Syropul Sec. 3. C. 7. which sufficiently shews the Ignorance and small Capacity of the Greeks for he tells us that when the Emperor John Paleologus determined to go in Person to the Council and take along with him some of his Clergy he sent for Marcus of Ephesus and George Scholarius who altho they were the most Learned in the Empire yet were fain to apply themselves to the studying of Cabasilas's Treatise and to sent to Mount Athos for Books to the end they might be instructed in the Points Controverted between the two Churches AND 't is in effect in the Monasteries of this Mount wherein hath for a long time bin confined all the Knowledg and Learning of this Church to Lib 4. C. 8. P. 400. which Mr. Arnaud Consents for he tells us that this Place is the Seminary of all the Religious in the East because they who are there Educated do afterwards disperse themselves over all the Provinces of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and are usually setled as Superiours over the rest So that adds he the Doctrine of Mount Athos is the same of that of all the Religious of the East and the Belief of the Religious of the East is the same with that of all the Bishops who are all taken hence Whereupon we may conclude I think from Mr. Arnaud's own Testimony that the Knowledg at Athos is that of all Greece and consequently to understand wherein consists this Knowledg we need but Read what they Relate who have travelled into these Countries The Greeks belonging Belon's Observatiuns L. 3. C. 39 40. to the Monastery of Mount Athos saies Belon have bin far more Learned heretofore than at present There are not any of them now but are very Ignorant there being not to be found above one knowing Calojer in each Monastery He that desires to have Books of Divinity in Manuscripts may be furnished with some but as for any Books of Philosophy or Poetry they have none We must attribute this loss of Greek Books to the Carelessness and Ignorance of that People who are totally Degenerated And not only within our own Memory but for a long time there has not bin any Learned Man thro out all Greece Amongst the six thousand Calojers that Inhabit the Mountain in so great a Multitude I say scarcely can we find above two or three in a Monastery that can Write and Read JOHN Cottovic speaking of the Monks of this Mount and others that inhabit Itinebar Hiâ—rosol Syr. L. 2. C. 6. the Mountains of Sinay and Olympus tells us they apply themselves particularly to Husbandry that they Live on their Labour and that there are few of them addicted to Study the greatest part of them being very Stupid and Ignorant HE that wrot the Voyage of Mr. De la Haye who went Embassador from the late King to Constantinople gives almost the same account of the Learning Mr. Hays Voyage Paris Edit 2. 1629. P. 338. of those good Religious we Visited saith he Mount Athos which they of that Country call the Holy Mountain because of five thousand Calojers who live in great Austerity in twenty three Monasteries about it these Religious are of St. Basils Order and acknowledge the Patriarch of Constantinople for their Head They are greater Lovers of an Active than a Contemplative Life for there are few of them that can read so that the greatest part employ themselves in Tilling of the neighbouring Grounds which are very fertil De Graecor recentior haer ad Greg. XIII L. 6. Ms. ex biblio Reg. P. 75. ANTHONY Caucus Arch-Bishop of Corfu giving an Account to Pope Gregory the thirteenth of the State of the Greek Church in his time describes it after this manner There is no body but knows saies he that the Arts and Sciences came from Greece as the Hero 's out of the Trojan Horse But it is now much otherwise for I found so much Ignorance of all things amongst these modern Greeks and especially the Priests that have the charge of Instructing the People that scarcely do they know how to read the Church Service And we need not be astonished at this for those that are called to the Exercise of the Ministry are Tradesmen who leaving their Shops and Trades become immediately Papa's It is ordinarily observed in Greece that to day you may see a man who is a Taylor to become to morrow a Priest To day he is a Perfumer or Barber who the next day is a Papas To day a Goldsmith and to morrow a Prelate If you ask them concerning their Belief or Ceremonies and require a Reason for their Customs they return no other Answer but they follow their Predecessors If you proceed farther and ask who these Predecessors were they become mute THE same John Cottovic whose Testimony I already produced concerning the Monks of Mount Athos Olympus and Sinay affirms the Religious thro out all Greece to be no better
Gain but one of them and you gain them all but if one of 'em holds out and will not yield what you have done already signifies nothing Discoursing of the Mission of Aleppo he say's that the Bishop of the Syrians at Aleppo before his Ordination conceived a great hatred against the Syrian Heresie and turn'd Catholick and within a while went to Rome from whence returning he was Consecrated by the Patriarch of the Maronites and settled in the Syrian Church at Aleppo From whence being constrain'd to withdraw he was brought there again at the request of the Curats and by the Assistance of Mr. Piquet He generously serves adds he Almighty God amongst his own people whom he exhorts to keep stedfast to the Church of Rome And thus have the Endeavours of our Emissaries been assisted by the Divine Grace which we doubt not but will prove of great consequence to the Syrians seeing that in gaining a person of his merit they have done as much as if they had converted a whole Nation The Sieur Stochove speaking of the Jesuits at Galata These Fathers Endeavours say's he have not been ineffectual amongst the Hereticks and Schismaticks Stochovius ' s Voyages p. 98. for they converted several Greek Bishops and disposed others in case of any Revolution to abhere to the Roman Church I acquainted my self say's Busbequius the Emperour's Embassadour with Metrophanus the Metropolitain and Superiour of the Monastery of Chalcy he Busbeq Voyages lib 4. p. 5. 26. is an honest and learned Man and one that passionately desires the re-union of the two Churches contrary to the custom of his Nation who detests them of our Communion as prophane and impure Persons GOUVEAU the Monk relating how he and other Augustin Portugaises Gouveau's relation lib. 5. 3. proceeded in order to the Re-union of the Armenians in Persia to the Roman Church tells us that they particularly applyed themselves to the winning David their Patriarch making use of him afterwards as an instrument to prevail on the Bishops and all the rest of the People NOW tell me I pray after this with what sincerity the Greeks and other Eastern Christians can be alledged in this matter they are won by Money several pretences are made use of by the Emissaries to introduce themselves into their houses they prevail on their Bishops not making them publickly change their Religion but leaving them in the same Communion wherein they find them to the end that they may likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith Now what can be said of these people but that if they believe Transubstantiation it not appearing they believed it before all these Intrigues they have received this Doctrine from the Emissaries by these indirect ways which they practise BUT this is not all for one of the most usual and effectual Courses they take to establish insensibly and without any noise the Roman Religion in Greece and amongst all other Nations is the instruction of their Youth which employment they commonly take upon them wheresoever they come for under pretence of instructing them in Human Learning they instil into their minds the Principles of the Romish Faith so that a great part of the Greek Prelates are of this number that is to say their Schollars having received from them in their tender Age a favourable Opinion of the Roman Church WE are inform'd by the Author of M. de la Haye's Voyages who was Voyages of M. de la Haye c. 5. pag. 125. Embassador to the late King of France that the Jesuits at Galata are very succesful in their undertakings in this kind for besides their Preaching and Confessions they instruct all the Youth as also the Schismaticks whom they have convinced for the most part of them of their Errors so that several Principal Greek Bishops and Archbishops who have been their Schollars do favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and are capable of doing it great Service THE Sieur Stochovius speaks to the same effect the Greeks say's he do Stochov Voyages pag. 98. not at all scruple the sending their Children to School he means to that of the Jesuits wherein they are instructed as well in the Catholick Religion as in Human Learning And discoursing of the Isle of Chios he tells us that the Jesuits have a strong-built Convent there besides a fair Church that they are twenty in number who are all of them naturaliz'd and take upon them according to their custom the instruction of Youth and bring divers over to the true Religion The Carmelites adds he have a Church and Convent there who likewise apply themselves to the instructing of Youth and convert divers from the common Heresie of the Greeks THE Sieur du Loir tells us likewise that the Jesuits of Galatia keep Loir's Voyages pag. 67. Thevenot part 1 c. 61. School for the Children of the Greeks and Armenians And the Sieur Thevenot informs us that in the Isle of Chios there is a Convent of Capucins who teach human Learning and the Christian Doctrine to several Children who repair thither He tells us in another place that in the Isle of Andria the Capucins do greatly ease the Bishop by their Preachings and Confessions and by Chap. 13. their School to which go all the Greek Children and that some are sent from Athens for that purpose LA Boulaye le Goux tells us that the Jesuits have a convenient House at Boulay's Voyages part 1. c. 9. Relat. of St. Erinys c. 5. Smyrna wherein they instruct the Greek Children And the same do they at St. Erinys as appears by the relation of Richard the Jesuit who introduces another Jesuit speaking as follows I set open my School every day to all that will come and learn any thing being ever ready and most willing to instruct Youth as well out of Obedience to my Superiour who earnestly recommended to me this course as for that likewise it has been revealed to me from Heaven that this is the surest way to reform by degrees the Greek Church and perhaps one of the most likeliest means to maintain us in these forraign Countries IT already appears by these Testimonies that one of the principal things recommended to the Emissaries when they are to be sent abroad is the Education of Children as an infallible means to set up the Romish Religion in the midst of these people and that the Emissaries on their side do well acquit themselves in this particular But the Author of the Book called A Description of the Holy Land delivers himself more plainly For discoursing how the Jesuits employ themselves in the City of Aleppo he tells us that their chief business is to instruct Youth which has always been esteemed a matter of great importance and highly conducing to the reformation of these Nations Observe I beseech you what he says that the Emissaries do not only carefully apply themselves to this and that by order from their Superiors but that
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
He sets himself upon proving to no purpose that the Greeks do not believe as we do the Sacrament to be a Figure or Representation and that they are not Berengarians 4. He maintains that the Point in question is to know whether they believe the Real Presence and that the Dispute turns especially on this hinge 5. He set himself to shew that the Greeks never made Transubstantiation a point of Controversie with the Latins Now all this is no more than a general Illusion which alters the state of the Question CHAP. II. The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the Term of Transubstantiation The second from their not expresly teaching the Conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion MY first Proof is taken from the Greeks not using the Term of Transubstantiation when they explain their belief touching the Eucharist And this Arcudius himself who cannot be suspected by the Roman Church seeing he is a Person devoted to its Interests is forc'd to confess in the same place where he would perswade us that the Greeks believe the Conversion of Substances In the Sacrament of the Eucharist say's he the Greeks acknowledge embrace and believe with a firm Arcud lib. 3. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 2. Faith veram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a real Transubstantiation as it appears by the Testimony of the ancient Greek Fathers of all Ages and lately by that of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople in the tenth Chapter of his Censure of the Lutherans So far he agrees with Mr. Arnaud but what follows does not well accord with what he said before And altho they use not this Term yet have they invented others by which they explain themselves as fully as can be desired Dicunt enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliaque id genus we shall by what follows whether he has reason to say these Terms signifie and express areal Transubstantiation it suffices me at present to represent what he acknowledges That they use not the Term of Transubstantiation This justifies it self by the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius a real false Greek whom Mr. Arnaud produces with so great ostentation and that which shall be considered in its place vox etenim say's he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transubstantiatio tametsi nova quodammodo videatur a pluribus non libenter ut recens suscipiatur licet nihilominus c. This Term of Transubstantiation altho it seems in some sort new and that several by reason of its novelty do not willingly receive it c. These several he speaks of are all the true Greeks which is to say all them which are not as Paysius who holds intelligence with the Latins I might likewise here produce the Testimony of Mr. Basire Arch-Deacon of Northumberland and Chaplain to his Majesty of Great Britain a worthy Person exquisitely Learned exemplary for his Virtue and well versed in Languages who has not only voyaged into Greece and other Eastern Parts but has lived there a considerable time and publickly Preached in the Greek Churches For in one of his Letters he sent me and out of which I shall produce hereafter some Articles he assures me he has carefully read several publick Writings of the Greeks as their Symbols Confessions and Catechisms to see whether he could find the Term of Transubstantiation in them which he could not find in any of them He farther adds that one of these false Greeks which the Latins make use of for the propogating of their Doctrines in these Countries having compiled a Catechism wherein he had inserted the Term of Transubstantiation he was censured for it by the true Greeks But all these Testimonies are not necessary seeing we may read a great many of these authentick Pieces of the Greeks as their Canons collected by Balsamon Zonaras and several others part of their Liturgies inserted in the Library of the Fathers their Euchology given us by James Goar a Dominicain their Pontificia published by Mr. Habert Bishop of Vabres the Confession of Faith which their Prelats make at the time of their Ordination the Typick that is to say the Book that regulates every days Office with their Festivals Fasts and Solemnities their Anthology which particularly contains the Offices for Festivals their Horologies consisting of daily Prayers and many other Ecclesiastical Books a great number of which we find in the dissertation Leo Allatius wrote on this Subject Mr. Arnaud who has made an exact search by himself and Friends cannot produce one passage that bears the expression of Transubstantiation which in my judgment is an evident token that 't is not in them We may see likewise the Books of their most approved Authors as of John Damascene Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius Theophilact Oecumenius Zonaras Germain Balsamon Nicetas Choniatus Cabisilas Marc of Ephesus Jeremias the Patriarch Metrophanus and as many others whose works are extant in which we find no such expression as answers that of Transubstantiation Neither can it be said that this expression being new and found out but since the Contest with Berengarius the Greeks have therefore no such word in their Language whereby perfectly to express this seeing they have the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly Transubstantiation We have already seen that Arcudius and Paysius Ligaridius have observed it in effect the Latinis'd Greeks do commonly use it and it was ever inserted in the Formulary of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they embrace the Romish Religion as I shall make it appear hereafter And Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to acknowledge this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Lib. 4. c. 6. pag. 387. that which the Greeks ordinarily use whereby to explain Transubstantiation He should have said they used it not in the explication of their Creed Moreover he needed not insert the word Ordinarily for 't is certain they do neither use it ordinarily nor extraordinarily BUT it may be perhaps replyed It does not follow that they do not believe with the Latins the Doctrine represented under this Term altho they use not the Term it self I answer first that if we suppose the Greeks ever held this Opinion as Mr. Arnaud would perswade us there could not be any reason given why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has not been found all this while in use amongst their Authors and so much the more because we find that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them For the Latins who had not in common use either the Term of Substantiatio nor Substantiare have therefore invented and admitted of that of Transubstantiatio and Transubstantiare as most proper to express their conceptions on that Subject so that this very consideration That we find not these kind of expressions in the Writings of the Greeks is a kind of proof that they believed not the thing signified by them Moreover the Latins having Invented the Term of Transubstantiation how comes
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding 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 and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâ—m 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
acknowledges them to be Types and Figures because he would have a difference made they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Christ But this is not to say they ought to give to the Gifts either before or after their Consecration an honour which terminates it self in them alone AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Thessalonica we have no other Ibid. assurance of the truth of these passages than the bare word of Allatius that is to say of a passionate man ready to assert and maintain any thing right or wrong for the interest of the Court of Rome We shall have occasion to speak more of him hereafter but in the mean time shall only say that the words of Simeon be they what they will do not conclude we ought to yield the Gifts an absolute honour which terminates it self in that Substance which the Priest carries on his head when he enters into the Church THE passage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted as of Gabriel de Philadelphia Second part pag. 257. was more specious but because Cardinal Perron from whom 't was borrow'd does not recite the Greek Text and Arcudius who relates some clauses thereof describes him as a Person void of all kinds of Learning either in Divinity Philosophy or Grammar and that moreover the same Arcudius assures us the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sacrament after its Consecration I therefore said I would suspend my Judgment till I could ascertain my self by reading the Book it self MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticisms and willingly passes over the Answer to the 2. Treat of Perp 2. part cap. 8. matter that he might fasten on the Person imagines he has found here a lucky occasion to triumph over me But I am sorry to find my self oblig'd to disturb his Enjoyments which I would not do could I well avoid it I affirm then first I had reason to suspend my Judgment because that to judge aright of the sence of an Author it is not sufficient that we see a passage translated into French by Cardinal Perron For besides that his Translations are not always very exact as several have observ'd no more than those of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament according to their Relations that have examin'd them 't is probable this passage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand by Persons unknown to us and for whose Fidelity he was not willing to answer In effect forasmuch as he has not inserted the Greek in the Margent as he has done in the most part of his other Quotations may justly give us a shrewd suspition of this Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Transubstantiation which Mr. Arnaud himself confesses is not an usual expression with the Greeks There is likewise mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain which is not the usual Style of the Greeks I have then wrong'd no body when I suspended my Judgment but have rather done what I and every man else ought to do in the like occasion I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this altho he pretends I was for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reason there being several things which pass there in which he takes no part BUT say's he Arcudius Mr. Claude ' s great Author relates several passages Ibid. out of Gabriel which are as expressive as that now in question I answer that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to suspend my Judgment because that in it there are several Contradictions and manifest Absurdities as I shewed in my Answer to Father Noüet which the Reader may consult if he desires information touching this particular I confess adds Mr. Arnaud that having not the least reason to doubt of the Ibid. Sentiment of this Author touching the passages produced by Arcudius I have therefore avoided giving my self the trouble to inquire after his Book And I for my part profess I am not so easily satisfi'd for I cannot thus take things upon trust What shall we say every one has his way Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing but mine is not so hasty and indeed I never had cause to repent of my slowness in this particular reckoning it to be the best way to prevent mistakes Not that I would have him put himself to the trouble of seeking after this Book of Gabriel's as he has proffer'd me to do for our Dispute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbishop whofe Book if we will believe Arcudius is a very extravagant one and the Civilities of such a Person as Mr. Arnaud is may be expected in a weightier occasion BUT as we must not suffer our selves to be prevailed on by his kindness so neither must we suffer our selves to be run down by his Injuries For he charges me with disingenuously suppressing Arcudius his words which would have discovered the true sence of what I cited He chages me with likewise impertinently designing to invalidate the Testimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius I must then justifie my self concerning these two particulars The first of which will be soon dispatched by considering that having in the first Edition of my Books only set down in the Margent the particular places of those Authors where are to be found the passages I made use of I have in the last Edition inserted these passages themselves in full length according as they are in the Original Now that very place of Arcudius in question may be seen there set down at large together with the Clause which Mr. Arnaud say's I have suppressed Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page and he shall find these very words therein Nam etiam postea in elevatione Sacratissimae Hostiae quamtumvis eam non aspiciant quamprimum tamen Sacerdos ea verba protulerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sancta sanctis statim procumbunt cultu Latriae adorant which are the same words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon This is then a groundless Accusation for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition seeing he has mention'd it himself in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book upon occasion of the Council at Nice BUT it will be demanded perhaps why I did not insert into the Body of my Discourse these words of Arcudius which do so plainly manifest his meaning I answer that if I had argued on the sence of Arcudius I should have been to blame in not alledging whatsoever might give light to this sence For when we would draw a true consequence we ought to establish the Principle in a clear and perfect manner to take away all occasion of mistakes But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Person this Arcudius is being a Greek latiniz'd Priest brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks extremely passionate for the Interests of the
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
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
do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Transubstantiation I confess he has not made a Proof thereof as knowing the Matter would not bear it yet has wrote an express Chapter about it and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp hoping by this means to make some Impression on the Mind of his Readers and prepossess them with this Imagination that I alone amongst all the Protestants deny the Greeks believe Transubstantiation THE first he produces is Crusius Professor in the University of Tubinga who says that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood but this is not Transubstantiation there being a vast Difference betwixt this and that Crusius relates the Terms which they use and this is not Contested the Question is whether by these Terms they mean a real Conversion of Substances Which is what we deny HE offers us likewise something out of Grotius against Rivet and sets again before us the Testimony of Forbesius Bishop of Edinburg But we all know these two Persons altho otherwise learned enough especially Grotius suffered themselves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimsical Projects in relation to the Differences between the two Churches which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate and thereupon wrote several things which they did not throughly Examine Moreover Grotius in those Passages alledged by Mr. Arnaud speaks not of Transubstantiation in particular and Forbesius only says that 't was received by most of the Greeks by most Here 's a Restriction Mr. Arnaud says that Forbesius does not prove it But whether he proves it or not we do not much matter for 't is not by such a man and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him to see whether the Testimony of such a man be sufficient He adds he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Protestant but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe and as a great Traveller that he quotes him as St. Augustin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknowledged by this Donatist who was more sincere than his Fellows BUT how comes he to forget so soon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him in citing him Forbesius says he one of the most learned amongst the English Protestants What account does he think we will make of a Person whom he can neither alledg as a Protestant nor Catholick and yet lived in the midst of the Protestants he alledges him says he as a learned Man I grant he may be so But was this learned Man a Jew Turk or Moor whilst Bishop of Edinburg St. Augustin never alledged Tichonius as a Person of this kind that was neither Catholick nor Donatist but as a real Donatist altho Tichonius sincerely acknowledged a Truth which the rest denyed accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church which acknowledg those things others deny altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profess FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud derides the Insolence of Hottinger who Pag. 131. pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confession and shews it does in no wise contain the Faith of the Eastern Churches Felavius does not speak of Hottinger's Infolence but on the contrary calls him Virum doctissimum Clarissimum Hottingerum He grants not indeed with Hottinger that Cyrillus his Confession Praefat. ad Christoph Angel contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church and shews his Reasons but inveighs not against Hottinger thereupon nor particularly mentions Transubstantiation OF all those that Mr. Arnaud alledges there are only Sands and Dannhaverus Professor of Strasbourg who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks and Sands adds a term of Restriction saying that in the main they do in a manner agree with the Church of Rome in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation c. But for two Authors who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection how many others can we produce who stick not to deny there 's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins For not to mention here Kemnitius Boxornius Hospinian and Episcopius whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number we may here name the famous Bishop Morton the Author of a Book intituled Catholick Tradition or a Treatise touching the Belief of the Christians of Asia Europe and Affrica The Learned Saddeel for whom Henry the IV. had such great Esteem and Kindness Mr. Mestrezat Monsieur Ulric Minister of Zurich Mr. Hottinger Professor in the same City Mr. Robert Chreygton an English Doctor who published the History of Syropulus and several others which I mention not because 't is not necessary to make an exact enumeration of them It is sufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the most Learned Protestants in this particular IF some amongst them as Chytreus Breerwood and Hornbeck for Instance who discourse of the Religion of the Greeks say nothing concerning the Article of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw Advantage from their Silence The reason of their Silence is that they set not themselves to the describing any other Points but those that have bin expresly Controverted between the Greek and Latin Church that is to say such Points as have bin openly and solemnly Debated on both sides such as the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost that of the Azymes that of Purgatory and some others All that then can be gathered from this Silence is that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Transubstantiation nor the Latins with the Greeks and that both one and the other contented themselves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expressions without condemning one another But as it does not hence follow that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins so we must not take the Silence of Chytreus Breerwood nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment or tacit Confession that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches Which is what I already answered to the Author of the Perpetuity who would have prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the other Schismatical Communions For I told him that this Author does only transiently observe Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8. the most common different Religions contenting himself to say what People Imbrace or what they positively and expresly Reject without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation as not having heard of them That is to say as neither finding them in the Articles proposed to 'em to Believe nor in those which they were made expresly to Renounce as I have already explain'd Mr. Arnaud sets himself against this Answer and say's I Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133. shew by this that provided I say any thing 't is enough for I trouble not my self whether it be Rational or not
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
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
suppose without proof It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties Gelas Episc Rom. advers Eutych Nest ibid. If the humane Substance say's Gelasius has ceased to be the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine it follows that the humane form having no longer it 's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise And in another place of the same Treatise If they do not deny say's he that Jesus Christ was real man it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance for otherwise he would not be real man Vigil Lib. 5. contra Eutych When you say say's Vigilius that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ And a little farther If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion there would be two Persons one of the Word and the other of the Flesh who would have one and the same common Nature Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2. from the Eucharist in these words The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form Figure Circumscription and in a word it has the Substance of a Body Euthym. Parop Tit. 20. Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. Mâ—ximus which expresly asserts that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12. in Essence introducing a confusion of Natures Even Cardinal Perron himself altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation acknowledged this truth that the Eutychiens held the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained because the Form Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties And it must be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little But to speak better It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations for when he has need of them he can well dispence with them how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455. of Anastasius Sinaite that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which represented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity than to say they meant his very Substance For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens rather than to give the lye to these Authors and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second It consists in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456. that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens that is to say they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures that they condemned Eutyches and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures asserting our Saviour had but one THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons seeing he is pleased to except against them and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference Here are others then which are not to be contemned whether we regard their number or quality The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epist ad Euchistium Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit 4. Treatise of his under the Title De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation and amongst others mentions this that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ in the Union Itidem say's he in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered and altho they durst not openly explain themselves yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do for they take three Crosses and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity Now here is according to Mr. Arnaud a third Impostor that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures He must be excluded as well as Eutychus and Isaac but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian amongst the Greeks who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites and adds sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body uncreated heavenly impassible subtile which is not of the same Substance with ours yet has all the Accidents of Flesh in appearance and after Nicephor Cal. hist Eccles Lib. 18. C. 53. the manner of
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
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
and particular or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them MOREOVER It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are capable of several senses Had they no reason to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words IN fine we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine Is it real Bread and real Wine They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine How can these appearances be this Body and Blood Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread Is it that which was before Bread and Wine But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say that it was before Bread and Wine but now Body and Blood After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself whereas if you understand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body you 'l meet with no difficulty for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind Now when we contend about two senses our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie and less intricate and make us suppose it without proof till such time as it evidently appears that the other altho more difficult yet is the truest COMPARE now I pray our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud and judg which of the two is the most just and natural He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question and have already overthrown and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties and which are apparently conclusive For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature of common lights which regulate the judgments of men the manner of the Sacramental expressions and the most easie and least perplexed sense Neither can it be denied that the nature of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds does not entirely favour this prejudication It is then a thousand times more rational than the other Mr. ARNAVD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged in a literal sense we say the same in respect of those which we alledg but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend Now 't is far more reasonable to establish a particular right on particular advantages than to establish it on a common thing For from that which is common to both parties there can arise no particular privilege The third Reflection ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense and not in a sense of Transubstantiation or Real Presence yet in the answers we make we do not absolutely make use of this right For before we return our answers we establish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding when he produces some of my Answers and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs from which they draw their light and strength FOR example when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections which bears That Hereticks receive not the Eucharist Answer to the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. and the Oblations because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins I said that Ignatius's sense was That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body as if he had no real Body which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks as appears by Tertullian ' s Disputes against Marcion but that the Bread is the Sacrament of this true Body which died and rose again This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers which I had already produced and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist not the substance of this Flesh but the Sacrament or Symbol of it which is in it self Bread To take this Answer alone separate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs is a thing that is neither honest nor ingenuous Moreover what I said touching these Hereticks believing our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body as having no true Body of his own is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opinion to Marcion who as every one knows follow'd in this the ancient Hereticks and 't is to no purpose to say That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it For 't is certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist celebrating it in their manner but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ who suffered death and is risen again because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon besides that I can
in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries th' Ecclesiastical order did not abound with famous men and especially the 10th Century 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 HAVING consider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book we must now in order pass on to the 9th whose running Title is The impossibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Mystery of the Eucharist 'T is certain the genuine state of the question is only whether this change has really hapned this other whether 't was possible or impossible is a frivolous question tending to fruitless Speculations and tedious Debates which is what I clearly shew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity And which likewise several Roman Catholicks have acknowledg'd who have written on this Subject since the Author of the Perpetuity Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aside all this part of the In his Preface Dispute and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates wherein the Church of Rome is not concerned nor ought to be mention'd Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publish'd under the name of an Ecclesiastick to one of his Friends distinguishes likewise two quarrels wherein he says I have engaged my self the one against the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the other against the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith and he adds that in this latter I only encounter with a particular person Mr. Pavillon a Priest and Almoner to his Majesty speaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Eucharist The question is not t' examine whether Page 197. the Church could change her belief and how this change could happen for this is a going about the bust and running upon whimsies The question is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned He calls all these pretensions of impossibility frivolous questions and mere whimsies for these Gentlemen do one another right now and then But howsoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart and he obliges us to distinguish on this subject two questions the one whether the change before us has been possible and the other whether it has really hapned 'T is certain that the first appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence as we lately observed for altho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight first Centuries without troubling himself with the following yet 't is easie to perceive that if it could not have place in those Centuries wherein there was greater light it could not by stronger reason in the others wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance Yet for better information in this matter we must see what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impossibility of the change We shall here then discuss again the question whether in supposing that Paschasus an Author of the ninth Century was the first that proposed the Doctrin of the substantial invisible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it might happen that this opinion in succession of time has been receiv'd and establish'd amongst Christians For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th Book and which we shall now examine We shall not in truth find he has made use therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion for he seldom troubles himself about that nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the possibility which I alledged nor defended the Answers of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud does not care to take so much pains But we shall find he has taken care to collect here and there seven or eight passages out of my Book and of them joyn'd together made a body which he calls my Machins and divided them into five orders with titles according to his own fancy He calls the first The Machins of Abridgment the second The Machins of Preparation the third The Machins of Mollifications the fourth The Machins of Execution and the fifth The Machins of Forgetfulness Now altho we may say in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleasant fancies by which he can easily find out odd names to make serious matters look ridiculous yet t' excuse him we may say that in this occasion he has follow'd not his own natural inclination but that of the Cartesian Philosophy with which his mind is said to be extremely taken up for you must know this Philosophy makes Machins of every thing But howsoever let 's see what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine THE first which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my passages the first of which bears That the question is not of the Answer to the second Treatise Part 3. ch 6. Book 9. ch 3. p. 886. whole world but of the West on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name That is to say says he I will not have the question concern it I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has introduc'd it self into the East into the Patriarchats of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem and Antioch into the Churches of the Armenians Nestorians Jacobits I do not care to trouble my self with guessing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia Moscovia Mesopotamia Georgia Mingrelia Moldavia Tartaria and the Indies 'T is better to say 't is not there this is sooner done and by this means I shall free my self out of a great perplexity But says he Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him that he is a man and not God so that neither his words nor his will are always effectual He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Presence to be in all these great Provinces But it is there and will be maugre him The matter depends not on him and we have demonstrated it by proofs which I hope he will not question He fills five great pages with this kind of discourse saying over and over again the same thing Mr. ARNAVD must pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high Is he so possess'd with the charms of his own Eloquence and force of these illusions touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Christians to imagin a man must be a God to cope with him I think considering what we have observed a man need neither be an Angel nor an extraordinary person to demonstrate again clearly that the question concerns not these Churches because they do not at all believe the Roman Transubstantiation and supposing they did believe it which they do not 't would be no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croisado's Seminaries and Missions which is sufficient t' exclude them from this Dispute THE second passage from whence Mr. Arnaud
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
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
dead in it self They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality recommending Hope Charity Humility Chastity Temperance Sobriety and condemn Pride Envy Hatred Variance Drunkenness Calumny Magick Divinations c. HERE we have without question very commendable endeavours but they reach no farther than the instructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality These Fathers in their greatest zeal to reform both themselves and others make no mention of the Real Presence 'T was not then above fifty years when the Dispute was very hot on this subject and Books were wrote on both sides Yet it seems they took no notice of it much less determin to instruct the people in what they ought to hold of it All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greatest parr spent their lives Now this shews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from these essays of a Reformation for supposing they had their whole effect they extended not so far as the question of the Real Presence because they suppose either that the people were not ignorant of it or that the Pastors were themselves so persuaded of it that t was needless to instruct them in it or exhort them to instruct their Flocks in it But what likelihood is there that this in numerable multitude of people of both Sexes and of all Ages and conditions of life that knew not their Creed nor the Lords Prayer and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Christian Religion should know the Doctrin of the Real Presence Were they all in those days born imbued with this Doctrin What likelihood is there those Abbots that knew not the Statutes of their Monasteries and who to excuse themselves from reading 'em when offered to them were forced to say nescimus literas were not likewise greatly ignorant of the Mystery of the Eucharist What reason is there to say the Pastors themselves were commonly instructed in it seeing Odon Abbot of Clugny as we have already seen testifies that those who pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paschasus his Book THERE were likewise other Reformations made in this Century but they served only to establish some order in the Monasteries and the observance of particular Statutes under which the Religious are obliged to live by their profession and this does not hinder but that ignorance and carelesness were very great in respect of the Mystery of Religion AS to the Conversions 't is certain there were some but Mr. Arnaud knows very well the greatest part of 'em were wrought by force or the interests and intrigues of Princes And thus those that were converted might well embrace their Religion implicitly or in gross without troubling themselves with particular Doctrins as the greatest part of the People of the Roman Church do at present In the year 912 according to Matthew of Westminister Rollon or Raoul Duke of Normandy embraced the Christian Religion to espouse Gill the Daughter or Sister of Charles III. King of France In the year 925 Sitricus King of Denmark caused himself to be Baptised to espouse Edgite the Sister of Etelstan King of England but a while after he returned to Paganism In the year 926 Elstan having vanquish'd in Battle several petty Kings which were then in England obliged them and their Subjects to receive the Christian Faith In the year 949 Otton King of Germany having subdued the Sclavonians these people redeemed their lives and Country by being Baptiz'd In the year 965 Poland was converted to the Christian Faith by the Marriage of Miezislaus its King with the Daughter of Boleslaüs Duke of Bohemia John XIII Anti-Pope to Benedict V. sent thither Gilles Bishop of Tusculum to establish under the Authority of the King his Religion in that Country In the year 989 Adalbert Arch-Bishop of Prague went into Hungary to endeavour the conversion of those people but this was under the authority and power of Geisa King of Hungary who was converted by commerce with Christians whom he freely permitted to live in his Kingdom So that all these conversions about which Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity make such a noise to advance the glory zeal and knowledg of the Bishops of the 10th Century do not at all conclude what they pretend LET the Reader then joyn all these things together and judg which of us two has most reason Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impossible that the belief of the Real Presence supposing 't were a novelty in the Church could make any progress therein in the 10th Century without Disputes and Commotions or I who maintain that these progresses were not only possible but easie to be conceiv'd First There were Disputes on this subject in the 9th Century which is a matter of fact not to be denied Secondly Altho the question was therein agitated yet was it not decided by any Council nor by the Church of Rome nor by any other publick Authority Thirdly Those of the 10th Century fell into a very confused knowledg of the Mystery of Christian Religion in general the People the Religious and the greatest part of the Priests and Bishops lived in very gross ignorance and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge as we have fully proved Fourthly Ecclesiastical Discipline was wholly laid aside in this Age and the temporal state of the Church lay in a perpetual and general confusion Fifthly It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Presence was therein preached in several places Sixthly It also appears that that of Paschasus was so too and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles and Pastors exhorted to read Paschasus his Book to be instructed in the Mystery of the Eucharist Seventhly To which we may add that the persons that taught the Real Presence in this Century were people of great credit and authority Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbishop of Canterbury and was in great reputation Th' other Odon who had such an esteem for Paschasus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny a restorer and reformer of several Monasteries of whom Baronius says That he was chosen by God as another Jeremiah Baron ad an 938. to pluck up destroy scatte◠plant and build in that wretched Age. ALL these matters of fact being clearly proved as they are what impossibility is there that the Doctrin of Paschasus which he taught in the 9th Century as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church confirming it as much as he could by several passages of the Fathers taken in a wrong sense no publick Authority having condemn'd it should have followers in the 10th That these his Disciples finding ' emselves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance carelesness and confusion reign'd have themselves communicated
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
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
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
Jesus Christ and pass into the Body of Jesus Christ signifies to transubstantiate in all the languages of the world is a matter ill offered and evidently unjustifiable For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ formally by reason of the union as the sense of these Authors is in the same manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it it is made the Body of Jesus Christ not by any real conversion into this same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which was before but it becomes it by way of addition to this substance or according to the precise explication which Damascen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as we have already seen in the third Book when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks THIS being thus clear'd up 't is no hard matter to answer the passages of Remy which Mr. Arnaud alledges with so great confidence Seeing that a Page 832. Book 8. ch 7. mystery says he is that which signifies another thing if it be the Body of Jesus Christ in truth why call we it a mystery 'T is because that after the Consecration it is one thing and it appears another It appears to be Bread and Wine but 't is in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For God accommodating himself to our weakness seeing we are not used to eat raw Flesh and drink Blood makes these gifts remain in their first form altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I answer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Consecration what they were before to wit simple Bread and Wine that the change which they have received being become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by their union with the natural Body is an invisible thing and that this union does not change any thing of their first form altho it seems it should do it seeing the Bread which our Saviour aet and which became likewise his Body by union took the form of Flesh That God deals otherwise in the Eucharist by way of condescention to our weakness because we cannot suffer this form of Flesh but yet the union ceases not to be true and consequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jesus Christ altho it does not appear to be so This is the true sense of Remy grounded on his own Hypothesis and not that which Mr. Arnaud imputes to him THE second passage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it is conceived in these terms As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world so altho the Body be consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet this is not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Virgins Womb and which he gave to his Apostles And therefore we must observe that whether we take more or less all do equally receive the Body of Jesus Christ entire But first I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this passage a whole sentence to alledg what goes before and what follows and leave out a whole period in the middle without any other reason than that it solves the difficulty and clearly shews Remy's sense Is it fairly done in these kind of disputes to maim passages of Authors which do not make for us Moreover were it some words either before or after we might perhaps suppose in his favour that 't were only an omission or neglect and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the same passage but to retrench a whole sentence from the middle of a discourse is I think a thing without example Here then is what Remy says 'T is one and the same Body and the same Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESVS CHRIST AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRVTH This period eclips'd leaves all the rest of the passage favourable to Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aside according to the liberty which he allows himself of removing whatsoever offends him but this same period re-establish'd shews clearly the sense of Remy which is that all the Loaves consecrated in several places are one and the same Body of Jesus Christ with that which he took of the Virgin not because they are transubstantiated into it but because they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all these Loaves THE third passage has these words That as the Flesh which Jesus Christ has taken in the Womb of the Virgin is his true Body crucified for our salvation so this Bread which Jesus Christ has given to his Disciples and to all those which are predestinated to eternal life and which the Priests consecrate every day in the Church WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD is the true Body of Jesus Christ And this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make one only true Body of Jesus Christ so that when this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is sacrificed and eaten and yet remains entire and living And as this Body which he deposed on the Cross was offered for our Redemption so this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption which altho it appears to be Bread is yet the Body of Christ For our Redeemer having regard to our weakness and seeing us subject to sin has given us this Sacrament to the end that being now incapable of dying altho we sin every day we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may be expiated And because all these Loaves make but one Body of Jesus Christ and are offered for our Redemption he has said This is my Body which shall be given for you and added do this which is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Our Lord leaving this blessed Sacrament to all his faithful servants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death sends to his friends a great present for a remembrance of him saying Receive this gift my dear friend and keep it carefully for my sake to the end that every time you see it you may think on me There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypothesis of Remy that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ
advantage But moreover says Mr. Arnaud how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any person nor reproached to those that taught ' em There are strange instances of this and here is one from amongst the rest which is singular in its kind Photius testifies that Theodorus Mospueste wrote a Book against the Doctrin of Original Sin Both East and West have been as greatly animated against this Author as can be imagin'd He was condemned even after his Death in the fifth Council There was never then any person to be less favoured than he Yet we do not find that this Capital Error observed by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th Century in the very time when Theodorus was used with most severity We must acknowledg with Mr. Arnaud that these kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church it follows that this Church has held it and approved it are not convincing and what he relates of Theodorus of Mospueste is a considerable argument of it But it must also be granted that never man was more at variance with himself than Mr. Arnaud for what he now said overthrows the better part of his Book Those that have read it may remember that the greatest part of his dispute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments perfectly like unto those which he now condemns The Greeks says he without ceasing have not condemned then Transubstantiation of the Latins Therefore they believed it with ' em Cerularius did not concern himself at Berenger's condemnation he believed the Transubstantiation Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Presence and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it therefore they were agreed in this Article We can scarcely meet with any thing else but these kind of conclusions in every page He does the same on the subject of the other Schismatical Churches he argues from the silence of the Emissaries the silence of the Popes the silence of the Armenians and that of the Nestorians and others When the question concern'd the 12th Century how many times has he remembred thâ— necessity of the Disputes of the Paschasists and Bertramists how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned at their not baiting one another And when the discourse was about Paschasus and the Innovation which we charge him with with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument That Paschasus was not publickly reprehended by any person for thirty years was never punish'd nor admonish'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick what he says now of this great number of errors in Ecclesiastical Authors which have been never animadverted by any body nor reproach'd to those who have taught ' em Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Mospueste and that of John Scot of whom he says likewise afterwards that it does not appear that these errors have been condemned by any Ecclesiastical Censure of that Age and that of Raban for he supposes he might have erred on the Eucharist by a capital Error in denying the Real Presence and he affirms that in this case 't will not be strange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error lay I say all this together and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book retrench whatsoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us and I am sure you 'l reduce his Volume into a less compass by half AFTER these first Answers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps Page 876. well satisfi'd he hazards another which is that this proposition That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Real Body born of the Virgin may have two senses the one that the external part of the Sacrament which is to say the visible vail is not really the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really white round and has not in it self all these sensible accidents which appear to us the other that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really contain'd in the Sacrament He pretends that Raban denied this proposition only in the first sense and not in the second But this answer has neither sincerity nor truth in it First it confounds what ought necessarily to be distinguish'd For 't is not the same thing to believe that the visible Vail which is to say the accidents of Bread are really the Body of Jesus Christ and to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round and has in it self all the sensible accidents which appear to us There is a great deal of difference between these two as any man may see Supposing a man believed that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round 't will not hence follow he must say that this whiteness and this roundness which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud speaks of were really the Body of Jesus Christ In the second place I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that these sensible accidents of whiteness and roundness in abstracto as they term it are really the Body of Jesus Christ and whosoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy charges him with opposing such an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind AS to the other proposition That the Body of Jesus Christ is really white and round as 't is not customary to express it in these terms That the Eucharist is the same Body which was born of the Virgin so 't is not usual to refute it in these That the Eucharist is not the same Body which was born of the Virgin and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is so forced and remote from the natural sense of Raban his words that there are few reasonable persons to whom 't will not appear a pitiful evasion YET does Mr. Arnaud earnestly urge not only that 't was the sense of Raban to attack this Proposition but likewise that of Bertram in his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini And altho the anonymous Author who according to all probability lived about the 9th Century expresly says that Raban and Bertram refuted Paschasus Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the contrary and says that he demonstratively proves it He says for this effect That there were people in that time who grosly said that the Body of Jesus Christ was such as the Sacrament appeared to be which is to say that the Body of Jesus Christ has really the form of Bread That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded that the Body of Jesus Christ issued thro the pores and applied unto it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur That it is apparent from the accusation which Florus forms against him of having corrupted France by these fantastical opinions that Amalarius had
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally
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
this supposition was contrary to that of Vsher he makes Amalarius again an adversary to Paschasus so that by a manifest contradiction he pretends that the Council which condemned Amalarius and Amalarius who was condemned by the Council were of one mind and equally contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus on the subject of the Eucharist So far is what the Author of the Perpetuity says TO answer this accusation I said that this pretended contradiction was Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 1. a fable That Mr. Blondel did not so much as think of Bishop Usher and that the part which the Author of the Perpetuity gives to this Bishop in this adventure was a mere Romantick whimsie That in the main there was no contradiction in what Mr. Blondel said for asserting on one hand that Amalarius was censured by the Synod of Cressy for writing that the Body of Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite and on the other that Amalarius had been one of those that contradicted the novelties of Paschasus and in fine that he does not separate the Fathers of Cressy from the number of these Opponents these three things were very consistent together because it did not follow from the Synod of Cressy ' s condemning the triform and tripartite Body that they adopted for this all Paschasus his Fancies touching the Real Presence LET us now see Mr. Arnaud's defence He assures us that what the Author Book 11. ch 4. p. 1108 1109. of the Perpetuity has asserted touching Bishop Vsher is a very likely conjecture that if it be a Romantick whimsie 't is not an impossible one For 't is more than probable that Blondel who was a man of great reading writing on a matter was not ignorant of the opinion of a person so much esteemed by his own Party as Bishop Usher deservedly was that moreover 't is a Romance that tends only to excuse Blondel and not to criminate him for it being certain that he has contradicted himself 't is always better that this has been done with some appearance of reason as is that of following the opinion of a famous Author than without any probability IS not this a mere mockery of us or of the Author of the Perpetuity to defend him after this rate This Author relates to us as a matter of fact that Vsher believ'd such and such a thing that Blondel finding advantage in the opinion of Vsher has taken part of it that he has joyn'd this part with what he likewise found in the Epitomy of William of Malmsbury not considering that the one was contrary to the other Now we demand of him where he found this fine History seeing there appears nothing of it in Blondel's Book And Mr. Arnaud answers that 't is a conjecture very likely that if it be a Romance 't is a Romance that is possible to be true and one which tends to excuse Blondel because 't is better he be deceived with some pretext than without any LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases in what Morals he has found 't was permitted the Author of the Perpetuity to pay us with his conjectures and his possible Romances instead of true Histories and to tell stories at random to render Mr. Blondel ridiculous because 't is better he should be ridiculous for some reason than for none We thank him for his Charity but 't is excessive and unnecessary for what need was there he should charge his Conscience with this pious fraud to extenuate a chimerical dishonor seeing the pretended contradiction of Mr. Blondel is but a mere imagination SVPPOSING says Mr. Arnaud we have no other ground to prove Page 1110. that the Council of Cressy were Calvinists but their condemning of Amalarius to suppose hereupon Amalarius was a Calvinist this is a contradicting of a man's self and this is what Blondel does How ill does Mr. Arnaud defend his Friend 'T is not true that Blondel grounded himself on what he says of the Synod of Cressy in that this Synod has condemned Amalarius We shall find nothing of this in his Book And supposing he did ground himself on it he might do it without falling into contradiction and without giving occasion to the accusation of the Author of the Perpetuity for he might draw a negative argument thence in this sense That this Synod which could not be ignorant what was the Doctrin of Amalarius touching the Real Presence contented themselves with censuring in him some expressions as that of Corpus triforme tripartitum without handling his Doctrin at bottom which is a mark that in this respect they were agreed with him and consequently that they rejected the Real Presence as well as Amalarius Now in this case one might well dispute the force of this proof but there is no likelihood of making a contradiction of it But in fine to decide clearly this question and to shew Mr. Arnaud how dangerous it is for a man to give himself over to too great desires of finding fault and to decry Authors I need only say that when Mr. Blondel reckons the Synod of Cressy amongst the number of those that have followed Paschasus he does not speak of that Synod which condemned Amalarius but of another that was held ten years after In effect he formally distinguishes these two Synods saying of one That this conception of Amalarius that the Body of Illucidations on the Eucharist ch 18. p. 421 422. Ibid. p. 427. Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite was improved in the year 848. by the Council of Cressy and on the other that several contradicted Paschasus as Amalarius Raban Heribald Bertram or Ratram John surnam'd Erigenus from whom says he I do not separate Walafridus Strabo Abbot of Richeneau nor Florus a Divine of Lyons nor the Body of the Bishops assembled in the year 858. at Cressy These are then two different Synods the one held in the year 848. and the other in the year 858. Of the one he says that it condemned the Corpus triforme tripartitum of Amalarius of the other that he does not separate them from those who contradicted Paschasus what contradiction is here Had these Gentlemen who have faln no less than three times on this affair of Mr. Blondel taken the pains to read over the place of his Book here in question they would have found what I now tell 'em touching the distinction of these Synods and desisted from maintaining their fabulous History and imaginary contradiction THESE two examples suffice to shew the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's defences We must now come to his complaints and accusations and discover the injustice and unreasonableness of 'em in few words which will be no hard matter to do FIRST he complains that I offered some lessening expressions in reference to the Author of the Perpetuity on the subject of Bertram or Ratram that I opposed the praises which the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers gives this person and thereupon remark'd
that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise people raise or depress 'em according as their interests and designs require according as they oppose or favour their Opinions First Mr. Arnaud assures us that I falsified the words of the Author of the Chap. 6. Perpetuity Secondly He says I expounded his intentions according to my own fancy Thirdly He will not allow I had any reason to draw from his words compared with these of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the conclusion which I drew thence We must satisfie him in these three points AS to the pretended falsification observe here in what manner I related in short the discourse of the Author of the Perpetuity He says that 't was Answer to the second Tome part 3. ch 1. one call'd Ratram or Bertram an obscure and intricate Divine who adjoyn'd his reasonings to the ordinary expressions of the Church and expounded them according to his fancy that as he was a Divine he might argue as he pleased on this Faith and that we can easily conceive a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings There needs only the reading of the Author of the Perpetuity's discourse to acknowledg this to be a just abridgment of it Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but he says I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram a frivolous and passionate Reasoner and for having Book 11. ch 6. p. 116. said absolutely of him that one may well conceive that a Divine might easily fall upon frivolous reasonings whereas he said this only conditionally to wit supposing 't were granted he was effectually in an error and this is what he calls a manifest falsity But Mr. Arnaud complains impertinently For I did not say that the Author of the Perpetuity has thus spoken of Bertram absolutely and this Mr. Arnaud acknowledges to wit that supposing 't were granted that Bertram had effectually erred this would not at all hurt the Church that 't is no wonder that one man has erred that a Divine should fall into frivolous reasonings This I say is sufficient for my design For what signifies this but that in case Bertram cannot be brought over to them and made to speak for the Real Presence he must then be a frivolous Divine one who has faln into frivolous reasonings Now this is precisely what I said that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise Authors according to their interests If Bertram be for 'em all is well they find no fault in him but if it must be granted he is against 'em then one may easily conceive that a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings And thus Mr. Arnaud's illustration only confirms my remark 'T is the same in respect of what he adds that I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram an obscure and intritate Divine which is not thus set down in his Book and that there is only that the greatest advantage which the Calvinists can pretend to touching this Author is that he be set aside as a perplext and intricate Author which can be profitable neither to one side nor the other I desire no more for this is almost in so many words to say that if they cannot have Bertram on their side he must be put by as an obscure and intricate Divine whom both Parties endeavour to explain in their favour but who at bottom favours neither by reason of his perplexity If he be for them all is well if he be not he shall be laid aside for a mystical Divine This falsification then which Mr. Arnaud imputes to me is groundless seeing he himself justifies me from it and he confirms himself the truth of my reflection NEITHER has he more reason in what he says afterwards that I Page 1117. explain the intentions of others according to my own fancy and raise up trophies to my self on imaginary conjectures These are angry expressions I pretend not to dive into the intentions of the Author of the Perpetuity neither do I think of raising trophies to my self at his cost My way of proceeding is frank natural and simple and if I commit faults I can sincerely protest 't is against my will I have said nothing concerning the Author of the Perpetuity which I have not proved not by making conjectures on his hidden thoughts but arguing on his Writing which is a kind of conjecturing very lawful in disputes BUT in fine Mr. Arnaud will not allow I had reason in comparing the words of the Author of the Perpetuity touching Bertram which those of the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers to draw thence the conclusion which I drew He says my arguing supposes that these two Authors Page 1118. are but one and the same person For if they be two different Authors what wonder can it be they have had different sentiments on another Author I answer my reasoning supposes only that the Author of the Perpetuity is one of the friends of the Author of the Apology and that what 's said abroad in the world of these Gentlemen is true that they publish nothing but what has been seen and approved of commonly amongst 'em which being so I had right to draw my conclusion from the comparison of the words of these two Authors as nearly as if they were but one and the same person 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say that an Author may be praise-worthy in one piece and blameable in another I grant it but I say that when one praises or blames an Author to raise up or depress any of his works 't is absurd to say that one praises him or blames him in this work for we praise or blame absolutely his person to give hence afterwards more or less Authority to the work in question When we depress or extol the person for the work sake then we praise or blame a man in his work but when on the contrary we depress or extol the work by the person then his praise or blame respects absolutely the person and then we draw this consequence that the work in question is or is not considerable Now we are in this last circumstance the Author of the Apology commends Ratram to give the greater weight to his Books of Predestination and the Author of the Perpetuity depresses him to take away all authority from his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini so that their praise and dispraise respect directly his person 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud remarks that the Author of the Perpetuity did not suppose the Book which goes under the name of Bertram Page 1119. was Ratram's a Religious of Corby Author of the Books of Predestination and of the refutation of the errors of the Greeks That seeing he testifies on the contrary to incline to the opinion of Mr. Marca who will have this Book of Bertram and that of John Scot to be the same That it appears at least from his Book that he had no fixt sentiment that Ratram was the
it wherein these Gentlemen have been concern'd to wit that their Book was refused an Approbation but this was a point which shew'd the reason why this Answer was publish'd against Father Noüet a fact moreover that was true and known by every body We have drawn thence a consequence which was not advantageous to Mr. Arnaud 't is true but a consequence which is very natural for that Gentleman whose approbation was sought for to this last work of Mr. Arnaud and who refused it is a publick person who gives not his Approbations as a private man but as holding a rank and very considerable employ in one of the most famous Universities in Europe If the face of things has been since altered Mr. Arnaud knows the reason of it and we too We have used some expressions of raillery and this perhaps has most troubled Mr. Arnaud but who ever told him that raillery ought to be wholly banish'd from a Dispute Not to fetch examples elsewhere we know very well that these Gentlemen have oft used it in their Writings and not without success and not to go further Mr. Arnaud himself has not abstain'd from it in this last Book he wrote against me I do not take it ill for I had rather at any time see him merry than angry I complain'd in this Preface of my being brought in impertinently into the abuses and nullities against the order of the Arch-Bishop of Paris But I believe 't will be now acknowledg'd that I had reason to admire what was said therein of me in charging me with inconceivable boldness in denying the most evident matters and maintaining the most false ones This has occasion'd my making a more general complaint which is that these Gentlemen omit no occasion of testifying their aversion to us in a very sharp and severe manner and many times without any pretence or cause To say hereupon as Mr. Arnaud does that they never speak otherwise than truly and Chap. 11. p. 1162. justly and herein only observe the Principles of their Religion this is to testifie further his passion and assert a thing the least favourable imaginable to the Church of Rome For here the question is not concerning the main of our Controversies nor whether we have reason or not This is a matter which we do not pretend to meddle with in a Preface and when this shall be the point we shall be able to shew that 't is neither with truth nor reason that these Gentlemen speak of us as they do The question here is touching the manner after which they speak ever rending us with injurious expressions To say that 't is their Religion which inspires them with these motions and persuades them this way of proceeding is just and reasonable is to impute to their Religion a thing which will render it odious and of which I believe 't is no wise guilty for how many persons do we see who are no less Roman Catholicks than these Gentlemen who speak and write as well as they and yet do not use their way of proceeding If I have attributed their affected animosity to the desire they have of freeing themselves from all suspicions that they held intelligence with us what is there in all this which may justly offend them Have not these suspicions been made publick and have we not seen Books Printed whose Titles declared more than bare suspicions This is a thing which I did not invent at leisure neither one of my conjectures nor a possible Romance nor a particular secret which I have imprudently divulged but a matter of fact which others besides my self have publish'd and which is known by every body Is Mr. Arnaud offended at my imputing to him the desire of clearing himself from this suspicion I wish with all my heart this were the occasion of his wrath neither would I complain in this case to be its sacrifice But I am afraid that in turning things on this side I shall pull on my self a new quarrel more terrible than the first What reason has he then to be angry We are the only sufferers in all this we suffer in the suspicion we suffer in the justification we suffer in the manner of the justification But God give us grace to suffer patiently and we hope he will not refuse us that of persevering in our duty to him and pursuing to the last truth with love till we arrive at his Kingdom where we shall find rest after our labors and where our reproach will be turn'd into glory AND here I shall finish this Chapter and Book and intreat Mr. Arnaud not to take any thing ill which I have said to him and to consider that I maintain my Cause a Cause of whose Goodness and Justice I cannot in the least doubt Let him not think I have been set on work by a spirit of contention I naturally hate it and several persons of Honor and Probity know I engaged in this Controversie much against my will my temper inclining me rather to live retired and quiet Neither let him think I thought of diminishing in any sort the Reputation which he has acquired in the world I take it as a great honor to be found in the lists with him and as to his person whatsoever sharpness he has used towards me he shall always find me respecting his ingenious qualifications If he be displeased to find himself deceived in the great hopes which he conceiv'd touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Churches this will shew him he must not always judg of things from their first appearances That which deceived him is that he has taken for the true Greek Church a Party of Greeks which has been a long time a forming and which the rest call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say those who are in their hearts and opinions Latins altho outwardly professors of the Greek Rites and live amongst the rest in the same Communion 'T was this Party who for so long a time opposed Meletus the Patriarch of Alexandria and Cyril his Successor afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople and who in fine o'rewhelm'd Cyril by the assistance of the Court of Rome as I have elsewhere said that Allatius himself has acknowledged and as I proved in the 12th Chapter of the said Book Since this great Victory which was follow'd by the promotion of Cyril of Beroe the Jesuits Disciple and a great favorer of the Latins to the Patriarchate of Constantinople I do not doubt but this Party has mightily strengthen'd it self and that several amongst 'em have declared themselves more loudly and openly than they did before In effect 't was about this time that a certain Greek of this Party called Meletus Syrigus wrote a Catechism which was sign'd in the two pretended condemnations of Cyril Lucar the one under Cyril of Beroe and the other under Parthenius with this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say An Orthodox Confession of the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern Church
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
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
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
lib 4. adv Oecol Indic Belg. Censurers of Doway in reference to the Book of Bertram whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius and Charles the Bald altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain had the Manuscripts for title Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem And for that of John Scot it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time and having an Inscription almost alike Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain Sigeb Catol c. 85. 99. De Script Eccl. fol. 53. 55. Praefat. gener in vit Sanct. c. 4. sect 7. Labbe de Script Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. seq what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 't is by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Vsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknowledg in respect of Vsuard BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same Because says our Author if we suppose that this Title is equally false 't is very difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books which in other respects had so great resemblance And if it be pretended that the Title is true it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different persons to meet in giving it this Title THIS difficulty is a small one we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald but affirm it not to be so strange a thing that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning as having been the restorer of it The examples which I alledged prove the thing possible seeing they prove it to have hapned Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was AS to Durand of Troarn I see moreover less reason why our Author Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 9. should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur concilio soluto discessum est For if it be true as our Author will have it that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned yet was it not so evident a matter that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger which as our Author believes agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram which he treats as obscure and perplexed there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council wherein was condemned for heretical what only ought to be esteemed obscure BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc who reproaches Berenger that as soon as the Council assembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot and blaming that of Paschasus Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful for 't is not credible the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot even to the condemning his Book to the flames had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris at Verceil and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot OUR Author pretends in the last place that seeing Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin and the rest of the Writers of the 11th Century mention only John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their condemnation one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot. BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies In effect supposing that in the 11th Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Raban in the time of Berenger Lanfranc and Ascelin MOREOVER our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors for it appears by the testimony of Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus Paschasus was therein either named or at least apparently meant which is not so in the Writings of Bertram who handles matters in a less polemical manner and never names Paschasus nor seems to give the least hint of him which has apparently tended to its preservation And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author TO establish the second to wit that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot our Author pretends that the several Article 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius that is to say of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd or dissimulative which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of and affects to contradict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment and avoid censures He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures and in his Book of Predestination whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Bertram is John Scot's It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused
the error of Origen on this question I might moreover shew that John Scot according to his genius and hypothesis must without doubt have written in a quite different manner from what Ratram has done and this is a remark which I made on an hundred places in his Manuscript Dialogue of Nature when I read it For he rejects Lib. p. 17 18. 20 21 22 23 24. 2â— 30. 35. 37 38 39. 42. 46 47 50. 56. Lib. 2. p. 76. Lib. 2. p. 162. 178. Lib. 4. p. 292. 297. 300. 306 3â—7 Lib. 5. p. 343. 345. 348 350. 364. therein almost all the consequences of Paschasus his Doctrin in a very convincing manner but yet very different from the method of Bertram Here is an instance thereof he maintains from the authority of S. Maximus that bodies have no Blood when they are glorified which does accommodate it self with the hypothesis of John Damascen but not with those of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation as every body knows Who doubts but he would have used this argument on this question I might produce several others but since this matter would carry me off too far and that I have not the Manuscript by me I shall therefore content my self with the remarks which I have made believing them sufficient to shew that the genius of John Scot was wholly different from Bertram's CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the Name of Bertram Examin'd SEEING that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is a piece of Ratram's and not of John Scot we shall not be apt to suppose as the Author of the Dissertation does that Berenger or his Disciples first publish'd this Writing under the name of Bertram And truly it is a hard matter to know the commendations which Hildebert Bishop of Mans and since Arch Bishop of Tours has given Berenger and to fall into a suspicion so injurious to the memory of this great man Hildebert describes Berenger as a person Cujus cura sequi naturam legibus uti Et mentem vitiis ora negare dolis Virtutes opibus verum proeponere falso A man that follows these Maxims and those who are taught by him are far enough from all manner of deceit I need only then shew that supposing Bertram's Book were John Scot's the effect would not cease to be near upon the same because John Scot has been a man of great note and authority in the 9th Century But because our Author imagins that the name of Bertram under which this Book has first appeared proves clearly that it is not Ratram's it is fitting before this to consider his Observations THE first of which amounts to this that Sigebert Trithemius and Dissert Art 3. sect 3. Cellot's Anonymous which are the only Authors who have spoken of Bertram attribute to him no other works than those of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination of which these two first Authors make no mention in speaking of John Scot altho it be most certain that John Scot has written two Books on these same subjects whence he concludes that Bertram is a fictitious Author which at bottom is no other than John Scot. Thus does the Author of the Dissertation argue BUT there is nothing solid in this remark First The Book of John Scot of Predestination is dedicated to Hincmar and Pardulus whereas Sigebert remarks expresly that that of Bertram or of Ratram was dedicated to Charles the Bald as we see in effect in the Impression of this Book of Ratram which Mr. Mauguin has publish'd Secondly Trithemius confirms in two places the Text of Sigebert altho in another place he says also that Bertram's Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was dedicated to Charles which Sigebert was silent in Thirdly It is false that Cellot's Anonymous had the name of Bertram he has always Ratram's in the Manuscript of Corbie and in the two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor we find that in one place this Anonymous gives for adversaries to Paschasus Rabanus and Intramus and in the following page Babanus and Ratramnus neither in one nor in the other of these two places has the Transcriber the name of Bertram which would be strange if the Title which this Book has had since the 11th Century were that of Bertram and not that of Ratram as we affirm Fourthly It is false that Authors speak but of two pieces attributed to Bertram Trithemius says in two places that Bertram De Script Eccl. fol. 57. in chron Hirsaug wrote several other Books Fifthly The silence of the Anonymous is impertinently alledged touching the other works of Bertram seeing he has not the name of Bertram and should he have had the name his drift would not carry him to speak of any other Writing of Bertram but that of the Eucharist Sixthly If Sigebert mention'd not the Book of the Eucharist which John Scot wrote by the order of Charles the Bald there can be nothing concluded hence unless it may be affirm'd by the same reason that his other works as that of Natures have been attributed to other Authors Seventhly There is nothing more natural than to say that Trithemius has comprehended the Books of Predestination and of the Eucharist of John Scot when he says Joannes dictus Erigena scripsit quoedam alia Ibidem THE second remark of this Author is that those who speak of Bertram Dissert ibid. do not know him particularly nor agree about his true name that Sigebert who in some Manuscript Copies calls him Ratram does not denote the quality he had which he is wont to do in speaking of other Authors that the Abbot Trithemius who speaks of Bertram in three places could not say in what Diocess nor in what Monastery he made himself so famous altho he always made these kind of remarks in speaking of th' Illustrious men of the order of S. Bennet so that there 's reason to believe that he too lightly made the Elogium of Bertram whose works were apparently unknown to him in fine that the Anonymous who designs the other Authors by their qualities as Raban Heribold Paschasus Egilon speaks of Ratram as of an unknown person Ratramnus quidam denoting that he knew nothing of him but that his name was Ratram or Intram as speak the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor BUT our Author is mistaken in his suppositions First It is not true Sigebert gives constantly to the Writers of which he speaks the Ecclesiastical qualifications they had the contrary appears from the 84. 91. 93. 94. 103. and other Chapters of his Catalogue Secondly I know not what Trithemius was wont to do in his second Book of Writers of the Order of S. Bennet I never saw this work Yet the little certainty which I found in the judgment of our Author on the custom of Sigebert makes me believe that he has not judged better of that of Trithemius In the main I
am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen or not seen the Writings which he attributes to Bertram Yet I cannot but observe here the vanity Hieron ab ang Forti Epist 3. p. 63. of mens judgments In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige Mr. Herman to believe that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is the most Orthodox piece in the world And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration Thirdly It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram not knowing him but by his Book makes him not an Author unknown to others For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous who lived in the 12th Century we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm p. 148. Math. Westm ann 889. apud Baron A. 1118. sect 29. Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Historians of the 12th and 13th Century and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod at the end of the 12th Century that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the 9th Century and well known by Lewis the Debonnair by whose order he See Labb of Writ Eccles in Amalar. wrote The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Sigebert and turned it into Attularius Trithemius speaks of him in his Catalogue under the name of Hamularius and after an hundred Disputes he remains still in a manner unknown Fourthly It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers who have written the name of Ratram He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names of Bertram of Bertramnus and of Bertrannus that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus or Intram I know not whether he speaks in good earnest or to deride us But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 't would have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered to undertake the confirming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord wherein might be seen these different names THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Dissertation Ibidem offers is that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences and which approach so near to impossibilities that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Author proposes to find that all this is nothing First It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th Century there were two Authors one named John Scot known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin The other called Ratramnus whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers was corrupted into that of Bertram or Bertramnus or Bertran as that of Amalarius has been into Attularius that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus Ammonius and Annonius under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus not sercet as our Author affirms but open ones in writing against his Doctrin The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus as Raban and Ratramnus Thirdly It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist and on Predestination There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination publish'd by Mr. Mauguin We know that in the 11th Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist and without doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books and those of his Disciples have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus who is mention'd in the 12th Century as an adversary to Paschasus is yet extant under the corrupted name of Bertram Fourthly Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald and the other composed by his Order Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys and was always greatly esteem'd by him Fifthly It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus their judgment was so considerable in their time that Hincmar and Pardulus two famous Bishops oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks which Pope Nicholas had sent them Sixthly It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald the Title of Charlemain I have shewed that they have not done it but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject and in the same dispute Seventhly It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to contain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size Eighthly There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same subject have used the same Witnesses the same Orison which was said every day in the Service than that they have drawn the same conclusions and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same but very near one another Paschasus bragged in his Letter to Frudegard that this Orison was made for him which caused all his Adversaries to examin it and urge the proper terms of it against him without changing any thing therein Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors any body will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philosophy and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Arguments put in form by Enthymemes by Maxims and Principles drawn from
Philosophy I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence Our Author himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council because it opposes it Eleventhly There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved and the Book of John Scot burn'd there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties and thus the Book of Ratram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd IN fine twelfthly There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation to wit that of one of these Authors which is Bertram there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity neither in respect of his quality nor his name altho his Book has remain'd and that the quality of the other to wit John Scot should be well known altho his Book be lost It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion which the name of Bertram had produced and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight supposing John Scot were the Author of it For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer THE SECOND PART That the Authority of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram will be never the less considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was in great esteem both in his own and succeeding Generations THERE are so many things which advance the repute of John Scot that one may well wonder Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Dissertation should mention him with such lessening terms and persuade themselves that to diminish the credit of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord they needed only to attribute it to John Scot. For he was a person who by his merit had gain'd the esteem and affection of Charles the Bald which is to say of a judicious Prince who took to heart the interests of Religion as Ratramn praises him in his Book of Predestination These two things says he exalt your Majesty in a manner really illustrious T. 1. Maug p. 29. That you seek after the secrets of the heavenly Wisdom and burn with Religious Zeal And indeed this Prince deserv'd the Title of Orthodox which Concil apud Vermer T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735. was given him by a Council held in 869. Henry a Monk of Auxerre praises him also for his knowledg and piety as we see in the Epistle Dedicatory in the Life of S. Germain of Auxerre related by Du Chene and Baronius But Hist Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect 10 11. amongst other things he commends him for having drawn over into France Learned Ireland meaning thereby John Erigena that is to say John the Irish man according to the Observation of Alford the Jesuit in his English Annals HE that wrote the lives of the Bishops of Auxerre describing the advantages which Heribald had in his Youth reckons for a great happiness that he was brought up under the tuition of John Scot. He applied himself T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4â—5 says he to John Scot who in that time imparted to the Gauls the Rays of his Wisdom He was a long time his Disciple and learn'd from him the art of knowing divine and human things and to judg rightly of good and evil THE Authority of John Scot was so considerable in the 9th Century that Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Reims and Pardulus Bishop of Laon who found themselves engaged in sharp Disputes touching Predestination and Grace with Gotthescalc believ'd they could not do better for their party than to oblige John Scot to write on these two subjects He did so in effect and T. 2. Maug 132. altho the choice which he made of the worst side drew on him the censures of the Councils of Valence and Langres and that Hincmar himself defended him but weakly yet did he keep up his credit and Charles the Bald set him upon translating the works which bear the name of Denis the Areopagite HIS Reputation maintain'd it self not only in France but passed over into Italy and Rome it self Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper gives him particular Commendations in a Letter which he wrote to Charles the Bald. I speak says he of John Scot of whom I have heard say that he is a Saint Syll. Epist Hyber n. 33. p. 64. seq It is a work of the Spirit of God to have made this man so zealous as well as eloquent WE may likewise here add the kindness which Alfred King of England had for him and the Employs which this Prince gave him but of this I shall discourse hereafter I shall only say that John Scot was in effect worthy of the esteem and affection which the world shewed him his Wit was lively and piercing he was not only a profound Philosopher but also very well read in the Fathers and especially the Greek ones which was very rare in the 9th Century wherein the learning of the greatest men was bounded by the knowledg of S. Hierom S. Augustin Gregory the Great Isidor of Sevil and their skill lay in copying out these Authors word for word IN fine we may moreover observe in favour of John Scot that altho his Book of the Eucharist was condemned in the Councils of the 11th Century yet the reputation of the Author was perpetuated in the following Ages as appears from the authentick Testimonies which all Historians give him I shall not relate here what Ingusphus William of Malmsbury Simeon of Durham Roger de Hoveden Matthew of Westminster and Florent of Worcester have said of him we may find this in the Answer to the first Part 3 ch 3. Treatise of the Perpetuity WE need only add to these testimonies First that of the Manuscript of the Library of S. Victor which has for Title Memoriale Historiarum Tempore eodem fuit Joannes Scotus vir perspicacis ingenii mellitoe facundioe qui rogatu Caroli Calvi jamdudum verbo ad verbum Hierarcham Dionysii de Groeco in Latinum transtulerat post super eundem librum fecit commentum fecitque librum de naturoe divisione librum de Eucharistiâ qui postea lectus est condemnatus in Synodo Vercellensi â Papa Leone celebrata eodem
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