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
Church or dissembled these Errors in hopes as I already say'd that in establishing their Authority in Armenia they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict The Catholick of Armenia minor say's this Article Consecrating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act in which they solemnly promise to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess or Province Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks and obey the Roman Church He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church and calls himself Pope acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46â— 466. silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstantiation we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in competition with the Testimony of so many Authors who expresly affirm they deny it Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject altho the Armenians say's he promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco histor Orient cap. 79. and Roman Church when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Customs And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis But be it as it will this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia but in vain Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side and that the Armenians were in an Error and therefore ever since the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat and against the Roman Church in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy He says that Pharaoh ' s Embassadour meaning the Legat returned home with shame c. 'T is to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church yet was receiv'd in Armenia as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles WHICH considered I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissions which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII by a Bishop who in the name of the King and his Kingdom made such a profession of faith as they desired To make this a proof as Mr. Arnaud do's is either to be ignorant or dissemble the Genius of this Nation The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons that promised him whatsoever he desired but as soon as ever the danger was over and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired they made a mock at their promises as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King and Catholick of Armenia as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa The Religion say's he The Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicqfort p. 193. of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha who are Armenians by birth is the Christian together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence or acknowledge the Pope almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe moved thereunto by their extream poverty their expences in travelling and intollerable persecutions of the Turks during the continual Wars between them and the Persians have often offered to obey the Roman Church yet when this was to be concluded they have still fallen off and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Person named Gerlac who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople about an hundred years since This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople and amongst other things he tells us They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession In caena Domini verum Substantiale Corpus Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare But upon the reading of this Letter it will soon appear that this Patriarch with whom he discoursed gave him his own private sentiments and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion For he tells him that he believed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son contrary to what the Greeks hold Yet do's it appear from the constant testimony of Authors who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins So say's Guy Carmes the information of Benedict XII Prateolus Breerewood and several others and therefore the first thing Eugenius
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
received by the Christian Church which is the chief design of Mr. Arnaud's Book IN the second place I discover the falsity of this supposition that the true Greek Church and other Eastern Christians do believe Transubstantiation and Adore the Sacrament after the same manner as the Church of Rome does The contrary of this will appear so plainly and Mr. Arnaud's Proofs so solidly answered that a man would wonder to see with what confidence he treats of this matter in which he betrays so great ignorance and oversight Here also his pretended proofs touching the Greeks from the 7th to the 11th and touching the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries are fully confuted together with the consequences which he hath blindly drawn from thence of the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation This is the Subject of the 3d. 4th and 5th Book The third proves by many and clear arguments that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation nor adore the Sacrament with the adoration of Latria as the Church of Rome doth and moreover shews particularly what their Doctrins are wherein they agree with the Latins and with us and wherein they differ In the fourth I answer all Mr. Arnaud's Proofs discovering their weakness and make it appear that the greatest part of what he offers does necessarily conclude against him And because of the affinity of the matter I examin at the same time his 7th Book wherein he treats of Greek Authors of the 7th 8th 9th and 10th Centuries In my fifth Book I pass over to the other Christians which are called Schismaticks Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites Coptics Ethiopians and show they do not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence with the Latins From thence I come to the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and examine Mr. Arnaud's 8th Book after which I consider his 10th Book which concerns the consequences drawn from the consent of the Churches which he pretends to have proved and I make it appear that they are but Paralogisms and Sophisms IN the third place I lay open the falsity of Mr. Arnaud's second supposition touching the distinct belief of the Real Presence and refute his sixth Book Afterwards in refuting the ninth Book I show the absurdity of his conjectures about the impossibility of a change and demonstrate that 't is not only possible but might easily happen Lastly the innovation of Paschasius is as evidently prov'd as a thing of that nature can be This is the subject of my sixth Book NOW from all these discourses it will evidently appear what I have already observ'd That this new way hath not been laid open but for to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome I speak not of the intention of these Gentlemen for they have declared themselves plainly enough against us to leave no place for us to suspect them of any collusion And the last Book of Mr. Arnaud hath provided against all such suspicions something more perhaps than is reasonable But I speak of the success their method hath had which hath been quite contrary to their intention As for example it hath given me occasion to prove that the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence which the Church of Rome taught when they condemned Berengarius neither in the preceding nor following Ages That whatsoever efforts the Latins have made since the 11th Age to this present to procure the reception of these Doctrins in Greece yet the true Greek Church hath not embraced them Neither do the Armenians and other Schismaticks believe them any more than the Greeks NOW who seeth not that the first and most natural consequences which can be drawn from thence is That these Doctrins are new for if they were establish'd at first together with the Christian Religion they would have appeared in those Churches and been retain'd among them after their separation from the Latins and that they do not appear is a manifest sign of their novelty This consequence is not like that of Mr. Arnaud his and mine are not only contrary in the matter but they are likewise very different in form for mine is just and direct whereas his is neither just nor true For suppose the Greeks and other Eastern Christians should at this day believe Transubstantiation nay suppose they should have believed it some Ages since what advantage can Mr. Arnaud make of this seeing he hath been shewed several ways by which it might be introduced into their Churches But if it be true that they held it not neither in the 11th nor in the following Age as I have invincibly prov'd then it cannot be imagin'd how it should disappear nor how the Latins who have for several Ages since overspread these Countreys with their Emissaries would have suffered such a Doctrin to be lost amongst them which it was so much their interest to preserve Moreover this same method hath furnish'd me with an occasion to overthrow the pretended impossibilities of a change and to make appear on the contrary the facility thereof Now suppose we could not answer the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud this would be but little advantage to their cause for still our proofs of the matter of fact would remain unanswer'd without the examination of which the question of the Perpetuity of the Doctrins in Controversie cannot be decided Whereas these having made it appear that their pretended impossibilities are mere Chimera's and that this change might easily happen this is a great inducement to believe our account of it is really true IT is then certain that these Gentlemen could not make a worse choice for the interest of the Church of Rome than of such a way in which nothing of advantage to their Church can be expected but she is thereby exposed to great fears and dangers and that the cause which they have opposed is more beholding to them than that which they have taken upon them to defend Had it not been for them perhaps we should not have much troubled our selves either with discovering the real belief of the Greek Church or that of the Armenians or with the displaying the mystery of their Seminaries and Missions neither should we have concern'd our selves in shewing how the change could be wrought and how it was made AND having now given an account of the several parts of this work and of the present state of this Controversie as to the matter of it it is likewise fit to say something of the manner in which I have handled it One of my greatest cares hath been religiously to keep to truth and sincerity For I am very sensible that prejudice partiality love of vain glory and even sometimes a secret desire of revenging a man's self on his Adversary are passions which do commonly obtrude themselves on us in Disputes and which never fail to corrupt the mind I have therefore endeavoured to the utmost not only
to keep these from me but likewise to watch against their susprizes And for this purpose I can affirm I have laboured as in the sight of God not proposing to my self any other aim than his glory and truth always remembring that I write not a line of which I must not one day give him an account I have not warp'd from that sincerity and uprightness which an honest man ought to observe on these occasions I have not taken Mr. Arnaud's words in a wrong sense nor charged him with saying what indeed he saith not nor strained his expressions beyond their natural signification No man can reproach me for making false citations or maiming any passages by suppressing that which is important neither have I alledged them abusively and contrary to the intention of their Authors I hope there is no unfair dealings either in my Arguments or Answers in my Suppositions or my other Discourses I have followed Reason and Nature as much as I could and have not made use of Philosophy but to strengthen the ordinary notions of common sense and not to stifle or hinder their effects I hope likewise that I shall not be complain'd of as having not observed either in general towards the Church of Rome or in particular towards Mr. Arnaud all that moderation which might be reasonably expected from me I have noted the Errors and Sophisms of Mr. Arnaud which I have found very numerous in every Subject on which he hath treated especially concerning the Greek Church I was not a little troubled to see with what sincerity he alledged several passages whereof some are not faithfully translated and others so imperfectly that he hath suppressed whole Clauses which would clear up the difficulty and others which are palpably perverted contrary to the sense of their Authors I could not but resent his unhandsome dealing when he disjoynted from the series of a discourse several of my words to make them look of a quite contrary sense than what was intended or fastned on them strange chimerical senses that he might have some matter of triumph or groundlesly slandered some famous men or endeavoured to decry by violent and odious terms our morals which cannot but be holy and pure seeing we have no others but what are taken from the Law and the Gospel In fine when he employs his declamatory stile to dazle the eyes of the world and to mis-represent the truth I have discovered several of his contradictions and how much his opinions are influenc'd by his interest several fallacious suppositions which he would have introduc'd into this Dispute and some vain and ill-grounded accusations with which he hath charged me are clearly laid open and some faults of his in History and Grammar I have but lightly touched upon In short I have set before him what I believe he ought to have said on these occasions and others of the like kind and do moreover here protest that I should have wholly spared him in the most part of these matters had the interest of the cause which I take upon me to defend permitted me so to do But what I have said to him has been without sharpness and passion and even with as little complaining as may be against his starch'd Prefaces and imperious tartness which appears throughout his whole Book wherein I every where meet with the rough terms of Enthusiasm Extravagancy sensless Propositions and other such like expressions I confess that these injurious terms were not at all pleasing to me and presently I wondred that Mr. Arnaud should use a stile so little becoming his profession but at length being accustom'd to it I pass'd over it and have comforted my self by the motives of Christian patience There are very deserving persons even of his own Communion whom he has handled no better than my self and after all it suffices me to know that I have not given just cause for so great animosity and bitterness as I do believe some have already acknowledg'd and which I believe Mr. Arnaud himself will acknowledg when he has read my last Chapter in which I answer his 11th Book which concerns our pretended personal differences AS to exactness I believe I have kept as much to it as can be desired in such an Answer as this Indeed I have not followed blindfold Mr. Arnaud when he strayed from his own subject as he has done in the last Chapters of his first Book where he treats of Episcopacy of Praying for the Dead th' Invocation of Saints the Worship of Relicks and the Prohibition of certain Meats FOR seeing the matter in hand only concerns the Eucharist it would have been contrary to sense and a gross abuse to the Readers patience to engage in these Controversies on each of which there might be written whole Volumes not to say farther that I have endeavoured to avoid that prolixity which Mr. Arnaud seems on the contrary to have affected But according to prudence and discretion I have omitted nothing considerable in Mr. Arnaud's Book which relates to our present Controversie unanswer'd except the two Dissertations of the Criticism on John Scot and on Bertram to which there is a distinct Answer preparing It cannot be said that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have done the like by me for to speak ingeniously and freely is there any thing less exact or more careless than their large work considering it as a Refutation of my answer to the Perpetuity of which they have scarcely handled the tenth part They have taken here and there some one of my passages separated from the sequel of my discourse and the greatest part of them turn'd into another sense hereupon they have travelled from East to West And this they call the Perpetuity of the Faith defended against the Book of the Sieur Claude Minister of Charenton But seeing I have followed the second Treatise of the Perpetuity and even accommodated my self to its method ought not then the Author in defending it against my Book â—o follow me a little more closely And when he was oblig'd to write a second Volume as to what respects the first six Ages certainly he ought to have considered the rest with some care Mr. Arnaud's In his Preface excuse is vain and frivolous which he alledgeth for the length of this work For to make it short he needed only to have insisted on matters essential avoiding fruitless digressions and retrenching injurious invectives It is likewise a vain pretence of his that in following my fancies as he is pleased to speak the connexion of his Principles with their consequences remain hid and obscured For what else does he intend by this but to preserve these colours and appearances which cannot otherwise subsist Wherefore should he call that method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath himself begun and which I have but follow'd wherefore I say should he term this my fancies Wherefore should he at least suppress several things which I proposed in order to the discovery of the falsity
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
but from that time I interposed For had I not stept in between the Author had talked only to himself and when a man does so we are not wont to say such a one is in a Dispute To find then the real Occasion Mr. Arnaud should have sought it in the causes moving me to interpose and not in the Author of the Perpetuity ' s Intention Mr. Arnaud hath not considered there is a Difference between the Occasion of a Debate and whether the Subject of it be real or imaginary For to decide the latter of these Particulars we must look back to the Author of the Perpetuity and consider what he has done and what he would do but to be ascertained in the first of them I ought thereupon to be consulted and when it shall appear I was deceived by a groundless Imagination that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted then it might be truly affirmed I raised a Quarrel to no purpose seeing the occasion of it only sprang out of my own Fancy but yet what I have said since cannot be charged with notorious Falsity viz. That this Book was the first occasion of the Debate betwixt us seeing that in effect I only engaged in this Controversie to defend it THERE is moreover in Mr. Arnaud's Discourse a false Supposition in the Term of Refuting for he supposeth I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with a design of formally and directly refuting Mr. Aubertin's whole Book and 't is thereupon he tells us that seldom any man undertakes to refute a large Folio in a Preface But he does not consider that I did not for this reason use the Term of Refuting but Assaulting and that far from charging the Author of the Perpetuity with this Design of a Refutation my complaint hath bin on the contrary that he has not refuted this Book and which hath been grounded on the Necessity urging him to have done it as I shall shew hereafter Now to justifie what I said that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath been the first Occasion of this Debate and at the same time that this is not an ill grounded Supposition I need not repeat that the Author of the Treatise designed to refute that whole Book it appears to me sufficient he hath assaulted the last part of it and undertaken to answer it throughout the second Section of his Treatise It sufficeth me that his first Section tendeth to render incredible Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation It sufficeth me the drift of his whole Work is to make Mr. Aubertin's Proofs of matters of Fact altogether useless to us And this is more than need to be said to refute this fierce Accusation of notorious Falsity with which Charge Mr. Arnaud hath begun his Book Now this is apparently true and a man needs but his Eyes and common Sence to be satisfied in it Mr. Arnaud may tell us what he pleases concerning the Author of the Perpetuity's real Design Yet shall I answer him that when men judge of a Work their Judgment is guided by what appears in the Work it self and not by the secret Intentions of its Author For mens Designs many times lye hid but the drift of their Work lies open I do not pretend to penetrate into mens Hearts yet cannot I be withheld from judging of the Treatise of the Perpetuity because 't is before my Eyes THAT this Treatise was at first but a simple Preface or that it was not it avails me little to know for I am not usually so much in Love with Rarities as to extend my Curiosity into the Author of the Perpetuity's disavowed Designs If this Work hath been heretofore but a Preface and that it hath been since raised to the dignity of a Treatise there hath been reason perhaps for its ennobling its Desert hath made it worthy of this Honour and they are at this day to blame who have reproached it with the meanness of its former Condition in an occasion which called for the establishment of its Glory But be it what it will Preface or Treatise it is all one to me it assaulteth never the less for this Mr. Aubertin's Book BUT saith Mr. Arnaud he refutes it by the way By the way of four score and eight Pages which it contains there are one and fifty of them imployed in a formal Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation and the drift of the rest as I have already said is to shew that this Account is incredible because t is impossible and indirectly to overthrow the whole Work So that here I think the charge of our first notorious Falsity appears to be untrue Let us see the second which is that I affirmed The Author of the Perpetuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin ' s Book after an indirect manner But to apprehend throughly the truth of this Observation Mr. Aubertin's whole Book must be granted to be a Discourse only touching the Eucharist and which is divided into three Parts In the first he handleth this Subject by Arguments drawn from Scripture and humane Reason He produceth the Passages thereof and Arguments fetched from thence and refutes the Answers made thereunto nay he near upon answereth whatsoever Controvertists have stated hitherto considerable on this Subject In the second he examines the Churches Belief during six Centuries by an exact Discussion of all Passages produced on either side makes it plainly appear that Transubstantiation and the real Presence are Doctrines which have bin unknown during all that time And in the third he gives an account after what manner their Doctrines have been introduced THE first part treateth of the Question of Right shewing the true Rules of it and serves as a Foundation to the second The second Part handleth the Question of matter of Fact by a faithful deposition of Witnesses that is to say by the Fathers from Age to Age and serves as a Foundation to the third And the third Part shews the Degrees of this Innovation the Time when it begun its Authors and the Opposition which it hath met with THIS being so I say it is an indirect Proceeding to single out this last Part from the second and attempt the refuting of it alone as the Author of the Perpetuity hath done And the Reason is manifest because the only Foundation on which the last Part is built and which communicateth to it all its force of Perswasion consisteth in its second For wherefore do we believe for Example what it saith concerning the Innovation which Anastasius Sinaite hath introduced in reference to Expressions he having bin the first that rejected the Terms of Type or Figure on the Subject of the Eucharist It is because he shews us in his second Part that the Fathers who preceded Anastasius ever made use of this manner of Expression for we find not any one of them who rejected them Wherefore do we take Paschasius to be the first who ever thought of the real Presence The Reason is because we never meet with any
before his time who thus deliver themselves So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessarily prepare the Reader for the third In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church for the six first Ages to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation and supposes it to be not only possible but that it hath actually hap'ned so that it only remains to know when by whom and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced and this is sufficiently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone without the greatest Injustice and Disingenuity for this is to strip it of all its Strength and to deal with it as the Philistims did with Samson cut off his Hair before they set upon him Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind or rather to speak better with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions Now this is not fair Dealing For to proceed orderly he ought to have begun with these first Preparations and made it appear if he could that they were fallacious and so discover the unjustice falsity or weakness of them and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us Had he taken this Course we should have had nothing to charge him with touching his Method but to stifle these Preparations and cut 'em off from the Dispute and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former As for Instance Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients in saying The Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ Now to refute directly this Historical Passage being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself But instead of this the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course for he demands how this can be That Perpetuity of the Faith P. 50. 51. c. Anastasius who could not be ignorant of the Churches Belief in his time should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed and this without acknowledging he proposed a contrary Opinion He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West and that Anastasius's real meaning and that of them who spake like him in this particular could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them And the same doth he in respect of Paschasius whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion and that he did not teach a new Doctrine he sets himself upon shewing that if Paschasius had bin an Innovator he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time that he would have bin opposed and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church as he has done I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments neither will I say they ought to be rejected for this Reason alone that they are indirect The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable and it must be granted it is not for the chief design of this his Account being only to demonstrate that Anastasius and Paschasius introduced Innovations Now to make it appear they were not Innovators there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who preceded them which should come near the same Expressions or at least amounted to the same Sence as that of theirs which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then if he pleases the Question and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths the one that Mr. Aubertin ' s Book was the first occasion of this Contest the other that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former it will not be amiss to answer his Objections and shew him first That I pretendnot to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination for provided he handles them in a regular manner he will thereby oblige the publick Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book and leaving the other provided this Part may be well refuted alone and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separation Thirdly Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himself and require of him two Volums in Folio For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book AND as to what he tells us that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject than that he suppose nothing which is False or Obscure and draw not from thence ill Consequences seeing the truth and clearness of Principles and the justness of their Consequences are in themselves sufficient to assure us of the Truth and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof To which I answer This is true when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject and do take this course to decide the principal Question of it for in this case only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined But if this be not consented to but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not nor Whether their Consequences are true or false for this follows afterwards The Method of handling the Subject is only considered without regard to the Principles or Conclusions That is to say Whether 't is direct or disorderly natural or against Nature sufficient to perswade and end the Controversie or not and on this account it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong one which is a Natural rather than that which is not so For such a one may well be told He spends his time to no purpose that takes not a right
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
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
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâ—â—n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
I say is so well known that Allatius himself censures a Protestant named Jerom Viscer for saying the Greeks carry the Body of our Saviour in Procession twice about the Church So far are Allatide Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 15. they say's he from carrying the Eucharist twice about the Church that on the contrary they carry it not at all for that which they carry from the Prothesis to the great Altar which they call the great Entry is no more than Bread and Wine unconsecrated AND these are Mr. Arnaud's gross Proofs as he calls 'em for I meddle not here with what he tells us concerning a Letter from Mr. Pompone We shall examine that in the following Book His fine Proofs as he tetms them are those he draws from the real Presence in supposing the Greeks hold it For say's he whosoever believes Jesus Christ to be present in the Eucharist Book 10 chap. 9 pag. 76. speaks to him as God implores his assistance beggs his pardon excites himself by expressions of confidence in him acknowledges his own unworthiness and all these actions being external are outward expressions of Adoration So that to bring Proofs of the Adoration of the Eucharist there needs no more to be done but only to produce all the Prayers contain'd in the Liturgies which are offer'd to our Saviour after the Consecration But it has been already observed that this is one of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions who is not willing to handle the Question of the Adoration as a means whereby to decide that of the substantial Conversion but rather as a Consequence thereof so that all the force of his pretended Proofs consisting in supposing the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence there needs no more to be done for the overthrowing them than to send him to the refutation of these Arguments by which he pretends he has establish'd his Principle and even this very consideration that he could not form his Proof without making this supposition will only confirm what we maintain viz. that the Greeks adore not the Sacrament whence it follows they do not believe 't is the proper Substance of the Son of God for 't is not likely a Church that holds this Opinion would be wanting to give to the Sacrament those outward expressions of reverence which would distinguish themselves easily from all other kinds of honour The Church of Rome furnishes us with an example of this on which we need only cast our eyes for it clearly appears by her words and actions that the honour she gives the Eucharist is a sovereign and divine honour such as is due to God alone Had the Greek Church design'd to shew it the same respect what should hinder it from doing as the Roman Church does Would she not at least indeavour to imitate its example in several particulars Why do they not carry it to the sick with the same solemnity as those of the Church of Rome Wherefore I say does not the Greek Church enjoyn her Children to kneel as oft as they shall meet the Sacrament Why does she not openly expose it in publick rejoycings or afflictions Wherefore does she not carry it about in Procession Why not dedicate a particular Festival to it Mr. Arnaud may tell us as long as he pleases That there is no natural Book 10. chap. 9. pag. 78. coherence between these things and the Adoration that the Institution of these Ceremonies is pious and commendable but no wise necessary and that the Adoration may subsist without them as it does in effect in all the East When there were not a natural coherence between Adoration and each of these particular Customs yet would it be me thinks contrary to nature that the Adoration should subsist seperated from all these things in general seeing these are in a manner almost the same external marks of Divine Worship which People have ever rendred to some visible Object What likelihood is there if the Greeks had the same Sentiments as the Latins touching this Sacrament but they would adopt some one of these Devotions which are so familiar to the Latins especially those that approach the nearest their usual Customs and which are moreover very proper to express this sovereign honour now in question as is that solemn Feast called God's Festival with all its Pomp. But so far have they been from imitating the Church of Rome in this particular that they have on the contrary shewed the greatest aversion to it as appears by the Confession of Metrophanus Citropulus made at Helmstad in the year 1625. We carry not about the Streets say's he this Holy Mystery unless Consess Eccles Orient cap. 9. de coena Dom. it be to the sick it being not given us to make a show of it but to be religiously received for the remission of sins according to the words of our Saviour All Historians are agreed that the Russians do not observe this Festival Sigismond in his Commentaries touching Moscovia and Gagnin in his Description of this same Country do expressly take notice of it But that which most considerable is That when those amongst them who were subject to the King of Poland were forc'd to reunite themselves to the Roman Church which hap'ned in the year 1595. under Pope Clement the Eighth they made this Contract That they should not be compelled to make any Procession on the Hâ—mber sum conir t. 11. Tho. Ã Jesu lib 6. p. 3. c. 1. Thom. â— Jesu ibid. Festival of the Body of Jesus Christ because they had other Customs amongst them in reference to the Sacrament WHEREUPON a Learned man of the Roman Church being consulted gave this Answer That as to the carrying or not carrying of the Sacrament about in Procession that was not to be much regarded but there were several other things of greater importance touching the Sacrament to be considered THIS Person although he spake not fully his mind yet said enough to make us understand him For he means if I mistake not that did the matter concern only the Festival of the Sacrament it signified little but that the unwillingness these People shewed to observe this Feast did sufficiently evidence they had not the same Sentiment in the main with the Latins touching the Eucharist And in effect wherefore should they refuse to observe this Feast did they believe the Sacrament to be the proper Substance of the Son of God and adored it with an Adoration of Latria Were they afraid of giving it too much honour Why not conform in this particular with the Roman Church seeing they were reunited to her and had left the Greeks Is not this an evident token that the Greeks cannot accommodate themselves to the Adoration practis'd by the Latins nor consequently to the Doctrine they teach and on which this Adoration is established BUT when what I said should have no ground and the Adoration might subsist without these Ceremonies Mr. Arnaud ought at least to shew us they
preserve the Substance of the Sacrament The Sixteenth from a Passage of Oecumenius WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread and that there is touching this Point between them and the Latins so stiff a Controversie that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon and therefore when ever this happens they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them I shall not trouble my self or Reader with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progress of this Dispute all that I aim at here being only to give farther light to the question I handle It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation for we find them continually arguing from this Principle that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius and Leo Bishop of Acrida to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament they add observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body This expression Bibliot Paâ—â— Tom. 4. â—dâ—t 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will does not well agree with the belief of Transubstantiation for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body but it cannot be said with good sence that he calls the Bread his Body seeing this latter expression signifies he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body which supposes the Bread remains and receives the name of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Michael Cerularius but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesiastical Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they having likewise related the words of the Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat de lib. Eccles Graec. diss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius that this Passage Gennad pâ—o Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body the Wine his Blood He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expression with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation to wit that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme and that they eat it as a Figure of the Flesh of Christ You offer to God in Sacrifice say's Nicetas Pectoratus the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ and a little further he that makes the Azyme and eats it altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews yet does he in this imitate them and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew They apply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them that after the Conversion 't is no longer Bread neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd but the Body of Jesus Christ and that in supposing this Conversion the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius the Patriarch of Constantinople that at the Council of Florence wherein 't was ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread and with the Azyme every one according to the Custom of his own Church the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves saying Gennad pro Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ the one of unleavened and th' other of leavened Bread Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation for besides that this would not be two Bodies but one alone under the different Species it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies one made of leaven'd th' other of unleaven'd Bread WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread as the Soul is to the Body because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven so that they call leavened Bread living Bread as being that which has Spirits and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread a dead Lump unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and thereupon they ground this Accusation that the Latins eat a dead Lump inanimate Bread and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours and is not void of Soul as taught the Heretick Apollinarius We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter in that of Nicetas Pectoratus and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd The Christians Easter say's he Bibl Patr. Tom 4 Edit 4. was celebrated not with unleaven'd Bread but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person and as the Divine Nature is most simple so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body or Flesh There being then in Jesus Christ the Divinity the Soul and the Body so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread that is to say with leavened Bread there are three things namely Flower
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
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
remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but mentions not a Word of Confession Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiastical History their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place where their common Devotion brings them do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession nor that of Confirmation as appears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject he I say that believes these latter are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sacraments THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites and purging their Books from some Thom. a Jesu lib. 7. part 2. c. 7. Errors which were common to them say's he as well as to other Eastern Nations that is to say other Christians in that Country they found they misunderstood some Passages of Scripture and especially that touching the Institution of the Sacrament this is my Body They affirm say's he that we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins 't is the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption or such an Interpretation of the Words of Christ seeing 't is only on the literal Sence of these Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded I shall prove in its place as clearly as 't is possible to prove a thing of this nature that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation nor the substantial Presence This Truth will be plainly manifest and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion or made thereof a Point of Controversy Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it because they do not make thereof a Controversy AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument and discover the weakness of his Consequence But we must proceed farther for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable to wit that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation altho they never disputed against it I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity but even no Probability I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century till this present For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre James de Vitry Belon Cottovic Anthony Caucus Francis Richard Allatius du Loir Thevenot and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter I moreover produced the Testimonies of Bozius and Thomas a Jesu All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century There are Barlaam Epist 1. Bibl. patr Tom. 2. Edit 4. say's he few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it to which they willingly apply themselves All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Salvation So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith there are Millions ignorant of it Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book writes I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People for I know their Ignorance Epist ad Wittemborg in Epist Virro erudi and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith whom they Combat not with Arms but Patience and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops and therefore I continually upbraid them with it but to no purpose The Jesuits making their advantage thereof have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth and are like Foxes amongst Geese It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading written since Photius's time excepting some few Histories and Collections of the antient Canons the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy and some pittiful Treatises wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word without any Art or Sence almost II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present for there can be nothing imagined more dreadful and miserable Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate continually accompanied with Misfortunes or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers by means whereof Greece became divided into Factions and horrible Confusions In the Year 1034 Romanus Argirus Peteau Rat. tempor ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid. the Emperor having lost Syria was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit He lost Sicily and Bulgaria and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopted one Michael Calaphatus and made him Emperor but four or five Months Ibid. after she caused his Eyes to be bored out and gave the Empire to Constantin Monomaque whom she espoused He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054 and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him who Reigned but one Ibid. Year After her came one named Michael Stratiotique who Reigned also but one Year Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place wherein he remained Ibid orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull Ibid. and mean Spirited Prince who suffered the Barbarians
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
of arguing should his Maxim take place the Fathers of the seventh and eigth Centuries have say'd such and such a thing with Reticency Now the People have understood them in such and such a manner by a supplement Therefore they taught and believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation How can a man consider this seriously Mr. Arnaud will tell us there 's nothing more common in Humane Speech than to use half Sentences nor any thing more usual than to supply what is wanting to ' um We are wont to say a Man a House a City the Air the Earth the Sun and not the Substance of a Man the Substance of a House c. But here is a great deal of difference For here we use these Expressions because we suppose those to whom we speak have eyes and the use of their reason and that these easily supply what is wanting in words Nay when we use these terms even in a figurative sense we do not explain them because we know that sense and reason which are common lights to those that speak and hear will sufficiently explain them But 't is not the same in reference to the Eucharist for supposing there 's made in it a real Conversion of the inward Substance of the Bread into the inward Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Sense and Reason lead us not to understand this Change seeing 't is imperceptible and contrary to the order of Nature and we cannot supply by their means what is imperfect in the Words Neither can this Suppliment come from the Word of God for it is pretended these terms which our Saviour used in the institution of the Sacrament have themselves need of being explained and determined by that which is called the sence of the Church Neither can it come from the Tradition of the preceding Ages for besides that the People have little knowledge of this Tradition we shall not find any thing more precise in the instructions of the first Six Ages than in those of the seventh and eighth Whence then must this Suppliment come Must we here suppose secret and immediate Inspirations or imagine there were certain short forms of speech then in use and which served as a key for the understanding of the Publick teachings Unless 't were so I cannot see how Mr. Arnaud's System can hold For to say that by a Prophetick Spirit they of the seventh and eighth Centuries knew what would be determin'd in the eleventh and supplyed what was wanting by means of this Prescience this is something hard to be believed and I know not whether Mr. Arnaud is willing to go so far 't is then clear that this pretended Suppliment is a mere Whimsy and as ill contrived and maintained as ever any thing was AS to those two parts which compose the Mystery of the Eucharist the one the external Vail which is the Sacrament and th' other the Body of Jesus Christ which is covered with this Vail this is not a place for a thro-examination of this Hypothesis Yet methinks Mr. Arnaud advances something singular enough when he adds that 't is fruitless to enquire into the Chap. 2. pag. 743. Nature of this vail it being sufficient to know that it is Bread and Wine according to Appearance which is to say if I be not mistaken that 't is needless to enquire whether this Appearance of Bread which covers the Body of Jesus Christ is a mere Phantasm a pure Illusion which our Senses suffer or whether they be really the Accidents of Bread which subsist separate from their Substance Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church determine whether this Doctrine be according to their Councils especially that of Constance As to my part I shall only tell Mr. Arnaud he will not find this Appearance of Bread and Wine in what sort p. 743. soever he Understands it in the Fathers of the seventh and eighth Centuries nor that the Body of Jesus Christ is hid under the Vail of this Appearance The instance he gives us of a Man that is composed of Body and Soul is vastly different the Soul is not an invisible and impalpable Body 't is a real Spirit and the Body is not an appearance of a Body that has nothing of reality in it it is a Body in Propriety of Nature and Substance When then we say of a Man that he is an immortal and spiritual Being in respect of his Soul or that he is a mortal and corporeal Being in respect of his Body or that he is mortal and immortal considering him as a Body and Soul joyned together this Language is Natural and easie to be understood without any Explication because the Principles on which it is established are obvious to Reason and we may well suppose that those to whom we direct our Discourse are not Ignorant of them But if Mr. Arnaud will have the Expressions of the Fathers of the seventh or eighth Centuries to be grounded on these Principles of the Apperance of Bread which in truth is not Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ concealed invisibly under this Vail he must without any more ado shew us that these Principles were known to the People for it cannot be supposed they knew 'um Naturally And thus his Instance is not at all to the purpose 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 IT is now easie to perceive that all these preparations with which Mr. Arnaud would clog his Readers mind is only a handsom excuse for the weakness of his proofs and an authentick declaration that he could not find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries for had he any thing to alledg that was considerable 't is evident he would never have taken so many circuits and this is a certain sign that these Doctrines were neither established nor known in the Church during those ages and this will appear more clearly if we cast our eyes on the passages he has produc'd there being never a one of 'em that precisely contains the Conversion of the substance of Bread or substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist nor from whence they can be necessarily inferred FIRST They cannot be infer'd from all those clauses of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and Mr. Arnaud could Lib. 8. Ch. 3. not busie himself to less purpose than to collect as he has done all these passages drawn from the Roman Order the Liturgy called The Mass of Illyricus The Book of the Sacraments which Menard a Benedictin Monk published Not to say the Book of the Roman Order as we have it at this day is a Treatise made by an Author of the 11th Century as appears by the
Reflection THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th Century when the contests of Berengarius hapned to determine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first We have likewise seen in the 7th Chapter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words What can we think of all these circuits but that they are illusions which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins and mount up to them from the later Ages It is then certain that these ways of reasoning these suppositions and arguments from the bottom to the top are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion which is that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church The second Reflection 'T IS consonant to reason to imagin that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body or not having been agitated with great heat those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers and endeavoured to turn them to their sense This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and confirm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances We see but too many examples of this It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences The Divisions of Christians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity When Scholars are become Masters they no longer look upon themselves as Scholars but Doctors and in this quality 't is no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions which they endeavour to establish on the testimony of those that preeeded them and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em and as to the Doctors there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly and engage them into his opinions which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church The third Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's third proposition is conceived in these terms Lib. 10. cap. 3. That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catholicks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike To establish this proposition he says there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect different The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions and to shew they are not alike The second is to discern them by opinion by a simple view of the mind and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed Applying afterwards this remark to his subject he says that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Transubstantiation and reality and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions and that opinion has so well distinguished them This is the summary of his third Chapter The first Reflection WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions and the things themselves by opinion as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences where there are no real ones I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a metaphorical sense this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as different expressions but it does not follow that they be different in effect unless it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever conformity there may be between them A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding as if they were alike such expressions as are not so and then again take for different expressions such as be alike As we never pretended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things so Mr. Arnaud must not pretend they are right in every thing The second Reflection THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the different expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike is deceitful For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of reason 't will be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages wherein the Fathers lived and that of persons to whom they spake and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation and the others which we produce as being alike in a metaphorical sense and we will see what use we must make of his Rule But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed will be an apparent deceiving of our selves seeing 't is not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine The fourth Consequence THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth which is Book 10.
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
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
nature but only in Sacrament contradict the Church Here he acts the part of a Disputer if his arguing be good we will believe him if it be a Sophism we 'll not matter it Now 't is a sophism for according to the maxim of S. Augustin The Sacraments assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments so that to deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Body of Jesus Christ BVT adds Mr. Arnaud 't is moreover false that this is only a consequence Book 8. ch 9. p. 852. For this proposition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Presence was included both in the Principle and Conclusion of Paschasus his argument He concludes That those who deny the Real Presence commit an horrid crime in opposing the Faith of the Church Here we have it comprehended in the conclusion Did ever man hear such kind of reasoning 'T is false that this is only a consequence because 't is a proposition contain'd in the conclusion This is just as if a man should say 't is false that it is day Why Because the Sun is at his heighth for for to be day and the Sun to be at its heighth are not more the same thing than to be a consequence and to be a proposition contained in the conclusion of an argument Are these the prodigious effects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick And the Principle of this conclusion is adds he not that the Church simply recites these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui but understands them in the sense of the Real Presence Which is what I deny The Principle whereon Paschasus argues is no other than this That the Priest says Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui and the People answer Amen That the Church did or did not understand this of the Real Presence is what Paschasus does not touch on He is careful not to advance so far Had he known says Mr. Arnaud that the Church took these words in another sense he must needs be a mad man to reproach as he does these persons for being contrary to the sense of the whole Church He supposes then this for a Princile that the whole Church took them in the sence of a Real Presence and consequently supposes she held entirely this Doctrin This is mere wrangling Paschasus does not say that these persons against whom he inveighs were contrary to the sense of the Church but only that they went against the Church to wit inasmuch as they went according to him contrary to the terms of the Liturgy Secondly Whether he did or did not know that the Church took these terms in another sense 't is not necessary to enquire seeing he does not explain himself therein and speaks neither far or near of the sense of these terms And 't is likely he knew there were at least three sorts of persons in the Church the doubters the ignorant and formal adversaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this sense Thirdly Supposing we say not that Paschasus was mad but argued like a Sophister what inconvenience will follow and what shall we say more than appears from the bare reading of his discourse He would have the Church on his side what could be more easie supposing at that time the conversion of substances and Real Presence were believed than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church Bishops Religious the Doctors and generally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor less and there only needed them to be consulted Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them His Adversaries could not have denied this truth and had they the impudence to do it they might easily be convinc'd by a million of persons then living Why had he recourse to arguing and consequences Why must this consequence be drawn by the hair out of a passage of the Liturgy which may receive I know not how many explications Why did he not at least say 't was certain the Church understood this clause in the sense of a Real Presence Wherefore was he silent touching the sense and argued only from the force of these terms Corpus dilectissimi filii tui c. as if all those that utter these terms or add to em their Amen believ'd the Real Presence Which shews us two things the first that Paschasus acted like a Sophister sheltering himself as well as he could under the Authority of the Church against the reproach objected against him of being a Visionary and an Enthusiast and the other that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud supposes he had which is that the whole Church was of his opinion and the people commonly believed the Real Presence and conversion of substances of Bread and Wine he would not have fail'd to make the best of it and o'rewhelm his adversaries with it Mr. ARNAVD will now then perhaps comprehend that there 's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain and of which he himself is a witness and one that draws a consequence and perhaps will no longer say That my distinction separates by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot separate And at the same time acknowledg that never pretension was worse grounded than that of the Author of the Perpetuity and his own They affirm the whole Church was of Paschasus his mind But whereon do they ground their supposition Were the Adversaries of Paschasus agreed about it No. Does Paschasus himself expresly affirm it No. But 't is because Paschasus insinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made use of But does Paschasus formally assert that the Church understood this term in the sense which he gave it No. But 't is because Paschasus must thus understand it says Mr. Arnaud to make his reasoning just Take away then from Paschasus his reasoning the justness which Mr. Arnaud would give it the subintâ—lligitur is annull'd and these Gentlemen bare of proofs THESE words of Paschasus says Mr. Arnaud Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem furnish us with another proof of the same nature For they shew that this solution of virtue was new and that Paschasus had not learn'd it but of late Mr. Arnaud does well to advertise us that 't is a proof of the same nature as the others for 't is so in effect that is to say a very slight one and scarcely worth offering Paschasus is astonish'd at what his Adversaries say in reference to virtue not that this solution appears to him new He says nothing of it in this respect but because it does not appear to him
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
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
yields us a demonstrative proof that Paschasus was an Innovator for the rest do not speak like him there are two of the famousest of 'em viz. Raban and Bertram who have expresly applied themselves to the refuting of his Doctrin TO these two we may add a third which is John Scot who wrote also by the command of Charles the Bald against the novelties of Paschasus His Book was burnt in the Council of Verseil and we understand from the testimony of Ascelinus in his Letter to Berenger that the end which he proposed was to shew in this Book that what is Consecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body nor the true Blood of Jesus Christ Toto nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video ut mihi persuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Consecratur neque vere Corpus neque vere Christi Sanguinem esse hoc autem astruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opusculis quae prave exponit The Author of the Dissertation which Mr. Arnaud has inserted in his 12th Book pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram and that of John Scot are the same He endeavours likewise to lessen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adversary to Paschasus and I had not finish'd this Work without examining his Conjectures had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud I hope this friend of mine will soon publish his Piece which will or I am greatly deceived fully satisfie every unprejudic'd man that seeks the truth CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book HAving satisfied whatsoever respects the matter of this Dispute my design wherein I am engaged of returning an exact answer to Mr. Arnaud's volume seems to require I should now pass to the discussion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled personal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me The interest also of my defence against Mr. Arnaud's injustices obliges me to this Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province for there are several reasons hindering me which I hope judicious persons will not disallow FIRST these personal differences are handled in so sharp and hot a manner so full of animosities that 't were better a thousand times to pass 'em over in silence and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety Patience and Christian Charity than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly and repel Mr. Arnaud's outrages which cannot be well done without sometimes exceeding the bounds of Christian moderation MOREOVER altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reason to believe that the publick will take part with what respects their persons yet I cannot pretend 't is the same with me These Gentlemen have made a noise in the world they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France Spain and Italy Whereas I am person obscure enough and whose name is only known by my interest in this Dispute so that 't will be a presumption in me to believe the publick will concern it self in my respect Should I then here begin with a long discussion of our complaints and reciprocal defences the readers might well say to one another that they have nothing to do with this and that 't is an abuse of their patience after a long discourse of things which relate to the cause to engage them further in a tiresom discourse of Personal Differences IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongst his Personal Differences several things to which 't is impossible to answer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of ' emselves have no coherence with that of the Eucharist I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity against the first Reformers which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner grounding it on Facts and Principles some of which are false others taken in a wrong sense and others invidiously perverted How can we handle in a few words so important a subject when the question concerns the justifying the innocency of several great men and to shew at the same time the justice and necessity of our separation from the Roman Church 'T is plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters and that this is matter for a great Volume I reduce under this head these passionate expressions which begin the 9th Chapter of this 11th Book and which I design to relate here that the world may judg of ' em We demand justice says Mr. Arnaud speaking of me for the excesses of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honesty and truth which even Pagans would blush to violate We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this license We are already satisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promise impunity to all manner of crimes provided they be of the faithful Calvinists who commit them and we do not question him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adversaries We know the solutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear contrary to what S. Paul says who tells us that slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But that which we desire to know is whether they have of late taken away from Crimes the name of Crimes and stript them of the general infamy which accompanies 'em whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongst Calvinists and whether they have sanctified this name which is so horrible amongst men that they could not find a blacker to shew their detestation of it than to call such Devils I design not to repel these discourses to be met with scattered throughout his whole Book any otherwise than by reciting 'em or at most by censuring 'em as excesses which do not at all become a person who pretends to correct our morals and teach us virtue and moderation I shall not retort upon him several things in my turn which a just and natural defence seems to permit and enjoyn me to tell him But I pretend to justifie so well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud blush for shame that he has attackt them with such an outragious and malicious air And this we cannot do here transiently nor by way of answer to ten or twelve hot periods which like lightning have more fire than matter 'T is necessary for this purpose to be disengaged from all other subjects for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it to cure a wound than to make it AND these are the reasons which withhold me from entring into an exact discussion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book But because there are in these Personal Differences some Articles which I cannot wholly pass over in silence having too near a relation to the things which we treat of the Readers
Author of it This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes for supposing 't were true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca which is that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's and not Ratram's yet 't is certain what he says of the person of this Bertram or Ratram for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name is on our supposition that 't was the Religious of Corby Whether he admits our supposition as believing it in effect to be true or whether he admits it merely thro condescention 't is needless to inquire for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true which he does not he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author to wit that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings which suffices to justifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers Mr. ARNAVD's second complaint is that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin ' s Book an excellent piece which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs and his Proofs into Objections Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words intermixing several common places of raillery alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question to distinguish and argue in mood and figure and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable WERE it worth our while 't would be easie to shew he deceives himself in whatsoever he offers But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles we shall only say if either he or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery it does not follow that others have been so too We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections and Objections into Proofs is a conception so rare and well express'd that 't is hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter Moreover there 's a great deal of difference between saying that to discover the falsities of a Book we need only to confront the passages of it with the Originals and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs The confrontation of passages is the juster means the most natural and most ordinary to discover falsities but the change of Proofs into Objections and Objections into proofs is a kind of world turn'd upside down We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd 't would be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side there being few of them but what consist of Proofs and Objections and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary which are called Objections We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs and of Answers to Objections and this is what cannot be changed so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs yet would he be perplexed by these instances and answers and consequently must acknowledg he has lost his time and pains and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abused him Mr. ARNAVD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity He proposes it in his 9th Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable He ascends his tribunal and thence pronounces this sentence against me that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130 1131. of an heinous crime such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction I is says he again a detestable calumny an abominable crime the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches this is no jesting matter He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence If he has express'd himself thus thro incogitancy I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world and if he has done this with mature deliberation I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was and am certain there 's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding I protest before God with a sincere heart that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me I have answer'd his Book and am therewith content But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute which the publick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure and having discrediied it I say with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him What reason has he for such a passion I wrote these words in my Book God will one day shew who they are that wrong his Answer to the second Treatise part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter Church the light of his judgment will discover all things yea and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance and then 't will be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome and regaining peoples favour for when the face of things shall be changed this worlds wisdom will be useless Here is my crime this the spark that has set all on fire We Book 11. ch 9. page 1131. understand says he this language and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself and what interpretation his words will bear He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persuasion but out of policy and for worldly respects For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united if he believes what he says we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defended So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly respects is to charge him with not believing what he writes and to give this account of it THIS passion is a strange thing Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat he would have
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
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE might confirm the same truth by comparing the Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram were that trouble any way necessary But I believe this is sufficient to persuade those who weigh things IT is certain that our Author produces a reason to shew that Ratram is not the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He draws it from the silence of Hincmar This silence says he discovers so evidently th' injustice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Bertram to him that supposing we had no other proofs to justifie him this here will be more than sufficient to take away all suspicions which within these few years have been entertain'd touching his integrity in the Faith There is no likelihood if we believe our Author that Hincmar who on one hand was animated against Ratram and wrote against him a great Book concerning Predestination and this expression Trina Deitas and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion of John Scot who said that the Eucharist was not our Lords true Body but only its figure and memorial would not have reproached Ratram on this subject had he believed him the Author of this Book which goes under the name of Bertram seeing this Book yielded occasion enough to a passionate enemy as Hincmar was to charge him with this Heresie BUT this reflection is but a silly one First from one word which Hincmar has uttered against John Scot in favour of Paschasus we must not conclude that Hincmar was at full liberty to write against Ratramnus and t' encounter him as an Heretick Secondly I do not see why Hincmar should be so mightily transported against Ratram who spake without heat and mentioned not any of those against whom he wrote If Hincmar was transported against Ratram on another subject it does not hence follow he must be always in the like passion on all subjects which he had to debate with this Religious Thirdly This our Author supposes without reason that Hincmar was in a condition to insult over Ratram on the question of the Eucharist as he did in that of Predestination and there is herein a great deal of difference When Hincmar was so greatly transported against Ratram 't was because he had the Council of Cressy on his side 't was because Maug Dissert Hist p. 141. John Scot declared himself for him against Gothescalc and Ratram 't was because the famous Raban had prejudicated in his favour in a Council held at Mayence in 848. but there was nothing like this in the question of the Eucharist John Scot had declared himself against the sentiments of Paschasus the King knew it and kept him in his Palace which was a sufficient prejudice against Hincmar The famous Raban consulted by Heribold Bishop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain that is to say great Almoner had clearly taken part against the sentiments of the same Paschasus and the learned Church of Lyons who had persecuted John Scot whilst he defended the opinions of Hincmar touching Predestination ceased molesting him when he combated the sentiments of Paschasus on the Doctrin of the Eucharist Fourthly Our Author supposes with the same rashness that Hincmar believed this Controversie to be as important as it is at this day which is contrary to all probability For First Hincmar contents himself with criticising on the opinion of John Scot in very soft terms he does not call it Heresie but novelty of words whereas Raban and Hincmar term'd the opinion of Gotthescalc on the Divine Grace Heresie and Schism Secondly If we come to compare what Hincmar says against Ratram on the trina Deitas shall we not find that what he says against John Scot contains nothing so outragious Hincmar was a friend of Raban's who wrote a Letter to Egilon Vide Dissert Hist Maug p. 357 358. Penit. cap. 33. Abbot of Prom and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Sens against the Doctrin of Paschasus he was a friend of this Raban who had opposed him in his answer to Heribold publish'd by Stewart Hincmar always mentions Heribold T. 1. Maug p. 21. with a great deal of respect even after his death altho Heribold was so far from being of Paschasus his opinion that in the later ages the name of Heriboldiens was given to the Disciples of Berenger as we find in the Writings of Tho. Waldensis Fifthly If this silence of Hincmar proves T. 2. de Sacra c. 61. that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord because Hincmar would have reproached him with it what judgment must we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Bertram's altho the Church of Lyons which wrote so fiercely against him has not reproached him with it Why did not also Prudentius do it in his Treatise against Hincmar and Pardulus Was not this the ready way to decry these two Bishops to reproach them that they made use of the Pen of a profest enemy to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation Why did Nicholas the first suffer this Heresie growing in the bosom of Charles the Bald without warning this Prince of it That same Nicholas who concerned himself so much in the affairs on this side the Mountains and used all means to inform himself of ' em Nicholas the first shall bestir himself in the affair of Rothadus of Soissons in that of Hincmar of Laon where the point was only about Discipline and remain unconcerned in the business of John Scot altho he erred in the Eucharist He shall take notice of the affairs of Ebbon of Reims and those whom he had ordain'd and not take any notice of a question agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald in which this Prince did interest himself He shall know that Raban had opposed the Real Presence by publick Writings that he to whom Raban wrote was become Arch-Bishop of Sens that an Arch-Chaplain had erred in this matter and all this without being concerned The fault which our Author commits in this reflection on the silence of Hincmar proceeds from his not minding two things the one is that we must not always ground our selves on peoples proposing their sentiments in advantageous terms and speaking the opinion of their adversaries with disdain and contempt This is particularly the stile of Hincmar in every malter he treats of as it has been already observ'd by Mr. Mauguin and Mr. De la Motte which cannot be unknown to our Author Dissert Hist p. 357 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers part 5. p. 297. For example he always treats Gotthescalc as an Heretick altho it be believ'd at Port Royal that Gotthescalc defended only S. Austin's Doctrin on the matter of Grace THE other is that our Author has conceiv'd that the censure of Hincmar against John Scot imports that Hincmar believ'd the Real Presence
with its consequences as the Adoration the Sacrifice c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable Heresie Now 't is certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot. HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram I might pass by whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture of Mr. De Marca and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca no man of learning nor any of Berenger's enemies either in the 11th Century or in the following made this discovery seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust that he might handsomly leave it if he were forced It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a forein Title Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity THESE proofs are 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other AS to the first our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to Ibid. sect 1. Berenger whence he believes one may gather that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book and that small enough that a man cannot presently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fathers and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose that amongst others John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory which begins with these words Perficiant in nobis and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin whom he principally made use of as Berenger insinuates he forms his conclusion in these terms Specie geruntur ista non veritate And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram are either uneflectual for his design or want a foundation 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark They must if they are endued with common sense from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs These two Characters then are too general and wide And for the two last considerations 1. Who doubts that two Authors one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other as Ratram may have read that of John Scot may not cite the same authorities Ratram and Raban have done it as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot 2. 'T is not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors and should he have said it this character would be too general there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th Century who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors 3. Our Author ought not to propose as a character of identity that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis as John Scot has done for to speak properly this conclusion Specie geruntur ista non veritate is not of Bertram nor of John Scot but the Text it self of the Prayer which bears Vt quoe nunc specie gerimus veritate capiamus now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion and that they could neither of 'em do it in a more natural manner than in forming it thus Specie gerunter ista non veritate We must also observe and that as Ascelin relates that John Scot cited this Orison under the name of S. Gregory whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words it is not so great in respect of the construction of ' em Bertram having these words In specie geruntur ista non in veritate and John Scot these Specie geruntur ista non in veritate which proves that these are two different Authors THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger who informs us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France and that this King was Charlemain Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram which is dedicated to Charlemain and was written by his order BUT these conformities conclude nothing not the first because 't was very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject one who dwelt in his Palace to wit John Scot and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination to wit Ratramnus This Character is too general Not the second for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist were inscribed Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem but only Ad Carolum Regem which is what one may recollect from Sigebert from the Abbot Trithemius from John Bishop of Rochester and the De Script Eccl. catai c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog in
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
to say really which is not true and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence and not that of a spiritual and invisible Presence These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over-sorry when they happen for they have a desir'd effect for some time and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer But howsoever 't is certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Presence which he might easily reject by the testimony of his proper senses But to speak the truth there 's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Bread into the Word and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate which became the Body of the Word which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin and which is now in Heaven There 's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant even supposing they were acquainted with his Catechism which is not very likely But supposing they knew it all by heart and comprehended the sense of it they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ which Damascen has since explained more clearly And this is what Gregory supposes also not as the true Faith of the Church but only as a probable opinion according as he formally explains himself Perhaps says he we are in the right AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had he could not thence promise himself any advantage because as we have already observ'd more than once the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought when he shall have proved the Real Presence or Real Absence was distinctly held therein he will be still told the question concerns not those Ages but the following But 't is not the same with me who draw thence several advantages For first neither Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense but the Real Absence in the second Secondly They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one to wit to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature and to be in a condition to acknowledg 't is a novely which was never held in the Church seeing we have shew'd 'em there 's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first are also in the second which is precisely that which is here in question Thirdly Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner yet without denying the thing seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other Fourthly They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence or by a general rejection without denoting any one kind of 'em or by a formal rejection of all the kinds or by a bare view of the nature of things seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible that the third brings no advantage to 'em and that there 's only the second which they can reasonably stick to and which yet they renounce because they find it unjustifiable Fifthly 'T is likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known inconsistency that is to say a pure impossibility and respected as such is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject Sixthly They can no longer say that the ancient formulary of the Communion Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd seeing it had another use which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds Seventhly They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Father 's used in their ordinary instructions brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural signification of each term but on the matter in hand which determin'd them to a figurative sense Eighthly They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th' other Ninthly It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries it hence follows 't was the same by greater reason in the following which were far darker Tenthly And that which is most important is that one may already know by this that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible but easie For there being only two things which can hinder it the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence that is to say the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance neither visible nor invisible and th' other the knowledg diligence and fidelity of the Pastors watching over their Flocks ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors and make them known to their people 'T is already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition and contrary to all probability And as to the other 't is certain it calls in question the credit of all Historians and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this that
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