any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
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
Souls and Bodys that 't is neither Consumed or Corrupted nor passes into excrements but into our Substance and for our Conservation We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread seeing it passes into that of our Bodies Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence Do's Mr. Claude say's he pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical Lib. 7. C. 4 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them Surely he will not proceed so far How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance And why do's he not conclude on the contrary that as these words in Consistentiam animae vadit do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul to conserve fortify and operate in it his Graces so this expression in Consistentiam Corporis vadit do's signify nothing else but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks there are two things in the Eucharist the Substance and the Spiritual and divine vertue which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things attributes one of 'um to the Soul to wit the Divine Vertue and th' other to the Body to wit the Substance and 't is in respect of this latter that he say's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not consuming nor Corrupting it self nor passing into Excrements God forbid but passing into our Substance and preservation He say's expresly it passes into our Substance Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists one of which respects immediately the Body and th' other immediately the Soul Under the new Law say's Cyrill of Jerusalem the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salvation Sanctify the Soul and Body for as the Bread respects the Body so the word that Cyril Hie Cal. myst 4. Epiphan in Anapcâ—hal is to say the Consecration performed by the word relates to the Soul The Bread say's Epiphanius is an aliment but there is in it a quickning Vertue And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist in respect of what it has material and in reference of the Prayer say'd over Origen Comm. in Matt. 1â— it THE III. Proposition censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract which has for its title Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta some places of Scripture misunderstood and is thus described Asserunt Legendum esse hoc est Sacramentum Corporis c. They affirm we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body c. Would Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition For whether these People pretended we must read the Text not this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ as the title of the Article insinuates Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church should either make this correction or seek this explication Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind that we must not read this is my Body but this is the Sacrament of my Body Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence Let Mr. Arnaud consult himself hereupon and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites or received by the Publick Consent and by Tradition and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical or Erroneous or Superstitious were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations so that what we now Rehearsed concerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schismatical Churches AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite who was of the Seminary at Rome Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person whom he perfectly knew being both of the same Country and having passed over a great part of their Life 's together he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testimonies and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down COME we now to the Jacobites Copticks and Ethiopians Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries which he used in reference to the Moscovites and Nestorians so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made and tell him that if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touching the Substance of the Sacrament several Authors and Emissaries would without doubt have informed the World thereof and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the Latins and them I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops and that when Eugenius IV. Raynald ad ann 1442. reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist holding as they do that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body there being only the Divine Nature in him Now that they hold this last Error may be proved by infinite Testimonies NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonderfull Hâ—â—t of the
said to this Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Presence on the same Article which was disputed him by his Adversaries on the same Article on which he produc'd the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body and the clause of the Liturgy Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi on the same Article whereon he had alledged several passages of the Fathers Quamvis says he ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent DOES any man desire another express and formal testimony of Paschasus I need only produce these words of his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew to satisfie him I have been more large on this subject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of 〈◊〉 Commentary permits because there are several that have another sentiment touching these mystical things and several are so blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing else but what we see with our eyes and tast with our mouths Here we have then actually persons that did not believe the Real Presence and those not inconsiderable for their number seeing he denotes them by the term of several and which he expresses so clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loss what to answer Mr. ARNAVD who well perceived he might be opposed on the first answer bethought himself of giving us another in which contrary to his usual manner he relaxes something of what he advanced Not but that says Book 8. ch 10. p. 852. he this word intelligence may likewise respect the Real Presence not as a new truth but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended and in a manner which penetrates more lively the heart for there are several degrees of growing in the knowledg of a mystery which one believes already by Faith He would say there might be people who knew less strongly and livelily the Real Presence and that in this respect they might acquire the intelligence of it but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it or to whom Paschasus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth But Paschasus himself refutes this gloss Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent This is an ignorance which according to him extends so far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Presence To err in an Article thro ignorance is it not a not believing of it at all as having never heard it mentioned Is not this a knowing nothing of it a having no knowledg and consequently no Faith in it Now such were Paschasus his ignorant persons who were far different from those of Mr. Arnaud In a word they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing else in respect of their substance than what they appear to our eyes and tast as Paschasus now spake THIS Principle being well establish'd as I believe it is at present 't will be no hard matter to see the consequence of it The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence of the Presence if it were taught in the Church of the Absence if the Presence were not therein taught Whereupon I raise this Argument There cannot be any person in a Church wherein the Real Presence is commonly taught but knows distinctly the Real Presence Now in the Church of the 9th Century at which time Paschasus lived there were people that were ignorant of the Real Presence and erred in this Article thro ignorance Therefore in the Church of the 9th Century the Real Presence was not commonly taught The first proposition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud without distinction or restriction the second is of Paschasus himself the conclusion of it I think then is inevitable 'T WILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of those called ad hominem which does indeed press an adversary by his own proper Principles but which are not always absolutely conclusive because it may happen that the Principles of an Adversary on which they are grounded be false and imprudently offered This Argument then may be convictive against the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be false and consequently the conclusion I draw thence TO solve this difficulty besides that 't is a great advantage for the cause which I defend that as able Doctors as these Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles 'T is to be observ'd that theirs being alternative must be distinguish'd into two propositions one of which is All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence if the Church of their time taught it And the other All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Presence In respect of this second proposition the Principle is false as I have shew'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity and in the beginning of his 6th Book in I think an unanswerable manner But in respect of the first the Principle is true and must be granted for in effect it is not conceivable that a Church should believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and yet let persons of age Communicate without instructing them in it That she should believe and teach a man must adore this Sacrament which we receive publickly practise this supreme Adoration and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it and in this respect err thro ignorance It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of those term'd ad hominem seeing 't is not grounded on the second proposition of these Gentlemens Principle which is in contest but on the first in which both sides are agreed so that my conclusion has all the strength and truth that can be desired in every respect NEVERTHELESS we must answer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections Paschasus says That he dedicated his Book to young People 'T is Book 8. ch 10. p. 859. then says he unlikely that Paschasus design'd to instruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant I answer 't was not indeed likely that he had immediately so vast a design 'T is more likely he proposed his Doctrin as he himself says petentibus to hir Scholars who pray'd him to shew them his sentiment in this matter but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new He says says Mr. Arnaud again That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains Now no man who discovers a mystery of this importance uses such humble expressions which suppose he says nothing but what 's vulgarly known Mr. Arnaud deceives himself for besides what I intimated in
found nothing in 'em of what he saw at first I confess they may be understood in this sense that this affair was politically manag'd and with respect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome and regain the peoples good will and that this is a worldly wisdom But 't will not be found in 'em That the Author of the Perpetuity did not write by persuasion but only thro policy as Mr. Arnaud imagin'd This he will not find Why then does he extend my words beyond their natural signification and why does he wrong a man so scandalously on the imagination he said what he did not We understand says he The Book entituled The Port Royal and Geneva of Intelligence against the most holy Sacrament of the Altar this language He shews plainly he does not understand it seeing he charges me with saying what I did not and draws his Commentary only from himself and not from my words Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed against him wherein he is accused for formally opposing the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence by a proposition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Eucharist has been publickly in a Letter treated as suspicious that he has been told That if he be unwilling Answer to the request presented to the King c. Book 2. ch 6. p. 187. together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva he must change the act of the adoration which they perform assisting at the Mass to the Elevation of the Host for they say only I adore thee raised on the Cross at the general judgment and at the right hand of the Father without any mention of adoring him being present in the Church Had I severely applied my self to what he says somewhere in his Book on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philosophy That God sees in the matter in the figures and forms only a different order of parts to conclude thence that this proposition overthrows the existence of accidents without a subject in the Eucharist and consequently that 't is contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome as it has been observ'd in a Letter Printed not long since what tempests must I not have expected seeing for having only hinted that there might be some policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raised such a great disturbance Mr. ARNAVD protests he will never for my sake dispense with the Book 11. ch 9. p. 1132. rules of Justice that he will never devine my secret intentions Let him not then pretend to read in my heart nor attribute to me a mystical sense which I never intended nor is contained in my words All those that believe Transubstantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour Amongst those that are how many do betake themselves to other matters Is it not then a very likely matter that a person who is at liberty to write on any subject but pitches upon Transubstantiation is it not I say very likely his choice of this point is grounded on some worldly policy and carnal considerations In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very just and innocent And this is all that my words signifie to pretend to know more of my mind is to attempt a thing which is possible only to God and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do that he might have some colour for his passion Mr. ARNAVD I hope will suffer me likewise to tell him that what I said touching some words of the Author of the Perpetuity which I believed were not very advantageous to the common mysteries of our Religion do neither respect his person nor the main of his sentiments which I never pretended to handle but only his expressions which I judged and still do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we cannot shew enough respect We ought all of us to be very circumspect in our ways of speaking to give no oecasion to the open enemies of the Gospel truths which we joyntly profess This is my opinion and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we should be offended to hear these questions Why are the immortality of the soul and everlasting bliss so hidden and as it were so buried in the Books Perpetuity of the Faith refuted part 1. of the Old Testament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews Why did not Jesus Christ declare his Divinity in such clear and precise terms that 't were impossible to elude them What may the Pagans say on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin and this inconceivable transmission of a crime which is a spiritual and voluntary action to all the Sons of him that committed it altho they could not have any part in his action and of this dreadful condemnation of all humane nature for the fault of one man Can he think it strange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the mystery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner Were a man in this point to be guided by his reason he must needs start back at these inconceivable verities Should he pretend to make use of its lights to penetrate them she will only furnish him with arms to combat them Who can but be offended at the propositions which are in this last work of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of proofs which I alledged out of the Book 10. ch 6. p. 1042. Holy Scripture for the Trinity That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because he accompanies these proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition But that these same proofs are infinitely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority without possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority That Mr. Claude Page 1043. who alledges the best part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy yet in such a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert ' em I do not believe these questions or propositions are justifiable take 'em how we we will but supposing they were it must be granted they are conceiv'd in such rough dangerous and excessive terms that 't is for the publick edification to avoid 'em yea and to censure ' em BUT in fine we must leave these Personal Differences which cannot but be displeasing And therefore we will come to the Preface of my Answer to Father Noüet which seems to have much incensed Mr. Arnaud and seeing he seems to be much concerned at it we will endeavour to satisfie him about it What then does this Preface contain which is so troublesom and grievous I confess we have mention'd a matter of fact in
what it believes or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe or that the representative Church that is to say the Councils or the Pope cannot err The first of these two Principles is natural the second is of a Supernatural Order I handle not at present this Point whether they are false or true at the Bottom it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so difficult and require so much time that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them is plainly to deride them I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter where I shall make it appear that 't is impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it 's built It suffices me to say that People are not commonly so regular in things which they believe by a distinct Faith but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries The Author of the Perpetuity tells us that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular There has bin made on this Subject I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity there have bin Catechisms compiled intit'led Catechisms of Grace Which evidently shew it has bin believed that it was not impossible to make the People recieve by way of Illustration or Addition Articles which they knew not before whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms if the People cannot of themselves either diminish or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith This Principle is not then so certain but that it may be doubted of nor so clear or evident in it self that the most simple may be ascertained in it having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it AS to the second it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils or Popes is not so easie that the most simple People may master it All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it If this Church hath this she hath it by a particular Priviledg which must be examined before it be received For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle which is that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible because she saies so and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true because she is infallible Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Authority this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable by things independent on the Church of Rome and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Conclusion For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith now she affirmeth she is infallible from whence it follows that she is so A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense will never be convinced by this Argument The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living before it can be supposed that such a one or any other will receive its Doctrine founded on this Principle Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities for if it be proved by way of Scripture it is not so plainly described therein but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense They are controverted Places and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judgment Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition and a Judgment accordingly he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture in relation to what is produced on either side NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments he that endeavours to do this engageth himself yet farther into tedious Prolixities and Difficulties which surpass ordinary Apprehensions In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question This Infallibility saith he Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible we must prove that it is supernaturally so either by the Principles of Faith or by a long Series of Arguments Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence And 't is for this Reason that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Priviledge Mr. Arnaud testifies as much for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular that is to say of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question Reason saith he doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility So that this Author meaning the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority or on abstracted and remote Arguings he must then necessarily contain himself within the reach of things in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error on any Point which it proposeth But it 's evident to Sense that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors relating to matters of Faith seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Sense there needs more abstracted and remote Arguments to prove it whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this Much less are they fit for this should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition for it would be to send them far enough in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils to be informed in this matter besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently their Testimony upon this account would signify nothing IT is then manifest that common Apprehensions not being able to ascertain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge as I come now from proving nor in the Point of popular Infallibility as I have already hinted and which I shall do
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
〈◊〉 Now who knows not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Neuter Gender which by consequence can neither agree with Jesus Christ nor his Flesh but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Body which the Vide Damascen de Orthodoxa Fide of Veronnes Impression 1531. and that of Basil Bread is and which we receive in the Communion of which he spake in the beginning of his Discourse He might have found also that these words Honour we him are in the Greek in the Neuter Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which can only refer to the Body and not to Jesus Christ nor his Flesh MR. Arnaud methinks should take more care another time of what he writes and not give us so many of his It is clear it manifestly appears for there is nothing so clear as the contrary of what he say's Damascen speaking of the Bread of the Communion say's that 't is not a Figure but the deified Body of Jesus Christ he would have us honour this Body that is to say that Body which we receive in the Communion with a double purity of Body and Soul externally and internally because 't is double He shews what ought to be our inward disposition to wit a fervent desire he passes to our external Actions which are to hold our arms cross-wise and to hold the Communion we receive on our Eyes Lips and Forehead Afterwards to explain how this Body is double he compares it to the Coal Esaias saw which was not bare wood but wood and fire together Then applying immediately his comparison he adds Thus the Bread of the Communion is not mere Bread being it is united to the Divinity Now a Body united to the Divinity is not one single nature but two one of the Body and th' other of the Divinity which is joyned thereunto Who sees not then that this double Body of which he speaks and which he compared to Esaias Coal is the Bread of the Communion that it is double being Bread united to the Divinity and that the effect of this Union is not to change the nature of the Bread but to make a composition of two Natures Whence it manifestly follows that one of these Natures being the Divinity th' other is the nature of Bread It is then true as Mr. Arnaud has observed that these last words Sit panis communionis non est panis simplex sed unitus divinitati are the exposition of what he said before Duplex est enim for it is double But because duplex refers not to Jesus Christ but to the Body we receive in the Communion it is therefore likewise true that they expound what we must understand by this Body to wit the Bread united to the Divinity BUT I must puruse the other parts of my Proposition The Greeks believe That by the impression which the Bread and Wine receive from the Holy Spirit they are changed into the virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and made by this means this Body and Blood Which is apparent first from all those Passages of the Liturgies I mentioned in the Fifth Chapter of this Book the result whereof is that the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as 't is made capable of sanctifying us and that this is exactly what the Priest prayes for in the words of Consecration Now what is this but the Bread's being made the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue SECONDLY This appears likewise by what we have seen from Simeon Thessaloniensis who tells us that the unconsecrated Particles being mixed with those that are consecrated and partaking of their Sanctification become in some sort the Body of Christ and are proper for the Communion of the Faithful For this necessarily supposes as I shewed in the Fifth Chapter of this Third Book that the consecrated Particle it self is the Body of Jesus Christ in asmuch as it receives this Sanctification THIRDLY This moreover appears by the Passages of Cabasilas which I alledged in the Sixth Chapter by which we see that he takes for the same thing to receive Sanctification and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ Which likewise necessarily supposes that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ only in Sanctification and virtue FOURTHLY Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk that lived in the Euthym. Comment in Matthe cap. 64. Twelfth Century confirms the same thing We must not say's he consider the nature of things which are offered but their virtue For as the word deifies if it be lawful to use such an expression the Flesh to which it is united after a supernatural manner so it changes by an ineffable operation the Bread and Wine into his Body which is a Spiring of Life and into his precious Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other MR. Arnaud nibbles at this Passage Euthymius say's he say's that Jesus Lib. 24. cap. 12. pag. 216. Christ changes after an ineffable manner the Bread into his own Body This signifies say's Mr. Claude that he changes it not into his Body but into the virtue of his Body Euthymius say's that he changes the Wine into his Blood This signifies say's Mr Claude that he changes it not into his Blood but into the virtue of his Blood Euthymius adds that he changes them into the virtue of both one and the other in gratiam ipsorum This Addition has perplexed Mr. Claude and therefore he has thought good not to mention it But in adding it because 't is there in effect the whole expression of Euthymius expounded in the Calvinists sence will be that Jesus Christ changes the Bread into the virtue of his Body and the Wine into the virtue of his Blood and into the virtue of both one and the other Who ever heard of such a folly to joyn together the Metaphorical Term and the exposition of the Metaphorical Term as two distinct and separate things Do we say for example that the Stone is Jesus Christ and the Sign of Jesus Christ that the Ark was the Church and the Figure of the Church that the Paschal Lamb was Christ and the representation of Christ that Anger changes men into Beasts and into the fury of Beasts ALL this is but vain Rhetorick Euthymius say's We must not consider the nature of the things offered us but their virtue This is not the Language of a man that would say that the nature of Bread and Wine ceases to be and that we must consider the proper Substance of Jesus Christ under the Vail of Accidents This Expression on the contrary supposes that the nature of these things subsists altho we must not consider it but raise up our minds to the Consideration of the supernatural virtue they receive When then he adds that Jesus Christ changes the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood it is true that this signifies according to my Interpretation that he changes them into the virtue of his Body and Blood and not into their
receives the impression of the inlivening and sanctifying virtue residing in the natural Body of Christ and that as the Food in receiving the physical Form of our Flesh becomes an Augmentation of our Body so the Bread in the Eucharist receiving the impression of the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ becomes an Augmentation This is a Comparison wherein there is some proportion of one thing with another but not an intire resemblance The Greeks conceive the sanctifying virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ as its supernatural and oeconomical Form which belongs to it not so much for that it is a mere Body as that it is the Body of the Word the Principle of our Spiritual Life and Salvation THERE is made then according to them not a Communication or an extension of the natural Form of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Bread but a communication or an extension of its virtue WHICH plainly appears by what we have already alledged For first hereto relates this composition of Bread and Holy Spirit and Union of Bread with the Divinity which they assert Secondly hitherto expressly relate all the Passages we have seen touching the change of virtue to which the Greeks so strictly keep themselves never mentioning the impression of the physical Form but ever that of virtue Thirdly we gather the same thing from their comparing the Bread in the Eucharist with the natural Body whereby to establish how the Bread is made an Augmentation of the Body they say not that the same physical Form of the one is communicated to the other but only that the same Oeconomy which is observed in the natural Body is likewise observed in the Bread And explaining in what consists this same Oeconomy they say 't is in that the Bread receives the Holy Spirit as the natural Body receives it that 't is raised up as it were into a Cross in the like manner as the natural Body that 't is buried in us and becomes in fine incorruptible as the natural Body does Now this is quite different from the impression of the physical Form and gives only the Idea of an impression of virtue Fourthly the same thing appears from a great part of the Proofs I produced in this third Book as from what they teach touching the unconsecrated Particles that they become in some sort the Body of Jesus Christ by connection with that which is consecrated and that the People may receive them as well as the Sacrament for this shews they mean the consecrated Bread becomes only the Body of Jesus Christ by the impression of this sanctifying virtue of which we speak And that which they believe touching the Eucharist consecrated on Holy Thursday that 't is of a more excellent virtue than that of other days for this would have no sence did they hold the impression of the natural Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ on the Bread And all the Clauses of their Liturgies by which it appears they restrain the effect of the Consecration to the Bread's becoming the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue And what they say touching the dead that they receive the same as we do in the Communion which would be absurd if they meant the physical Form of the Flesh of Christ was imprinted on the Bread for the dead receive not this physical Form And their not adoring the Sacrament with an absolute Adoration of Latria as do the Latins and as the Greeks would do without doubt if they held the impression of the physical Form And that which the Greeks of the Twelfth Century mentioned touching the Eucharist namely that 't is not indued with a Soul or Understanding which shews clearly they do not mean the Bread in the Sacrament receives the impression of the Soul of Christ And in fine that they take so little care to preserve the Substance of the Sacrament using it after such a negligent manner as would be highly criminal and impious or to speak better after such a manner as is not conceivable did they believe the physical Form of the Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT to finish the justification of my Proposition touching the Belief of the Greeks there only remains to be proved the Comparison of the Paper which becomes the Princes Letter when it receives his Characters or Seal For as concerning that of the Food we have already sufficiently treated on it we have likewise considered that of Wood in conjunction with Fire that of Wool which takes the dye and that of Wax or Matter which receives the impression of the Seal As to that of Paper Nilus Abbot of Mount Sina an Author of the Fifth Century and who was Saint Chrysostom's Schollar furnishes us with it in one of his Epistles Paper say's he consists of a certain Matter and is called only Paper but when the Emperor puts thereunto his Seal or Name it becomes Sacred In the same manner must our Mysteries be conceived Before the Words of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit 't is mere Bread and Wine which are offered but after the Holy Prayers and coming of the holy and enlivening Spirit 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the pretious and immaculate Body of Jesus Christ who is God over all and therefore those that receive them with fear and reverence are cleansed from all filthiness HAVING thus historically and sincerely shew'd the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist it will be no hard matter to observe wherein they agree with the Latins and wherein they differ which is the second thing I proposed to do in this Chapter First They agree with them in the general Terms which denote the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Secondly They agree in those other expressions which bear that the change is made into the real Body of Christ into his own proper Body born of the Virgin Mary and that he has not two Bodies but one alone Thirdly They agree in that both of them attribute this change to the Holy Spirit who descends on the Bread and makes it the Body of our Lord. Fourthly They agree in fine in that they both assert this change to be an effect of the Almighty Power of God above all the Laws of nature So far the Greeks and Latins agree BUT they differ in several things First In that the Latins believe that the Substance of Bread ceases the Greeks on the contrary believe its existence Which we plainly gather from the Proposition I now established and the Proofs I offered For seeing they make the Eucharist to consist of the composition of a sensible Substance which is the Bread and the Holy Spirit as we have already observed seeing they joyn the Bread to the Divinity believing that what results thence is double that is to say that it has two Natures it is clear the Greeks hold that the Nature or Substance of Bread remains This same truth appears likewise concerning what
cap 6. pag. 155. Eucharist broke our Fast because they believed the Oblation of the Sacrifice did not belong to the Fast and that they were permitted to eat after they had communicated is a mere Evasion which plainly denotes Mr. Arnaud's perplexity For the Greeks accuse the Latins not for their eating so soon after the Communion in Lent for this Accusation would be false and slanderous seeing they know the contrary But he accuses them in that they break their Fast by receiving the Eucharist Whence have you this Custom say's Nicetas to celebrate Nicetas Contra Lat. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit the Oblation of the Paschal Mass every day even on the Holy days of fasting as well as on Saturday and Sunday What Doctors thus taught you Were they the Apostles No For the Apostles made a Canon to this effect that if any Bishop Priest Deacon Reader or Chanter that is in health fasts not on the Fridays and Saturdays in Lent he ought to be degraded Seeing then you celebrate Mass at nine of the Clock which is the hour in which the Sacrifice is to be offered how then keep you the Fast till three in the Afternoon breaking it as you do in the time of the Administration You do not at all observe it and therefore you are accursed It is plainly seen here the matter concerns the reception of the Eucharist and that he means it breaks the Fast for he say's they break it in tempore ministrationis Missae Where then has Mr. Arnaud found this Evasion that the Greeks say the Eucharist breaks the Fast only because they believe the Oblation of the Sacrifice does not belong to the Fast and that it was lawful to eat after the participation of the Communion This is say's he the conjecture of a very Learned man who has taken the pains to read over this Treatise Is Mr. Arnaud so tired with his Work and his time so mightily taken up that he cannot afford one half hour for the reading this Treatise himself for it requires no more These Anonymous Learned men do often deceive us with their Conjectures and when a Person makes a Book which he designs to render famous throughout all Europe in sending it to all the Courts in Christendom it is absolutely requisite not to trust all sorts of People He say's in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope that his Friends have laboured with him In the Twelfth Book he gives us a Dissertation of a Religious man of Saint Genevieve on John Scot's Case and that of Bertram Moreover he tells us he has desired some Persons to translate for him that Passage of Herbert's about which we have made such a noise here he gives us the conjecture of an Anonymous I am afraid some indiscreet Person or other will judge hereupon that Mr. Arnaud's whole Book is made up only of incoherent Fragments As for my part I do not thus judge but I wish Mr. Arnaud had rectified and digested himself what others have furnished him with and not been like the Sea in this particular which receiving into its Womb all the Waters of Rivers communicates only to them its bryniness HUMBERT never thought of giving any of these Sences to the Passage proposed to us out of Nicetas He never imagined that the Greeks believed the Communion breaks the Fast either because they were permitted to eat immediately after or because our Bodies receive the same impressions and the same strength by receiving of the Eucharist as by any other common Food But he only understood they taught that the Eucharist does really nourish us in the same manner as other Food which changes it self into our Substance and 't is thereupon that he grounded his charge of Stercoranism Do Mr. Arnaud and his Anonymouses know better now in Paris the true meaning of Nicetas than Humbert who lived in that time and was at Constantinople with this Religious Leo the Ninth having affirmed the latins have the same Faith as the Greeks Mr. Arnaud thereupon takes occasion to insult over me and tells me he will be judged by my self Whether 't is likely Lib. 2. cap. 50 pag 141. Leo that lived amongst the Greeks did not know better than I their Opinion who now come six hundred years after assuring the World upon my own bare word of the contrary without any Proof or Testimony And ten or twelve Pages further he would perswade us that Humbert who was Contemporary with Nicetas and in the same City with him did not well comprehend Nicetas his meaning and that himself Mr. Arnaud and Mr. his Anonymous understand it better than Humbert Whence comes this partiality BUT say's he Nicetas asserts Transubstantiation as fully as Humbert Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 1â—â— could do Which we must examine Those say's Nicetas who walk in the Light eat the Bread of Grace which is the Body of Christ and drink his immaculate Blood In the Bread say's he moreover that is to say in our Saviour's Body there are three living things which give life to those that eat worthily thereof to wit the Spirit the Water and Blood according to that saying there are three that bear witness and these three are in one He proves the Water and Blood are in our Saviours Body by the Water and Blood which gushed thence in his Crucifixion and as to the Spirit observe here what he say's The Holy and living Spirit remains in his inlivening Flesh and we eat this Flesh in the Bread which is changed by his Holy Spirit and made the Body of Jesus Christ We live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh Could Nicetas adds Mr. Arnaud more plainly shew his Opinion touching the Eucharist and more positively exclude Mr. Claude ' s vain Conjectures AND this is that which in the Style of Mr. Arnaud is precise and positive I answer that by the Bread of Grace Nicetas means the Bread of the New Testament in opposition to the Azyme of the Law and that his Sence is that this Bread is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ which the Azyme cannot be which he proves 1. Because the Azyme is not Bread till it receives the perfection of Leaven 2. Because the Azyme is a dead thing having no inlivening virtue in it whereas the leavened Bread has Leaven which is to it as it were Life and Soul whence he concludes 't is proper to become the Mystery of the Body of Christ seeing there is in this Body three living things the Spirit the Water and Blood the Water and Blood because they run down from his pierced side and the Spirit because his Flesh was ever joyned to his Divinity Whence he inferrs 't is in the Bread and not in the Azyme we eat this Flesh and that the Bread being changed by the Holy Spirit and made Christ's Body we live in him by eating his living and deified Flesh And this is Nicetas his reasoning which I confess is a little odd but howsoever 't is
these things WE have seen that one of their Opinions is that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now every Man sees this Doctrine does not well agree with Transubstantiation in as much as that on one Hand 't is held the Bread is made the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance and on the other that the Wicked in receiving it eat not this Body Whence it follows according to all Rules of Sence that they are obliged to endeavour to make these two Opinions agree and remove the contrariety which appears betwixt them Yet so far are they from troubling themselves about this that we find not this Contrariety whether real or imaginary ever entred into their Thoughts NOW let any Man compare the Arguments we draw from their Silence touching all these Consequences with that of Mr. Arnaud's and faithfully tell us whether ours are not more Conclusive and Evident than his We have proposed several things which the Greeks might know without any Study Reflection Attention of Mind Legats and Interpreters only by the sight of their Eyes and help of common Sence Affairs which were neither carried on by Intrigues Negotiations nor publick Respects and wherein the Silence of the Greeks is certain there being no likelyhood but if they spake of 'em we should be soon made to know it and concerning which in fine they could not be silent as they are without doing a notable Prejudice to Religion and an extraordinary Violence to Nature Whereas Mr. Arnaud only offers us one thing which can scarcely be known by any but the Learned and which requires also great attention of Mind and reading a matter which for the most part was in the hands of some Deputies and mannaged by the help of Interpreters wherein Intrigues and Interests Complacency and Fear and other humane Passions have great share and touching which we cannot be assured whether the Silence of the Greeks be truly such as 't is represented to us seeing we have no more of their Writings but what the Latins were pleased to give us A matter in fine in which the Greeks might be silent without offering any Violence to themselves and without believing they did any Wrong to their Religion I shall show this more largely hereafter what I now mention'd being only to facilitate the comparison of my Proofs with that of Mr. Arnaud's to the end the Readers may more clearly and exactly judg of them III. IN the third place it is necessary that my first Proofs which I offered in the foregoing Book be remembred which were taken from that the Greeks do not teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in express terms I mean the substantial Conversion asserted by the Latins that they receive not the Councils which have determined it that they will not use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they explain themselves only in general Terms which may be understood in another Sence and which at farthest can admit only of a general Sence and that Mr. Arnaud is constrain'd to betake himself to Consequences and Arguings to render their Expressions favourable It is likewise requisite that the Reader call to mind the solid Grounds on which my Proofs are built and the Testimonies I have produced on this Subject and on the other Hand the Illusions I discovered in Mr. Arnaud's Dispute as well in the formulary of the Reunion with which he has made such a noise as the Testimonys of Samonas Agapius the Baron of Spataris Paysius Ligaridius the Synod of Cyprus and that of some Priests in the Patriarchate of Antioch for the Truth of my Principle results from the Examination of all these things the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs consisting only in Arguings and Consequences I would likewise desire the Reader to compare his negative Argument with mine and judg which of the two Consequences is the better The Greeks say I when they explain the Mystery of the Eucharist use not the Term of Transubstantiation nor teach the thing which this Term signifies they own not the Councils that have determin'd it and in the rejection of them never except this Article nor shew by any thing else they are agreed in it They do not then believe the substancial Conversion of the Latins Mr. Arnaud say's on the contrary the Greeks reproach not the Latins with Transubstantiation they make not a Dispute thereof they condemn it not as an Errour they then Believe it I say that my Consequence is evident certain immediate and necessary whereas Mr. Arnaud's has none of these Qualities My Consequence is evident for 't is evident a whole Church that believes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ and would have her Children Believe it must needs teach it them in clear and distinct Terms and such as are able to form the Idea which she would have them conceive of it But the Greek Church does not do this therefore she does not believe it For it would be prodigiously strange that a Church had concerning the Change which happens in the Eucharist a Belief as distinct and determinate as is that of the Conversion of one Substance into another and yet could not or would not explain her self in clear and distinct Terms altho she finds them already made to her Hands in the Language of a Church with whom she agrees in this Point But this the Greek Church does not do She does not thus explain her self She has not then this Belief My Consequence is immediate for the first and most immediate Obligation the first and most immediate Effect which arises from the Belief of Transubstantiation in a Church that holds it is that of teaching it and explaining how she believes it that is to say distinctly for it cannot be believed otherwise than distinctly But the Greek Church does not explain her self distinctly She does not then believe it I say in fine that 't is necessary For there is nothing that can hinder the Greek Church from expounding clearly and plainly this Opinion if she held it Not the Ignorance of proper Expressions for besides that they are easily met with the Roman Church furnishes her with them not the Fear of scandalizing her People for the Church of Rome asserts these People have held this Doctrine ever since Christianity was first planted amongst them not the fear of scandalizing the Infidels for the Turks amongst whom the Greeks live suffer all sorts of Religions and the Latins who were mixt with them and who scruple not to explain themselves clearly on this Doctrine have long since taken away this Pretence from the Greeks the fear of offending their Emperors when they had 'em could not withold them for the Greek Emperors as we have already seen have almost all of 'em favoured the Latins Much less moreover can it be said they were hindred by the Fear of the Roman Church and its Power for this was a means on the contrary to
IV. did in the Council of Florence when he gave his instructions to the Armenians was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity that is to say of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ wheresoever the Divinity is which is not the real belief of the Armenians as we have already sufficiently proved Gerlac adds That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church which is not true as appears as well by the information of Benedict as by the Testimony of several other Authors 'T is moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doctrine of the Ubiquity which grants this Body to be every where and by Consequence in the Sacrament And as to Transubstantiation he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em but say's they seem to admit of it videntur say's he Transubstantiationem probare Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful It appears is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour but which is not absolutely out of doubt of a thing which we may think to be true but of which we have no certainty 'T is likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change which the Armenian Patriarch made use of but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstantiation and 't was only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words I was informed say's he by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media that the Armenians held Transubstantiation Now believing Transubstantiation that is to say the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence His Authority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say as it was in respect of the Moscovites If you deny his explanation his Testimony signifies nothing AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam we know very well there 's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest and never fail to Answer as you would have them The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd and if I may not be believed let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence the Armenians reunited themselves and the greatest part of the Greek Church Anthony de Goureau's Relation Book 3. Ch. 3. likewise yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction nor any thing which this Council decreed nor Obedience thereunto recommended There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad for this many Ages But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um and that they may not fail therein do very often speak contrary to truth which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him but at their return home they soon forget their engagements Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are and whether the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Copticks and Aethiopians That they hold not Transubstantiation WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491. pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist He say's in fine that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits that they do only chiefly observe those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman descending not so far as to particularize all other matters which these Churches do or do not hold THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians without mentioning the new Doctrines which they have taught 'um and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute being a Point against which the Nestorians were prejudic'd but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion and which they ought now to receive to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves who have sent the Emissaries for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd
and which expresly contains the Article of Transubstantiation in these terms Sacramentum Eucharistiae ex azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia tenens et docens quod in ipso Sacramento Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament with Unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ THE Popes have ever earnestly recommended to the Missionaries the instructing of the Nestorians and other Eastern Christians according to this Formulary They have sent it to the Nestorian Proselyte Bishops enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds and to teach it their People as we may see in Raynaldus In the profession of Faith which Raynaldus ad ann 1445. Timotheus a Nestorian Arch-Bishop of the Isle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence he was made to say that he confessed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church and Raynaldus ad ann 1445. of the manner after which she holds teaches and Preaches them And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Nestorian Christians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaises found in the Kingdoms of Cochin Coulan and Cranganor Du Jarric observes their Arch-Bishop was Du Jarric's History of the East Indias caused to profess what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which must be held concerning the Sacraments He means without doubt that which was set down in the Instruction given to the Armenians in which we see the Article of Transubstantiation All which shews us they well knew the Necessity there was of introducing Transubstantiation into the Nestorian Church to make it conformable to the Roman whence 't is not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not establisht in it before IN effect had the Emissaries and other travellers into these Countrys found the belief of the Substantial Conversion established in them 't is not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Necessity of drawing a Proof from their silence seeing they would have positively declared they found these People imbued with this sentiment that the substance of Bread is changed into the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it and certainly there would have bin some Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Protestants in Europe but instead of this neither the Popes nor Emissaries make mention of this pretended conformity and Mr. Arnaud Philosophises upon their not charging the Nestorians with their being Calvinists and upon some passages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain and which at bottom are of no consideration in respect of our difference LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Discourse concerning these Nestorians from whence we may easily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Eucharist They were very earnest according to his Relation Leontius Biz advers Nest Eutych Lib. 3. Bibl. patr tom 4. with an Orthodox Christian to communicate with them and this Person telling them he could not have Communion at the same time with the Catholick Church and theirs they answered him that this need not trouble him because the Bread which is proposed as a Type of the Body of Jesus Christ contains a greater blessing than that sold in the market or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary 'T is apparently seen these are not the expressions of Persons that believe the real Presence which the Roman Church holds This shews they acknowledged no other effect from the Consecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction or Grace and 't is also very Remarkable that in this Discourse they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jesus Christ in which they follow the expression of Apud Cyrill alex. contra Nest Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are several passages of the Liturgy of the Nestorians and Indians Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508. Nestorius himself the Author of their Sect who speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist say's that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Original of it which is as much as to say that the Bread is a figure which represents this Body And thus far concerning the Nestorians AS to the Maronites their profession of Obedience since so long a time to the See of Rome receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope do's evidently exclude them from this dispute Yet we cannot but observe how little exact Mr. Arnaud is when designing to shew that the Maronites believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church say's that Thomas a Jesu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propositions they found in the Books of the Maronites amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys such as Comunicating of both kinds giving the Communion to Children Yet in this Catalogue of suspected Propositions there 's not one relating to the Eucharist 'T is certain Mr. Arnaud is mistaken having perused this extract a little carelesly for otherwise he would have observed three Propositions which evidently shew that these People did not believe Transubstantiation nor yet the Substantial Presence The first is That our Saviour Christ dipt the Bread he gave to Judas to ' the end he might thereby take off the Consecration Christus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Consecrationem tollendam We have already observed that this Errour must be grounded on this Principle that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality which imprints its self in its Substance and which may be effaced in washing the Bread For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Consecration was to change the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ that in dipping the Bread the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ would be washed off THE II. Proposition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was That when we receive the Eucharist it Descends not into the Stomach but immediately disperses it self to every member of our Body This Proposition was deem'd Heretical and in effect we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament disperses its self to all the Members of our Body without supposing it to be the Substance of Bread there being too many absurdities to make the proper Substance of Christs Body pass into the Substance of our Flesh Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damascene who expresly asserts That the Sacrament passes Damascen Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox C. 14 into the Substance of our
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
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
his imagination that the substance of Bread does no more subsist in the Sacrament of our Lords Body Sapis contra omnes naturoe rationes contra Evangelicam Apostolicam sententiam si cum Paschasio sapis in eo quod SOLVS sibi confingit Sacramento Dominici Corporis decedere panis omnino substantiam Now on one hand this shews Mr. Arnaud's injustice which attributes to the modern Ministers th' invention of this History which makes Paschasus the first Author of the opinion of the Real Presence and on the other this gives a great presumption that what the Ministers say touching Paschasus is true seeing in the 11th Century when the Dispute about the Eucharist grew hot people said the same thing then we do now We see Paschasus in the 9th Century charg'd with Enthusiasms and Visions in the 11th respected as the Father of Transubstantiation as he that drew it only from his own fancy these two matters of fact are moreover confirm'd by I know not how many other considerable matters hereunto relating And Mr. Arnaud comes telling us confidently that he marvails we should dare still attribute this Innovation to Paschasus and that our proofs are mere sophisms and conjectures not worth the minding THE anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has publish'd furnishes us with a 9th proof in his way of defending Paschasus For having said That some assert what we receeive from the Altar is the same as that which is Cellot in append ad Hist Cottesch born of the Virgin and that others deny it and say that 't is another thing he adds a little after Now for those which say 't is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin or say 't is another thing we shall relate the several opinions of the Holy Fathers which do indeed appear to be different but yet be satisfactory enough were they fully understood with discretion Now I speak of Paschasus Ratbert Abbot of Corby who whether he was required or provoked for 't is uncertain which has wrote on this matter a Book of about an hundred Chapters which he has fill'd with several Authorities of the Fathers and under the name of S. Ambrose has therein establish'd that what we receive from the Altar is entirely the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross risen from the Sepulchre and is at this day ossered for the life of the world Raban in his Epistle to the Abbot Egilon and one Ratram in a Book dedicated to King Charles argue sufficiently against him saying that 't is not this same Flesh which they prove by the testimony of S. Hierom which says that the Body of Jesus Christ may be said to be in two manners and by the Authority of S. Augustin which says that this term may be taken three ways And because they maintain that in S. Ambrose ' s Books we do not find it exactly thus we shall relate not only the passage of S. Ambrose without any alteration but also those of S. Augustin S. Hierom and others in the manner we found 'em to the end that having considered them it may appear to those to whom it shall please God to reveal it that these great men did not differ one from another in opinion and that in the Catholick Church we must all have the same mind without the least Schism Hitherto we do not find that this defender of Paschasus has recourse to the publick Belief of the Church of his time or protests that Paschasus has offered nothing but what all Christians did generally agree to except some small number of troublesom Disputers who denied in secret what they dared not contradict in publick as Mr. Arnaud speaks .. We find on the contrary that he denotes those which held the Doctrin of Paschasus under the name of some and the opposite party under the name of others Dicentibus quibusdam idem esse quod sumitur de altari quod illud quod natum est ex Virgine aliis autem negantibus This is not the language of one who was persuaded the whole Church spake like Paschasus But this will still further appear if we consider what this same Author adds afterwards for having alledged some passages of the Fathers which he believ'd favour'd Paschasus Hoec ideo says he posita sunt si forte per ea simplicitas Paschasi Ratberti possit excusari unde maxime ab obloquentibus Rabano Ratramno sugillari videtur quid dixerat eandem esse carnem quoe de Altari sumitur de virgine generatur quoe quotidie adhuc pro mundi salute immolatur I have brought these passages to see whether one could not excuse the simplicity of Paschasus Ratbert especially in respect of that particular for which he is blamed by his Adversaries Raban and Ratram for saying that what we receive from the Altar is the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and is still every day immolated for the salvation of the world Now let any man seriously tell me whether people are wont to defend after this manner one who has the whole Church on his side excepting some troublesom rash Disputers Is such a ones simplicity endeavoured to be excused by any body Do we say in such a case if perhaps it may be excusable Do people place on one hand irreconcilable Adversaries who defame him and on the other simple excuses and excuses offered in a fearful and doubtful manner Si forte simplicitas Paschasii possit excusari Let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases the discourse of this anonymous Author offers such an idea of the Adversaries of Paschasus as of persons that delivered themselves openly in the Church who had then advantage over Paschasus even to the defaming him for teaching the Real Presence and furnishes us at the same time with the idea of Paschasus as of a man who must be excused upon the account of his simplicity but yet his expressions may be defended by some passages of the Fathers Now these two ideas plainly enough shew that Paschasus was an Innovator THERE are other proofs in my Answer to the Perpetuity which I do not think necessary to repeat here having nothing more to add to ' em We will pass then to Authors who were Contemporaries with Paschasus to know of them whether they taught the same Doctrin as he did CHAP. X. Of Authors in the Ninth Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Chstriian Drutmar WE may now say I hope with some kind of confidence notwithstanding Mr. Arnaud's insultings that Paschasus was an Innovator This is a truth sufficiently clear'd by what I have already done in the two preceding Chapters But to make this if possible more plain we must make some few reflections on the Authors which were of the same Century as Paschasus besides what I already said of 'em in my Answer to the Perpetuity For if it appears that these Authors have not held the same language as he did
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
Bertram Now Bertram does not any where name Paschasus and not only he does not attack him openly but shuns to appear contrary to him so that it cannot be concluded from the testimony of this Author that Raban was an adversary to Paschasus his Book Why can it not be concluded from the testimony of this Author seeing this Author formally says it Can Mr. Arnaud that never saw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it than this Author that did see it Supposing Raban did not name Paschasus it will not follow that he did not attack his Book for a man may write against a Book and yet not name the Author of it 'T was a sufficient attacking the Book to combat precisely and directly the fundamental and essential proposition which Paschasus came from establishing in it which was that what we receive in the Communion is the same Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin THIS anonymous Author says moreover Mr. Arnaud is the only person Ibidem that speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon 'T was never cited either by Berenger nor by any other Author 't was unknown to all the Writers of the 11th Century Supposing what Mr. Arnaud says were true yet would it not be sufficient for the calling in question the sincerity of this anonymous Author who speaks of this Letter as of that which he saw But besides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himself too much when he positively affirms that this is the only Author who speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himself who acknowledges it and makes express mention of it on the same subject of Paschasus his Doctrin and in the same sense which the anonymous does excepting the name of Paschasus which he does not express which plainly defends the sincerity of this nameless Author Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Poen Rab. c. 33. Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce resurrexit de Sepulchro cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus BVT supposing 't were true says Mr. Arnaud that Raban did in effect Page 875. contradict Paschasus this will be but of small advantage to Mr. Claude Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of several great Wits and famous Bishops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jesus Christ He adds That Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted that it cannot appear strange he should fall into an error touching the Eucharist and that the qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet could not render him incapable of being deceived Supposing we had only Raban to oppose against Paschasus the advantage would not be inconsiderable Paschasus was only a mean Religious when Raban was Abbot of Fulde and when Paschasus came to be Abbot of Corbie Raban was Arch-Bishop of Mayence whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other As to knowledg it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paschasus not in the mere qualities of a Philosopher Rhetorician Astronomer and Poet altho these qualifications do much set off a Scholar but by the Epithet which Baronius gives him Audi says he quid vertex hujus temporis Baron ad ann 847. Theologorum Rabanus decreverit Mr. Arnaud cannot propose Paschasus but only as the single person of his Party now were it the same with us in respect of Raban 't is certain that the presumption would be wholly for this last and that 't is apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's side than on Paschasus's But we are not in these Circumstances The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors his Contemporaries that of Paschasus agrees with none of ' em The Doctrin of Raban has disturb'd no body but that of Paschasus set several persons against him of his own time There 's not the least reason for accusing Raban of Innovation but there are very strong proofs whereby to conclude that Paschasus was an Innovator It signifies nothing to say that Raban was as other men are as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted for should a man rigorously examin Paschasus his Writings he will find more marks of human weakness than in those of Raban besides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adversary one may hence conclude according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reasoning that his Doctrin on the Eucharist differed not from that of his time for otherwise 't is likely that the Church of Lyons would not have spared him on such an important Article and yet instead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her self spake of the Eucharist it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Presence When our Saviour Christ says she gave Lugd. Eccles de tenend ver Script to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood he says Take eat this is my Body which is given for you which insinuates that she understood these words This is my Body in this sense This is the Sacrament of my Body And a little further The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is to say the mystery of his Passion and Death The example of these great Wits and Bishops that have attackt the Divinity of Jesus Christ does indeed shew that 't was not impossible for Raban to fall into error which is what we do not at present dispute for there 's no body infallible no not Mr. Arnaud himself but this example concludes the same thing of Paschasus who was no more infallible than others So far they stand upon equal ground both men and both liable to error It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error and that this example of the Bishops does not decide IT signifies nothing adds Mr. Arnaud to say that no body ever reproach'd Book 8. ch 12 p. 875. him with this error for it does not appear that any other Author save the Anonymous saw this Letter to Egilon so that the only person that had knowledg of it has condemned it Raban did not keep this Letter secret seeing he has himself made mention of it in his Penitentials and says he did it against the error of those who say that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Those who saw not his Letter might easily comprehend by these words the substance of it and for what end he design'd it if they have not condemned it 't was their fault Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great
of nature Then answering this objection Totum says he quod est Christus proedicatur non in figura sed in re in proprietate atque in natura 'T is then plain that Paschasus and Bertram are directly opposite not only as to sence but terms So that when Paschasus acknowledges there is a figure in the Eucharist meaning by this figure either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or the representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ this expression in this sense does not hinder but Bertram formally contradicted it and that the testimony of the anonymous is true For Paschasus expresly denies the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and Bertram expresly affirms it AS to wherein both of 'em seem to agree in saying that our senses shew it to be Bread but that inwardly our Faith discovers therein the Body of Jesus Christ this is but an equivocation Paschasus means we must not refer our selves to the testimony of our senses in respect of the substance hidden under the accidents and by the term of inwardly he means this substance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ Bertram on the contrary argues from the testimony of our senses and concludes that 't is real Bread and real Wine in substance For he maintains from the evidence of sense that there happens no real change According to the species of the creature says he and the form of visible things the Bread and Wine do not suffer any change And if they do not suffer any change they are not any thing else but what they were before And in another place We see not any thing that is changed in these things corporally We must then confess either that they be changed in another respect than that of the Body and consequently that they are not what appears in truth which is to say they are not the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ in truth because 't would be then invisible were it there but that they are another thing which yet we plainly see they are not by their proper existence Or if this will not be acknowledg'd it must of necesssity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which will be impious to say or think And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure Vt jam says he commutatio figurate facta esse dicatur He also proves there that the change which happens to the Eucharist does not make the Bread and Wine cease to be in truth what they were before We do not find says he that such a change happens here but we find on the contrary that the same species of the creature which was before remains still And a little lower in respect of the substance of creatures they are after the Consecration what they were before they were before Bread and Wine and we see they remain in the same kind altho they be consecrated And again he concludes that 't is not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtute because our eyes do not see it 'T is Faith says he that sees whatsoever this is the eye of the flesh discovers nothing therein these visible things then are not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie but in virtue He understands then that the testimony of our senses which shew us that they are still Bread and Wine in substance are true and that were the substance of the Body therein our senses would discover it Now this wholly contradicts the sense of Paschasus I will not examin says Mr. Arnaud whether Bertram understands these Page 881. words in another sense than Paschasus But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this seeing on it depends the real opposition which is between these two Authors They that will contradict an Author says Mr. Arnaud directly do oppose not only his sense but his words and they never borrow the words of those whom they combat to express their own opinion Whosoever designs to contradict an author solidly minds particularly his sense without troubling himself about his expressions 'T was enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paschasus and this very thing that he uses his expressions only more shews their opposition for Bertram does not speak of the testimony of our senses on the subject of the Eucharist in the same terms of Paschasus but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of substance and the Real Presence which Paschasus had advanced so that this apparent conformity is no less in effect than a real contradiction THIS contrariety of sentiment appears still more in the second question which Bertram discusses which is Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion is this same Body which was born of the Virgin that has suffered for us died and rose again and is now at the right hand of the Father Paschasus affirms it and endeavours to establish it by his Book Bertram denies it and proves most strongly his negative The one says that these things nourish in us that which is born of God and not that which is born of Flesh and Blood The other answers us that in respect of what we see and receive corporally which is bit with the teeth swallowed and received into the stomach they do not communicate eternal life for in this respect they nourish our mortal flesh and do not communicate any corruption The one says That we must not stop at the savour nor colour of Bread for were it changed into flesh to wit visibly and sensibly as he explains himself in the same place 't would be no longer the Flesh of Jesus Christ The other teaches That seeing 't is Faith and not the eye of the Body which discovers the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ we must hence conclude that 't is not so in specie but in virtute The one ever says that what we receive from the Altar is this same Flesh which is born of the Virgin The other says that this Flesh which was Crucified and born of the Virgin consists of bones and sinews distinguish'd into several members and enliven'd by the spirit of a reasonable soul having his proper life and motions Whereas this spiritual Flesh which nourishes spiritually the Faithful in respect of its outward species consists of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man that it has neither nerves nor sinews nor bones nor different members that 't is animated with no rational soul nor can exercise any vital functions Whence he concludes that 't is not then this Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin In a word the opposition therein is so formal and so evident that it cannot be more plain WHAT we have hitherto seen touching Authors Contemporary with Paschasus
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on