the Book of the Perpetuity till Mr. Arnaud has shew'd them to be invalid Page 1 CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is disingenious 8 CHAP. III. The third Observation justifi'd viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has been to blame in pretending to overthrow the proofs contain'd in Mr. Aubertin's Book by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere conjectures 15 CHAP. IV. My fourth Observation justifi'd viz. that we need but oppose our Proofs of Fact against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments to make them invalid 25 CHAP. V. The pretended advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity examin'd 34 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity 44 CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book examin'd 53 BOOK II. Wherein is shewn that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrin was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. COntaining the chief Heads of this whole Controversie touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the 11th Century to this present Mr. Arnaud's first Artifice laid open 61 CHAP. II. That the temporal state of the Eastern People since the 11th Century and the efforts the Latins have made to communicate to them their Religion do invalidate the proof which is pretended to be drawn foom their Belief Mr. Arnaud's second Illusion detected 73 CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors led by politic interests have themselves favoured the designs of the Latins in introducing their Doctrins into Greece Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered 81 CHAP. IV. That the Monks and other Emissaries with which the Eastern Countreys have been for a long time replenish'd do invalidate the proof taken from the Belief of these people Mr. Arnaud's fourth deceit laid open 89 CHAP. V. That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Roman Religion amongst the Schismatics the Seminaries which have been set up for the same design and the particular instructions given them touching the Doctrin of Transubstantiation do sufficiently shew that there can no advantage accrue to Mr. Arnaud by their Belief Mr. Arnaud's fifth Artifice discovered 97 BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation CHAP. I. THE question stated and Mr. Arnaud's sixth illusion manifested 109 CHAP. II. The first Proof taken from the Greeks refusing to use the term of Transubstantiation The second from their not expresly teaching the conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's seventh Delusion 114 CHAP. III. The third proof taken from that the expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the idea of a substantial Conversion The fourth that the Greeks only receive for determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The fifth proof taken from that the Greeks in their transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their general expressions Mr Arnaud's eighth Delusion discovered 119 CHAP. IV. The sixth proof taken from the Greeks employing on other subjects the same expressions as on the Eucharist Mr. Arnaud's tenth Illusion manifested 129 CHAP. V. The seventh proof drawn from that the Greeks do not believe the Particles of the Virgin Mary and the Saints ought to be Consecrated on the great Altar as is that of our Saviour and yet they distribute them to the people in the same manner as they do the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud's tenth Fallacy laid open The eighth proof drawn from their believing that the Eucharist Consecrated on Holy Thursday has a greater virtue than that which is Consecrated at other times The ninth proof taken out of several passages of their Liturgies 134 CHAP. VI. The tenth proof taken from that the Greeks do often use an extenuating term when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ The eleventh from their not believing the wicked who partake of the Eucharist do receive the Body of Jesus Christ The twelfth from their believing the Dead and those in Deserts remote from all Commerce do receive the same as we do in the Communion 143 CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The thirteenth proof Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Illusion 152 CHAP. VIII The fourteenth proof taken from that the Greeks when ever they argue touching the Azyme do carry on their Disputes upon this Principle that the Sacrament is still real Bread after its Consecration The fifteenth from the little care they take to preserve the substance of the Sacrament The sixteenth from a passage of Oecumenius 169 CHAP. IX The seventeenth proof taken from the Dispute agitated amongst the Greeks in the 12th Century touching the Eucharist some of 'em affirming the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible and others corruptible The eigteenth from a passage out of Zonarus a Greek Monk that lived in the 12th Century 175 CHAP. X. The nineteenth proof that we do not find the Greeks do teach the Doctrins which necessarily follow that of Transubstantiation The twentieth is the testimony of sundry modern Greeks that have written several Treatises touching their Religion The one and twentieth from the form of Abjuration which the Greeks are forced to make when they embrace the Religion of the Latins 185 CHAP. XI The two and twentieth proof taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus to some questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck The three and twentieth is another Answer in Manuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus and Hieroteus Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia The four and twentieth is the testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church The five and twentieth is the testimony of Zacharias Gerganus 197 CHAP. XII The twenty sixth proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon 201 CHAP. XIII The real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist 215 BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted CHAP. I. MR. Arnaud's first proof taken from Cerularius his silence Examin'd The rest of his illusions discovered 241 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's second proof taken from Cardinal Humbert's Dispute with Nicetas Pectoratus examin'd His third proof from the testimony of Lanfranc and silence of the Berengarians examin'd The rest of Mr. Arnaud's Illusions considered 251 CHAP. III. Mr. Arnaud's twenty first Illusion is his charging me with maintaining that the Latins never knew Transubstantiation His two and twentieth consists in offering the formulary of the re-union propos'd to the Greeks by the Latins The three and twentieth in that he produces the passages of Latinis'd Greeks The four and twentieth in alledging supposed Authors
of Rome and in fine may be refuted by Mr. Arnaud's own Example Which is the Summary of the first Chapter II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method is Indirect and contrary to Nature seeing he would decide Questions of Right by Matters of Fact and Questions of Fact by Proofs drawn from Arguments which is such a disorderly way of Proceeding as makes his Method justly suspected to be artificial and deceitful III. That the Author of the Perpetuity has openly assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book and that after an indirect and artificial Manner which lies as a Prejudication against him Which is the Summary of the second Chapter IV. That the Design of the Author of the Perpetuity being to destroy the Impression which the Proofs of Fact or the Passages out of the Fathers have made on our Minds does nothing less than this whence it follows that his Treatise is wholly Useless Which are the Contents of the third Chapter V. That Mr. Arnaud contradicts the Author of the Perpetuity in pretending to defend him and ruins the whole Design of his Treatise VI. That these Methods of Prescription which Mr. Arnaud so much glories in are vain and ineffectual and that the Course we take to confirm People in the Doctrines of our Church is short certain and easy to the meanest Capacities whereas those Mr. Arnaud offers are tedious difficult uncertain and unintelligible to ordinary Apprehensions Whence it follows they cannot with a safe Conscience remain in the Communion of the Church of Rome VII That the Abridgment of our Proofs of Fact which I offer'd in my first Answer has bin regular and that the Treatise of the Perpetuity is but a mear Chaos of Confusion These three last Particulars are contained in the fourth Chapter VIII That all those pretended Advantages Mr. Arnaud hopes to obtain by means of the Perpetuity in relation to the Learned and Unlearned and to those he terms the Obstinate are groundless Imaginations which in fine do only manifest the Unprofitableness of that Treatise Which is the Subject of the fifth and sixth Chapters IX And lastly that he cannot excuse the Author of the Perpetuity nor himself from the Charge of Contradicting and Opposing the Infallibility of Popes and Councils it being an avowed Doctrine of the Church of Rome Which is the Contents of this seventh Chapter BOOK II. Wherein is shown that when it should be true that those which are called the Schismatical Churches believed Transubstantiation yet would it not thence follow that this Doctrine was always held by these Christians CHAP. I. Containing the chief Heads of this whole Controversy touching the Eastern Churches and their Opinion from the eleventh Century to this Present Mr. Arnaud's Artifice laid open WE are now come to treat of the Belief of the Greek and other Eastern Churches touching Transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist and must endeavour to shelter our selves from the violent Insultings of Mr. Arnaud and his Friends We need not mention how this has bin the Subject of their Triumph seeing all the World knows it For the Author of the Perpetuity has 2d Part of the Perpetuity C. 5. P. 256. already thereatned us with producing of twenty Millions of Witnesses on his side and Mr. Arnaud who is not a Person of that Humour as to abate any thing is continually charging us with Absurdities Rashness Confidence Convictions Demonstrations and telling us of Ministers confounded by the number of his Proofs He tells the World in his Preface that he hath left us no reason P. 11. to doubt in a matter so apparent as is that of the Consent of all these Christian Churches in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation He tells us moreover in L. 2. C. 2. P. 113. another place that this is a Point most clear and evident and that were we not withheld by Obstinacy we should confess as much our selves and not let our Tongues thus bely our Consciences Nay even before Mr. Arnaud's Book appeared abroad in the World it had already gotten the Name of Invincible like to that Legion of old under the Emperour Marcus Aurelius which caused Fire from Heaven to fall down on the Heads of its Enemies And we may truly affirm the World hath not bin wanting to usher in this his pretended Victory with their Shouts and Acclamations Now if it be enquired of Mr. Arnaud what Advantage he can expect from this whole Controversy He will tell us it is the Interest of the Catholick Church and that be L. 2. C. 2. P. 115. will never be perswaded to suffer one of its clearest Proofs to be snatcht out of his Hand seeing it establisheth the Faith of a Mystery wherein consisteth the Object of its Devotion thro the whole World That God preserves all these Christian Societies altho divided from his Church and suffers not the Tyranny of Infidels wholly to swallow them up nor the knowledg of principal Mysteries to be quite extinguisht amongst them to the end they may remain as Witnesses for the Catholick Cause in testifying the Antiquity of those Doctrines which the new Hereticks deny If he be demanded whether none of the Doctors of the Church of Rome have hitherto made use of this Argument he will tell you that no In his Prefa P. 10. one yet hath exactly handled this matter Which is to say that this great Interest of the Catholick Church and this Proof which is one of the most famous she hath whereby to establish her Faith and Devotion in respect of this Mystery was reserved for Mr. Arnaud and that the Divine Providence has not withheld for so many Ages the Violence of the Infidels nor put a stop to the Progress of the Mahometans nor preserved these Reliques of Christianity in the East but only for the sake of Mr. Arnaud's excellent Treatise which was to be the Admiration of the Universe You must not then think it strange if he himself after this hath judged it worthy to be Presented to Kings and Princes and Dedicated even to the Head of the Romish Church and suffer'd so many Doctors to make Panegyricks in its Praise What farther remains but that it should be compared to the Saviour of the World And this Honour has not bin wanting to it THE Author of the Enthusiasms says that as the Son of God before his Birth purifyed John the Baptist his Fore-runner and having wrought this Miracle left the Virgins Bosom to publish to Men the glad Tidings of Peace So likewise Mr. Arnaud's Book when as yet in the Bosom of its Author has replenished a great Man with its Divinity and having begun its Miracles by this Conversion was published in the time of this late Peace made in the Roman Church So far have they carried it on beyond Reason and Christian Modesty NAMQUE si liceat pusilla magnis plenum numine numini libellum aequare ut gravibus licet Poetis Iis omnibus diem subibis O quantum omnibus
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
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
received by the Christian Church which is the chief design of Mr. Arnaud's Book IN the second place I discover the falsity of this supposition that the true Greek Church and other Eastern Christians do believe Transubstantiation and Adore the Sacrament after the same manner as the Church of Rome does The contrary of this will appear so plainly and Mr. Arnaud's Proofs so solidly answered that a man would wonder to see with what confidence he treats of this matter in which he betrays so great ignorance and oversight Here also his pretended proofs touching the Greeks from the 7th to the 11th and touching the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries are fully confuted together with the consequences which he hath blindly drawn from thence of the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation This is the Subject of the 3d. 4th and 5th Book The third proves by many and clear arguments that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation nor adore the Sacrament with the adoration of Latria as the Church of Rome doth and moreover shews particularly what their Doctrins are wherein they agree with the Latins and with us and wherein they differ In the fourth I answer all Mr. Arnaud's Proofs discovering their weakness and make it appear that the greatest part of what he offers does necessarily conclude against him And because of the affinity of the matter I examin at the same time his 7th Book wherein he treats of Greek Authors of the 7th 8th 9th and 10th Centuries In my fifth Book I pass over to the other Christians which are called Schismaticks Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites Coptics Ethiopians and show they do not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence with the Latins From thence I come to the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and examine Mr. Arnaud's 8th Book after which I consider his 10th Book which concerns the consequences drawn from the consent of the Churches which he pretends to have proved and I make it appear that they are but Paralogisms and Sophisms IN the third place I lay open the falsity of Mr. Arnaud's second supposition touching the distinct belief of the Real Presence and refute his sixth Book Afterwards in refuting the ninth Book I show the absurdity of his conjectures about the impossibility of a change and demonstrate that 't is not only possible but might easily happen Lastly the innovation of Paschasius is as evidently prov'd as a thing of that nature can be This is the subject of my sixth Book NOW from all these discourses it will evidently appear what I have already observ'd That this new way hath not been laid open but for to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome I speak not of the intention of these Gentlemen for they have declared themselves plainly enough against us to leave no place for us to suspect them of any collusion And the last Book of Mr. Arnaud hath provided against all such suspicions something more perhaps than is reasonable But I speak of the success their method hath had which hath been quite contrary to their intention As for example it hath given me occasion to prove that the Greeks did not believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence which the Church of Rome taught when they condemned Berengarius neither in the preceding nor following Ages That whatsoever efforts the Latins have made since the 11th Age to this present to procure the reception of these Doctrins in Greece yet the true Greek Church hath not embraced them Neither do the Armenians and other Schismaticks believe them any more than the Greeks NOW who seeth not that the first and most natural consequences which can be drawn from thence is That these Doctrins are new for if they were establish'd at first together with the Christian Religion they would have appeared in those Churches and been retain'd among them after their separation from the Latins and that they do not appear is a manifest sign of their novelty This consequence is not like that of Mr. Arnaud his and mine are not only contrary in the matter but they are likewise very different in form for mine is just and direct whereas his is neither just nor true For suppose the Greeks and other Eastern Christians should at this day believe Transubstantiation nay suppose they should have believed it some Ages since what advantage can Mr. Arnaud make of this seeing he hath been shewed several ways by which it might be introduced into their Churches But if it be true that they held it not neither in the 11th nor in the following Age as I have invincibly prov'd then it cannot be imagin'd how it should disappear nor how the Latins who have for several Ages since overspread these Countreys with their Emissaries would have suffered such a Doctrin to be lost amongst them which it was so much their interest to preserve Moreover this same method hath furnish'd me with an occasion to overthrow the pretended impossibilities of a change and to make appear on the contrary the facility thereof Now suppose we could not answer the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud this would be but little advantage to their cause for still our proofs of the matter of fact would remain unanswer'd without the examination of which the question of the Perpetuity of the Doctrins in Controversie cannot be decided Whereas these having made it appear that their pretended impossibilities are mere Chimera's and that this change might easily happen this is a great inducement to believe our account of it is really true IT is then certain that these Gentlemen could not make a worse choice for the interest of the Church of Rome than of such a way in which nothing of advantage to their Church can be expected but she is thereby exposed to great fears and dangers and that the cause which they have opposed is more beholding to them than that which they have taken upon them to defend Had it not been for them perhaps we should not have much troubled our selves either with discovering the real belief of the Greek Church or that of the Armenians or with the displaying the mystery of their Seminaries and Missions neither should we have concern'd our selves in shewing how the change could be wrought and how it was made AND having now given an account of the several parts of this work and of the present state of this Controversie as to the matter of it it is likewise fit to say something of the manner in which I have handled it One of my greatest cares hath been religiously to keep to truth and sincerity For I am very sensible that prejudice partiality love of vain glory and even sometimes a secret desire of revenging a man's self on his Adversary are passions which do commonly obtrude themselves on us in Disputes and which never fail to corrupt the mind I have therefore endeavoured to the utmost not only
of these pretended Principles and their consequences and wherefore must this neglect have the Title of the Perpetuity defended For my part who de not believe my self bound to follow this example I have examin'd whatsoever I found of importance in Mr. Arnaud be it never so difficult If I have changed his method in some places it hath been to lay down a better more short and natural as when I joyned his 7th Book which treateth of Greek Authors from the 7th Age to the 11th to the general Dispute touching the Greek Church to avoid doing twice the same thing or when I referred his sixth Book touching the distinct belief of the Presence or Real Absence to the question of the impossibility of a change because that in effect this distinct belief was not invented but for this purpose or when I remitted what he said of Paschasius and the Authors of the 9th Age in the second part of his 8th Book to the account of the Innovation because this was its proper place But even in this I have not at all weakened Mr. Arnaud's proofs nor the less exactly examin'd his Book AS to what further remains the Authors which I have made use of cannot be suspected by Mr. Arnaud seeing they are for the most part either Greeks or persons of the Roman Communion or Authors of former Ages which neither one nor other of 'em have written with any foresight of our debate I have alledged but very few Protestants and they such of whose sincerity there is no reason to doubt Mr. Arnaud and his friends have not done the same who have cited in this Controversie Acts and Attestations sent by the Emissaries such as the Acts of a Synod of Cyprus the Profession of Faith of six Priests belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch and such like particulars in the 12th Book of the Writings of the Greeks Armenians or Nestorians latinis'd as of Manuel Calecas of John Plusiadene of Adam Nestorian and of Hacciadour an Armenian Patriarch now resident at Rome the testimonies of the Scholars of the Seminary of Rome as of Paysius Ligardius of Abraham Ecchellensis and of Leo Allatius c. They have likewise frequently made use of him that has lately continued Baronius named Odoricus Raynaldus a Priest of the Oratory at Rome but if any would know of what authority this Author is he may be inform'd by this description He is a man of little wit of no judgment no sincerity no credit who takes matters upon trust with an unsufferable boldness and delivers the most unjustifiable pretensions of the Court of Rome with the same confidence as if they were Articles of Faith who citeth Authors known to be the most partial and passionate of all others as Poggius Blondius Turrecremata and such like as unreprovable witnesses and by following whose Testimonies we shall be obliged to condemn the best of men even those whom God hath own'd by Miracles who for want of proofs makes use of unjust clamours and outragious declamations unbecoming an Historian who ought never to be led by passion And in short such a man than whom there was never any less fit for so important a work as is an Ecclesiastical History And this is the true Character of this Author Who would imagin that persons who believe what I now rehearsed and who desire the whole world to be of the same judgment with them should make use of him in a dispute so important as this and take from him the greatest part of their Relations And yet these are the Gentlemen who quote him at present with so great confidence after they themselves have represented him in the manner I mention'd It was either Mr. Arnaud or some of his Remarks on the 18th Tome of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Rodoricus Raynaeldus Aug. contr Faust lib. 32. ch 16. Friends who under the name of several Divines have taken the pains to publish their Animadversions on this History after a diligent perusal of it Whereupon may we not justly apply to them that of S. Austin to Faustus Who is there that having decried a witness as false and corrupted will ever again produce his testimony If we believe him and believe him not according to your fancy it is not him whom we believe but you And if we must needs believe you what need is there of your producing other witnesses We shall see what these Gentlemen will do henceforward for should they take the same course again as they have taken already in this occasion should they pretend to quote no other Authors but what are decried false Greeks Scholars of the Seminaries persons won to the interests of Rome or Proselytes of its Doctrin and remitted to its Sea this would be as much as to say that their Authority would have a greater share in this Controversie than Reason and perhaps they might be let alone to talk to themselves it being very unreasonable that a man should be continually employed in combating Phantasms and fighting with Shadows For to maintain faithfully and solidly the Hypothesis of the Author of the Perpetuity This was most necessary to be prov'd That the Real Presence and Transubstantiation were establish'd and commonly held in all Christian Churches when Berengarius his Disputations were on foot for which end a thousand attestations of persons now living would be of no use These attestations may serve to shew that the care which hath been so long taken and which is still continued to introduce insensibly the Doctrins of the Roman Church into other Churches by the ways which I have observed in my second Book and especially by their Missions and Seminaries hath not been altogether fruitless But this is the greatest absurdity of all to conclude from thence that the Doctrins in dispute were every where established in Berengarius's time or that they were perpetual There is reason to hope that the world will not suffer it self so easily to be cheated and what hath here been done will sufficiently manifest the Truth WE live not now in the times of ignorance and darkness wherein mens credulity is easily abused Our Age is an enlightned one and its notices are clear and penetrant and we should soon see the downfal of several ancient Errors were they not supported by the affinity which they have with mens temporal interests God will break off this alliance when it shall seem good in his sight but it is our duty to keep firm in his truth and prefer the honor we receive from it above all the advantages of the earth and beseech him that he would reconcile those to it by his Grace who are far from it that all of us may have but one heart to fear him and one and the same mouth to glorifie him A TABLE OF CHAPTERS BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity has follow'd CHAP. I. THAT I have reason to take for granted as I have done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against
or at least doubtful and suspected ones The five and twentieth is his producing the testimony of several false Greeks link'd to the interest of the Latin Church 258 CHAP. IV. The testimony of some Protestants alledged by Mr. Arnaud touching the Belief of the Greeks answered 269 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation examin'd 272 CHAP. VI. A farther examination of Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments A particular reflection on what past in the Treaties of Râ—union and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards 293 CHAP. VII Several passages of Greek Authors cited by Mr. Arnaud examin'd 306 CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make in the 12th Century considered Several passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors examin'd 319 CHAP. IX Several passages of Anastasius Sinaite Germane the Patriarch of Constantinople and Damascen examin'd 429 CHAP. X. An examination of the advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the 8th Century upon the subject of Images the one at Constantinople the other at Nice 339 CHAP. XI Several circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice examin'd 355 The Second Part. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the Belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismatics of the Belief of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of these Churches on the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP. I. Of the MOSCOVITES THat the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation Page 1 CHAP. II. Of the ARMENIANS That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation First proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Human Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallow'd up by the Divinity 14 CHAP. III. The testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation 26 CHAP. IV. Testimonies of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 38 CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's proofs touching the Armenians examin'd 44 CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Coptics and Ethiopians that they hold not Transubstantiation 50 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's eighth Book touching the sentiment of the Latins on the mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700 till Paschasius his time examin'd 61 CHAP. VIII An examination of these expressions of the Fathers That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ 71 CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence 89 CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 98 CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's consequences 106 BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church touching the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. THE state of the question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence 119 CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's proceedings considered His unjust reproaches also examin'd 131 CHAP. III. A Defence of the second third and fourth rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud 143 CHAP. IV. A Defence of the fifth rank against Mr. Arnaud's Objections 154 CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's ninth Book An examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation 163 CHAP. VI. Mr Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution examin'd The state of the 12th Century 172 CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of forgetfulness examin'd The examples of the insensible changes alledged in answer to the Perpetuity defended 188 CHAP. VIII That Paschasius Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections answer'd 198 CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasius was an Innovator 214 CHAP. X. Of Authors in the 9th Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Christian Drutmar 229 CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the 9th Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot 242 CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his 11th Book 259 An Answer to the Dissertation which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud ' s Book touching the Treatise of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus The first Part. Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corby and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. AN Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it 277 CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca does not at all make it the more probable 282 CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram 284 CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is of John Scot 292 CHAP. V. Other Difficulties which the Author of the Dissertation forms on the name of Bertram examin'd 299 The Second Part. That the Authority of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram will be still of great weight if we suppose John Scot to be the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was greatly esteemed both in his own age and in the following ones 303 CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the employs of John Scot 306 CHAP. VIII That John Scot was esteemed a Martyr 311 The end of the Table 1683 Coenantibus ejs accepit Iesus panem et benedixit at fregit deditque discipulis fuis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est And as they did eat Iesus took the bread and when he had blessed he broke it and gave it to the Disciples and said take eat this my body Mat. 26. AN ANSWER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist defended BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath followed CHAP. I. That I have reason to take for granted as I have
till he hath proved them and those which may be justly supposed without being proved IF this man reply to me he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself but by shewing if he can the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just May I not then justly retort upon him that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself but to shew if he be able that these Proofs are invalid Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so reasonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious difference on my side seeing as already mentioned I am Respondent in this Dispute whereas this Person would be the Aggressor But you will ask me who this man is that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims Even Mr. Arnaud himself who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book to shew us that the Learned and Unlearned the Simple and Obstinate and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity he thereupon makes this Conclusion 'T is true saith he that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity suppose the Proofs are clear and solid and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude who would have them rejected without examining them on this general Reason That they are Argumentative Proofs Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing if he can the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound We shall see by what follows whether he had reason to make this Supposition I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example that every man may make Suppositions provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess as he says that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity hath appeared so strange and irregular to me that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact and by gathering them into an Abridgment to give a general view of them Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method provided saith he that I maintained Equity and Truth It may be I think then supposed I have so far done nothing contrary to Rule it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections I shall not insist long upon the first of these because Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The first Observation justified nothing against it appearing undenyable in it self It is grounded on this That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touching the Eucharist the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided not by the word of God but the Churches Consent in all Ages and Depositions of the Fathers and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers but by Arguments Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course it being a Principle of common Sense that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact and that again naturally the Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Deposition Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact which is that holy Scripture wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures so likewise we who have the same Faith with them ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Religion but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest than an Example for us to Imitate and an Example too submitted to the same Rule which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion he must ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties for if his Positions are such as may be questioned he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them before he can suppose them For if he take not this Course he will quickly be at a loss and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith 'T is true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers and that we should do if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship But this reaches not our Question for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith neither in the matter of our present Debate nor in any
more fully in the end they cannot remain in the Church of Rome with a safe Conscience there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands such as are Birth Education Interest Custom and the Example of others which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation They are then obliged to range themselves on the side of the Reformists from whom they receive for a Rule things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry and moreover where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace If it be replied that we must first satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures I answer first that this Principle doth not fall under Debate seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World but only to the particular Opinions of Christians for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly I answer that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures than other Churches seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible she must evidence her self to be a Church which she cannot do if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her and she will not take the Pains to prove it besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture and consequently they suppose its Divinity But in fine I say the Characters of Divinity which shine in all parts of these Writings are so lively and so many in Number that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them if they apply themselves to the Consideration of them with a pure Heart and unspotted Conscience Now this is it to which the meanest Capacity is obliged as well as the greatest and if they do it not their Damnation is just and their Impiety without Excuse AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly But to return to the principal Subject of our Dispute we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud in that he takes it not ill I endeavour to prove by several Passages that the Alteration pretended to be impossible is real and true The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it and if he doth agree to it he must suffer me to draw this Consequence that I could have hindred the Effect he promised himself from his Method which is to make us confess if we are not extream Obstinate that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament is the same with that of all Antiquity This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us and the Production of some Passages of my Writings starteth a particular Debate which Mr. Arnaud approveth for he only complains I have not produced them in a right manner but mained and dislocated from their Consequences and that I have concealed all those which might be opposed and understood But this Complaint is Unjust and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment which is That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins whose Proofs I take upon me to defend If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio into a Preface neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer which contains no more than thirty Pages I never pretended that my Abridgment alone should absolutely determine his Thoughts I know this cannot be expected but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers I design'd to shew them of my Communion what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties the matters of Proof with which it is furnished their Nature and Force do contribute that Truth to it which an Abridgment ought to have and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the same with that of the Fathers and that there has bin made an Alteration for the Principles of this are marked out and their Consequence doth plainly appear that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist for we may easily conclude from what I said that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridgments which allways refer to another work in supposing that the Principles they mark out are clearly established in that Book to which they refer and from whence they draw their Conclusion And this is all that can be desired in this matter but yet this is a way of concluding and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist I confess that to determine his Judgment we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion we must go to the Spring and see whether what is supposed issues thence but it doth not thence follow that the Abridgment is in fault nor that it should be esteemed as a Heap of Difficulties and indeed it would not be an Abridgment if in effect it did not abridge some other work wherein the Matter is handled at large A Heap of Difficulties to speak properly is a Collection of several Objections which are formed against a Doctrine without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections and in short without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled It is certain that in a Controversy this manner of proceeding is confused and captious and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind for as to my part I find that it hath all the Characters of it For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist
the middle of the eleventh Century The Emperor Constantin Monomaque who then Reigned seeing this Difference did not stick to take the Church of Rome's part he commanded therefore Cerularius to write back to the Pope Letters of Reconciliation and Peace and the Pope sends thereupon to Constantinople in order to the Churches Re-union his Legats Humbert and Frederic Cardinals and Peter Arch-Bishop of Melphus with Letters to the Emperor and Patriarch The Emperor granted to these Legates whatsoever they desired even to the constraining Nicetas Pectoratus a Greek Monk that had written against the Romain Church to burn publickly his own Book and anathematise all those that would not acknowledg the Pope's Supremacy or dared in any wise censure the Doctrines of the Latins This Protection so raised the Legates Courage that coming into the Patriarchal Church in the presence of all the People and Greek Clergy they Excommunicated the Patriarch and Bishop of Acrida and all that took their Parts which raised such a Tumult in Constantinople that the Emperor had much ado to save the Legates from the Popular Fury who after this returned into Italy whereupon the Patriarch Excommunicated on his Side the Legates and rased the Popes Name out of the Diptyches which are Tables wherein the Names of those that are prayed for in the Divine Service were set down Some Authors say that he Anathematised the Pope and all the Latines as Hereticks but Leo Allatius cites the Testimony of an anonymous Author by which it appears that the Emperor hindered by his Authority this Excommunication In the time saies this Author that Michael Cerularius Anonym apud Allat de perp Cons L. 2. C. 8. held the See of Constantinople the four Patriarchs rased the Pope's Name out of the Dyptiches and yet did they not fully pronounce the Anathema against the Latines being hind'red by the Emperor who considered them as a great and mighty Nation and therefore was afraid of their usual Incursions IN the Year 1071 Michael Parapinacius was made Emperor being a Prince that loved his Ease and therefore withstood not the Turks Progress into Europe He observed the usual Policy of the Greek Emperors which L. 2. C. 8. P. 173. was to favour the Latines and Mr. Arnaud observes from Baronius and Leo Allatius that Pope Alexander the second sent to him Peter Bishop of Anagnia Allet de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 9. as his Nuncio Allatius adds that Peter remained a Year at Constantinople Which shews us saies he This Emperor was in the Communion of the Roman Church and in effect Gregory the seventh Excommunicated upon his account Nicephorus Botionatus who had usurped the Empire and shut up Michael in a Monastery IN the Year 1081 Nicephorus Botoniatus was handled by Alexis Comnenus in the same manner that Michael was used by Nicephorus that is to say he was deprived of the Empire and shut up in a Monastery But Alexis getting into his place varied not from the Custom of his Predecessors the necessity of his Affairs obliging him to turn himself on the Side of the Latins more openly than others had done before him and observe their Measures altho inwardly he did not affect them He obstructed their Designs on the Holy Land as much as in him lay and hind'red their Passage thither obliging them sometimes to turn their Arms against him and chastize him Rationar temp Part 1. L. 8. C 13. Baron ad ann 1095. severely which caused Pelavius the Jesuit to say That it was impossible for a man to be more deceitful and unjust than this Emperor was towards the Latines in this whole Expedition Yet had he sent his Embassadors to the Council of Plaisance to sollicite the Pope and Western Princes to undertake the War against the Infidels He flattered the Romain Church on all Occasions sending Allat de Cons L 2. C. 10. oftentimes Presents to the Monastery of Mount Cassin using likewise the same Liberality towards the other Latine Churches and especially that of St. Marc at Venice on which he bestowed considerable Revenues as 't is observed by Allatius who alledgeth for this the Testimony of the Princess Ann Barron ad ann 109◠Comnenus the Daughter of this Emperor He likewise gave his helping Hand towards the Essay of a Re-union made at the Synod of Bary in the Year 1097. He sent Embassadors to Rome in Behalf of Pope Paschal the second Baron ad ann 1112 ad ann 1118. who obtained the Papacy two Years after the Synod of Bary and this Pope in the second Year of his Popedom sent him the Arch-Bishop of Milain Eo solo nomine quod ipse existimo saies Allatius ut si quid erat in Graecia Allat ubi supra noxium ex Cerularii Schola radicitus extirparet Graecosque alios contineret in fide To the end he might utterly Extirpate whatsoever remained of Cerularius his Doctrine and keep the other Greeks in the Faith JOHN Comnénus who succeeded Alexis was yet more favourable to the Latines than Alexis for this I suppose is the Jesuit Peteau's meaning when he saies that he was Patre aliquanto commodior a little less troublesom than his Father I do not observe there has bin any thing more said of him on this Subject unless that he received a Letter from Peter the Abbot of Clugny in which he entreated him to surrender a Monastery belonging to them of his Order at Constantinople and which had bin taken from them promising he should participate of all the Merits of that Order if he re-established them Baronius saies likewise that Anaclet the Antypope to Innocent Baron ad ann 1130. the second wrote to this Emperor informing him of his Promotion to the Popedom and that he called him his most dear Son AFTER John succeeded Manuel Comnénus a Prince very much addicted to Dissimulation and double Dealing who on one hand did the Latines all the Mischief he privately could by the Secret Intelligence he held with the Sarracens and on the other earnestly endeavoured at a complyance with the Desires of the Church of Rome touching the Re-union of the Greeks Allatius tells us that he sent Embassadors to Pope Alexander the Allat de Perp. Cons L. 2. C. 11. third to treat with him concerning this Re-union and that the Pope sent John the Sub-Deacon of the Church of Rome to Constantinople to reduce the Greeks by his Sermons He likewise tells us 't was this Emperor that obliged Hugo Eterianus to write against the Greeks touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost that the Empress his Wife as Mr. Arnaud himself observes after him was a Germain and of the Romish Religion and that he bestowed great Gifts on the Latine Churches whereupon the Latine Bishops for an acknowledgment of his Munificence set up his Image in their Churches It is difficult to Imagine how a Prince who in his Heart so greatly hated the Latines that the Jesuit Peteau has not stuck
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
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
charge and caluminate the Latins with whom they had treated and the Greeks who had consented to the Union that their Hatred and Rage should discover it self-without Disguise and Constraint ADMIRE I beseech you this flight of Fancy and vast extent of Thought The Good and Evil which befel the Christian World two hundred Years ago appears design'd for the Glory of Mr. Arnaud's Book with this only Difference that the Evils contribute to it more than the Good for 't is the Schism Passion Hatred and Rage of the Greeks which give him a compleat Victory It was necessary say's he they should be thus furious which is as much as to say it was necessary half of the World should be damned according to him that God should be dishonoured by a thousand Crimes and his Church torn to pieces by a dreadful Division And why For to furnish Mr. Arnaud with an Argument and that he might have Matter for one Chapter more BUT he will be much amazed to find this Argument so dear bought to conclude nothing being grounded on a false Supposition For 't is false the Greeks approved Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence That they Disputed not of it I acknowledg but that they approved it I deny Bessarion speaking in their Name say's that the Bread is Consecrated and made the Body of Christ and the Decree bears that the Body of Jesus Christ is truly Consecrated Therefore they approved Transubstantiation What a Consequence here is Mr. Arnaud has a Secret above my Apprehension for he can change the very Nature of things he can diminish and augment them as he pleases But the Misery on it is this appears contrary to Reason Why will he have the new Schism of the Greeks to have hapned meerly for the furnishing him with an Argument It was not known in those days he was to make a Book Why will he have the Greeks approve Transubstantiation at Florence Seeing there was not the least mention of it Why must those that broke the Union reproach the others with approving the Doctrine of the Latins Why will he have Syropulus Marc of Ephesus and the Council of Jerusalem to declaim on this Point seeing they had no reason to do so Certainly such gross Illusions as these deserved not such Exclamations IT only remains for the finishing of this Chapter and this matter of Negative Arguments to show a Reason for the Silence of the Latins and that will be no hard matter to do The Latins have innovated in the Doctrine of the Eucharist They have grounded their Innovations on certain Expressions of the Fathers which bear that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ They have made it their Business for some Ages to make the World believe these Terms signify a true and real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Christ to defend themselves by this means from the Reproach of Innovation Observing then that the Greeks do commonly use these kind of Expressions and even added to 'em some others which seem more emphatical as for Instance that the Bread is not a Figure that it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and that the Body born of the Virgin and the Bread are not two things but one and the same they well knew it was their Interest to rest satisfied with these general Expressions altho in effect they signify nothing less than Transubstantiation Had they condemned them as insufficient and urged the Greeks to admit of theirs they would at the same time condemned themselves as Innovators They chose then rather to pass over softly this Article than to venture near a Rock against which their Cause ran a risk of being dashed to pieces And this obliged them in their Dealings with the Greeks to content themselves with their Expressions and accommodate themselves to 'em that they might not move 'em as appears by the Formulary of the Reunions already mentioned and Decree of the Council of Florence wherein was used only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and Confioi in Latin YET we must not imagine but that judicious Persons amongst the Latins and especially those that had the Government in their Hands saw well enough the Difference between these general Expressions of the Greeks and the precise and determinate ones of the Roman Church That learned Man I mentioned in the seventh Chapter of the foregoing Book who was consulted on the Articles which the Russians in Poland proposed in order to their Reunion with the Roman Church amongst which was this that they should not be obliged to Celebrate Corpus Christi Feast nor carry about the Sacrament in Procession answered That as to what concern'd the Procession it was not a Thom. a Jesu Lib. 6. p. 3. c. 3. matter to stick at but there were things of greater Importance to be considered touching the Sacrament De processione infesto corporis non laborarem multa tamen circa hoc Sacramentum examinanda sunt And therefore when particular Persons amongst the Greeks imbrace the Roman Religion the usual terms of their Church are not counted sufficient but they are made to understand distinctly the substantial Conversion and to receive the term of Transubstantiation as we already offered in the Procession of Faith they are obliged to make Hence proceed all those Efforts since so long a time to introduce insensibly amongst the Greeks this Belief by means of false Greeks as appears by the Example of that Monk mentioned by Mr. Basire who had slily insinuated the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Catechism and was censured for it by the rest When the Scholars of the Seminaries are sent into Greece to live amongst the Schismaticks and procure the establishment of the Roman Religion they are made to sign the Confession of Faith I now mentioned which expresly denotes Transubstantiation So likewise is their Language far different from that of the real Greeks as appears by the Example of the great Paysius Ligaridius and the terrible Baron of Spartaris And this is evident in the Greeks that imbrace the Romish Religion for they speak not as others nor as they did themselves before their Conversion as I already instanced in Bessarion Emanuel Calecas and John Plusiadene IT is the Latins great Interest not to dispute against the Greeks on all the Points wherein the two Churches differ And therefore they give in charge to the Emissaries to use the greatest Caution in handling Controversies It is sometimes expedient to fall upon Controversies say's Possevin but they must be Possevin Bibl. select l. 5. c. 24. warily and moderately handled Neither must a Man mention any of these five Articles which were heretofore the principal ones and which the Synod of Florence and Gennadius handled For now the Controversies of the Azyme and Eucharist are no longer agitated neither in Candia nor any other of the Eastern Parts And therefore these
themselves to the Sacrament that is to say to the Object which is present before our Eyes as so many marks of Reverence given to it this cannot be truly said for the Trisagion is adressed to the Holy Trinity and not to the Sacrament What also hinders but that the three Genuflexions may be made in Honour of the three Persons Those that know the Temper of the Greeks need not be told what great Lovers of Mysteries they are in all things as Combesis does somewhere observe Graeci say's he sunt valde mystici it is then very likely that the number of three in their Kneelings has a mystical Reason and refers it self to three Persons But say's Mr. Arnaud It is not P. 726. necessary to sing always the Trisagion and when 't was not sung yet the three Genuflexions were made I grant it the three Genuflexions then were not made to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost this Conclusion is not good Could they not think of the Trinity nor Worship it but they must sing the Trisagion MR. Claude say's Mr. Arnaud must prove that these Terms of the Body of P. 725. Jesus Christ do not signify the true Body of Christ before he can justly blame this Translation as False Did ever any Man behold a more unreasonable Pretension The Author of the Perpetuity shall bring in his Prejudication into his Translations and add unto them what he pleases and having thus accommodated them to his Sence he may give 'em me for good and substantial Proofs and I must not have the Liberty to charge his Translations with Falsity till I have showed his Prejudications to be False Is there the least Dram of Equity in this After this rate Mr. Arnaud may Translate thus the Words of Christ This is my Body in proper Substance For this Translation is agreeable to his Prejudication he may alledg them to me in this Form as a good and excellent Proof and if I tell him his Translation is False and that 't is not thus in the Original he may maintain against me that I have not the Liberty to charge his Translation as False till such time as I have proved that the Term of Body does not signify the Body in proper Substance And the Laws of Controversie being as well for the Benefit of the one Party as the other I will render the same Words This Bread is the sign of my Body and producing my Translation as an express Proof of my Sentiment I will likewise tell him that he must not Accuse my Translation as False till he has proved that by the Term of Body when the Question concerns the Sacrament we must not understand the Sign of Christ's Body BUT adds he as this is an unjustifyable Pretension to wit the Pretension that the Term of Body does not signify the true Body and is particularly confuted by all the Greeks of our time in supposing the Words of our Saviour Christ signify the real Body of Christ we have had reason to suppose that those of bending the Knee signify a real Adoration What weak Arguing is here Suppose these three Genuflexions refer themselves to the Body of Christ which we receive into our Mouths Suppose that by the Term of Body we must understand the Body in proper Substance Then Mr. Arnaud's Translation will be tolerable There is so great Irregularity in all this that the plain Repetition of it is enough to Confute it AND thus have we considered whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has proposed of any Weight in his seventh Book and in his second third and fourth touching the Greeks to perswade the World that Transubstantiation is one of their Doctrines We have met with several Delusions and many Paralogisms which are the two Characters of a Person that is deceived himself and would have others to be deceived with him He has not been sparing of his fruitless Histories false Suppositions starcht Prefaces Amplifications Exclamations and in a Word of any of the Artifices of Rhetorick and that which is most strange is he has never less shunned the slipping into these Defaults then when he has himself most unjustly accused me of them I take no Notice of his Invectives and Sharpness with which he has stuffed his Discourses to render 'em more taking and agreeable nor of that common Custom of his of taking in a contrary Sence the most solid Matters to make them seem Ridiculous All which has not hindred but that I have done the three things I took upon me to prove The first to shew that altho it were true the Greeks believed Transubstantiation it would not thence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually in the Church The other That the Greeks do not in effect hold Transubstantiation nor Adore the Eucharist And the Third That all Mr. Arnaud's Efforts to prove the contrary Proposition are Ineffectual and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude directly against himself The First of these has been established by solid Reflections on evident matters of Fact The Second by good Proofs And the Third by pertinent Answers and most natural Consequences IT only remains now to be concluded from this whole Dispute that Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence are in effect an Innovation of the Latins and not the ancient Doctrines of Christianity seeing they are not found established in the Greek Church This Conclusion is as every Man may see directly opposite to that of Mr. Arnaud but if compared together it will be soon found that mine is drawn from my Principle with far greater Evidence and Necessity than the other follows from his For supposing the Greeks do believe the Conversion of Substances it cannot hence follow that this Doctrine has been perpetually held by that Church as we made appear in our second Book But if they do not believe it it is a plain sign that it was neither Believed nor so much as heard of by the two Churches before their Separation If the Greeks do now at this day believe this Doctrine having not done so heretofore we cannot marvel thereat considering their Condition as it has been represented by us since the eleventh Century and the unwearied Pains the Latins have taken for the Propogation of the Doctrines of the Roman Church in the East to which end they have used and do still use all kind of Means But supposing they believed it heretofore it is hard to conceive they have ceased believing it because it is naturally more Difficult for Men to give over believing what they did once Believe than to begin to believe what they did not Believe and because likewise the least Effect this aforementioned Commerce of the Latins with the Greeks could Produce would be to Cherish and Preserve a Doctrine of this Importance amongst the Greeks themselves and to hinder its being Lost The End of the First Part. AN ANSVVER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist defended PART
II. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismaticks of the belief of the Latins in the seventh and eighth Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of these Churches in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP I. Of the Moscovites That the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation HAVING thus cleared up the Point in reference to the Greeks I come now in order to the Examination of Mr. Arnaud's fifth Book wherein he treats of the other Churches called Schismaticks which are separated as well from the Greek Church as the Roman The first of those Churches which he Offers us is that of the Moscovites and he immediately acknowledges that she makes up a part of the Greek one and that the same Proofs which serve for the one suffice for the other But this acknowledgment ill agreeing with the Design he had to make this the Subject of four Chapters he say's afterwards he thought himself obliged to treat of this at lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423. large as well for that the Fallacious arguings which Mr. Claude makes thereupon deserve to be represented as that also the Opinion of the Moscovites appeared to him very Considerable in this matter To speak plainly these are meer frivolous Pretences as it will appear in the sequel and unless he imagined this Multiplication of Objects would contribute something to his Glory and make it more Illustrious there can be no reason alledged for the mentioning of the Moscovites apart for if it be true these People profess to follow the Greek Religion as he say's assoon as ever we are satisfied of the Doctrine of these last we need not trouble our selves any longer concerning the Belief of the others Yet we must accommodate our selves to Mr. Arnaud's method and treat of the Moscovites seeing he will have it so TO begin with the state of these People Moscovia is a great Nation professing the Christian Religion but otherwise extream Barbarous and Ignorant of the Doctrines of Christianity Some have questioned whether they may reasonably be called Christians whereupon Mr. Olearius has Pleasantly Voyage into Moscovia lib. 3. p. 234. say'd That it may as well be questioned whether they are Men seeing their Religion does not so greatly differ from that of other Christians as their Morals and way of Living does from that of other Men but as they shew themselves Men by speech and Laughter so in like manner they appear to be Christians by Possevin Bibl. sel lib. 6. C. 5. and lib. de reb Moscov Thom. a Jesu Lib. 6. C. 5. Olearius voyage Mosc Lib. 3 p. 237. 234. Baptism and the outward Profession of the Christian Religion They refer themselves upon all Accounts to their Prince as to their Oracle saying when they be asked touching any Point That God and their Great Czar know it and that 't is by the especial Grace of their Czar they are in Health and can sit on Horseback One of their Chief Maxims is to suffer no Preachers amongst them and in Effect they have none but content themselves with the reading of the Psalms some Chapters of the Scripture and S. Athanasius's Creed to which they sometimes add an Homely of S. Chrysostom or the Life of some of their Saints Mr. Olearius adds That one of their Priests setting himself to Preach and exhort the People out of the word of God to the duty of Prayer the Patriarch deposed him together with some other Priests who followed his Example that he excommunicated them and sent them into Siberia THERE are neither Accademy's nor Colledges amongst them and it would be a Crime punishable by the Laws of that Kingdom for a man to Possev ubi supra apply himself to the study of Sciences They have only some small Schools wherein they teach Children to Write and Read and perhaps a little Greek and Latine in one Corner of the Kingdom HENCE it is their Ecclesiasticks are so Prodigiously ignorant that Olear Lib. 3. p. 234. Mr. Olearius tells us There is scarcely any amongst their very Monks and Priests that can give an Account of his Faith because they have none to Preach the word of Olear Lib. 3 p. 237. God to them And therefore the Patriarch will not permit 'em to Dispute about Religion nor inform themselves by means of Strangers Possevin likewise tells us that demanding of their Monks who was the founder of their Order Possev ubi supra not one of 'em could return him an Answer And thus are we informed in the Ambassage of the Earl of Carlile The Religion of the Moscovites is the Relation of the Ambassag of the Earl of Carlile same which the Greeks profess for they follow their Faith Rights and Ceremonies but they are so Ignorant that they scarce know themselves what Religion they are of THEIR Superstition is no less than their Ignorance witness their calling Olear Lib. 3. p. 261. their Images their Gods saying when they enter into any House I est le Boch where is the God Witness likewise their re-baptizing themselves every year and not only their own Persons but in like manner their Images Olear Lib. 3. p. 261. and Horses And their giving a Testimonial or Pass port in due form and manner to their Dead attesting they have lived good Christians and observed the Greek Religion to the end that S. Peter in seeing their Testimonial may admit them into Heaven Witness moreover that fabulous and impious Book mentioned by Olearius wherein they have corrupted the Historical passages of the Gospel adding thereto filthy and abominable Circumstances such as is this amongst others That Mary Magdalen prostituting her self one day Olear p. 249. out of Charity her Action was so Meritorious in the sight of God that it expiated all her past sins and caused her to be Canonized in the Register of Saints I could willingly forbear mentioning things of this Nature did not I find that Mr. Arnaud in his Discourses concerning these People seems to represent us with an Idea of the most happy and flourishing People in the World THIS is say's he a great Kingdom almost intirely separate from all others Lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423. This is a Nation which has ever had but little Commerce with the rest of the Nations of the World few Persons Voyaging into those parts and few Moscovites into Asia and Europe There was never in this Country a mixture of Persons of divers Communions It cannot be say'd the Latins have brought over their Opinions here by Croisados and 't is observed by all Authors that these People are exceeding careful to preserve their ancient Customs and Doctrines In fine there is no Country in the World more tenacious of their Opinions and which less easily admits a new one The Church of this Kingdom is a Church purely Greek and owes it's
Conversion to the Greek Church having received from her the Doctrine she Professes There are scarcely any other Books read amongst them than some Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Tongue The writings of these Fathers are expounded amongst them they have no other Sentiments than those which Nature imprints in their Minds Will not a man be apt to say in reading this Description that this Land is a kind of spiritual Canaan BUT what signifies disguising of things at this rate Besides what I now related touching the Ignorance and Superstitions reigning in this Church we need only observe what judgment Possevin who lived several years in Moscovia makes of them In respect of Schism say's he it cannot be imagin'd how deeply Possev de reb Moscov p. 24. they are ingaged in it holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims or rather adding still somthing to them than abating any of them It is the same with the Moscovites as with those who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle the forwarder they go the more they multiply their Errors just as may be observed in the Innovators of our times The Moscovites having receiv'd their Schism from the Greeks have departed from 'em and having no Books nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies And yet according to Mr. Arnaud this is the only Country in the World for conserving a Doctrine already established and the least likely to embrace a new Opinion The same Possevin tells us that the Great Duke Possev de reb Moscov p. 1. Basil having caused a Greek Priest to come into his Country whom the Patriarch of Constantinople sent him he threw him into Prison and would not release him altho requested by the Turkish Emperor because the Priest told him he found the Moscovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church and from that time they had no more Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moscovia In another place he observes expressly that they differ in several Ibid. p. 38. things from the Latins Which caused Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia Elucid error ritus Ruth Joan. Sacra to say that they abuse in several things the Rights of the Greeks and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks which have departed from them This proposition of Sacranus may be excessive but it may be well concluded thence that the Moscovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion but have not so carefully preserved it but that 't is alter'd in several things THIS pretended firmness which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them has not hindred the Greek Religion from being corrupted amongst them neither has it hindred the Latins from using their utmost Endeavors to introduce their Doctrines amongst them nor Possevin from laying his Designs in Order thereunto It has not hindred the Popes from sending their Emissaries amongst Possev de reb Mosc Com. 1. 2 Chap. 4. them as I have already show'd in the second Book nor from making use of Merchants who under pretence of Commerce obtain an easier access into these Countries as appears by the History of Paul Jovius nor Arcudius Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Mosc a Latiniz'd Greek from spending twenty years in Lituania Russia and Moscovia in the propogating of the Romish Religion as he himself testifies Arcud Epist dedicat ad Sigism in his Letter to Sigismond King of Poland nor Seminaries from being set up in Lituania and other places for the instructing of the Moscovites Children in the Romish Religion as Possevin tells us This firmness does not hinder Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. but that they have made use not only of Polanders for the Reduction of these People who hold a particular Commerce with them but especially of the re-united Russians who appear less suspected to the Moscovites because they Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. observe still the Greek Rites In fine this does not hinder the false Greeks who having finished their studies in the Seminary at Rome do return into Greece from promoting the interest of the Roman Church under the habit and disguise of Schismatical Greeks and from passing over from Greece into Moscovia when occasion Offers as appears by the Example of Paysius Ligaridius who wrote in Mosco it self his Treatise of the Eucharist in favour of Mr. Arnaud and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone IS not this then a delusory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made That it cannot be alledged the Latins have brought their Opinions into these parts by Croisado's This is true but if they have not brought them thither by Croisado's they have done whatsoever they have been able in order to the introducing them by Missions and Seminaries by Commerce of Merchants by Poland Russia and Greece it self which is their Mother-Church Now can it seem strange to us if with all these Machins and by abusing the Ignorance and stupidity of these People they have been made to believe that Transubstantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion and consequently one of theirs And can it be imagined we are such Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People What Mr. Arnaud adds That there is scarcely any other Books Possev de reb Moscov Comm. 1. read amongst them than the Writings of some of the Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Language does not well agree with what Possevin tells us that they understand not any more of the Sclavonian Language than what nearly relates to theirs or that of Poland What signifies the reading of Greek Fathers Translated into a Language which the People understand not BUT let us see what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation The first he Offers is the silence of all Authors that have written on the Religion of this Church who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane To enhance the Value of this Proof he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Positive whereby to maintain my Thesis It is strange say's he that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter should choose rather to devine the Opinion of these People on weak Conjectures than to inform himself whether he might not meet in so many Books that mention the Religion Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425. of the Moscovites real Proofs of what he would willingly find He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading those Books and Protests he has not been guilty of the like having read whatsoever he could find written on this Subject eight Authors on one side several Treatises on the other such as Possevin Baronius Raynoldus Botter Breerwood Hornbeck and several others THERE is no need of this Account There being no body as I know of that questions Mr. Arnaud's industry we on the contrary blame him for taking so much Pains for nothing As
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
distinction it must be attended by these following observations 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity have more or less force according as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural and is confirmed moreover by experience it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 't is only a consequence of congruity which has not an absolute necessity We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger and which cannot be confuted by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences how natural soever they may appear to be or oppose against them a contrary experience or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them 3. That the Argument becomes very strong when 't is drawn from a great number of these consequences it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of ' em 4. That when the natural consequences of a Doctrine do not appear at certain times or in certain places there must therein at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing I I say that 't is a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds and produce Disputes and Controversies amongst them experience confirms it since the 11th Century to this present We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine in that she remained in peace concerning this subject till Paschasius's time altho there were otherwise Controversies touching almost all the Articles of the Creed 'T is not sufficient for the relating of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that this is only a consequence of congruity and that 't is natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into docility towards this mystery I will answer him that 't is not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that 't is on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all and that that which he calls the custom of Faith does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till after several contradictions and repugnancies as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation that were never controverted or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natural one yet has had no place during eight hundred years 'T IS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation that 't is endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present We may then very well argue in this manner and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th Century 't is most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world And 't is not sufficient for the confuting of this Argument to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary for altho this be true yet that is a consequence natural enough being grounded on experience IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the participation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Centuries and it appearing in the latter we may make hence a probable conjecture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Doctrine For 't is not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary and resolved at length to remedy them To say hereupon that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood is as much as amounts to nothing for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it seeing she has none of these customs For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Adoration yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em or at least others equivalent to 'em that are as significant to testifie openly the acts of Adoration This then is no satisfactory answer but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity The second Reflection AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from consequences it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion We make use of these proofs on the question Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation to shew she did not believe it or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither nor adore the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud has shunned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th Book wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th Century to this present Whereas we say for instance That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine Mr. Arnaud perverts this order and says That our Arguments drawn from these consequences are invalid because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one but by how much the greater art there is in it by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner The seventh Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's seventh Consequence is That the Doctrine of the Chap. 8. Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the discoursing of Philosophical Consequences nor upon explaining the
difficulties of this Mystery and therefore 't is no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of ' em Reflection WE have already refuted this opposition and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones such as are the existence of accidents without a subject the existence of a body in divers places at once the concomitance c. which were unknown to the ancient Church as well as to the Schismatical Churches supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation and concludes afterwards that our proof musâ— needs be invalid seeing here are the Greeks Armenians and Copticks c. who make no mention of these difficulties So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the adoration of the Eucharist in his 9th Chapter And as to what he alledges in the 10th touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain we will treat thereof in this following Book BOOK VI. Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church in respect of the Eucharist That this Change was not impossible and that it has effectually hapned CHAP. I. The state of the Question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence DESIGNING particularly to treat in this 6th and last Book of the Change which has hapned according to us in the Latin Church I could not better begin it than by the question Whether men ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence This distinct knowledg being one of the principal means which the Author of the Perpetuity has made use of to shew that the change which we suppose is impossible it is necessary then to consider it first 'T is likewise for this reason that I reserved the discussion of Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book for this place for having treated of the Author of the Perpetuity's method I believed 't was necessary to discuss without interruption whatsoever concerned the Greeks and other Eastern Christians to examin at the same time the state of the Latins in the 7th and 8th Centuries and afterwards pass on to the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Which done due order requiring us to proceed to the question of the change which hapned in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries and this other Question of the distinct knowledg which Mr. Arnaud handles in his 6th Book being a dependance of that of the change or to speak better a preamble to it I believed this was the most fitting place to examin it BUT before we enter into this matter it is necessary to state the question clearly and for this effect I shall propose some remarks which will plainly discover wherein consists the point of our difference First I grant Mr. Arnaud that the Author of the Perpetuity has not offer'd his Argument drawn from the distinct knowledg but only in respect of the Real Presence and not in reference to Transubstantiation But Mr. Arnaud likewise must grant that this proof does not fully answer the design which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed to himself at the entrance of his Treatise To make Perp. Faith pag. 14. us confess from the evidence of truth it self that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Mystery of the Eucharist is the same with that of all antiquity For the Roman Church does not simply stop at the Real Presence she believes likewise Transubstantiation Now in this respect that Author's proof concludes nothing Yet seeing he himself has restrained his Argument only to the Real Presence it will not be just to give it a greater extent in this respect IN the second place it must be granted that the question here concerns nor persons that have no knowledg of Christianity and consequently perhaps never heard of the Eucharist nor Body of Jesus Christ The point in hand concerns persons that made open profession to be Christians who Communicated and knew that our Saviour Christ is in Heaven so that they had some kind of notion as well of the Eucharist as of the Body of Jesus Christ So far Mr. Arnaud and I agree well enough BUT our difference begins from the complaint I make against the Author of the Perpetuity in that he would establish the state of this question in an illusory manner It concerns us says he to know whether the faithful Refutation Part. 2. Ch. 2. could remain for the space of a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud maintains this state of the question Lib. 6. cap. 3. and I affirm 't is wholly captious and that the question does not at all concern this matter Which we shall illustrate by a third remark I say then the question is properly to know whether during a thousand years the people that were in the Church ever formed a distinct and determinate notion whether what they saw was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance without ever ceasing during all this time to have this same notion thus distinct and determinate The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud are obliged to prove the affirmative because in their respect 't is a necessary proposition which they offer in form of a Principle wirhout which their Argument touching the impossibility of the change concludes nothing I must defend the negative but this negative consists not in affirming that during a thousand years the faithful could remain without forming this distinct and determinate notion here in question it consists in affirming only that during a certain time comprehended within the extent of these thousand years the people have not formed this distinct notion These Gentlemens affirmation must be general for the thousand years and if there be wanting but one or less than one Age their supposition will be ineffectual seeing 't is only by this they can prove that the change we dispute about was impossible during these thousand years But as to my own part 't is sufficient I affirm their supposition to be false during a certain time wherein the change will be made It will do these Gentlemen no harm perhaps who scoff at that Philosophy which they call School-boys Exercise to consult it sometimes for it will teach them to distinguish between a contrary opposition and a contradictory one Two contrary propositions may be both of 'em false and are never very proper to form a just state of a question between rational persons who dispute to find a Verity and not to discover two falsities For example these two propositions Men are lyars Men are always lyars are opposite by an opposition called contrary They are both false and cannot form a just question To form
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
and dispers'd it in the minds of several without resistance and thus this Doctrin has made in the space of these hundred years insensible progresses establishing it self by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th as an innovation this Doctrin found it self the strongest and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin What difficulty can be rais'd against this Hypothesis which may not be casily solved If it be said that Paschasus did not propose any thing but what all the faithful already distinctly knew and believed Paschasus himself will answer for me that he has moved several persons to the understanding of this Mystery which supposes that before his time 't was not sufficiently known and that he discovered things of which the people were ignorant Odon will answer for me that the most learned had but little knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist if they had not read Paschasus his Book If it be said his Doctrin met with no contradiction Paschasus himself will tell you that some blamed him for attributing more to the word of Christ than the truth it self has promised us and 't is hereon he disputes against his Adversaries Should a man deny that the two Doctrins that of Paschasus and that of his Adversaries were both taught in the 10th Century he will I think be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given and in effect there 's no great likelihood that the Doctrin of John Scot and Bertram who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France and that of Raban three persons of great note in the Church should be thus extinct in so short a time without any Councils condemning it without the Court of Romes concerning her self with it without the interposition of temporal Princes and that there should I say remain no trace of it in the 10th Century He that shall think it strange that the people of the 10th Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation need only call to mind the ignorance wherein the people lived for when a man does not know what the Church believes 't is no hard matter for him to be deceived and to take that which she does not believe for what she does That man that questions this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have given of it Should any man alledg it to be strange such men as an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny should be deceived 't is easie to shew the weakness of this objection by th' example of several that are men of better parts than those now in question who now take for the Doctrin of the Church what is not so The Disciples of Paschasus found in his Book such specious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em and 't is a thing ordinary enough to be surprized by false colours Should it be said to be impossible but that the Disciples of Paschasus knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in several places have openly condemned it and disputed against those that held it First I answer I do not know whether we may absolutely say there was no dispute about it for there may be disputes and we not know of 'em but supposing there were not I answer that seeing 't is no Miracle that disputation should cease sometimes in an enlightned Age amongst learned and zealous men without any Conversions on either side 't is much less one in a dark and troublesom Age wherein persons thought of nothing less than disputing The Disciples of Paschasus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paschasus his Book to all persons and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles If it be likewise said that those that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to dispute against those that follow'd that of Paschasus I must say so too but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do because they have not always that zeal knowledg or industry which they ought to have How should they dispute one against another who left for the most part their Flocks without Pasture without Instruction without Preaching Howsoever this is as I said a thing certain that there were persons in this Century who held the Doctrin of Paschasus and others that of Bertram Whether they disputed or no it concerns me not to know 't is sufficient for me that this Age held both these Doctrins which I think cannot be denied When two opposite Doctrins are taught and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance to speak after the manner of men and according to the terms of our Dispute 't is equally impossible either of them should get the upper hand because they want that understanding which is requisite to to make aright judgment and moreover if the one be asserted by persons of Authority and great Reputation it is almost impossible but this will carry it away from the other Whence it follows the progress of the Real Presence in the 10th Century has been not only possible but easie and even unavoidable To which if we add another matter of fact which is that we do not find there were Disputes in this Century on this subject whence we will conclude that these progresses we speak of have been made in an insensible manner at least in our respect which is to say that if there were any noise or contests the knowledg of 'em never came to us which suffices to decide the question between us two AND this is what I had to say touching the state of the 10th Century in respect of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence I take no notice of those violent accusations which Mr. Arnaud brings against our Morals under pretence we do not reckon Piety to consist in affected Penances and outward Mortifications which for the most part have more shew than substance We praise and recommend as earnestly as we can the practice of Fasting but believe it better to abstain from Vice than Meats the use of which God has given us with sobriety We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him to make good use of his Estate and endure Poverty without envy murmurings and repinings to live holily in Caelibacy and chastly in Marriage to carry our selves justly to our Inferiors and obediently to Superiors But we do not approve of mens withdrawing themselves out of that rank and order wherein providence has placed them nor making of particular rules and binding men to th' observance of 'em by Vows nor that the Rich should ransom their sins by great offerings to Ecclesiastical persons who have no need of 'em â—or of Voluntary Poverty much less that men should imagin to satisfie the Almighty for their sins and merit any thing of him by these kind of observances 'T is not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
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 Commentary And as to what Mr. Arnaud adds That it does not appear he was reprehended before seeing he did not attempt to defend himself This concludes nothing unless we suppose that Paschasus was in a capacity and in humor to defend himself as soon as he knew he was censured Now this supposition must be proved before it be offered as a thing certain for this supposition does not establish it self How many persons are there who having set forth singular opinions do for a long time patiently undergo all censures and reprehensions without replies in expectation of a convenient time to defend themselves Paschasus had begun his Commentary on S. Matthew a great while before he became Abbot 't is probable he was willing to stay till the explication of these words This is my Body which he believed so advantageous to his cause should furnish him with an occasion to speak of his sentiment and to defend it against the attacks of opposers So that Mr. Arnaud's Chronology for this time will stand him in no stead WHO has given this liberty adds he to Mr. Claude to give the name of Page 868. world to these unknown persons of whom Paschasus only heard some mention but who never contradicted him to his face nor ever wrote against him This term cannot be reasonably used but to denote the greatest part of Christians or at least those who had read Paschasus his Book Now it is exceeding false in this sense that the world was astonish'd at Paschasus his Book seeing none of his Friends none of his Society none of those with whom he met in Ecclesiastick Assemblies and Councils have formally reprehended him for it BUT who has given Mr. Arnaud Authority to attribute the name of unknown persons to Paschasus his Adversaries and to say thereupon what he says seeing he has no grounds for it as I have already shew'd Who told him that John Scot Bertram and Raban who were not obscure persons in the Church of the 9th Century have staid till Paschasus his death before they declared themselves against his Opinion supposing 't were true they did not write till after his Death which is very uncertain Who has given him power to conclude That the world was not astonish'd at Paschasus his Book under pretence it does not appear That he was formally reprehended about it neither amongst his own Society nor in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies nor Councils seeing it does no more appear that Bertram and Raban when they taught a contrary Doctrin to that of Paschasus have been formally reprchended for it either by any one of their Order or in the publick Assemblies or Councils wherein they assisted Who has given him right to say as he does that the world of whom I speak consists of some small number of rash and troublesom Disputers who privately blamed what they dared not contradict in publick I shall not here repeat what I have already observed That 't is absurd to endeavour to make us conceive the Adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin as persons that blamed in secret what they dared not contradict in publick seeing the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are forced to acknowledg at least that after the death of Paschasus there were publick Writings against this very Doctrin and of which writings the Authors being famous men did not at all conceal their names as if the reason of this pretended fear depended not on the Doctrin but person of Paschasus who must have been at this rate the terror of Ecclesiastical Writers whilst he liv'd I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has no reason to reduce Paschasus his Adversaries that is to say those who would not receive his Doctrin to a small number One may in truth reasonably suppose that amongst those that rejected this novelty there were some that made head or appeared more than the rest and in this sense Paschasus might say that he understood some reprehended him But to conclude hence that these were the only persons of their party and that all the rest of the Church follow'd the sentiment of Paschasus is a groundless fancy Raban speaking of Paschasus his party calls 'em formally Poenitent Rab. cap. 33. some Quidam says he nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est And the anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has caused to be Printed expresses himself in the same manner on this subject Some says he say that what is received from the Altar is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin Others deny it and say 't is another thing Paschasus himself formally acknowledges that those who were not of his opinion were not a small number for he describes them under the name of several or many Ideo says he in hac coena Christi prolixius elaboravi quam brevitas poscat tractatoris quia in his mysticis rebus plures aliud sapiunt AS oft says Mr. Arnaud as a difficult mystery is proposed altho believ'd universally by the Faithful in a manner which causes a greater application of Spirit those mens minds which are not sufficiently humble are likely to be dismayed at it and to endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear And thereupon they often set upon the person who has proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful Even sometimes these ill opinions be already formed For there are found too oft persons in the very bosom of the Church who giving too great liberty to their thoughts and reflections conceive ideas of mysteries different enough from those which the other faithful have of 'em in turning to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any one else in following the common notions uses any term which they also cannot reduce to their particular sense they charge this person with boldness and rashness And this is properly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time DOES Mr. Arnaud think to escape by these circuits and artifices A difficult mystery says he believed universally by the Faithful is proposed in such a manner as makes people apply themselves the more to it Does he pretend Paschasus had said any thing which is new in his Book concerning the Real Presence to make men consider more that point supposing it believ'd universally by the Faithful Does Paschasus examin the consequences of it or exaggerate the miraculousness of it or offer several objections on the contrary He does nothing of all this But only says 't is the same Flesh of Christ which was born of the Virgin and rose again That the substance of Bread is converted into the true Body of Jesus Christ altho the colour and savour of Bread remains That the substance of Christs Body enters into our flesh Now this is what
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
I hope will not take it ill if I design this whole Chapter to answer them This Book consists either of passionate invectives against me or defences against some of my Complaints or accusations against me As to the passionate expressions I concern not my self with 'em I leave 'em to the publick judgment and Mr. Arnaud's private conscience It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his stile according to the lovely idea which he himself has given us of the true Eloquence which is says he discreet modest Book 11. ch 8. page 1128. judicious sincere true which serves to disentangle things and not to confound 'em which clears truth and offers it in such a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart which inspires motions that are just reasonable proportionable to the things which we handle which has no other lustre but what serves to discover truth no strength but what is borrowed from her He will examin I hope at his leisure whether he has observed all these grave characters and whether his eagerness to overcome has not transported him sometimes into such strange convulsions as are wholly contrary to all morality and decency AS to his defences I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be just and warrantable but to the end it may not be said I desire to be believed on my own bare word let a man judg of 'em by these examples The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion alledged this reason that Trithemus praised this Author To this I answered that he praised him because in effect he deserved it and that this only increased his authority My sense is plainly that he prais'd him because he knew his reputation was great in the 9th Century that his Book was therein well entertain'd and his memory honored in the following Ages For this is what must be understood by being in effect praise-worthy and this is likewise what the terms of my answer insinuate having added that this only increased his authority which is to say that this testimony of Trithemus shewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time Whereupon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true sense of my words imputes to me another which is that I said Trithemus who believed the Real Presence praised Bertram for opposing it which is a ridiculous sense and infinitely distant from mine This is the subject of my complaint and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud What is says he the sense of these words Book 11. ch 3. p. 1105 1106. Trithemus praised Bertram because he was indeed praise-worthy Do they signifie that he praised him from his own knowledg or from the opinion of others It is clear they have only the first sense and not the second All is clear which Mr. Arnaud speaks but let us see how he proves it To commend any one from the testimony of another is not to commend him because he is in effect praise-worthy seeing there are several people which we do not in effect judg to be praise-worthy altho thought worthy of praise by others To commend a man because he is in effect worthy of commendations is proceeding on a just and true ground and on the reality of things and not on reports and popular opinions This is a pitiful defence for 't is certain there are people who are not judged to be praise-worthy altho they be praised by others but I say that there are others which are deemed praise-worthy in effect only because we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived and in the following ones without being blamed by any body Do not most people thus believe S. Cyprian S. Hierom and S. Augustin praise-worthy not for having read their Books nor examin'd their Doctrins but as knowing they were esteem'd by their own and following Ages and that their memory was never withered in the Church Now this is what I say that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book to wit that he had the esteem of his Age and that his memory was respected in the following ones IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say that I ought not to suppose without proving it that such an Author as Trithemus who writes a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and gives particular praises to an Author does it barely from the relation of others and that the presumption is on the contrary that he has read his Book and speaks of it from his own proper knowledg This I say is to no purpose for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues and would draw a conclusion from the praises of Trithemus to establish well his Principle to prove that Trithemus has praised Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini and not to me who answer to prove that he has praised him because he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th Century Were a man to judg hereof by presumptions they would be rather for my supposition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity for we know very well that those who make Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention The Commendations of Ratram whom we affirm to be Bertram could not be unknown to Trithemus and we have right to suppose that Trithemus has not distinguish'd Bertram and Ratram as two different persons till the Author of the Perpetuity has shewed us the contrary THE second complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity respects Mr. Blondel whom this Author impertinently accuses to have fallen into contradiction in that he supposes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calvinist and on the other that the Synod of Cressy which condemned Amalarius was of the same mind which according to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifest contradiction Observe here his words Usher an English Protestant supposes that Amalarius held Perpetuity of the Faith sect 2 p. 80. the Doctrin of the Catholicks and therefore would have it thought that 't was the Doctrin of the Real Presence which was condemned in Amalarius by the Synod of Cressy and by Florus Deacon of Lyons And a little lower Blondel suffering himself to be deceived by the desire which he had to raise up adversaries against Paschasus fell on this subject into one of the most palpable contradictions imaginable For finding on one hand advantage from Usher ' s Page 82. opinion who makes the whole Synod of Cressy who condemned Amalarius to consist of Calvinists he takes this part and supposes with him that the Council of Cressy held the Calvinists Doctrin and were contrary to Paschasus But finding elsewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuscript of the Book of Divine Offices of William of Malmsbury that Amalarius Raban and Heribald wrote against Paschasus not considering that
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
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we
refer our selves to the testimony of Sigebert He himself calls it the little Book published by the Protestants under the name Epist ad De Luc d' Ach. T. 2. Spicil of Bertram and attributed to Ratram by Sigebert and Trithemius He believed likewise he had gotten a certain proof that since the 9th Century this Book bore the title of Ratram because the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot reckons Ratram one of Paschasus's Adversaries And Mr. De Marca took this anonymous Author for an Author of the 9th Century as Perron also thought What remedy is there to these inconveniencies which appear to be of so great consequence For for to take the part of Mr. Mauguin and to say that the Book in question contains nothing but what is conformable to the belief of the Roman Church is even according to him an unwarrantable assertion TO extricate himself out of these perplexities Mr. Marca believ'd it best to maintain that John Scot was the true Author of this Book that 't was John Scot himself that fathered it on Ratram and that Cellot's anonymous Author being ignorant of this fact was deceived in what he wrote of it And this is the happy invention by which Mr. De Marca thought he might procure great advantages to his Party First He reduces both Paschasus his Adversaries to one which already diminishes the number of ' em Secondly He delivers Paschasus from the hands of an adversary who was constantly held for a most Orthodox Divine in his time Thirdly By this means he decries this Book it self by attributing it to an Author who in the 9th Century drew on himself some Censures from the Councils of Valence and Langres touching the questions of Grace and whom the Roman Church condemned in the 11th at Verceil and at Rome on the matter of the Eucharist Fourthly He discharges his Church of the reproach of having condemned in the 11th Century and still at this day condemning a Doctrin which was taught in the 9th by an Orthodox Author such as was Ratram Again the name of John Scot has appeared to him very proper for the giving some colour to his discovery because that in effect John Scot wrote likewise a Book on the subject of the Eucharist which he dedicated to Charles the Bald and that this Book is lost whether by chance or on purpose as it has also hapned to others we cannot guess WE may with great likelihood say that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have had the same interests as Mr. De Marca But we may also add that they have had a particular reason which much contributes to make 'em embrace Mr. De Marca's opinion and maintain with him that Ratram is not the Author of the Book in question but John Scot or Erigenus Mr. Claude has Answer to the Perpetuity part 3. ch 1. shewed them in the famous Dispute which they have had that having once esteemed Ratram for the Oracle of his time and for the great defender of the Orthodox Doctrin of Divine Grace 't is not fair to refuse his testimony now on the Eucharist and treat him as an Author of small importance that this is an exposing of a man's self plainly to the reproach of injustice and lightness They must then deliver themselves at any rate from the importunity of this Book and absolutely deny that 't is Ratram's But the way to do it handsomly is difficult seeing the Author of the Perpetuity seems to have acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same person and that he was the real Author of the Book in question To get out of this vexatious suit a Religious of S. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd opportunely offers himself He sends a Dissertation touching John Scot and Bertram wherein he makes a third Party between Mr. De Marca and the Author of the Perpetuity to wit that the Book is John Scot's but an obscure and perplex'd piece Mr. Arnaud adopts this Dissertation and publishes it at the end of his Book So that properly neither the Author of the Perpetuity retracts nor Mr. Arnaud who contradicts him but an anonymous Religious who gives us his conjectures And by this means all is made whole again and the Confession which the Author of the Perpetuity has made is no more at farthest than the error of one man CHAP. II. That what the Author of the Dissertation would reform in the Opinion of Mr. De Marca does not at all make it the more probable THAT which the Author of the Dissertation has changed in the conjecture of Monsieur De Marca to make it a little more tolerable may be reduced to these three things First He will have the supposition of this Book to be made not by John Scot himself in the 9th Century as Mr. De Marca says but by Berenger or those of his Party towards the end of the 11th Secondly He pretends that in respect of the Title the supposition has not been made barely under the name of Ratram but that those who have made the change have made the Book pass under the name of Bertram or that of Bertramnus or under that of Ratram or Intram or Ratramnus or perhaps under several of these different names but indifferent Copies Thirdly He will have it to be in respect of the sense of the Book but an obscure and perplex'd piece whereas Mr. De. Marca openly acknowledges it to be heretical incapable of a good explication and justly censured BUT we cannot conceive how Mr. De Marca's conjecture will appear more probable by these new corrections In effect if it be unjust in Mr. De Marca to accuse without proof witnesses or ground and even without any probability John Scot of an imposture so great as this is what judgment must we make of the accusation which Mr. Arnaud brings under the name of the Author of the Dissertation against Berenger or his followers Who has revealed to him the mystery of this supposition which he so historically deals out to us Where are the Adversaries of Berenger who have reproached him with this deceit or those of his Party Where are the Manuscripts which help him to this discovery 'T is apparent there needs a great stock of confidence to form accusations of this consequence without any proof For my part I may accuse the Disciples of Paschasus with more likelihood for having attributed their Masters Books to names of far greater renown than his Whilst I write this I have before me the Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin of which in fine we know Paschasus to be the Author Yet has this Book passed hitherto for S. Hildephonsus's Arch-Bishop of Toledo and in a Manuscript which I have by me it appears that this supposition is made designedly by a Priest of the 10th Century named Gomezan who pretends that this Book was brought from Spain by a Bishop called Gotiscalc and this good man has carried on the supposition so far as to
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
lib 4. adv Oecol Indic Belg. Censurers of Doway in reference to the Book of Bertram whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius and Charles the Bald altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain had the Manuscripts for title Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem And for that of John Scot it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time and having an Inscription almost alike Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain Sigeb Catol c. 85. 99. De Script Eccl. fol. 53. 55. Praefat. gener in vit Sanct. c. 4. sect 7. Labbe de Script Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. seq what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 't is by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Vsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknowledg in respect of Vsuard BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same Because says our Author if we suppose that this Title is equally false 't is very difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books which in other respects had so great resemblance And if it be pretended that the Title is true it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different persons to meet in giving it this Title THIS difficulty is a small one we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald but affirm it not to be so strange a thing that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning as having been the restorer of it The examples which I alledged prove the thing possible seeing they prove it to have hapned Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was AS to Durand of Troarn I see moreover less reason why our Author Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 9. should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur concilio soluto discessum est For if it be true as our Author will have it that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned yet was it not so evident a matter that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger which as our Author believes agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram which he treats as obscure and perplexed there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council wherein was condemned for heretical what only ought to be esteemed obscure BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc who reproaches Berenger that as soon as the Council assembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot and blaming that of Paschasus Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful for 't is not credible the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot even to the condemning his Book to the flames had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris at Verceil and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot OUR Author pretends in the last place that seeing Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin and the rest of the Writers of the 11th Century mention only John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their condemnation one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot. BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies In effect supposing that in the 11th Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Raban in the time of Berenger Lanfranc and Ascelin MOREOVER our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors for it appears by the testimony of Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus Paschasus was therein either named or at least apparently meant which is not so in the Writings of Bertram who handles matters in a less polemical manner and never names Paschasus nor seems to give the least hint of him which has apparently tended to its preservation And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author TO establish the second to wit that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot our Author pretends that the several Article 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius that is to say of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd or dissimulative which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of and affects to contradict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment and avoid censures He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures and in his Book of Predestination whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Bertram is John Scot's It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused
head seeing that when he will he most clearly explains his notions without contradicting himself but that these are only stratagems of a Philosopher who was more a Pagan than a Christian he affirms the same may be found in Bertram's Book which seems in twenty places to deviate from the Doctrin of the Real Presence and which yet seems in as many places to approve of it so that a man does not know where to have him BUT the two parts of our Authors remark contradict and oppose each other For if John Scot had naturally a confused and perplexed mind how comes it that he clearly explains his thoughts when he will and keeps firm when he pleases without contradicting himself This is not the character of a confused and perplexed head Secondly We ought not to believe that as soon as an Author falls into contradiction which has sometimes hapned to the Fathers themselves as every body knows and especially in matters which have perplexed John Scot and wherein he has contradicted himself he then makes use of the stratagems of a Philosopher that is more a Pagan than a Christian Thirdly Our Author impertinently feigns that Bertram has affected obscurity and ambiguous expressions This Bertram be he who he will was certainly upheld by King Charles the Bald and Heribold the chief person of the Gallican Church was of his sentiment as well as Raban and what is more remarkable it appears that he defended the publick Doctrin of the Church Fourthly Our Author should not alledg the judgment of the Centuriators of Magdebourg to shew this Book to be obscure in the judgments of those of our own party If the Centuriators have suspected some expressions of Bertram's Book we know that from 1537. Bulinger cited it with Elogies Moreover that some of the Doctors of the Roman Communion have mention'd Bertram's Book as if it made Commentar in 1 ad Cor. 10. p. 190. for them This is purely th' effect of this prejudice which has made them produce the writings of Raban as if Raban had been of their opinion altho 't was well known in the 12th Century that Raban wrote against Paschasus The Censurers who condemned Bertram's Book and who are publick persons are sooner to be believed than private men OUR Author remarks again a second character of the genius of John Scot which he believes is in Bertram's Book to wit these arguments put in form this crowd of Syllogisms and Enthymemes heapt up one upon another these Maxims and these Principles drawn from the Philosophy of Aristotle For as he shews by the testimony of S. Prudencius Bishop of Troy and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons this is the way of John Scot in Disputes he pretends that all this form of reasoning is to be met with in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord of which he produces three instances BUT this other conformity is as ill grounded as the preceding ones I confess that the way of John Scot is very argumentative One may observe it in his Books of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus have reproach'd him But I do not see that because there are some Philosophical Arguments in Bertram's Book our Author produces but three and those also contain'd in the same Period he must immediately draw this conclusion therefore the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is John Scot's Nor yet had Bertram named any where Aristotle which John Scot failed not to do as appears in several places of his Manuscript Treatise of Natures But Bertram has not so much as the name of this Philosopher YET seeing our Author puts us upon considering the genius of these Authors let us shew a little what is the genius of John Scot and that of Bertram's whence it will clearly appear there 's nothing so absurd as to make John Scot Author of the Book of Bertram Here are some of their Characters BERTRAM follows the holy Scriptures and the Fathers as he protests De Nat. l. 1. p. 56. lib. 4. p. 167. in the beginning and John Scot prefers reason before any Authority He makes this a Maxim whence he particularly esteems Philosophy and sends us at every moment to the Writings of Aristotle He does thus in his Treatise of Predestination as Prudencius and Florus justly upbraid him BERTRAM follows closely his subject without letting it go out of sight and John Scot makes frequent Digressions as we see particularly in his Manuscript Treatise of Natures BERTRAM seems to stick to certain Authors as S. Hierom S. Augustin S. Fulgencius Isidor S. Gregory and John Scot affects others as S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzen whom he confounds with S. Gregory of Nysse S. Ambrose the counterfeit Denis the Areopagite Boetius S. Maximus So that a body may say one of 'em apply'd himself to the Latin Fathers and the other to the Greek ones whom he preferred before the Latin ones as he himself affirms in his Treatise of Natures BERTRAM's Latin style is polite enough for the Age he wrote in and I find but one Greek word in his whole Treatise and which he alledges only because 't is found in a passage of S. Isidor which he cited Whereas Epist ad Card. Calv. in Syll. Epist Hiber De Honest dis l. 24. c. 11. John Scot affects a Greek phrase and manner of speaking and intermixes his Latin with a great many Greek words which render his style very singular and difficult as it has been observed by Anastasius the Library Keeper and Petrus Crinitus BERTRAM has no barbarous words whereas John Scot seems to affect them BERTRAM makes use only of Authors known for Orthodox John T. 1. Maug â— 109. 111. Ibid. p. 112 113. Scot declares that he will not scruple to borrow Arms from heretical Books BERTRAM pertinently cites all along the holy Fathers whereas the other quotes them with much less coherence BERTRAM has a particular deference for S. Augustin as may be seen at the end of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood whereas John Scot De Natur. l 5. p. 343. does not so much matter his Authority but that he often prefers the Greek Fathers before him refuting S. Augustin by their Authority BERTRAM might have combated the opinion of Paschasus by an infinite number of Arguments taken from Philosophy which he does not do whereas John Scot makes use every where of Philosophical Arguments even T. 1. Maug p. 111 112. 182. to the mixing of 'em with matters which seem to claim an exemption from ' em THAT which distinguishes 'em yet more is that Bertram delivers himself in a most plain manner on the verity of the human nature of our Saviour since 't was exalted up into glory by the Resurrection He teaches that his Body was visible and palpable whereas John Scot in his Book of Natures defends the impalpability of our Lords Body so that one may say Lib. 2. p. 75 76. 99. he fell into
anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit unde sicut dicit Lanfrandus ipse in fide desipuit Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat à graphiis suis ut fertur perforatus martyr oestimatus est Secondly That of Petrus Crinitus De honesta Discipl 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30. who speaks of him in almost the same terms Thirdly That of Naucler Alfred says he had enriched the College of Oxford especially with John Scot as with a Divine Star which he drew over into England from France where he was in favour with Charles the Bald. If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Roman Church in the 11th Century but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th Century wherein he lived and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons and the terms of the Council of Valence and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament yet did not accuse him on this Article Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Doctrin of the Eucharist turns the business into admiration and offers a pitiful reason of this silence I cannot sufficiently wonder says he that leaving Append. ad Hist Gothesc p. 583. the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist these droans for thus does he call those of Lyons should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination This shews adds he that they did not matter so much the defending of the Faith as the ruining the Party of those of Reims which is to say of Hincmar and his friends who had condemned Gotthescalc But both his astonishment and reason too would equally vanish if he would have taken notice of what every one sees that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th Century but in the 11th was that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th Age and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the Artic. 1. of his Dissert o◠John Scot. same of John Scot's name and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eucharist was not condemned in the 9th Century He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue entituled Of Natures the Author of which is this same John Scot and that this Book is full of Errors He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care and draws from 'em these two consequences 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies having been only tanght by a particular person who had no followers that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew because that on one hand it is full of Errors and on the other we do not find it was condemned AS to the first I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's and that there are Errors in it but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head but herein only follow'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and Latins as S. Basil S. Gregory of Nysse and S. Ambrose the pretended Denis the Areopagite and S. Maximus which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church John Scot cites them on each of these opinions he sets down their passages which made William of Malmsbury to say That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult questions provided he be excused in some things in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins by reason of his following too much the Greeks AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures and that of the Eucharist of the same Author First The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons because 't was wrote at the entreaty of a particular person to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had excited much clamour in the Church Secondly Altho the Book of Natures had been known the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers whose names are venerable in the Church we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention altho they have not approved all their sentiments But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation and Real Presence the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles would have been his only and not the Fathers and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book and openly condemning it Thirdly The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the common road and reach of sense whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament which is continually before the eyes of Christians for supposing as I said the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as the Roman Church believes them at this day and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church The King himself by whose order he wrote would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the borrow'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the reputation and authority of John Scot's name and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram should be in effect of John Scot this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot. THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against the Book of the Perpetuity till Mr. Arnaud hath shewed them to be Invalid ALthough the Passion which appeareth throughout Mr. Arnaud's whole Book doth in a manner perswade me that his Censures are not always reasonable yet shall not this hinder me from examining them with a composed Mind If they are found just I ought to make my Advantage of them without minding the sharpness which accompanies them and if they are not the Interest of my Cause requires I should endeavour to manifest the Injustice of them by a modest and Christian Defence AND this Method I intend to use not only in the beginning but likewise in all the following parts of this Work which I dedicate to the discovery of Truth and the advancement of Gods Glory who is the Author and Father of Lights and of Truth IT is certain saith Mr. Arnaud in the beginning of his Book that provided Mr. Claude may be granted the Priviledge which he immediately lays hold on of inventing and supposing what he lists he takes a very sure way to conclude from thence what he pleases I only admire that while he fancies he has this peculiar Liberty he yet still busies himself in writing Books For he can absolutely determine all our Differences with a great deal less trouble For he has no more to do but only immediately to suppose that the Reason is on his side and that the Catholicks are in the wrong and so the whole Controversie will be at an end and thus may he satisfie himself with writing half a Page instead of an entire Answer for it decideth the whole 'T is but supposing that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath gotten the Victory over the Romish Schools and that he has manifested to all the World the Change the Roman Church hath made That the Proofs are clear strong and numerous which make the Change sensibly apparent and that he hath not been opposed with any other than false and imaginary Reasonings What need is there then of any other reply and to what purpose does Mr. Claude take upon him all this Trouble Calvinism hath now won the Day and Catholick Religion is utterly Routed THE right of opposing to the reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity the Proofs of the matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book and to speak our Thoughts concerning it is not so marvelous nor such an extraordinary design that Mr. Arnaud should need raise such a Contest about it This Author having undertaken to make us confess if we are not desperately obstinate that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity and having made use of no other reasonings for this purpose but those which are taken from the moral Impossibility of this Change which we believe hath hap'ned Common Sense convinces us that he is bound to examine the Proofs of Matters of Fact on which the Opinion he would root out of our Minds is established for till then all his Arguings will be to no purpose Neither can we justly be denied the Liberty of mentioning these Proofs according to our real Thoughts For seeing we offer them against the Author of the Perpetuity only as a prejudication which hinders us from heark'ning to his Arguments it is therefore very requisite we should speak our Thoughts about them to the end that if this Author continues in the design of bringing us to an acknowledgment of what he pretends he especially take care to remove as much as in him lies those things which render all his other Endeavours ineffectual I do not at all doubt if mens Minds were free from Prejudice but it would be granted that Mr. Aubertin's Book doth perfectly decide the Controversie touching the Eucharist It being a complete Piece in which this matter is searched to the bottom He hath answered those who have treated on this Subject before his time and yet his Book has layn even to this present unanswer'd which is a sufficient Reason to presume he hath gotten the better and that his Proofs let Mr. Arnaud say what he will are plainly evident and numerous but for as much as it is needful for the ending of a Difference and quieting Contradiction to suppose Principles granted by both Parties and seeing the Church of Rome doth neither agree in the Proofs nor in the Change here in Question I do thereupon freely confess the Controversie lyes still open in this respect and that in general we cannot stop any mans mouth by the simple supposition of the Strength and Solidity of that Book for every Man is at liberty and hath Right if he pleases to examine and answer it BUT had not Mr. Arnaud suppressed a great part of what I wrot on this Subject as well in my first as second Answer it would immediately appear I have bin so far from making such a claim as that wherewith he chargeth me that I have every where expresly maintained the contrary SEEING that Mr. Aubertin has made it appear by express Passages taken out of the Fathers these are the Words in my first Answer That Transubstantiation was unknown to the antient Church we may then well conclude there has hap'ned a Change especially considering that this same Transubstantiation was not heard of till the 11th Century Now considering this for a Man to Philosophize on the impossibility thereof is to give himself a great deal of Trouble to no purpose If there yet remain'd any thing farther to be done it would be to shew that the Passages produced by Mr. Aubertin are either false or alleaged impertinently against Transubstantiation but to pass by these matters of Proof which are clear express and conclusive to adhere to I know not what kind of pretended impossibility this is to trifle with the matter in hand OBSERVE here again what I said in my second Answer We had reason to hope that the Author treating my Abridgment in the respects and relations which the sequel of its Reasons oblige him to should have applyed himself unto one of these two things EITHER to make it appear that Mr. Aubertin ' s Proofs on which we have relyed are false and of no force or that the Consequence which is pretended to be drawn from them is untrue That is to say it do's not follow a thing is possible altho it be made apparent that this very thing has actually hap'ned WHEN a man makes Suppositions of this kind how absurd is it to say such a one puts himself in Possession of any Priviledge or usurps that marvelous Right of terminating Differences or deciding Controversies by groundless Suppositions For I not only give this Author of the Perpetuity the liberty of opposing Mr. Aubertin's Proofs and to shew if he can the falsity of them but I conjure him so to do being engaged thereunto by the consideration of his own Reputation and the necessity of this Course to end the Controversie Now if this may be stiled
man should do that when he answereth which he is not obliged to do but when he opposeth or to expect he should do that when he opposeth which he is not obliged to do but in answering It sometimes happens that an Adversary makes an Exchange and whereas he is obliged to answer directly to the Proofs of the contrary Party or to oppose others against him of the like Nature and Force he shifts them and falls into a Discourse to no purpose and all this while the contrary Proofs he should have answered remain firm In such an occasion we have Power to reduce such a one from his affected Wand'rings by supposing the Proofs he has left unanswered strong and sollid For in such a case they are not supposed good and firm but only to oblige him to answer them and shew their weakness or falsity and if he answereth them not we may reckon as to him the Question in effect is decided because when a man hath nothing to say against the Method of proceeding and that the forementioned Proofs have bin proposed according to the exact Rules of Disputation a man must then either acquiesce in them or answer them and to do neither of these is mere wrangling NOW to apply these Maxims to the matter in hand and to judge of Mr. Arnaud's Censure we need but consider first That when I supposed Mr. Aubertin's Proofs to be firm and good I did not thereby propose to my self an absolute end of the Question touching the Change which hath hapned in the Church of Rome by this simple Supposition but only to regulate the Debate and reduce it within those Bounds wherein it ought to be Secondly that in supposing them good I have only delivered my Opinion which I take upon me to maintain against the Author of the Perpetuity without depriving him of the Liberty of defending the contrary Thirdly that I have supposed them to be good without proving them so because we ever suppose Proofs sufficiently firm till such time as something at least is objected against them and hitherto Mr. Aubertin's Book has layn unanswered Fourthly that I made use of them as a means whereby to resist the Author of the Perpetuity's attempt and when a man only defends himself in a Dispute he is not obliged to prove any thing Fifthly and lastly I did not offer them but only as Prejudices at his Opinion which ought necessarily to be removed out of our Minds before the Arguments of the Perpetuity be offered us for as much as these Prejudices make the Author 's Reasonings ineffectual and improper to that design of making us acknowledg there hath bin introduced no Change into the Roman Church From whence it follows that I may not only suppose these Proofs are clear firm and numerous seeing that 't is under this Notion we have entertained these Prejudices but morever suppose them without proving them and I do so to the end I may oblige the Author of that Treatise to shew us if he can that they do not amount to what we imagine IN short if he would obtain his end he must shew us that our Prejudice ought not to hinder us from hearkning to what he hath farther to offer us which is to say supposing our Proofs to be most firm and evident yet ought they not to avert our Minds from considering his moral Conjectures or shew us that our Prejudices have no grounds and that our Proofs are neither plain nor sufficient The first of these is absurd the second is what we desire him to take in hand But instead of this Mr. Arnaud has bethought himself and requires us to prove the validity of our Proofs IF our Proofs being supposed good are in effect the Calvinists Victory and the Romanists Defeat as Mr. Arnaud himself granteth we have reason to admire he should think he hath overthrown them by five or six Lines stuffed with Raillery HATH he bin more concerned at the calling of the Reasonings of the Perpetuity imaginary Conjectures than at the glorious Victory over the Romish Church which hath bin attributed to Mr. Aubertin's Book and this Innovation brought in by the Church of Rome which is apparent to all the World Doth he more value the Reputation he thinks he hath gotten by writing a small Treatise than the settlement of the Catholick Church and ought he for the interest of a particular work to have rifled both East and West whilst in the mean time the Catholick Church perisheth before his eyes lying prostrate Mr. de Vence in his Approbation at the Feet of Victorions Calvinisme I will grant my Supposition resides but in my own Imagination and in theirs of the same Communion yet certainly this a man would think should be sufficient to stir up the Zeal of a Person whom the Son of God hath given to the Church to be a Teacher of Truth and who hath bin enlightned by his Grace and filled with his Spirit on purpose to rescue and vindicate Truth from the Subtilties and false Glosses of Error as speaketh one of his Approbationers THIS I think should be sufficient to make him prefer the Reputation of his whole Church before that of a single Author of whose name the greatest part of the World is still ignorant And moreover as hath bin already said this Prejudice under which we labour whether true or false makes a distinction between the interest of this Treatise and those of the Romish Church for it puts a stop to all the pretensions of the Author and bereaves him of all the Conquests he promised himself For to regain the Author of the Perpetuity's Reputation will be to no purpose seeing that Calvinisme will not give over celebrating Aubertin's Victories and stand firm to his Proofs The Confutation of Aubertin's Book would be to give such a mighty stroak as would ever stop the Mouth of Calvinism and at the same time raise up the Glory of the Catholick Church out of the Dust There ought to have bin no waverings between these two Parties and yet Mr. Arnaud this Doctor who hath bin given to the Church furnished with such Gifts betakes himself to the writing of a Treatise and sends the Church away till another time IN short to finish the justification of my yet unproved Supposition I need but propose the Example of a man who to shew me the Victorys which the Treatise of the Perpetuity hath obtained against us if we have any Reason left us supposeth without proving it that the Proofs of this Book are plain and solid If I should apply to him Mr. Arnaud's Maxims and tell him that provided he may have the Liberty which he immediately makes use of inventing and supposing what he pleaseth he is in a sure way to conclude thence what he will that these kind of discourses founded on unproved Suppositions are not wholy judicious and that they shew he knoweth not how to distinguish between the things which he is not permitted to assert
before his time who thus deliver themselves So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessarily prepare the Reader for the third In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church for the six first Ages to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation and supposes it to be not only possible but that it hath actually hap'ned so that it only remains to know when by whom and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced and this is sufficiently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone without the greatest Injustice and Disingenuity for this is to strip it of all its Strength and to deal with it as the Philistims did with Samson cut off his Hair before they set upon him Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind or rather to speak better with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions Now this is not fair Dealing For to proceed orderly he ought to have begun with these first Preparations and made it appear if he could that they were fallacious and so discover the unjustice falsity or weakness of them and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us Had he taken this Course we should have had nothing to charge him with touching his Method but to stifle these Preparations and cut 'em off from the Dispute and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former As for Instance Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients in saying The Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ Now to refute directly this Historical Passage being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself But instead of this the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course for he demands how this can be That Perpetuity of the Faith P. 50. 51. c. Anastasius who could not be ignorant of the Churches Belief in his time should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed and this without acknowledging he proposed a contrary Opinion He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West and that Anastasius's real meaning and that of them who spake like him in this particular could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them And the same doth he in respect of Paschasius whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion and that he did not teach a new Doctrine he sets himself upon shewing that if Paschasius had bin an Innovator he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time that he would have bin opposed and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church as he has done I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments neither will I say they ought to be rejected for this Reason alone that they are indirect The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable and it must be granted it is not for the chief design of this his Account being only to demonstrate that Anastasius and Paschasius introduced Innovations Now to make it appear they were not Innovators there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who preceded them which should come near the same Expressions or at least amounted to the same Sence as that of theirs which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then if he pleases the Question and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths the one that Mr. Aubertin ' s Book was the first occasion of this Contest the other that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former it will not be amiss to answer his Objections and shew him first That I pretendnot to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination for provided he handles them in a regular manner he will thereby oblige the publick Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book and leaving the other provided this Part may be well refuted alone and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separation Thirdly Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himself and require of him two Volums in Folio For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book AND as to what he tells us that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject than that he suppose nothing which is False or Obscure and draw not from thence ill Consequences seeing the truth and clearness of Principles and the justness of their Consequences are in themselves sufficient to assure us of the Truth and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof To which I answer This is true when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject and do take this course to decide the principal Question of it for in this case only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined But if this be not consented to but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not nor Whether their Consequences are true or false for this follows afterwards The Method of handling the Subject is only considered without regard to the Principles or Conclusions That is to say Whether 't is direct or disorderly natural or against Nature sufficient to perswade and end the Controversie or not and on this account it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong one which is a Natural rather than that which is not so For such a one may well be told He spends his time to no purpose that takes not a right
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
Points which cannot be altered without passing over from Truth to Error or from Error to Truth If then it be true as I have already said and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed that the Church has bin several times of contrary Opinions upon which account it is impossible but she has bin in Error and consequently she is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledg attributed unto her The Author of the Perpetuity's Answer doth evidently suppose the actual reality of this Change it has then given me just Occasion to make this Objection I have made and Mr. Arnaud's Distinction comes too late IT is in vain he assures us that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the least thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace The Question here is not to know absolutely what that Author believed or not believed what he thought or did not think when this shall be questioned we shall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter but here it concerns us to enquire into the Consequences which may be drawn from his Terms and whether he hath given me a just occasion to make that Objection against him in my Preface It will not be sufficient to make Declarations on this Matter it must be shewed that the Consequence is not true Mr. Arnaud imagins he has sufficiently justified his Friend in asserting he made not use of the Infallibility of Priviledg because 't is a Priviledg to be proved and not supposed and the Calvinists denying it it is thence clear that to make an advantagious use of it it should have bin established before which is to say there ought to have bin an intire Treatise made of the Churches Infallibility before it could be made use of in this Dispute But saith he to conclude from thence he hath denyed it and doth not acknowledg it is one of the most rash Consequences as ever was drawn altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character that he is never more fierce than when he is Gravelled or alleageth things wholly besides the Purpose We have not grounded our present Objection on the Author of the Perpetuity's not using the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle this is a wilful mistake For it has bin grounded on this that the terms of his Answers to the instances of a Change which I had affirmed do oppose this Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to and acknowledg no other but that of the People Now 't is to this he should apply himself and not continually entertain us with impertinent Digressions MOREOVER what signifies his telling us that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved and not supposed and that the Reason disswading the Author of the Perpetuity from making use of it is because we deny it We no less deny the pretended popular Infallibility which is a Principle needs proving as much as the other He himself tells us in the beginning of his eighth Chapter that the Principle of insensible Alterations which is directly opposite to that of popular Infallibility is a necessary Foundation to the Calvinists whereon to build the greatest part of their Doctrines and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation consisting of so many different Opinions has almost need upon all Occasions of this Supposition That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow has bin insensibly Introduced into the Church And thus does he speak when he would have us deny him his Principle but when he would have us grant it him he then holds another Language The Author of the Perpetuity Lib. 1. c. 7. sais he does not design to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them and which Mr. Claude doth himself grant Never any Person disposed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud We Deny we Confess according as he pleases he brings us on his Stage as often as he list making us say sometimes one thing and sometimes another and is not this to Dispute successfully But whether we Confess or Deny this his popular Infallibility it is all one to me for here the Question is not about this but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not opposed the Infallibility attributed to the Pope and Councils this is the true State of the Controversy and Mr. Arnaud is at a loss how to defend himself from it WHAT signifies his telling us that there are an infinite number of things Lib. 1. C. 7. wherein not only the whole Church and all the People of the Universe but a particular number of People a Province a City a Borough a particular Person is Infallible that is to say wherein it cannot happen he should be deceived himself nor would deceive others Wherefore must we have the Gazetier brought in for an Instance of this who is Infallible when he tells us any considerable News such as is the Kings going into the low Countries the taking of Cities in Flanders the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales the Death of Pope Alexander the seventh and the Election of Clement the ninth If he relates this News only to advertize us he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book altho 't is already far advanced but be it as it will I dare say that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be so certain as those of our Monarch If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility I have reason to tell him that these Instances are besides the matter in hand for there must be a distinction made betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Testimony of a single Person or a particular sort of People and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People I would call the first if you will an Infallibility of Testimony and the second an Infallibility of Perseverance in one and the same State There is a Difference betwen these two The first of these may be attributed to a People a Church a Province a City or a particular Person without the second I will grant likewise 't is impossible in certain Cases for the whole Body of a People to be mistaken in the News it relates tho to speak the truth even this happens not seldom there being nothing more usually false than popular News But tho I grant this is Impossible in some Cases yet this is far enough from acknowledging that a People governed by certain Persons may not insensibly without any Noise alter their Sentiments and pass over into an Opinion which they knew not before For to make such a kind of Change as this is there needs only the Concurrence of two
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
this is an especial means to make all these people in a short time to become insensibly Roman Catholicks BUT we must likewise take notice that these Gentlemen who leave no means untryed do wholly betake themselves to these two last ways namely that of gaining the Prelates and that of instructing Youth For when they have won any Bishop to their Party they oblige him to set them upon the educating of their Children making use of his Authority that they may manage their business with greater success and security Which the same Author of the Holy Land shews us Father Queriot say's he was a fit person to offer his service to the Greek Metropolitain who was a good Catholick Holy Syria part 1. Treat 1. c. 4. and a man of a strict Life he means the Metropolitain of Aleppo he has oblig'd him to trust us with the Education of the Grecian Children of that Country and to slight the discourses of the Enemies of the Roman Religion And a little farther it is to be moreover observed say's he that the Patriarch of Constantinople reprehending him for employing a Religious Frank in the teaching of the Greeks even in his Episcopal House this great man who is ever like himself does notwithstanding permit the Father to proceed on still in his undertaking SPEAKING of the Mission of Damascus this Mission say's he is the work of Father Jerom Queriot who was sent from Aleppo to Damascus in the beginning of the year 1643 by the Greek Patriarch Euthymius who was of the Isle of Chios and of the Romish Religion for the instruction of Youth and especially of his Nephew and for the composition of his circular Letters and Greek and Arabian Patents Yet he tells us this Father was forc'd to leave the place the Greeks growing jealous of him in as much as that he being a Religious Frank was employed in the chief affairs of the Patriarchate I cannot forbear mentioning what the said Author relates on the same Subject namely the instruction of the Greek Youth We must betake our selves to this Course say's he for the converting the Greek Schismaticks We are too old said Jerasimus an Archbishop and Vicar of the Patriarchate to receive new Impressions but instruct our Youth who by your care will be capable of trying good things and prove a Seminary of perfect Christians words say's he which he uttered in the hearing of the Youth on purpose to encourage them to make use of the advantage offered them It is certainly a great satisfaction to us when we see young Greeks who are naturally eloquent to instruct so handsomely their Servants and I had almost said even their very Parents who become as it were their Disciples in Religion Is there any thing more great and glorious than the building of new Churches with the Apostles and converting the World For new Churches are planted by the settlement of these Missions and the old ones repaired at the same time by means of the Instruction of Children who teach their Parents This Jesuit lays open the matter plainly and sincerely whereas Mr. Arnaud does not so for he would have these new Churches pass for old ones THE same Author relates that having observ'd John Damascen was esteem'd in this Country as an infallible Doctor and that his Testimony against Heresies was of great weight with them One of our Fathers say's he undertook to teach this Saints Logick and Divinity touching the controverted Points He say's this invention took and inspired the Schollars with great Zeal But say's he this their forwardness was taken notice of by some envious Persons who informed the Vicar of the Patriarchate of the matter and so far incensed him that he caus'd the young Students to be brought before him and having reprehended their Boldness condemned their Opinions and charged them to desist from such Discourses adding therewithal that if they obeyed not his Commands he would ruine them and their Families These Arguments say's he could not prevail with the Schollars to change their Opinions or break off their Assemblies and forsake their Masters but they were more cautious afterwards and did forbear publishing any thing in the Circles as they had heretofore done IT is is an easie matter to comprehend the Advantage the Church of Rome makes of the labours of these Emissaries and to be more particularly informed thereof we need but read what the Sieur Poulet has written concerning Poulet's Voyages 2. part C. 20. the Jesuits and their manner of proceedings in the East They rightly understood say's he how difficult it is to work on the mind of a Person grown old in his Errors and that the first impressions being strengthened by a long custom become a new Nature in us wherefore our instructions must be bestowed on them whose minds are not yet corrupted by Maxims of Schism and Heresie They have therefore very advisedly set up Schools whereunto the Children of Schismaticks and sometimes of Turks too do resort The desire of having some Images or Agnusses draws them to our Congregations where hearing our Doctrine they become effectually Catholicks without perceiving themselves to be so as for the other Schismaticks they hear our Sermons and pretend to be Catholicks only in hope of some Advantage they expect by this their Dissimulation WE need likewise but read what Besson the Jesuit has written touching Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 11. the proceedings of the Society at Aleppo The Religious Orders say's he even the most regular amongst them have received from the Society at Aleppo not a few Advantages and the Eastern Church has had such Prelates from them as are at this day the greatest lights of the Syrian Clergy Whereupon he tells us in another place that the Greeks and Syrians admit Apostolical Men into Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 2. their Houses They likewise permit them the use of their Churches and the Curats accept of our help the Bishops entreat us to prune their Vines and this Church in the East being now weary of its miseries and blinded with its tears expects from the West the most pure lights of the Gospel I confess these Gentlemen have been very dext'rous and fortunate in performing what has been given them in charge and that the Church of Rome in general is very much obliged to them but I â—ind Mr. Arnaud to be more fortunate than they for it seems as if these persons had foreseen long before by a Prophetical Spirit the book Mr. Arnaud was to make and therefore would prepare him Materials and furnish him with this fine Collection of Attestations and Testimonies Who would ever have thought that these Gentlemen the Jesuits should pass over the Seas and run to the farthest parts of the World to do Mr. Arnaud honour Yet is it true that they have been his Messengers and a man would be apt to think they went only into these Countrys upon his account NEITHER must we pass over in silence the Seminaries establish'd in Rome
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
in the other there are several particular points expresly determined by the Church of Rome propter diversas Haereses a quibusdam ex ignorantia ab aliis ex malitia introductas by reason of certain Heresies introduc'd by the ignorance of some and Malice of others Now 't is under these last points that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained which plainly shews that this Doctrine was proposed to them as lately defined by the Church of Rome and of which those People had at that time no certain Knowledge MR. Arnaud then must seek elsewhere for Proofs whereon to ground his pretension touching the Antiquity of the Opinion in question and I will not stick to affirm he must be an extraordinary Person if he can solidly acquit himself of what I have lay'd before him and in all which I defie him to produce a false Quotation He has been shewed five remarkable deceits whereby he has imposed on the World in concealing whatsoever was necessary to be known in order to a right understanding of this Controversie and in turning to a vain and unprofitable use whatsoever concludes directly against him He has been shewed the profound Ignorance wherein these People have lay'n from the eleventh Century to this present and the fond Superstitions reigning amongst them which makes them very unfit Judges of our Controversie He has been shewed the miserable condition of these Churches in respect of Temporals and the Violences offered them by the Latins to make them change their Religion We have represented him with the Persecutions they suffered from their own Princes upon this account We have observed all these Countries ore-spread with Monks and Emissaries time out of mind and that without interruption to this day We have represented him with a particular account of what the Emissaries do and what the Seminaries contribute towards the making them receive the Roman Faith And in fine we have shewed him that one of their chiefest cares for these People was to make them learn the Mystery of the Substantial Conversion Now after this whether they do believe it or not it is an indifferent matter in respect of the main of our Controversie So that it only now lies upon me to vindicate my own particular Reputation that is to say whether I have rightly or no affirmed that they do not believe it and which I shall demonstrate by God's Assistance in the following parts of this Work and that in such a manner as I doubt not but will satisfie all reasonable Persons BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation CHAP. I. The Question stated and M. Arnaud's sixth Deceit manifested IT may be remembred that at the beginning of this Dispute touching the Schismatical Churches I undertook to prove the truth of of these three Propositions First that when Mr. Arnaud shall prove what he pretends concerning these Churches since the eleventh Century to this present yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in the Christian Religion or the change in question impossible or that it hath not actually hapned Secondly That the true Greek Church and others which the Latins call Schismaticks never reckoned Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Belief nor the Adoration of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies Thirdly That whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative is void and ineffectual and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends I have already made good the first of these Propositions in the preceding Book and shall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this present that I may thereby accommodate my self to Mr. Arnaud's Method And as to the other Greek Churches I shall treat of them in my fifth Book But it is first necessary to lay down the true State of the Question to the end that what we undertake may be the better understood and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected Who continually wanders from the point in dispute supposing impossibilities proving impertinencies and confounding what ought to be distinguished WE must know then there are two sorts of Greeks the one reunited to the Church of Rome who acknowledge the Popes Jurisdiction and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council living in Peace with the Latins The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs having their Communion apart and separate from the Latins And this I suppose Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny seeing that in their Observations on the Request of M. the Archbishop of Ambrun they have themselves made this distinction of the Greek Catholick Church and the Greek Schismatical one It is needless to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact so well known In effect the Endeavours of the Latins to subject the Greeks to themselves have not been wholly fruitless for besides that in Greece it self and other Patriarchates they have acquired a great number of Persons and intire Families besides this I say there are whole Nations which observe the Decrees of the Council of Florence and live under the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome who yet still observe the Rites and Customs of the Greeks We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy Rome Venice Tuscany the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples which are called Italian Greeks we may also bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians For Allatius testifies that not only all these do observe the same Ceremonies as them of the East but that the Pope likewise obliges them to an Observance of them and therefore maintains a Greek Bishop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode to hinder 'em from receiving them in the East from the hands of Schismaticks We must likewise comprehend the Russians which inhabit black Russia and Podolia under the Government of the King of Poland who submitted themselves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the last Century Arcudius commends Sigismond the Third for that he did not only sollicite but in a manner Arcud Epist. ad Sigismond constrain them to make this Union ut ad Romanam says he hoc est ver am Dei Ecclesiam se adjungerent excitasti ac pene dixerim impulisti Our Question does not concern them their Submission to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Dispute I expresly excepted them when I denyed that the Greeks and other Christians held Transubstantiation and Adored the Sacrament having said in plain terms except those that submit themselves to the Pope SECONDLY We must remember that one of the chief Advantages Answer to the first Treatise towards the end the Church of Rome makes of these forementioned Seminaries and Emissaries in Greece is the gaining of Proselytes and instructing young People in its Doctrines to use them afterwards for the Conversion of
it to pass the Greeks have not all this while following their example used that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep up this perfect Conformity with the Church of Rome which Mr. Arnaud has all along supposed How comes it to pass that when this Greek word has been known to 'em and even the Latins themselves have taught it them yet they would not admit of it and I pray what ill conveniencies could they apprehend thereby if they in effect believed the conversion of the Substances It cannot appear strange to us that there were heretofore Persons of sound Judgments who scrupled to admit the term of Hypostasis because that in effect ignorant people would take thence occasion to imagine there were several Divinities but there can be nothing like this alleadged in respect of Transubstantiation for there is no danger of giving this an excessive sence beyond what ought to be believed supposing we admit the Substantial conversion There is rather on the contrary a kind of necessity to make use of it because it expresses better than any other this kind of conversion and the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being general expressions are consequently defective and suffer a man to deny the change in question and fall into Heresie which is as much the Greeks interest as the Latins to prevent if it were so they had the same Sentiments in this Subject with them as Mr. Arnaud assures us they have He mightily bestirs himself with his Arguments or rather Declamations on that the Greeks have never quarrelled about this Doctrine and finds it strange supposing they were of a contrary belief to the Latins But let him then tell us wherefore they so obstinately refused to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation and would never express themselves on this Mystery in the same form as the Church of Rome for I find this far more strange supposing they hold in the main the same Doctrine with her It cannot be alledged that their ignorance has hind'red them from finding so proper a Term for it has been made to their hands or that they feared thereby to offend their Emperours seeing they were deeply engaged to favour the Church of Rome or feared thereby to incur a greater hatred from the Latins seeing they could not do 'em a greater pleasure HOW comes it then to pass they never used it but on the contrary when the Latins in these forc'd and interessed Unions I mentioned in the preceding Book have proposed to them the Article of the Eucharist under the Term of Transubstantiatur the Bread is transubstantiated they kept to their general expressions saying only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bread is changed as I shall hereafter make appear Is not this an evident Testimony they would not adopt a Doctrine unknown to their Church and which they regarded as a Novelty THIS first Proof shall be upheld by a second of no less strength than the former Being taken from that the Greeks in the explicating of their belief on the Eucharist not only do not use the Term of Transubstantiation but whatsoever Terms they make use of they signifie not any thing which expresly bears the real conversion of the Substance Bread of and Wine into that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ When Pope Gregory towards the end of the Eleventh Century was minded to shew what his belief was on this Subject he did not indeed use the Term of Transubstantiation because 't was not then found out but explained himself in such a manner as was sufficiently clear and intelligible The Bread and Wine say's he on the Altar are changed substantially Mr. Arnaud lib. 2. ch 8. p. 170. by virtue of the mystical and sacred Orison and words of our Redeemer into the true proper and lively Flesh and real proper and lively Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and after the consecration 't is the true Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary and the real Blood which ran down his side not only in a sign and by vertue of a Sacrament but by propriety of nature and reality of substance WHEN Innocent the Third would have this same belief known in the Council of Latran he clearly explain'd himself and made use even of the very Term of Transubstantiation In the Sacrament of the Altar saith he the Concil Lat. sub Innoc. 3. cap. 1. Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the blood by the divine power In the same manner was it in the Council of Trent which expresly declared their belief and what they would have others believe likewise There is made say they by the consecration a conversion of the Sess 13. cap. 4. whole Substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood which conversion is rightly and properly called Transubstantiation AND thus speak the Doctors of the Church of Rome and thus in effect they ought to express themselves for the forming the Idea of this Doctrine But 't is otherwise with the Greeks for besides what I said that they use not the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but reject it it will not be found they use any expressions which come near them of the Church of Rome or mention any thing relating to a substantial conversion or presence of substance under the accidents of Bread and Wine or change of one substance into another which is what ought to be said to shew they believed Transubstantiation We see not any thing of this kind appear in the Cannons of their Councils Confessions of Faith or Liturgies Books of Devotions or any of their Writings whether published by their Modern or Ancient Divines and certainly 't is very strange these people should believe Transubstantiation and yet at the same time not so much as declare in express Terms this their belief For besides that these Terms are but few and easie to be found out there being nothing more easie to a man who believes the Substantial conversion than to say the Bread is substantially converted into the Body of Jesus Christ or the substance of Bread is really changed into the substance of Christ's Body in such a manner that the former substance remains no more Besides this I say they have in the Greek Language words which answer exactly the expressions of the Latins on this subject and upon this account they would be inexcusable expressing themselves as they do differently from the Church of Rome were their belief the same with hers YET is it evident that the expressions of the Greeks are no ways like those of the Latins and there needs only the comparing of the one with the other to discern the difference Compare for Example the confession of Gregory the Seventh with what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâ—â—n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
Roman Church having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essential Points I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact which do now and then escape him after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron and Bellarmin and Mr. Arnaud himself not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude but as Persons who affirm things from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé and sundry others of our Authors Now 't is evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom nor to relate all the words which may make it known for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing but to tire the Reader 's patience and trifle away the time It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me seeing I published this illustration in my Answer to Father Noüel which altho well known to him yet has it not stopt him in his carreer concealing my Justification neither more nor less than if I had said nothing IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist notwithstanding whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted Which is what I take upon me to maintain He say's that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts Arcud lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying this is my Body this is my Blood he then shews them little or no respect at all he bows not his head neither does he adore them nor prostrate himself before them nor lights Candles nor makes any Reverence Mr. Arnaud answers the question concerns not the Adoration in it self but the time of the Adoration Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission which both one and the other do as soon as the Consecration is performed that as to what concerns the second the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration and the Greeks later to wit at the Elevation of the Hoste which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate THAT we may examine this Answer we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks than his bare word or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence but this is what 's in question and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucharist immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary and that in their intention this is a sovereign honour But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence and to perswade us the Greeks do this is a plain abuse for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts and guessing at their thoughts Those that have this inward reverence to the Eucharist do certainly shew it by some outward Sign and the Greeks shewing none Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter SACRANUS Scarga and Caucus who lived amongst the Greeks were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence for had they known any thing of it they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence Respect or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration nor would they call them as they have done Heretical and Prophane People Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration knew nothing of this This inward Reverence had its residence and operations in their Souls and yet they knew nothing of it for had they known it they would never return such an Answer None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret but if he gives us not other Proofs it is to be feared his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite or Ceremony which is used as he say's at the Elevation of the Hoste and see whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned The Greek Liturgy has these words That the Priest and Deacon adore three times in saying thrice with a low voice O God be propitious unto me a sinner The Author of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sacrament Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's that the Priest adores and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are in saying thrice softly Lord be propitious to me a sinner My Answer was that I found in Goar ' s Book of Rites and Answer to the second Treatise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies not this Term of Lord but that of God which shews that this Adoration terminated it self in God and not in the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist But he ought to proceed sincerely it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore but it is likewise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O God be propitious to me a sinner from whence 't is plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist AS to Arcudius's Testimony who tells us that the People prostrate themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis Holy Things are for Holy Persons and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria we need not be much concerned thereat being a Person prepossessed and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant Goar in not in S. Joan Chrysost Miss pag. 153. Arcudius say's Goar altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of
St. Andrews where they privately buried it MR. Arnaud will not fail to fay that Hottinger is a Minister and one of the most passionate and least sincere Writers he ever read But why must we rather believe Allatius than Hottinger The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man who is ever upon disguishing things whereas this last on the contrary let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases has all the Characters of a faithful Writer relating things according to the best of his Knowledge The former of these is I confess more polite but th' other has more simplicity Allatius relates from his own head what he pleases Hottinger alledges his Witnesses and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Conopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them if it were moreover true that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him It was on the contrary the Latins and their Disciples who so strenuously endeavoured to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises nor Threatnings and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union It was in reference to them that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession We plainly foresee this short Confession will be as a mark of contradiction to them who are pleased to calumniate and persecute us His Presentiment was not vain AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection As to the second which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks I confess there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles for instance which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ of Free Will and Divine Grace but 't is certain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg The Fifteenth Article acknowledges but two Sacraments and Jeremias say's Mr. Arnaud openly professes to hold seven But I say the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Confes cap. 9. Greeks have no rule in this matter Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution to wit Baptism the Eucharist and Penance and as to the other four he affirms They are called Mysteries improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias acknowledges seven 't is true but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper and as to the five others he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the number of Sacraments Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour and not of humane Ceremonies which are improperly called Mysteries because they have something that is mysterious in them as speaks Metrophanus to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks Why seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he for he acknowledges That Jeremias does Arcud lib. 2. cap. 2. not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer AS to the Eighteenth Article in which Cyrillus asserts That the Souls of the deceased are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388. say's he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks touching the State of Souls after death Hornbeck and Chytreus say's he And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks affirm they admit besides Paradise and Hell a certain dark and doleful place in which the Souls are purged after this life I answer the Greeks are not determinately positive touching the State of the Soul after death As to the Souls of the Faithful there are some who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision till after the last Judgment and in the mean time are in pleasant and delightful places places exempt from all kind of sorrows or else in dark and dismal shades where they continually ruminate on the sins they have committed and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons namely the Unfaithful or Wicked the Faithful that dye in a State of Repentance and perfect Holyness and others who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety yet have committed several sins for which they have not so truely repented as they ought Hell is designed for the first of these The second say they go into places of rest and refreshment and the last into those doleful places where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church for there are not a few that hold there are only two conditions of men after death namely that of the virtuous and wicked and two places to wit Heaven and Hell Syropulus relates in his History of the Council of Florence that the Greeks being urged by the Latins to express themselves Hist Concil Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16. plainly touching the State of departed Souls Bessarion declared That the Souls of the Saints receive the Bliss prepared for them and those of sinners their punishments and that it only remains that each of these reassume their Bodies after which the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies and that sinners likewise with their Bodies c. shall suffer everlasting punishments We see here but two States after death We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks which likewise asserts but two places We must know say's it that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places and Allat de lib. Eccl. disp 2. those of sinners in like manner separate from them Those rejoyce upon the account of the hope of Bliss These lament in expectation of their torments There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius which asserts That there are two Ibid. places designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls Heaven for the Saints and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners That the Saints are at liberty that they have all the World and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode That those who are condemned to Hell will not come out from their abode till the day of Judgment and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation For adds he the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments before the last Judgement But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons under the custody of cruel Devils Sigismond speaking of the Moscovits say's They believe not there is
amongst them And 't is in fine from their proper Testimonies I have clearly shown that that which the Greeks hold touching the Eucharist is not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which is the chief and only thing I had to do Yet shall I answer in the following Book all Mr. Arnaud's vain Objections as briefly as I can for considering what I already established 't is easie to judge that his Arguments will not prove invincible Demonstrations as he would perswade the World BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted CHAP. I. Mr. Arnaud's First Proof taken from Cerularius his Silence examined The rest of his Illusions discovered AFter what I have established in the two former Books it will be no difficult matter to answer Mr. Arnaud's Objections and shew as I promised that all his endeavours to demonstrate the Greek Church ever believed Transubstantiation are ineffectual and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends And this shall be the subject of this Book Which I shall divide into two Parts in the first I shall examine what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to prove his supposition since the Eleventh Century to this present and in the second consider what he has alledged for the same purpose from the Seventh Eighth Ninth and Tenth Centuries IN the first Part of this Book I shall handle four principal Heads under which I shall exactly gather whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has dispersed in his Second Third and Fourth Books and part of his Twelfth Book wherein he has treated on some Particulars respecting this Question OUR first Remark shall be touching some of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions besides those we already discovered in the former Books It is certain we may justly so term all the Parts of his Work but more especially what he has written touching the Greeks for 't is all delusory But at present we mean to apply this Term to certain things only wherein his Artifice plainly appears and which are wholly inconsistent with that sincerity wherewith Controversies ought to be managed THE second Head contains the Testimonies of some Protestants whom Mr. Arnaud has alledged which seem in effect to attribute to the Greeks the Belief of Transubstantiation THE Third shall contain the Negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of both Greeks and Latins that is to say they never disputed one against another on this Article of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist IN the Fourth we shall explain all the Passages Mr. Arnaud has taken out of Greek Authors and from which he would infer by dint of Argument that the Greeks hold this Conversion of Substances TO begin at his Delusions the First or to speak better the Twelfth after those we already discovered consists in that he would have us upon the account of his own bare word without any Proof suppose that when Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida wrote their Letter against the Church of Rome Leo the Ninth the then present Pope had already condemned Berengarius and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of this censure But 't will not be amiss to hear him speak himself To shew say's he the consent of the Greek Church with the Roman Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 139. in the Subject of the Eucharist we have made use in the refutation of Mr. Claude ' s Answer of the contest which arose in the year 1053. between Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida on one hand and Pope Leo the Ninth and the whole Latine Church on the other For these Persons altho such passionate adversaries against the Western Church upon the account of the Azymes yet never reproached her as erring in the Mystery of the Eucharist altho they wrote against the Latins AT THE SAME TIME AND AFTER Pope Leo had censured Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil whence we conclude they were agreed with the Latin Church in the Doctrine of the real Presence which she so loudly asserted at that time This is Mr. Arnaud's first Proof which he has set forth to the life in the best colours wherewith his Eloquence could furnish him having turned it several wayes by his usual dexterary in amplifying and exaggerating the Subjects he handles IT is certain that to make this Argument valid he must clearly establish before all things that Berengarius his Condemnation preceded Cerularius and Leo of Acrida's Letter and preceded it to a very considerable time to shew that these Prelates were well informed of it and had reason to mention it in their Letter for without this we can conclude nothing from their Silence Yet Mr. Arnaud has not troubled himself with the clearing up this matter of Fact contenting himself in saying only that Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy A man would then think this was a Point out of doubt and at which Mr. Arnaud has no need to stop a moment having judged it evident beyond contradiction in his Chronology But he will be much startled to find there is nothing more uncertain than his supposition and moreover that there is nothing more unlikely than what he say's TO be ascertained in this Matter we must know that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's Letter was written in the Year 1053. as Mr. Arnaud and all the World grants We must moreover know that although Baronius and Binius attribute the two Condemnations of Berengarius to the Year 1050. 3 Years before Cerularius his Letter was written yet there are Authors that are better informed in this Matter than Baronius and Binius who refer these two Condemnations to the Year 1053. being exactly the same Year wherein the Letter was written And these are such Authors whose Testimony will go far with Mr. Arnaud Being those that published the Office of the B. Sacrament that is to say this same Office to which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity in its primary Design was to serve as a Preface as a Preface as we have been already twice informed Observe here what they say Neither Malmesbury nor Baronius have exactly observed all the Office of the B. Sacrament Hist and Chron. 11. Cent. Councils which were called touching this Heresie of Berengarius The first of them was held at Rome by Pope Leo the Ninth the second at Verseil in the Month of September in the same Year under the same Pope We cannot doubt after the Testimony of Lanfranc in his Book against Berengarius but that these two Councils were held both in the same Year But some as Baronius and Binius will have this Year to be 1050. others the Year 1053. First because Sigibert say's that Pope Leo held two Councils in 1050. but he immediately observes likewise this was only to reform the abuses of the Ecclesiasticks
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
obtain her Favour And yet notwithstanding all this the Greeks do not assert this Doctrine in clear distinct Terms therefore they hold it not NOW let a man reflect on the Consequence Mr. Arnaud draws and he will find that it has none of these Qualities which I come now from observing in mine It is not evident for what Certainty is there that if a Church does not imbrace a Doctrine she must therefore immediately condemn it and make thereof a matter of Controversy This Proposition taken in its generality is not only unevident but false and contrary to the Principles of Reason and Scripture Being applyed in particular to Transubstantiation it has no Evidence for it must be supposed that a Church which does not believe it considers it in a due manner whereby to judg that 't is a damnable Error and that she wants not Knowledg for the making of this Judgment and supposing she wants not Knowledg whereby to make this Judgment we must farther suppose that she believes her self obliged to pass this Censure against a Church from which she is actually separated We must besides this suppose she has Courage enough to do her Duty and that no humane Respect can withold her from it Now it cannot be show'd that these three Suppositions are evident in respect of the Greeks whence it appears that Mr. Arnaud's Consequence is of no certainty for what Certainty is there in a Consequence that depends on three Suppositions which are not only very uncertain but false as will appear upon Examination Neither is it likewise immediate for 't is certain there is no medium between believing Transubstantiation and clearly explaining it in respect of a Church which is at full liberty to speak on it what she thinks But betwixt not believing it and making thereof a point of Controversy with Strangers that do believe it there 's a vast difference In fine I say this Consequence has no necessity for it might bin hindred by a thousand things through want of learned Men able to mannage this Controversy by the temporal Interests of their Empire and Church and fear of provoking the Latins who have bin almost continually their Masters by the Intrigues of their Emperours and several of their Patriarchs and Bishops but especially by a Spirit of Superstition which has occasioned long since the turning of Religion into childish Ceremonies neglecting the Essentials of Christianity to apply themselves to Fopperies TO Illustrate more clearly this Comparison which I desire the Reader to make between Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments and mine it will be convenient to make here a general Reflection on the state of our Controversy The Question between us is to know whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not Mr. Arnaud has undertaken to prove the Affirmative and I the Negative Now this being so it is evident I am only obliged to prove my Thesis by negative Arguments The Greeks teach not Transubstantiation nor its necessary and natural Consequences therefore they do not believe it This concludes very well according to the nature of the Thesis which I defend and this Proof is sufficient to satisfie a mans Mind and decide the Question But 't is not the same with Mr. Arnaud for he is obliged to prove his Proposition not so much by the Silence of these People as by their Words not so much by negative Arguments as by positive ones The Greeks say's he believe Transubstantiation which is what he ought to shew by affirmative Arguments Were then the Conclusion he draws from the Silence of the Greeks more probable than 't is yet could it not perswade by it self any reasonable Person Our Minds might be perplexed with it but yet 't will be still said we must examine what the Greeks positively teach touching the Eucharist and see how they explain themselves concerning it because this is the just and only means of deciding the Question In effect if it be true the Greeks teach Transubstantiation the negative Arguments drawn from their not making a Controversy of it with the Latins are superfluous the matter is decided and we need go no farther but if it be true on the contrary that they do not teach it the negative Arguments are of no Consequence we must keep to what we find contained in their form of Doctrine It is then certain there is more show than real solidity in this part of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute and that 't is more likely to divert the Fancy than satisfy the Judgment It may dazle our Eyes by a false appearance but cannot instruct us for it decides nothing a man still remains in the desire and necessity of knowing what the Greeks teach If he satisfies this Desire 't is sufficient but if not his negative Arguments signify nothing Mr. Arnaud then might well have spared all those Histories Accounts of Reunions and the enumeration of all the Authors that have treated on the Differences between the Greeks and Latins All which has bin to no purpose seeing that when we have bestowed never so much time on the Discussion of these things we must return again to the principal Point which is to know positively what the Greeks teach concerning the Eucharist For as I now said Mr. Arnaud's Proposition being affirmative to wit that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation he must clearly establish it by affirmative Proofs for 't is on these alone whereon depends the decision of the Question and not on negative Arguments drawn from what they do not do AND thus far touching my general means Come we now to Particulars Mr. Arnaud pretends that if the Greeks have not heretofore believed Transubstantiation nor yet still believe it they ought to make it a point of Controversy with the Latins I answer the Greeks contented themselves with keeping their own Belief concerning the Sacrament and held to their usual Expressions and have not admitted the Determinations of Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. nor the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and yet never proceeded to a formal Condemnation of the Sentiment of the Latins nor made it a matter of Dispute and Controversy In a word they do neither believe nor oppose Transubstantiation They do not believe it for it is not to be seen in the Doctrine of their Church in their Confessions of Faith Books of Divinity Decisions of their Councils Liturgies Catechisms nor Sermons neither do they oppose it for as far as we can find they never disputed this Point with the Latins nor formally debated it in their ancient Differences I say as far as we can find for 't is impossible but some have Disputed on it altho all Records thereof have bin lost or suppressed seeing none of them ever came to our Knowledg But be it as it will at worst it only concerns us to know whether my Answer is reasonable and whether in effect the Greeks not believing the Conversion of Substances 't is possible they have not condemned this Opinion in the Church of
touching the Conversion but only in token of their Union each Church keeping its own particular Belief Who will wonder if People who could against their Consciences sign a Decree wherein they expresly abjured five of the Articles of their Faith whereby to reconcile themselves with the Church of Rome should yield to be once present at its Service Yet this was not without offering Violence to themselves for Syropulus observes that the Pope having sent them word that on the morrow they must celebrate Mass and consummate the Union and that if there were any amongst them would partake of the Mysteries of the Latins they should prepare themselves at these Words the Greeks were seized with Horror 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9. Moreover I know not whether what Andrew de St. Cruce says be true that they adored the Mass in the same manner as the Latins for the same Syropulus relates that they stood all the time of the Office We stood say's he in our Sect. 10. c. 10. Vestments during the Liturgy But supposing it were true they used the same external Ceremonies as the Latins it would not hence follow they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor gave the Eucharist a sovereign Adoration For to kneel before an Object is not in the Sence of either Greeks or Latins a token that a Man adores it neither with an absolute Adoration nor that of Latria I am so far from excusing this Action that I believe it is on the contrary inexcusable both before God and Men But how great soever their Fault was in assisting at the Service of the Latins which they so greatly abhorred it appears that what they did was not to testify they believed the same things as they but that the Union after a sort was accomplished For they were present at their Service only in hope the Latins would likewise assist at theirs and in effect the Emperor was very urgent with the Pope for this To which the Pope replied he would first examine their Liturgy and particularly consider in what manner they celebrated it and see whether he could satisfy their Demands Whereupon the Emperor finding himself abused thus expressed Sect. 10. c. 11. himself We hoped the Latins would have amended several Errors but I find them not only Innovators and Blame worthy in several things but that which is worse they take upon them to reform us It is worth while to observe what kind of Union this was which being perfected the Pope declares on his side that neither he nor his Latins had considered the Liturgy of the Greeks and the Emperor on the other hand protests the Latins are Innovators and guilty of several Errors BUT say's Mr. Arnaud supposing Policy hindred the Greeks from opposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation what end could Syropulus have in concealing from us this Mystery Why discovering to us as he does his Countrymens weakness he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Subject of his History Why does he not blame the Ceremonies of the Latins Wh◠has he not detested in his History the Adoration of the Host and Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness Why did he not deplore the Abominations of those of his Nation that were present at the Popish Mass who shewed it the same Respect as the Latins which is to say adored the Eucharist To all these Wherefores I shall oppose others Why didnot Syropulus take notice of the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article touching the Salvation of the Damned and Christ's descent into Hell and offering them his Gospel Why did he not censure the Neglect of both one and th' other in that they mentioned not a word concerning the Marriage of Priests nor communion under both kinds nor of all those other Articles I denoted in this Chapter These kind of Questions which Mr. Arnaud makes are good for nothing but to impose on inconsiderate Persons Syropulus is an Historian that contents himself with relating what passed of moment in this Affair and sometimes to give his Opinion in general thereupon but it plainly appears he never intended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd A History is not a Dispute Wherefore then should he Discourse of Transubstantiation in it Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins or detest the Adoration of the Sacrament and its Feast Why tell us of the Adoration which the Greeks rendered to the Host of the Latins seeing he assures us on the contrary that they stood bolt upright during the Liturgy Mr. Arnaud who calls upon others so much to think upon what they write has he I say considered what he saies concerning the Feast of the Holy Sacrament Wherefore say's he has not Syropulus detested the Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness For I shall only tell him He has not mentioned a word of it and yet 't is certain the Greeks do not approve it but on the contrary condemn it as I already show'd in the foregoing Book It does not then follow the Greeks hold Transubstantiation altho Syropulus speaks not of it AND thus much concerning the Council of Florence Mr. Arnaud likewise draws some Arguments from what passed after the Greeks had renounced this Union And first he takes for granted that Transubstantiation was established in this Council and that the Greeks solemnly approved of it On this Principle he runs on arguing beyond all bounds that those that violated the Union should inveigh against this Doctrine of the Latins and those that approved it He introduces again Syropulus and alledges Marc of Ephesus and describes his Hatred against the Latins He tells us of a Synod held at Jerusalem against the Patriarch Metrophanus and those of his Party This was the time say's he if ever to reproach those with Transubstantiation that had consented to the Union and approved this Doctrine in it He takes Occasion Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355. hence to bless God the Greeks had renounced this Union acknowledging the Divine Providence therein which permitted it thus to come to pass to the end he might not want matter for his Book Whatsoever we related say's he touching the Greeks approbation of Transubstantiation would have less force had Pag. 347. this Agreement subsisted It would have been alledged that politick Interest having made the Greeks consent to the receiving of this Doctrine they were afterwards withheld by Fear from condemning it and being insensibly accustomed to it dared not immediately reject it by reason of the bad estate of their Affairs But to the end their real Belief might appear in this Subject it was necessary this Agreement should be disturbed and their Passion at liberty to break out that they should indeavour to make void whatsoever they had confirmed at Florence That they should attack the Union in all possible manners and denote whatsoever they could gainsay reproachfully
that he must of necessity either deny what the whole Church believes to wit the Conversion of the Substance of Bread or fall into this other Absurdity of maintaining that this Conversion is made in the Divine Nature Common Sence leads him to this and yet we find no such thing in all his Discourse AFTER Anastasius comes Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople Mr. Aubertin has placed him according to the common Opinion in the eighth Century but in effect there is more likelyhood according to Allatius his Conjecture that he lived in the twelveth and the Reflections Mr. Arnaud makes on this Subject seem to me just enough to be followed till we have greater Certainty But howsoever this Author say's no more than That the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and that it is his Body To which we have Lib. 7. c. 3. so often already answered that it will be needless to say any more Mr. Arnaud sets to Phylosophising on some Passages which Mr. Aubertin alledged in his Favour but this is an Illusion for when what Mr. Aubertin alledges concerning Germane to show that 't is contrary to Transubstantiation should not be Conclusive 't would not thence follow he believed it nor Taught it if this does not appear elsewhere from good Proofs and Mr. Arnaud is obliged to produce such without supposing it is sufficient he Refutes Mr. Aubertin's Consequences For Refuting is not Proving GERMAIN sufficiently shews us towards the end of his Treatise in what Sence he understood the Bread to be the Body of Christ Moses say's Germ. Theor. rer Eccles sub finem he sprinkling the People with the Blood of Goats and Heifers said This is the Blood of the Covenant But our Saviour Christ has given his own proper Body and shed his own Blood and given us the Cup of the new Testament saying This is my Body which was broken for you this is my Blood shed for the Remission of your Sins As often then as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare my Death and Resurrection Thus believing then we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup as of the Flesh of God declaring thereby the Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have already observed in the foregoing Book that the Greeks do often use this Expression As the Flesh As the Body to mollify and abate in some sort their usual way of speaking which is that the Bread is the Body of Christ and to signify that the Bread is to us instead of this Body It appears from the sequel of Germain's Discourse his Sence is that for the better applying our Minds to the Death and Resurrection of our Lord we eat the Bread and drink of the Cup in the stead of his Body and Blood AS to John Damascen the Author of the Perpetuity having alledged him as a Witness of the Doctrine of the ancient Church I said He ought not Answer to the 2d Treatise of the Perpet c. 2. to produce the Testimony of a Person whom we except against and that with good Cause seeing he was one of the first that left the common Road of the Churches Expressions and betook himself to affected and singular ones which are at as great distance from the Roman Church as the reformed one Now this Exception is so just in respect of the Question concerning the Sentiment of the ancient Church that excepting Mr. Arnaud I do not believe there is any Man how little Conversant soever in the Writings of the Fathers but grants it For all the Ancient Fathers term the Eucharist a Figure or Representation of our Lord's Body and Damascen not only deny's that it is one but also that the Fathers thus termed it after Consecration He is one of the first that brought into Credit the Comparison of Food which changes it self into our Bodies whereby to explain the Change which happens to the Bread in as much as it is made an Augmentation of the Body of Christ that of the Blessed Virgin which the Holy Spirit overshadowed and that of Wood united to the Fire His Expressions being compared with those of the Ancients are wholly extraordinary He tells us that the Sacramental Bread and the Body born of the Virgin are but one and the same Body because the Bread is an Augmentation of the Body and that the same Oeconomy has been observed in both I suppose Damascen was not the first that had these kind of Conceptions seeing we have met with something like this in Anastasius his Discourse and if I mistake not some Trace of this in Gregory de Nysses his Catechism but howsoever it must be acknowledged I had reason to call these Conceptions Affected and Singular in respect of the usual Expressions of the Fathers and to say they vary as much from the Doctrine of the Romane Church as ours YET to hear only Mr. Arnaud a Man would imagine that Damascen clearly taught Transubstantiation To prove it he alledges these same Passages of his fourth Book touching the true Orthodox Faith wich has been a thousand times canvass'd by Controvertists and which conclude nothing Damascen say's That God makes the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine his Blood that it is an effect of his Almighty Power which has created all things that seeing the Lord took his Body from the pure and immaculate Blood of the Virgin we must not doubt but he can change the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood that if we demand how this Change happens he answers that this is wrought by the Holy Spirit that the Word of God is True and Almighty but that the manner is Incomprehensible But yet it may be rationally say'd that as the Bread and Wine wherewith a Man is nourished are changed into his Body so that they become another Body than that which they were before so the Bread and Wine mixt with Water are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in awonderful manner by Prayer and Descent of the Holy Spirit and that they are not two different Bodies but one and the same Body HAD not Damascen expressed himself as he has done it would be to no purpose for us to tell Mr. Arnaud the Change he speaks of is not Transubstantiation seeing his Sence is that the Bread becomes a growth of our Lord's Body and is made by this means one with this Body that this is the effect he attributes to the Holy Spirit and Almighty Power of God acting above Nature and not that of a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the same Substance which the Body had before Mr. Arnaud would not fail to term this Extravagancy and Dotage But seeing we say no more in this matter than what is grounded on Damascen's own Words as it appears by what we related when we treated on the real Belief of the Greeks This Illustration will be sufficient without proceeding any farther to make Insignificant this long
of the Bible in Syriack Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls Commonitorium Apologeticum wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites imposing on Prince Fachraddin for cheating the Duke of Florence and with his being banished his own Country his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban Rome and Florence which give an Account of his Life But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks such as we have shewed it to be in the two foregoing Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book and apply to them the Answers I made to several other such like passages which are needless here to be repeated WEE must come then to the Armenians I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them as for that they are a great people and an entire Church by themselves They are long since separated from the Greek Church and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion Yet are they both extream ignorant of the design of Christianity and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave say's he a Visit to the Patriarch of the Relat. of Missionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu Bish of Heliopolis Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus but he cunningly avoided it I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious who show little Piety although they profess much and live austerely So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians with which Epist Viror Eruditor Epist 2. Cyrill ad Wytenbog the Greeks held no communion to wit the Armenians Coptics Maronites and Jacobites say's amongst other things that they live like Beasts and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe themselves THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um and submit them to the See of Rome They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed or augmented as Occasion required They have taken the course of Seminaries and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia and that not seldom with Success So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks the one called the reunited ones and the other Schismaticks so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs or Catholicks as they term them and are called only Armenians OUR Question only then concerns these last and to know whether they do or do not believe Transubstantiation The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm is that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist according to them this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity that is to say a manifest contradiction to imagine they believe the change in Question seeing to believe it it must be necessarily supposed not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body but likewise that his Body is distinct from the Divinity MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454. by two Answers which we must distinctly examine one after another The first amounts to this That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstantiation or that they do not admit it after their Fashion For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man that the Jews took him for a man that they crucified him as a man Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens and by the Eutychiens themselves For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God and who was incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist he say's that they believe with all other Christians that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin seen in the World crucified and risen is really present in the Eucharist that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity that is to say a deified Body a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance Mr. Arnaud do's likewise promise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Nature according to the Eutychiens I know not what elucidations he may one day give us but if they be no better then what he now tells us they will
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
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
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
express themselves in such a manner much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them for as soon as ever 't is conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it 't is believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause The Egyptian Liturgy say's he attributed to St. Gregory imports I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM For Faucheur on the Lords Supper Book 3. C. 6. there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise who has an ancient Manuscript of it and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it who being of the Seminary at Rome designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries praecepta liberationis meae BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations it is moreover true that when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome for example there has bin inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar but under this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nestorians by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of Missa Christian apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl patr tom 6. Goa Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's Gregorie's and Cyril's say's that the new Manuscripts have bin corrected by the order of the Holy Roman Church into whose Bosom as into that of a real Mother the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Popedom of Clement VIII THERE 's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory of Victor Schialch's Translation and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins in some one of these Reunions for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 't is a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknowledge the Divine Nature OBSERVE here the terms It is the sacred and everlasting Body and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God Amen it is really the Body of the Emmanuel Ibid. our God Amen I Believe I Believe I Believe and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God our common Lady and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion mixture or confusion I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will He has really assumed this Body for us I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity no not a Moment and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation Remission of Sins and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ and that these words without conversion mixture or confusion are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies for if we had 'um pure and sincere I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substantial Presence nor with that of Transubstantiation Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World Upon a thro consideration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks or other Christian Churches he must acknowledge he has overshot himself and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject Which I believe I have evidently discover'd and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order I have offered nothing but upon good grounds from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words as I know of in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments or Proofs or passing by any thing considerable In fine I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's 8 th Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time examined THE order of the dispute requires that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7 th Century till Paschasius's time exclusively that is to say till towards the beginning of the Ninth And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8 th Book and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters 't is necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have
Reflection THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th Century when the contests of Berengarius hapned to determine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first We have likewise seen in the 7th Chapter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words What can we think of all these circuits but that they are illusions which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins and mount up to them from the later Ages It is then certain that these ways of reasoning these suppositions and arguments from the bottom to the top are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion which is that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church The second Reflection 'T IS consonant to reason to imagin that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body or not having been agitated with great heat those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers and endeavoured to turn them to their sense This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and confirm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances We see but too many examples of this It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences The Divisions of Christians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity When Scholars are become Masters they no longer look upon themselves as Scholars but Doctors and in this quality 't is no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions which they endeavour to establish on the testimony of those that preeeded them and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em and as to the Doctors there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly and engage them into his opinions which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church The third Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's third proposition is conceived in these terms Lib. 10. cap. 3. That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catholicks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike To establish this proposition he says there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect different The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions and to shew they are not alike The second is to discern them by opinion by a simple view of the mind and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed Applying afterwards this remark to his subject he says that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Transubstantiation and reality and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions and that opinion has so well distinguished them This is the summary of his third Chapter The first Reflection WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions and the things themselves by opinion as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences where there are no real ones I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a metaphorical sense this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as different expressions but it does not follow that they be different in effect unless it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever conformity there may be between them A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding as if they were alike such expressions as are not so and then again take for different expressions such as be alike As we never pretended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things so Mr. Arnaud must not pretend they are right in every thing The second Reflection THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the different expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike is deceitful For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of reason 't will be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages wherein the Fathers lived and that of persons to whom they spake and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation and the others which we produce as being alike in a metaphorical sense and we will see what use we must make of his Rule But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed will be an apparent deceiving of our selves seeing 't is not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine The fourth Consequence THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth which is Book 10.
these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pretension is invalid and the second resides only in his own imagination I say the first is invalid for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and some few others that say the Bread is changed we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration Bread and Wine and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs the symbols the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ So far matters are equal and the prejudice cannot favour either side MOREOVER who told Mr. Arnaud we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms We oft prejudicate on the contrary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 't is likely they are used figuratively as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle or in reference to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms This is not enough to establish a prejudice nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther and shew that there 's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter into this discussion because of its difficulty and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile THE second reason has less strength than the first For first 't is not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say Now that things are cleared up in this respect every man may judg of 'em and I hope they will make a just judgment of them Secondly there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centuries and those of the later Ages who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice for had the Fathers meant by their general expressions the same thing which these last do they would have spoke like them but this they have not done 'T is not then likely they had the same sense and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form without the help of any contest the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and determinate sense where the term of substance enters There 's no need of a disputation for this Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last It does not appear to us they have done it It is not then reasonable to prejudicate they held this Doctrine THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pretensions who will suppose at any rate oppose we against him a contrary pretension which is that we have right to suppose without any other proof that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us must not be understood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative he is obliged to do it by evident demonstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication This here is our pretension it remains only now to be observed how we prove it and having seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his it will be easie to compare proof with proof and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable FIRST there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th Chapter of this Book touching the 7th and 8th Centuries that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense which regulate the judgments of men till the contrary does evidently appear Now the state of nature is not to believe the Doctrines we speak of and it must be granted me that common sense does not teach ' em We have then right to suppose without proof that the Fathers did not believe them and consequently that their expressions must not be taken in this sense And 't is Mr. Arnaud's part to shew so clearly the contrary that his proof may surmount the prejudication Which if he does not do reason obliges us to let the Fathers alone in the state of nature and common sense SECONDLY The matter in debate does of it self form our prejudice The point in hand is touching a Sacrament and in Sacramental expressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent as may be verified by numberless instances We then have right to suppose without any other proof that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise understood them IN the third place our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self about which we dispute For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense it answers to a very distinct question which is whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not it says that 't is a change of substance It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determination that is to say in applying their conceptions precisely to the substance and 't is not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opinion It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations not from general expressions but by expressions which are formal
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time wherein this change has most advanced it self It was not in Hilaries nor Athanasius's times nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin but in the 10th and 11th Centuries that is to say in the most dark Ages c. 'T is no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not And this distinction methinks does sufficiently limit my Principle To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense Now my whole sense does not consist only in a general Principle which I lay down nor in the general application I make of it but in the exception and limitation I give them But neither has Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus choosing rather to run after their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth MOREOVER Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say when he sets himself on reproaching me that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation 't is not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book which might be easily found in turning over some leafs If I passed over 'em 't was because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite which contain the whole substance of my discourse and which are no less significant than the others But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time altho there 's no such Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577. thing in my Book Mr. Arnaud's answer is that the Author of the Perpetuity represents my sense and not my words and because that this proposition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms Mr. Arnaud says that 't is the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter I will believe it because he says so but yet my sense ought to be faithfully related and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my express declarations contained in several passages of my first and second Answer rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot represent in this condition but half of that which I would say Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense Father Maimbourg the Jesuite who wrote since Mr. Arnaud ingenuously perceived and related it as it is in truth Mr. Claude says he asserts A Peaceable Method by Father Mainbourg ch 3. page 108. there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pastors Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence or absence because they studied not the point This is in effect my meaning and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ THE first of these three Remarks I now made considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question and determines it to the Real Presence alone excluding Transubstantiation The second considers it in respect of the persons and determines it to the Christians only excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries and the third considers it in respect of the time and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Darkness that is to say to those wherein according to us the change was introduced which are the 9th and 10th and part of the 11th For altho according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Berenger yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute we shall neither complain of him nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em for on this depends the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible BUT before we enter upon this enquiry 't is necessary to make two farther Observations The first is that the question is not whether the Christians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort when the Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them that it agreed not with the Principles of nature but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine they had knowledg enough to discover 't was an innovation contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it it is not enough to shew that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason I confess that if men did always what they ought to do this alone were sufficient to put them upon rejecting this Real Presence as we have elsewhere proved it But people are liable to be deceived and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery they hearken no longer to sense nor reason We should then proceed and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty which the Church never held and which consequently was not a true mystery of Faith THE other observation which we must make is that we ought to distinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question from the belief of the corporeal Absence To believe the corporeal absence is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a humane body such as is that of our Saviour's and to reject it as false and extravagant But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence such as the Roman Church conceives and rejects as an error A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place and yet not reject it either generally under every notion be it what it will nor in particular under the notion of an invisible existence after the manner of a Spirit as appears from the example of the Roman Church which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence but yet
and risen for them Whence I concluded there were several persons who contented themselves with doing that to which these words excited them without proceeding any farther their minds being sufficiently taken up with that And this is that which Mr. Arnaud calls extravagant and fantastical and wherein he meets with such ridiculous Hypothesises sensless suppositions and absurdities 'T is impossible says he for a discourse to be more faulty than this altho it be the foundation of the first order of this system First 't will not serve the end whereunto 't is design'd Secondly 't is laid on a false foundation Thirdly it concludes nothing this false foundation being supposed These three remarks are essential and need only proving AS to the first he says That supposing this ridiculous Hypothesis were granted me yet there must be made several others to draw thence the conclusion which I draw First It must be supposed that the Pastors who instructed the Communicants when they first received the Eucharist taught 'em only to make a Mental Prayer over the Body of Jesus Christ without mentioning to 'em a word of the essence of the mystery and sense of the words which express it and satisfying the doubts which might spring up in their minds about it And yet the form of these instructions appearing in the Writings of S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Ambrose Gaudencius and Eucherus are very apt to imprint on their minds the distinct idea of the Faith of the Mystery according to the Doctrin of the Catholicks Secondly We must suppose that when these people met with this expression either in Sermons or particular Discourses or Books that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ they caution'd themselves against admitting into their minds any idea of these words but were immediately ravish'd with abstracted Meditations Thirdly 'T is to be supposed that this lasted'em all their lives Fourthly We must suppose they used the same caution against these expressions The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread we are nourish'd with the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that it is our strength and our life I ANSWER that supposing the Proposition I stated touching the things and usual expressions were fruitless in respect of the instructions given to the Catechumenists and those other expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud yet does it not hence follow but 't would be useful in respect of these terms Corpus Christi which were spoken before to the Communicants at the time wherein the Eucharist is deliver'd to ' em Now 't is precisely upon this account I made use of it that is to say to answer the Argument which the Author of the Perpetuity rais'd from these words Corpus Christi which he said represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar I shew'd then that these words were not only words of instruction but likewise of use the drift of which were to represent to the Communicants the Body of Christ dead and risen for us Mr. Arnaud ought to consider my proposition in reference to the particular end for which I used it and not take it loose as he has done from the sequel of my discourse But 't is his custom when he proposes any thing which I mention to represent it indirectly and 't is on such kind of proceedings as these whereon are grounded the greatest part of his objections TO confirm the truth of my Proposition 't is not necessary to change any thing in the Catechisms of the Fathers there needs only one thing be supposed which is not hard to believe which is that neither the Catechisms of S. Cyril nor those attributed to S. Ambrose and S. Eucherus were used as forms of instructions which were given to persons the first time they Communicated seeing the greatest part amongst 'em received their first Communion immediately after they were Baptized in their tender years yea sometimes whilst at their Mothers Breasts I confess indeed they were not then taught to make Mental Prayers as Mr. Arnaud speaks and 't is also likely they had neither the Catechisms of S. Ambrose nor S. Cyril expounded to 'em as he pleasantly supposes And thus Mr. Arnaud's first Observation is absurd AS to the Books they read 't is not necessary to say they caution'd themselves against the words which they met in 'em we need only suppose one thing which is not unlikely That there were at that time and are at this day in the Church several people who could not read and that amongst such as could there were some that read little in the Treatises of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist Books not being then so common as they have been since Printing has been invented and in fine that amongst those who did there might be some who applied not themselves attentively enough to form in their minds the question how the Sacrament is our Saviour's Body AS to private Discourses if Mr. Arnaud by revelation knows any thing of 'em we 'l hear him willingly in the mean time he 'l let us suppose that there have been always people in the Church who never set themselves to treat of abstruse questions of Theology in familiar Colloquies AND as to Sermons seeing Mr. Arnaud pretends they must inspire all persons with curiosity that hear them 't would be just he should tell us first whether he believes the Preachers handled always the Eucharist in difficult terms sufficient to excite the curiosity of their hearers touching the question how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ Whether they explain'd not themselves in terms clear and easie which gave no occasion for this question Secondly 'T would be just for him to tell us whether when they made these difficult discourses they caused all the Faithful in general to come to 'em and charged 'em not to fail of forming in their minds the question How the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ Thirdly In short it might be expected he should tell us whether he believes that all the Auditors were of equal capacities to make reflections on the difficult expressions of the Fathers For if he does not suppose these three things there 's little likelihood these expressions he mentions must have produc'd the effect in mens minds which he pretends Perhaps persons of mean capacities who yet may be good men altho they have but little knowledg in hearing their Preachers would have turn'd their minds sooner on the side of easie terms than that of difficult ones Perhaps also some of 'em did let these difficult ways of speaking pass without considering 'em with much attention and troubling themselves with questions beyond their reach and thus may I suppose the expressions of the Fathers seldom made any deep impression on them Mr. CLAVDE says Mr. Arnaud who thinks that the putting of an extravagancy into mood and figure is sufficient to make it conclusive and decisive proposes us this
Serm. ad inf see is one thing and that which we hear another what we see has corporeal species but what we hear has a spiritual fruit To this end do all the passages of the Fathers tend which declare how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to wit or because 't is the Sacrament of it the sign and figure or because it stands for it or because it communicates it to us or because Christ changes it into the efficacy of his Flesh and those which term it the typical Body the symbolical Body the mystical Body and those that attribute to the words of Christ a Sacramental or figurative sense for these are as so many explications of the manner which serve to clear up the doubt in question Mr. ARNAVD's illusion then is a double one for on one hand what ought to be referred to one kind of doubt he refers to another what refers to the doubt of incredulity which respects the truth of the words he refers to the simple doubt of ignorance which consists only in not knowing the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and this illusion is grounded on the imperfect division which he has made of the doubts On the other hand he suppresses whatsoever the Fathers have said in order to th' explaining in what sense the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ and offers only what they have said to confirm that it is so As to the passages he proposes he shews but small sincerity in telling us the Fathers add no explication of figure or virtue for the greatest part of those he alledges speak either of the Type or Figure or Sacrament or spiritual Understanding or Virtue Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the type of Bread and of the type of Wine The Author of the Treatise De Initiatis concludes that 't is the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ Gaudencius says That the Bread is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Chrysostom says that God gives us in the Sacrament the intelligible or spiritual things by means of sensible And Hesychius recommends to our consideration the virtue of the Mystery and spiritual understanding of it CHAP. IV. Defence of the Fifth Rank against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud THE fifth rank of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church was of those that at the hearing of these propositions the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded immediately to their true and natural sense without perplexity or difficulty and without considering the inconsistency of the terms very well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be to us a Sacrament which imparts to us our Lords Body and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth and an apprehension better fitted to understand the style and common expressions of the Church Mr. ARNAVD spends all the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book to shew that these persons whom I suppose had necessarily before their eyes a distinct idea of the Real Presence Which is what he endeavours to prove First By the example of this infinite number of Christians which were found to hold in the beginning of the 11th Century the belief of the Real Presence and who had taken up this Faith from the same expressions of the Fathers which ever rung in the ears of the Faithful of the first eight Centuries whence it without doubt follows that these expressions which have persuaded the whole world into the belief of the Real Presence might well give the idea of it to those which preceded them Secondly He offers the double idea which the metaphorical terms offer to the mind for they offer says he to the mind that which one would have it understand and shew it at the same time the image by which one represents it Thus this expression of Scripture Vicit Leo de tribu Juda puts us upon thinking that Jesus Christ is compared to a Lion by reason of his strength so that the word Lion forms at the same instant in the mind two ideas that of the strength of Christ which is the natural idea of the thing conceiv'd as true and which the Scripture would signifie and the idea of a Lion which is the natural idea of the Word but which is only the resemblance of the truth which the Scripture would make us conceive It is easie says he moreover to conclude hence that when a man should take all the words of the Fathers which express the Real Presence for metaphorical ones when one shall give 'em all the senses which the Ministers give them and suppose that the Faithful of the fifth Rank were all of 'em born every whit as metaphorical as Aubertin was after he had corrupted his judgment by vain wranglings for thirty years space when we should grant they had all an infused knowledg of 'em and had 'em also as present as the first Principles they could not but see the Real Presence in the expressions of the Fathers either as the true idea which they would mark or as the image of this idea but an image so lively and sensible and denoted by such a great number of expressions that 't is impossible but their mind must have been touch'd with ' em Thirdly Mr. Arnaud uses for the same design the example of other Ministers Who conceiv'd says he a literal sense in the passages produc'd by the Catholicks In fine he uses for this end the very passages of the Fathers and especially one of S. Hilary and another of Gregory of Nysse We shall answer in order these four pretended reasons AS to the first which is taken from th' example of the people of the 11th Century it is evidently ineffectual by means of two essential differences there are between these people and those of the eight first Centuries The first is that the idea of the Real Presence I mean of that about which we dispute was offered to those of the 11th Century by the Disciples and followers of Paschasus who maintain'd and taught it and applied thereunto the passages of the Fathers dazling the eyes of the world by false colours and giving to these passages a sense which the people would never have discovered had they been led by the light of nature But there can be nothing said like this of the people of the eight first Centuries to whom the idea of this substantial and invisible Presence was not yet discovered They had not been taught it nor were they told 't was in this sense they must take the expressions of their Pastors Moreover the people of the 11th Century had not the clear and easie passages of the Fathers proposed to 'em which might give the true meaning of the Sacrament and at the same time serve for an explication to the obscure expressions and by this means shewing 'em only one side of the thing
to say really which is not true and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence and not that of a spiritual and invisible Presence These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over-sorry when they happen for they have a desir'd effect for some time and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer But howsoever 't is certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon conceiving a corporal Presence which he might easily reject by the testimony of his proper senses But to speak the truth there 's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Bread into the Word and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate which became the Body of the Word which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin and which is now in Heaven There 's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant even supposing they were acquainted with his Catechism which is not very likely But supposing they knew it all by heart and comprehended the sense of it they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ which Damascen has since explained more clearly And this is what Gregory supposes also not as the true Faith of the Church but only as a probable opinion according as he formally explains himself Perhaps says he we are in the right AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had he could not thence promise himself any advantage because as we have already observ'd more than once the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought when he shall have proved the Real Presence or Real Absence was distinctly held therein he will be still told the question concerns not those Ages but the following But 't is not the same with me who draw thence several advantages For first neither Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense but the Real Absence in the second Secondly They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one to wit to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature and to be in a condition to acknowledg 't is a novely which was never held in the Church seeing we have shew'd 'em there 's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first are also in the second which is precisely that which is here in question Thirdly Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner yet without denying the thing seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other Fourthly They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence or by a general rejection without denoting any one kind of 'em or by a formal rejection of all the kinds or by a bare view of the nature of things seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible that the third brings no advantage to 'em and that there 's only the second which they can reasonably stick to and which yet they renounce because they find it unjustifiable Fifthly 'T is likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known inconsistency that is to say a pure impossibility and respected as such is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject Sixthly They can no longer say that the ancient formulary of the Communion Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd seeing it had another use which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds Seventhly They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Father 's used in their ordinary instructions brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural signification of each term but on the matter in hand which determin'd them to a figurative sense Eighthly They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th' other Ninthly It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries it hence follows 't was the same by greater reason in the following which were far darker Tenthly And that which is most important is that one may already know by this that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible but easie For there being only two things which can hinder it the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence that is to say the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance neither visible nor invisible and th' other the knowledg diligence and fidelity of the Pastors watching over their Flocks ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors and make them known to their people 'T is already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition and contrary to all probability And as to the other 't is certain it calls in question the credit of all Historians and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this that
in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries th' Ecclesiastical order did not abound with famous men and especially the 10th Century CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's Ninth Book An Examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation HAVING consider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book we must now in order pass on to the 9th whose running Title is The impossibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Mystery of the Eucharist 'T is certain the genuine state of the question is only whether this change has really hapned this other whether 't was possible or impossible is a frivolous question tending to fruitless Speculations and tedious Debates which is what I clearly shew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity And which likewise several Roman Catholicks have acknowledg'd who have written on this Subject since the Author of the Perpetuity Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aside all this part of the In his Preface Dispute and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates wherein the Church of Rome is not concerned nor ought to be mention'd Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publish'd under the name of an Ecclesiastick to one of his Friends distinguishes likewise two quarrels wherein he says I have engaged my self the one against the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the other against the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith and he adds that in this latter I only encounter with a particular person Mr. Pavillon a Priest and Almoner to his Majesty speaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Eucharist The question is not t' examine whether Page 197. the Church could change her belief and how this change could happen for this is a going about the bust and running upon whimsies The question is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned He calls all these pretensions of impossibility frivolous questions and mere whimsies for these Gentlemen do one another right now and then But howsoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart and he obliges us to distinguish on this subject two questions the one whether the change before us has been possible and the other whether it has really hapned 'T is certain that the first appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence as we lately observed for altho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight first Centuries without troubling himself with the following yet 't is easie to perceive that if it could not have place in those Centuries wherein there was greater light it could not by stronger reason in the others wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance Yet for better information in this matter we must see what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impossibility of the change We shall here then discuss again the question whether in supposing that Paschasus an Author of the ninth Century was the first that proposed the Doctrin of the substantial invisible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it might happen that this opinion in succession of time has been receiv'd and establish'd amongst Christians For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th Book and which we shall now examine We shall not in truth find he has made use therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion for he seldom troubles himself about that nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the possibility which I alledged nor defended the Answers of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud does not care to take so much pains But we shall find he has taken care to collect here and there seven or eight passages out of my Book and of them joyn'd together made a body which he calls my Machins and divided them into five orders with titles according to his own fancy He calls the first The Machins of Abridgment the second The Machins of Preparation the third The Machins of Mollifications the fourth The Machins of Execution and the fifth The Machins of Forgetfulness Now altho we may say in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleasant fancies by which he can easily find out odd names to make serious matters look ridiculous yet t' excuse him we may say that in this occasion he has follow'd not his own natural inclination but that of the Cartesian Philosophy with which his mind is said to be extremely taken up for you must know this Philosophy makes Machins of every thing But howsoever let 's see what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine THE first which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my passages the first of which bears That the question is not of the Answer to the second Treatise Part 3. ch 6. Book 9. ch 3. p. 886. whole world but of the West on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name That is to say says he I will not have the question concern it I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has introduc'd it self into the East into the Patriarchats of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem and Antioch into the Churches of the Armenians Nestorians Jacobits I do not care to trouble my self with guessing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia Moscovia Mesopotamia Georgia Mingrelia Moldavia Tartaria and the Indies 'T is better to say 't is not there this is sooner done and by this means I shall free my self out of a great perplexity But says he Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him that he is a man and not God so that neither his words nor his will are always effectual He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Presence to be in all these great Provinces But it is there and will be maugre him The matter depends not on him and we have demonstrated it by proofs which I hope he will not question He fills five great pages with this kind of discourse saying over and over again the same thing Mr. ARNAVD must pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high Is he so possess'd with the charms of his own Eloquence and force of these illusions touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Christians to imagin a man must be a God to cope with him I think considering what we have observed a man need neither be an Angel nor an extraordinary person to demonstrate again clearly that the question concerns not these Churches because they do not at all believe the Roman Transubstantiation and supposing they did believe it which they do not 't would be no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croisado's Seminaries and Missions which is sufficient t' exclude them from this Dispute THE second passage from whence Mr. Arnaud
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
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
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
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
10th Century and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change 's being made with noise THE first of these Answers is already refuted We have nothing to do either with Greeks or Egyptians Moscovites Ethiopians Nestorians Jacobites Armenians nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation THE second Answer is frivolous We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the knowledg of the manner in which the change hapned whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations and Sophisms in their Books but of these we will not here complain We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side whose Successors and Defenders they are to deprive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question and I believe there 's a great deal of Justice in this complaint A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd there are none to be had of 'em at this day We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre the Letter of Raban to Egilon Eriger's Book against Paschasus Berenger's Works their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th Century We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books their real Works have been alter'd and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin I say Answer to Noüet nothing but what may be easily justified and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes advantage of these frauds put upon us and which he knows to be such in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hapned in the Latin Church whence I concluded 't was not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him has devised some distinctions some of 'em imaginary and others unnecessary by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question and they are these differences which we must now examine IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches so that the change has not been vniversal whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world and all Christian Churches This is his first difference which he amplifies and exaggerates after his manner But the answer is not difficult to wit that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches or if there be 't is brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it for its being less universal THE second difference is that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd which is says he extremely different a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches which being divided in such small matters cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers neither could it had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent I confess there 's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd and a new Doctrin that is establish'd But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good For ignorant people are more earnest to conserve their customs which they know than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abolish'd th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is introduc'd for the novelty of it is conceal'd 't is offer'd as being the ancient Faith and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressions turning 'em into another sense Customs are of themselves popular and when they are changed people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em but as to Doctrinals the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please and obediently receive it without any examination As to the rest 't is certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes that when we leave an ancient custom every man takes a different course and follows his own particular judgment For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and genuine explication of the Ancients which was that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have faln upon different sentiments the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Latins that of Transubstantiation But we must not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers had it not been authorised by an universal consent This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive But as the discussion of this question touching the universal
presented as also the Answers of Cardinal Perron which are for the most part but mere illusions WE may reckon amongst the practices depending on a Doctrin that of the relative adoration of Images which has insinuated it self into France and Germany since the 8th and 9th Century For it is certain that in all the foregoing Ages and long after France and Germany rejected this Adoration as unlawful and contrary to true Piety Which appears by the Council of Francfort held under Charlemain and consisting of above three hundred Bishops of France Italy Germany and England wherein the second Council of Nice was condemned This moreover appears by the Book of Images of Charlemain by the Testimonies of Agobard Bishop of Lyons Jonas Bishop of Orleans and Walafridus Strabo by the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonnair and by the Continuer of Climoinus We find likewise in Nicetas Choniatus that the Germans in the 12th Century persisted in this opinion The Germans says he and the Armenians agree in this Nicet Choni l. 2. Page 986. that they reject the worshiping of Images Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny so plain a matter of fact says that the Bishops of Francfort admitted the adoration of the Cross which is only an image of the true Cross that they admitted likewise the historical use of images and that without doing violence to nature the historical use of Images cannot be separated from the relative adorations of the same images But this is an impertinent disputing against the Fathers of Francfort and the Churches that have follow'd them The question is not whether they were contrary to themselves or whether they did violence to nature But whether it be true that the contrary belief and practice have insensibly crept into these very Churches without noise opposition and disputations Now this is what cannot be denied IT is not at all strange says Mr. Arnaud that the particular opinion of these Bishops which is contrary to nature reason and the general consent of the whole Church should be laid aside and that the Popes who used this condescention towards 'em did not openly oppose 'em but tarried till time wore out this Error whereby they have had the success which they expected from so charitable a conduct So far is it from being strange that this should happen that 't would be a greater wonder if this has not hapned This methinks is a disposing too freely of the judgments and consent of rational people It will not then be strange according to Mr. Arnaud that the Popes and all this party that were in the opinion and practice of the relative adoration of Images should use any condescention towards three hundred Bishops assembled in Council the Kingdom of France and all Germany which were in a contrary Belief and practice that they should be cautious of opposing them in this particular and patiently expect till time remedied this mistake But according to the same Mr. Arnaud this will be the greatest of all follies and the highest extravagancy imaginable to suppose that some Paschasists and Bertramists which is to say those that believed the Real Presence and those that believed it not in the 10th Century did not dispute one against another and altho that moreover they were not in a condition to dispute and had other things to trouble themselves about other interests to mind yet must it be a folly to imagin they were of that patient and charitable disposition the Popes were of who referred these things to be remedied by time Mr. Arnaud forbids us to be astonish'd at France and Germanies insensibly changing a Doctrin and a Rite he forbids us to concern our selves about the questions of the birth and progress of this change the stupidity of the Bishops on both sides who look'd upon one another as Excommunicated persons yet without daring to speak to one another about it being withheld by a holy condescention and the hope of the good effects of time and by the marvellous meekness of the Laicks some of whom were worshipers of Images and others not and some of 'em consequently Anathematiz'd by the Council of Nice and others condemned by that of Francfort and yet lived in peace without noise without mutual oppositions without disputes But if we will hear him on the other change touching the Eucharist he commands us not only to be astonish'd but to esteem it a fearful prodigy that the Doctrin of the Real Presence which sprang up in the 9th Century was taught and maintain'd as being the ancient and perpetual Doctrin of the Fathers should make insensible progresses during the darkness of the 10th Century and that there should have been persons in the same Church that have believed it and others that have not without falling foul upon and opposing one another When the question of the adoration of Images was agitated in the East it vehemently heated mens minds so that each party proceeded to Anathema's Banishments and Blood-shed and in the West the contrary party to the Adoration wrote and held Assemblies whereas when the question of the Real Presence was handled in the 9th Century there were neither Councils called nor Anathema's pronounced nor Banishments nor any extraordinary matter Yet in respect of the former Mr. Arnaud will that by virtue of condescention and th' effects of time the Party for the Adoration has insensibly fortifi'd themselves and at length got the upper hand but as to the other he will not grant that the Real Presence could advance and communicate it self to several persons but the whole Universe must be shaken with it Let the Reader then Judg of Mr. Arnaud's equity NOTHING says he is more astonishing than this universal forgetfulness Page 287. in the 11th Century whether there was therein any other Doctrin amongst Christians than that of the Real Presence But who told him that they of the 11th Century forgot the contest which had been in the 9th Was not John Scot's Book burnt by a Council Let him forget it if he will there will redound no advantage to him by it seeing 't is certain that in the 9th Century the Doctrin contrary to the Real Presence was taught I mean that which asserts the Eucharist not to be the Body of Jesus Christ Christ born of the Virgin and that 't is only the Body of Jesus Christ Sacramentally and virtually Moreover Mr. Arnaud does not observe that this very thing is against him for if it be true that those of the 11th Century forgot such a matter of fact as that which is justifi'd by the testimony of Paschasus himself this is a sufficient mark that the 10th Century which holds the middle between the 9th and 11th was o'respread with thick darkness seeing the ideas and memory of a thing so considerable were therein lost BUT we must examin his fourth difference A fourth circumstance Page 960. says he which does further strangely distinguish this pretended change in the Doctrin of the Eucharist
from all these other changes is the very nature of this Doctrin He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation For it is clear that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it which is to say the whole Church I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than whatsoever is done in other changes But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection on the contrary most people love in matters of Religion those things that are surprizing and wonderful of which we see examples in most Religions But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this inconveniency three ways the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almighty power of God The second the publishing of Miracles which really hapned about the Eucharist to wit visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood And the third the asserting 't was always the Faith and belief of the Church accommodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th and 9th Book Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud himself I hope will acknowledg I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage taken out of a Book called The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pretends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night whilst men slept which took root and in time grew up which is very near the manner after which according to us the change was wrought touching the Eucharist This Author has well comprehended it as judging it far from being impossible but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage I should likewise been very glad that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins and in which there have hapned of necessity either amongst the one or the others insensible changes For example how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomination and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation and again that the Church of Rome is not infallible in matters of Faith and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection and in short how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them which is to say that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradition whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preaching of Christianity which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day but that they supported mutually one another which supposes that both of 'em held these Opinions as needless ones and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones Now in whatsoever sort we take it there have of necessity hapned insensible changes without dispute noise and opposition altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em and so contradictorily that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd as in that which has hapned according to us in respect of the Real Presence Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory or Procession of the Holy Spirit or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of or th' administration of Confirmation or Beatifical Vision of the Saints nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points Whence had they their opinions Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of If he did tell 'em of this 't is strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced If he did not tell 'em this 't is then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em and that of all that innumerable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scripture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith how can one conceive these terrible equivocations that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church or generally by the whole Greek Church and that immediately in another they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread and that which is leaven'd and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without divisions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence Has this hapned all at a stroke Was this done insensibly and by succession of time If this has hapned all at once it must be granted this change is
exceeding strange that so many Bishops Priests and Religious should so suddenly renounce their former Opinions and embrace contrary ones without any Divisions amongst ' em But 't is yet strange they should change 'em without perceiving it without acknowledging they had made great and considerable Innovations in their Church and comparing their first and ancient Faith with this new one For 't is certain that in respect of all these Articles which are in contest the Greeks positively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing If this change was wrought by succession of time let us be shew'd the Disputes and Divisions they have had amongst 'em since on these Articles they have separated from the Church of Rome till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins which is to say during above two hundred and fifty years If it be alledg'd the change was made insensibly we must return to the four times of the Author of the Perpetuity and apply to 'em the same difficulties and objections he has raised IN fine if we suppose a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions yet mutually bearing with one another without proceeding to an express condemnation of the contrary Opinions besides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful could suffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith Besides this I say 't will be demanded how they could change so suddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles holding 'em before for unnecessary points and afterwards for necessary ones respecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors and afterwards respecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones whereupon one may make the same questions how it could come to pass that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Eucharist of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheless the true Body of Jesus Christ an object of supreme Adoration and in another that 't was only a dead Azym a Jewish abomination that she should respect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God and at another immediately succeeding the first which is to say from night to morning regard it with horror washing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted WE may apply the same questions and difficulties to the Armenians Jacobites Coptics Nestorians in reference to several of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot shew the original nor tell us after what manner they were dispersed amongst these people nor how they have left the contrary opinions which the Church of Rome still holds as being of Apostolical Tradition How has it hapned for instance that the Nestorians have left the use of Confirmation and that of Extreme Unction that the Jacobites have left that of Confession and the belief of Purgatory that the Coptics have laid aside the Doctrin of Purgatory and use of Extreme Unction and so of the rest For Mr. Arnaud I think would have me suppose that according to him these points have been heretofore held and practis'd by all Christians THESE examples do clearly discover the vanity of these pretended moral impossibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged with such great exaggeration For they may be all as strongly applied to the changes which have hapned in these Eastern Churches and yet it must be granted that these changes hapned there Mr. Arnaud may argue as long as he pleases start questions and raise difficulties these insensible changes are more than possible for they are come to pass either in these Churches or in the Latin which has Opinions and contrary Customs which shews that these Gentlemens whole Philosophy is but a mere Speculation proper only for persons that abound with leisure which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world BUT in short the use which is made of the Seminaries and Missions and the course which the Emissaries take in the East as we have observ'd in the second Book with the project of Thomas à Jesu to make in a short time all the Greeks good Roman Catholicks according as I have related in the fourth Book all this I say shews clearly that at Rome and elsewhere amongst the most zealous it is not at all accounted impossible to introduce insensibly and without disturbance the Doctrins of the Romish Church amongst people that have 'em not and in effect it must be granted that their present labors are not unsuccessful and that time will probably finish the work CHAP. VIII That Paschasus Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and Conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections Answered WE must come now to particular matters of fact which relate to the History of the Change Not but to speak truly this difcussion appears to me very needless considering what we have already done For if the principal question which respects the novelty of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence be ended and moreover there results from our Dispute that the change was possible and that there 's nothing more vain than the objections which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have made on this subject I see not any necessity there is of informing a man's self in what manner this change hapned What matter is it to us who was the first Author of this Innovation who the promoters of it what facilities or difficulties were met with in the establishing of these Doctrins whether Paschasus carried on his business with craft or simplicity whether John Scot Bertram and Raban wrote against him before or after his death What signifies the knowing of these things provided we are certain not only that the change in question was possible but actually hapned And this does now appear so plainly as will satisfie every rational man In examining Mr. Arnaud's 6th and 9th Book we have made it appear that his pretended impossibilities are mere chimera's And as to the actual change besides that we shall always have right to take it for granted by our proofs of fact which is to say by the passages of the Fathers which we have cited till Mr. Arnaud and his friends have taken pains to answer 'em solidly besides this I say what I shewed concerning the Eastern Churches not holding the Doctrins in question neither in the 11th nor following Centuries and the Greeks and Latins not knowing 'em in the 7th and 8th Century is more than sufficient for the concluding that these Doctrins are not of the first establishment of Christian Religion and consequently that their introduction is an innovation Yet will I not desist from examining the points of History which respect this change because this change is indeed the first and principal subject of the Dispute
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
learned but a very honest man a bold defender of the Dissert c. 17. Catholick Faith against all Innovators and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority What likelihood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropolitan and such a man as Hincmar who was countenanced by the King would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Abbot IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say That Paschasus clearly testifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books For this cannot be collected from his expressions unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud Let those says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew that will extenuate the term of Body hear me those that say that 't is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church and that 't is not his true Blood imagining they know not what that 't is in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood and make the Lord a lyar saying that 't is not his true Flesh nor his true Blood by which we declare his true death whereas truth it self says This is my Body And a little lower I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 't is not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing but that it is Sacramentally so a certain virtue of his Flesh and not his Flesh the virtue of his Blood and not his Blood the figure and not the truth the shadow and not the Body And in another place a little further I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly because I understand that some rereprehend me as if I would in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Christ attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises And in his Letter to Frudegard Sed quidam says he loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt quaecunque possunt ne credant quoe veritas repromittit opponunt dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile visible hoec autem inquiunt quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt nec palpari ideo corpus non sunt si corpus non sunt in figura carnis sanguinis hoec dicuntur non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi sanguinis quoe caro passa est in cruce nata de Maria Virgine Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence That he had several clear and solid objections offered him whether by word of mouth or writing or by Books or bare discourses he does not inform us But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection dispute censure and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion Opponunt says he quoecunque possunt Ecce quam bene disputant dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem Audivi quosdam me reprehendere c. Do men thus express themselves when they would represent private discourse But says Book 3. ch 8. p. 843. Mr. Arnaud Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard assures that altho some are deceived thro ignorance yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery I answer that the sense of Paschasus is that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery to wit that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according as 't is express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi and by the words of Christ This is my Body Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ and to the terms of the Liturgy but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy and to those of Christ explain'd themselves very plainly against him for there 's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em They confessed that the words were true and could not be question'd without a crime but yet this hindred 'em not from setting ' emselves against the sense of Paschasus Paschasus pretends to draw advantage against 'em by their acknowledging the words imagining the words were plainly for him but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him nor against the sense he gave these words This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds just as if any one having said that there 's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there 's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses But pray why must these be secret discourses during Paschasus his life seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal question to wit whether Paschasus was an Innovator Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church which gives says he such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence Book 8. ch 9. in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it He adds That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it according to the state of their time do overthrow this ridiculous Fable To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries and Latin Authors of the 7th and 8th for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires Let 's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us HE has recourse next
Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paschasus to his face how knows he this that he can be so confident of it Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it No. But 't is because Paschasus says Audivi quosdam me reprehendere I am inform'd that some blame me Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence and that an Author may speak thus altho he was told of his fault to his face In fine who inform'd Mr. Arnaud that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew which were publish'd not till thirty years after A frivolous reason as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em and endeavours to defend himself It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud NOT only adds he he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors Page 850 851. Friends and Brethren but he still believed the whole Church was on his side For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his unknown adversaries of whom he had notice by the Authority of the whole Church and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Ecclesiam He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur In short he accuses those as highly criminal who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue contrary to the consent of the whole Earth Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes universaliter verum esse fatentur I answered the Author of the Perpetuity That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all question the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief and from the Churches saying in her Canon Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi to which the people answered Amen That there 's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin but which are not so greatly favorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin HERE says Mr. Arnaud is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude ' s invention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less and to distinguish by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot distinguish Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church either this proposition that 't is the common Doctrin of the Church is so clear and evident that the Adversaries themselves must grant it or it is not so clear nor evident but that 't is questionable As to the first case a man need not trouble himself to prove it for it s taken for a Principle and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting For instance When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect but also for all men in general that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just according to the present condition of their ability that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of the Communion it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church that there needs no proving 'em and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles there 's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles and he would have only hence consequences drawn against him As to the second case that is to say when 't is not clear that this is the Faith of the Church and that this point is in dispute both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses one which regards precisely the present Church which is to say the Church in the time of the contest the other which respects the Church in the preceding times which is to say before the controversie it may also receive two sorts of proofs some which refer to the present time others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us When a man proves for the time present he alledges testimonies of the modern Church when he proves for the past time he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good or bad conclusive or not conclusive TO apply this to the matter in hand I say That Paschasus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ Audivi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromittit and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sangainis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin multi dubitant says he several times And in fine others that erred thro ignorance which is to say that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed Quamvis plurimi says he dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta And a little lower Quamvis ex
nature but only in Sacrament contradict the Church Here he acts the part of a Disputer if his arguing be good we will believe him if it be a Sophism we 'll not matter it Now 't is a sophism for according to the maxim of S. Augustin The Sacraments assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments so that to deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Body of Jesus Christ BVT adds Mr. Arnaud 't is moreover false that this is only a consequence Book 8. ch 9. p. 852. For this proposition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Presence was included both in the Principle and Conclusion of Paschasus his argument He concludes That those who deny the Real Presence commit an horrid crime in opposing the Faith of the Church Here we have it comprehended in the conclusion Did ever man hear such kind of reasoning 'T is false that this is only a consequence because 't is a proposition contain'd in the conclusion This is just as if a man should say 't is false that it is day Why Because the Sun is at his heighth for for to be day and the Sun to be at its heighth are not more the same thing than to be a consequence and to be a proposition contained in the conclusion of an argument Are these the prodigious effects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick And the Principle of this conclusion is adds he not that the Church simply recites these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui but understands them in the sense of the Real Presence Which is what I deny The Principle whereon Paschasus argues is no other than this That the Priest says Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui and the People answer Amen That the Church did or did not understand this of the Real Presence is what Paschasus does not touch on He is careful not to advance so far Had he known says Mr. Arnaud that the Church took these words in another sense he must needs be a mad man to reproach as he does these persons for being contrary to the sense of the whole Church He supposes then this for a Princile that the whole Church took them in the sence of a Real Presence and consequently supposes she held entirely this Doctrin This is mere wrangling Paschasus does not say that these persons against whom he inveighs were contrary to the sense of the Church but only that they went against the Church to wit inasmuch as they went according to him contrary to the terms of the Liturgy Secondly Whether he did or did not know that the Church took these terms in another sense 't is not necessary to enquire seeing he does not explain himself therein and speaks neither far or near of the sense of these terms And 't is likely he knew there were at least three sorts of persons in the Church the doubters the ignorant and formal adversaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this sense Thirdly Supposing we say not that Paschasus was mad but argued like a Sophister what inconvenience will follow and what shall we say more than appears from the bare reading of his discourse He would have the Church on his side what could be more easie supposing at that time the conversion of substances and Real Presence were believed than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church Bishops Religious the Doctors and generally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor less and there only needed them to be consulted Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them His Adversaries could not have denied this truth and had they the impudence to do it they might easily be convinc'd by a million of persons then living Why had he recourse to arguing and consequences Why must this consequence be drawn by the hair out of a passage of the Liturgy which may receive I know not how many explications Why did he not at least say 't was certain the Church understood this clause in the sense of a Real Presence Wherefore was he silent touching the sense and argued only from the force of these terms Corpus dilectissimi filii tui c. as if all those that utter these terms or add to em their Amen believ'd the Real Presence Which shews us two things the first that Paschasus acted like a Sophister sheltering himself as well as he could under the Authority of the Church against the reproach objected against him of being a Visionary and an Enthusiast and the other that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud supposes he had which is that the whole Church was of his opinion and the people commonly believed the Real Presence and conversion of substances of Bread and Wine he would not have fail'd to make the best of it and o'rewhelm his adversaries with it Mr. ARNAVD will now then perhaps comprehend that there 's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain and of which he himself is a witness and one that draws a consequence and perhaps will no longer say That my distinction separates by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot separate And at the same time acknowledg that never pretension was worse grounded than that of the Author of the Perpetuity and his own They affirm the whole Church was of Paschasus his mind But whereon do they ground their supposition Were the Adversaries of Paschasus agreed about it No. Does Paschasus himself expresly affirm it No. But 't is because Paschasus insinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made use of But does Paschasus formally assert that the Church understood this term in the sense which he gave it No. But 't is because Paschasus must thus understand it says Mr. Arnaud to make his reasoning just Take away then from Paschasus his reasoning the justness which Mr. Arnaud would give it the subintâ—lligitur is annull'd and these Gentlemen bare of proofs THESE words of Paschasus says Mr. Arnaud Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem furnish us with another proof of the same nature For they shew that this solution of virtue was new and that Paschasus had not learn'd it but of late Mr. Arnaud does well to advertise us that 't is a proof of the same nature as the others for 't is so in effect that is to say a very slight one and scarcely worth offering Paschasus is astonish'd at what his Adversaries say in reference to virtue not that this solution appears to him new He says nothing of it in this respect but because it does not appear to him
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
a man ought to approach to 'em the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book All this is contained under the word intelligence and he comprehends it therein himself in explaining afterwards what he means by this term and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence The question then is whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illusions At the entrance of his second Chapter wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance and remedy the evils it caused he describes it in this manner Sacramentum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur nemo sidelium ignorare debet nemo nescire quid ad fidem quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was Paschasus tells you immediately Nescire quid ad fidem Paschas de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 2. quidve ad scientiam pertineat Here are precisely the two parts of Mr Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection and nescire quid ad scientiam is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence So that Paschasus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith which is to say according to him the Real Presence and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things But let us hear Paschasus further Fides says he est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute We must instruct our Faith lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not sufficiently discerning this Sacrament and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it Can any man explain himself more clearly The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which in his sense signifies not to know that 't is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and th' intelligence on the contrary consists in knowing it But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity and knows not the circumstance of it and does not truly know that 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth is to be it substantially and really Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this and by the reason of contraries the intelligence consists in knowing it according to Paschasus Mr. ARNAVD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter intended only to shew the necessity there is of instructing persons before they come to receive the Communion but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church and that on the contrary this necessity of instruction in the manner which he exaggerates denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Presence But this evasion will not serve turn For besides that Paschasus says expresly That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard where it cannot be denied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church I say there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he understands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book For having immediately proposed as from the part of Frudegard the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi Sanguis esse dicatur which respects as Epist ad Frud every one sees the Article of the Real Presence and having endeavoured to satisfie it he passes over to another objection which respects the same Real Presence Multi says he ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood He answers this Objection as well as he can then immediately adds Here you have dear Brother what came into my thoughts at present and because you are one part of my self I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 't is necessary As to your self I desire you would read over again my Book touching this matter which you say you have heretofore read and if you find therein any thing reprehensible or doubtful refuse not the labor of reading it again For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence His whole preceding dispute was on this Article and these terms If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful can only relate to the same Article for there was no question of any thing else When then he adds That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery 't is clear that he has respect to the same thing and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil I need only represent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory the Council of Ephesus S. Jerom and some others he adds Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point What can be
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
with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressions endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpetuity and which is not necessary to repeat here Mr. Arnaud answers That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is that these Sacramental Page 866. expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence But if they do agree 't is by constraint and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms When Paschasus says for example In pane vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi potestate divina peragitur What violence must not be offered these terms to accommodate them to the change of the substance of Bread For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour is an expression which naturally includes this sense that the substance remains with its colour What violence must not be offered these other terms Caro Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est sed judicium quod percipio quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation For naturally these terms signifie that 't is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions altho that in effect they were contrary to him whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the other assures us that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church in such a manner that he has opened the way to others The first idea which these words present us with is that Paschasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly and in plain and precise terms for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond And 't will signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that these passages mean only that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in Book 8 ch 10. page 867. several of the Fathers Writings according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Vnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers so he has been follow'd by all that came after him This answer is an illusion for 't is far from completely answering Sirmond's words Genuinum says he Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus explicuit Invita pasch ut viam coeteris aperuit qui de eodem argumento multa postea scripsere He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers but that he first explain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church Before him according to Sirmond this true sentiment which is to say the Doctrin of the Real Presence for this is what he means was a confused and hidden matter Paschasus was the first who brought it to light and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him Till his time this way lay hid he found it first entred into it and by his example moved others to do the same Now this is the honestest confession imaginable that Paschasus was the first Author of this Doctrin for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church and this way are nothing else but the Real Presence and he was the first discoverer of it There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity nor of S. Cyril in respect of the Incarnation nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks but it can never be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church for it was explain'd and distinctly known before them The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead acknowledged two Natures and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time and S. Austin's and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me and which he has endeavoured to answer But besides these there are also some others which he has past over in silence and of which 't will not be amiss to put him in mind I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger which makes Paschasus precisely as we do the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine Sententia says he imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi Apud Lanfranc lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini The opinion or rather folly of the Vulgar of Paschasus and Lanfranc that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Consecration Lanfrac who cites these words says a little after that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome 't was known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem injustissime nihilo minus assertum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi And his Letter to Ascelin You are Tom. 2. Spic in not advitam Lanfran ad Luc. D' Actery says he of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature contrary to the Gospel contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle if you are of Paschasus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in
and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries But in short if we will consult Mr. Arnaud he will tell us on the contrary Book 8. ch 11. Page 870. that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it but that this does not appear to be true That Amalarius indeed was a Sterconarist but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence Thus these Gentlemen who so greatly insult over us when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History or conjecture do not always agree among themselves one says Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence the one makes him together with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus and th' other protests 't is not likely to be true TO clear up this confusion we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius and judg of his Doctrin from it self He tells us then first That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass are transacted Praesat ad lib. de Offic. Eccl. as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion as he himself commands us saying Every time you do this do it in remembrance of me and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine is in Sacrament of Christ the Bread the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ as the Bread the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ It appears from these words that in the stile of Amalarius to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it and hold the place of it for this is precisely what these terms signifie The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion and these other terms the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ When then he adds that the Bread the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ it is clear he means they stand in stead of it and represent them and this resemblance which he inserts afterwards between the Bread the Wine and the Water and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em confirm the same thing and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves Mr. ARNAVD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of Book 8. ch 4. p. 783. sense and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucharist but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this distinction and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine that he represents therein our Saviour Christ and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions To be in Sacrament according to him is to represent and stand for the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ they are not then really this Body and Blood AMALARIVS himself does clearly explain his mind in another Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book â— ch 7. page 834. place saying That the Priest bows himself and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence because Agapius has made use of it and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist and that wherein he has been in his Passion and that wherein he now is in Heaven For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions But all this is but a mere evasion Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state holds the place of himself in another state He ingenuously says that which is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ he has already told you that 't is Bread and Wine which are immolated and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere The Oblation and the Cup Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26. signifie our Lords Body and when Jesus Christ has said This is the Cup of my Blood he meant his Blood which was in his Body as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup he represents the Body of Jesus Christ which is risen from the dead by that which the Priest or the People eat is represented this Body of Jesus Christ which is still on the Earth to wit his Church and by that which remains on the Altar is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre to wit the faithful dead IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by Book 8. ch 4. p. 785. men because she believes 't is our Lords Body and Blood and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction For 't is true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the Eucharist is because 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this is not a matter in contest the question is only to know in what manner this is 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words Credimus Ibid. naturam simplicem panis vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem scilicet Corporis Sanguinis Christi We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature to wit of the Body and Blood of Christ For his sense is not that there 's made a real conversion of one nature into another but that there 's made a mystical conversion by which 't is no longer mere Bread and Wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Body
advantage But moreover says Mr. Arnaud how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any person nor reproached to those that taught ' em There are strange instances of this and here is one from amongst the rest which is singular in its kind Photius testifies that Theodorus Mospueste wrote a Book against the Doctrin of Original Sin Both East and West have been as greatly animated against this Author as can be imagin'd He was condemned even after his Death in the fifth Council There was never then any person to be less favoured than he Yet we do not find that this Capital Error observed by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th Century in the very time when Theodorus was used with most severity We must acknowledg with Mr. Arnaud that these kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church it follows that this Church has held it and approved it are not convincing and what he relates of Theodorus of Mospueste is a considerable argument of it But it must also be granted that never man was more at variance with himself than Mr. Arnaud for what he now said overthrows the better part of his Book Those that have read it may remember that the greatest part of his dispute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments perfectly like unto those which he now condemns The Greeks says he without ceasing have not condemned then Transubstantiation of the Latins Therefore they believed it with ' em Cerularius did not concern himself at Berenger's condemnation he believed the Transubstantiation Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Presence and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it therefore they were agreed in this Article We can scarcely meet with any thing else but these kind of conclusions in every page He does the same on the subject of the other Schismatical Churches he argues from the silence of the Emissaries the silence of the Popes the silence of the Armenians and that of the Nestorians and others When the question concern'd the 12th Century how many times has he remembred thâ— necessity of the Disputes of the Paschasists and Bertramists how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned at their not baiting one another And when the discourse was about Paschasus and the Innovation which we charge him with with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument That Paschasus was not publickly reprehended by any person for thirty years was never punish'd nor admonish'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick what he says now of this great number of errors in Ecclesiastical Authors which have been never animadverted by any body nor reproach'd to those who have taught ' em Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Mospueste and that of John Scot of whom he says likewise afterwards that it does not appear that these errors have been condemned by any Ecclesiastical Censure of that Age and that of Raban for he supposes he might have erred on the Eucharist by a capital Error in denying the Real Presence and he affirms that in this case 't will not be strange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error lay I say all this together and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book retrench whatsoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us and I am sure you 'l reduce his Volume into a less compass by half AFTER these first Answers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps Page 876. well satisfi'd he hazards another which is that this proposition That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Real Body born of the Virgin may have two senses the one that the external part of the Sacrament which is to say the visible vail is not really the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really white round and has not in it self all these sensible accidents which appear to us the other that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really contain'd in the Sacrament He pretends that Raban denied this proposition only in the first sense and not in the second But this answer has neither sincerity nor truth in it First it confounds what ought necessarily to be distinguish'd For 't is not the same thing to believe that the visible Vail which is to say the accidents of Bread are really the Body of Jesus Christ and to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round and has in it self all the sensible accidents which appear to us There is a great deal of difference between these two as any man may see Supposing a man believed that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round 't will not hence follow he must say that this whiteness and this roundness which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud speaks of were really the Body of Jesus Christ In the second place I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that these sensible accidents of whiteness and roundness in abstracto as they term it are really the Body of Jesus Christ and whosoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy charges him with opposing such an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind AS to the other proposition That the Body of Jesus Christ is really white and round as 't is not customary to express it in these terms That the Eucharist is the same Body which was born of the Virgin so 't is not usual to refute it in these That the Eucharist is not the same Body which was born of the Virgin and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is so forced and remote from the natural sense of Raban his words that there are few reasonable persons to whom 't will not appear a pitiful evasion YET does Mr. Arnaud earnestly urge not only that 't was the sense of Raban to attack this Proposition but likewise that of Bertram in his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini And altho the anonymous Author who according to all probability lived about the 9th Century expresly says that Raban and Bertram refuted Paschasus Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the contrary and says that he demonstratively proves it He says for this effect That there were people in that time who grosly said that the Body of Jesus Christ was such as the Sacrament appeared to be which is to say that the Body of Jesus Christ has really the form of Bread That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded that the Body of Jesus Christ issued thro the pores and applied unto it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur That it is apparent from the accusation which Florus forms against him of having corrupted France by these fantastical opinions that Amalarius had
yields us a demonstrative proof that Paschasus was an Innovator for the rest do not speak like him there are two of the famousest of 'em viz. Raban and Bertram who have expresly applied themselves to the refuting of his Doctrin TO these two we may add a third which is John Scot who wrote also by the command of Charles the Bald against the novelties of Paschasus His Book was burnt in the Council of Verseil and we understand from the testimony of Ascelinus in his Letter to Berenger that the end which he proposed was to shew in this Book that what is Consecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body nor the true Blood of Jesus Christ Toto nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video ut mihi persuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Consecratur neque vere Corpus neque vere Christi Sanguinem esse hoc autem astruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opusculis quae prave exponit The Author of the Dissertation which Mr. Arnaud has inserted in his 12th Book pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram and that of John Scot are the same He endeavours likewise to lessen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adversary to Paschasus and I had not finish'd this Work without examining his Conjectures had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud I hope this friend of mine will soon publish his Piece which will or I am greatly deceived fully satisfie every unprejudic'd man that seeks the truth CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book HAving satisfied whatsoever respects the matter of this Dispute my design wherein I am engaged of returning an exact answer to Mr. Arnaud's volume seems to require I should now pass to the discussion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled personal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me The interest also of my defence against Mr. Arnaud's injustices obliges me to this Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province for there are several reasons hindering me which I hope judicious persons will not disallow FIRST these personal differences are handled in so sharp and hot a manner so full of animosities that 't were better a thousand times to pass 'em over in silence and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety Patience and Christian Charity than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly and repel Mr. Arnaud's outrages which cannot be well done without sometimes exceeding the bounds of Christian moderation MOREOVER altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reason to believe that the publick will take part with what respects their persons yet I cannot pretend 't is the same with me These Gentlemen have made a noise in the world they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France Spain and Italy Whereas I am person obscure enough and whose name is only known by my interest in this Dispute so that 't will be a presumption in me to believe the publick will concern it self in my respect Should I then here begin with a long discussion of our complaints and reciprocal defences the readers might well say to one another that they have nothing to do with this and that 't is an abuse of their patience after a long discourse of things which relate to the cause to engage them further in a tiresom discourse of Personal Differences IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongst his Personal Differences several things to which 't is impossible to answer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of ' emselves have no coherence with that of the Eucharist I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity against the first Reformers which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner grounding it on Facts and Principles some of which are false others taken in a wrong sense and others invidiously perverted How can we handle in a few words so important a subject when the question concerns the justifying the innocency of several great men and to shew at the same time the justice and necessity of our separation from the Roman Church 'T is plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters and that this is matter for a great Volume I reduce under this head these passionate expressions which begin the 9th Chapter of this 11th Book and which I design to relate here that the world may judg of ' em We demand justice says Mr. Arnaud speaking of me for the excesses of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honesty and truth which even Pagans would blush to violate We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this license We are already satisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promise impunity to all manner of crimes provided they be of the faithful Calvinists who commit them and we do not question him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adversaries We know the solutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear contrary to what S. Paul says who tells us that slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But that which we desire to know is whether they have of late taken away from Crimes the name of Crimes and stript them of the general infamy which accompanies 'em whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongst Calvinists and whether they have sanctified this name which is so horrible amongst men that they could not find a blacker to shew their detestation of it than to call such Devils I design not to repel these discourses to be met with scattered throughout his whole Book any otherwise than by reciting 'em or at most by censuring 'em as excesses which do not at all become a person who pretends to correct our morals and teach us virtue and moderation I shall not retort upon him several things in my turn which a just and natural defence seems to permit and enjoyn me to tell him But I pretend to justifie so well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud blush for shame that he has attackt them with such an outragious and malicious air And this we cannot do here transiently nor by way of answer to ten or twelve hot periods which like lightning have more fire than matter 'T is necessary for this purpose to be disengaged from all other subjects for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it to cure a wound than to make it AND these are the reasons which withhold me from entring into an exact discussion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book But because there are in these Personal Differences some Articles which I cannot wholly pass over in silence having too near a relation to the things which we treat of the Readers
this supposition was contrary to that of Vsher he makes Amalarius again an adversary to Paschasus so that by a manifest contradiction he pretends that the Council which condemned Amalarius and Amalarius who was condemned by the Council were of one mind and equally contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus on the subject of the Eucharist So far is what the Author of the Perpetuity says TO answer this accusation I said that this pretended contradiction was Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 1. a fable That Mr. Blondel did not so much as think of Bishop Usher and that the part which the Author of the Perpetuity gives to this Bishop in this adventure was a mere Romantick whimsie That in the main there was no contradiction in what Mr. Blondel said for asserting on one hand that Amalarius was censured by the Synod of Cressy for writing that the Body of Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite and on the other that Amalarius had been one of those that contradicted the novelties of Paschasus and in fine that he does not separate the Fathers of Cressy from the number of these Opponents these three things were very consistent together because it did not follow from the Synod of Cressy ' s condemning the triform and tripartite Body that they adopted for this all Paschasus his Fancies touching the Real Presence LET us now see Mr. Arnaud's defence He assures us that what the Author Book 11. ch 4. p. 1108 1109. of the Perpetuity has asserted touching Bishop Vsher is a very likely conjecture that if it be a Romantick whimsie 't is not an impossible one For 't is more than probable that Blondel who was a man of great reading writing on a matter was not ignorant of the opinion of a person so much esteemed by his own Party as Bishop Usher deservedly was that moreover 't is a Romance that tends only to excuse Blondel and not to criminate him for it being certain that he has contradicted himself 't is always better that this has been done with some appearance of reason as is that of following the opinion of a famous Author than without any probability IS not this a mere mockery of us or of the Author of the Perpetuity to defend him after this rate This Author relates to us as a matter of fact that Vsher believ'd such and such a thing that Blondel finding advantage in the opinion of Vsher has taken part of it that he has joyn'd this part with what he likewise found in the Epitomy of William of Malmsbury not considering that the one was contrary to the other Now we demand of him where he found this fine History seeing there appears nothing of it in Blondel's Book And Mr. Arnaud answers that 't is a conjecture very likely that if it be a Romance 't is a Romance that is possible to be true and one which tends to excuse Blondel because 't is better he be deceived with some pretext than without any LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases in what Morals he has found 't was permitted the Author of the Perpetuity to pay us with his conjectures and his possible Romances instead of true Histories and to tell stories at random to render Mr. Blondel ridiculous because 't is better he should be ridiculous for some reason than for none We thank him for his Charity but 't is excessive and unnecessary for what need was there he should charge his Conscience with this pious fraud to extenuate a chimerical dishonor seeing the pretended contradiction of Mr. Blondel is but a mere imagination SVPPOSING says Mr. Arnaud we have no other ground to prove Page 1110. that the Council of Cressy were Calvinists but their condemning of Amalarius to suppose hereupon Amalarius was a Calvinist this is a contradicting of a man's self and this is what Blondel does How ill does Mr. Arnaud defend his Friend 'T is not true that Blondel grounded himself on what he says of the Synod of Cressy in that this Synod has condemned Amalarius We shall find nothing of this in his Book And supposing he did ground himself on it he might do it without falling into contradiction and without giving occasion to the accusation of the Author of the Perpetuity for he might draw a negative argument thence in this sense That this Synod which could not be ignorant what was the Doctrin of Amalarius touching the Real Presence contented themselves with censuring in him some expressions as that of Corpus triforme tripartitum without handling his Doctrin at bottom which is a mark that in this respect they were agreed with him and consequently that they rejected the Real Presence as well as Amalarius Now in this case one might well dispute the force of this proof but there is no likelihood of making a contradiction of it But in fine to decide clearly this question and to shew Mr. Arnaud how dangerous it is for a man to give himself over to too great desires of finding fault and to decry Authors I need only say that when Mr. Blondel reckons the Synod of Cressy amongst the number of those that have followed Paschasus he does not speak of that Synod which condemned Amalarius but of another that was held ten years after In effect he formally distinguishes these two Synods saying of one That this conception of Amalarius that the Body of Illucidations on the Eucharist ch 18. p. 421 422. Ibid. p. 427. Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite was improved in the year 848. by the Council of Cressy and on the other that several contradicted Paschasus as Amalarius Raban Heribald Bertram or Ratram John surnam'd Erigenus from whom says he I do not separate Walafridus Strabo Abbot of Richeneau nor Florus a Divine of Lyons nor the Body of the Bishops assembled in the year 858. at Cressy These are then two different Synods the one held in the year 848. and the other in the year 858. Of the one he says that it condemned the Corpus triforme tripartitum of Amalarius of the other that he does not separate them from those who contradicted Paschasus what contradiction is here Had these Gentlemen who have faln no less than three times on this affair of Mr. Blondel taken the pains to read over the place of his Book here in question they would have found what I now tell 'em touching the distinction of these Synods and desisted from maintaining their fabulous History and imaginary contradiction THESE two examples suffice to shew the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's defences We must now come to his complaints and accusations and discover the injustice and unreasonableness of 'em in few words which will be no hard matter to do FIRST he complains that I offered some lessening expressions in reference to the Author of the Perpetuity on the subject of Bertram or Ratram that I opposed the praises which the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers gives this person and thereupon remark'd
corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript He wrote a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Virgin against three Infidels We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touching the Eucharist was father'd on the famous Raban as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book and that Raban was of a contrary opinion to Paschasus But without such appearance and without any ground proof or Witnesses we must be gravely told that Berenger or his Disciples who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing have fathered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome and which is in effect John Scots and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition which no body before ever imagin'd what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation as I shall shew hereafter In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing 't is evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation In effect if he had not this consideration how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd seeing he himself supposes that 't is John Scots First Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece Secondly That 't was so before at Paris by a kind Durand Troar de Corp. Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest cap. 31. Epist ad Berenger in Lanf oper of Synod who censured it in the same terms Thirdly That another Council at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil Fourthly That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood as Hincmar and Ascelin say Fifthly That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Paschasus Sixthly That in the 12th Century Cellot's anonymous Author testifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century Seventhly That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him Eighthly That in effect Bertram's Book was attributed to Oecolampadius Ninthly That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes Tenthly That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em not being able to admit the Doctrin have affirm'd it has been altered In fine that the Author of the Dissertation himself acknowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buckler for 'em which 't was their interest to preserve at the expence of the greatest fraud and treachery DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself that the Councils of the 11th Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one That Pope Leo IX Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were deceived in it that Berenger nor his Adversaries nor his Disciples have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dispute and that in fine the 12th Century remain'd in as great an ignorance I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do which is to say that it is obscure and perplexed in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it But that I may handle more fully this point I intend to establish clearly two things First That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is in effect Ratram's and not John Scot's Secondly That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram TO confirm this truth I shall first bring as convincing proofs as can be brought for these kind of Facts Secondly I shall produce the acknowledgment of the most learned Romanists who have acknowledged this verity even since some of 'em have question'd it Lastly I shall shew that this is not a discovery which Vsher first made and that whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation brings against that Prelates proofs cannot overthrow them See here the proofs FIRST Sigebert a Monk of Gemblou attributes in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to the Author of the Book of Predestination Now this Book of Predestination is acknowledged to be Ratram's And in effect altho Suffridus Petrus who caused Sigebert's Catalogue to be Printed has inserted the name of Bertram in his Edition he does himself remark that two Manuscripts one of the Abby of Gemblou the other of the Priory of Vauvert had distinctly the name of Ratram and not that of Bertram This testimony of Sigebert is considerable for three reasons First Because he was one of the most inquisitive Historians of his time as appears by his Chronicle Secondly Because he did not write his Catalogue till he had spent the greatest part of his life in the reading of the Authors of which he speaks in his Catalogue Thirdly Because that having lived a great while in the 11th Century for he died but in the year 1113. he had a particular knowledg of what passed in the Disputes between Berenger and his Adversaries and the Authors which were alledged on either hand AS Trithemius in his Catalogue has followed Sigebert excepting that he spoke more particularly of the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination it is plain that altho it has likewise the name of Bertram or Bertramnus he design'd Ratramnus and that the rather that 't
with its consequences as the Adoration the Sacrifice c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable Heresie Now 't is certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot. HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram I might pass by whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture of Mr. De Marca and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca no man of learning nor any of Berenger's enemies either in the 11th Century or in the following made this discovery seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust that he might handsomly leave it if he were forced It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a forein Title Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity THESE proofs are 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other AS to the first our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to Ibid. sect 1. Berenger whence he believes one may gather that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book and that small enough that a man cannot presently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fathers and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose that amongst others John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory which begins with these words Perficiant in nobis and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin whom he principally made use of as Berenger insinuates he forms his conclusion in these terms Specie geruntur ista non veritate And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram are either uneflectual for his design or want a foundation 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark They must if they are endued with common sense from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs These two Characters then are too general and wide And for the two last considerations 1. Who doubts that two Authors one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other as Ratram may have read that of John Scot may not cite the same authorities Ratram and Raban have done it as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot 2. 'T is not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors and should he have said it this character would be too general there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th Century who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors 3. Our Author ought not to propose as a character of identity that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis as John Scot has done for to speak properly this conclusion Specie geruntur ista non veritate is not of Bertram nor of John Scot but the Text it self of the Prayer which bears Vt quoe nunc specie gerimus veritate capiamus now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion and that they could neither of 'em do it in a more natural manner than in forming it thus Specie gerunter ista non veritate We must also observe and that as Ascelin relates that John Scot cited this Orison under the name of S. Gregory whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words it is not so great in respect of the construction of ' em Bertram having these words In specie geruntur ista non in veritate and John Scot these Specie geruntur ista non in veritate which proves that these are two different Authors THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger who informs us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France and that this King was Charlemain Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram which is dedicated to Charlemain and was written by his order BUT these conformities conclude nothing not the first because 't was very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject one who dwelt in his Palace to wit John Scot and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination to wit Ratramnus This Character is too general Not the second for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist were inscribed Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem but only Ad Carolum Regem which is what one may recollect from Sigebert from the Abbot Trithemius from John Bishop of Rochester and the De Script Eccl. catai c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog in
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
Man whose Voyages are Translated into French by Mr. De Vicqfort speaking of these same Georgiens in Herbert's Voyages L. 2. P. 244. the City of Assepose saies he and thereabouts dwell near forty thousand Georgiens and Circassians who all of 'em profess Christianity but live most miserable Lives being Slaves and destitute moreover of all Knowledg of the Christian Mysteries only they have a great Veneration for St. George who was Bishop of Cappadocia and their Apostle AS to what concerns the Coptites they are said to be as Ignorant as any of Thevenot's Voyages Part 2. C. 75. the rest These Coptites saies Mr. Thevenot are a sort of very dul and stupid People so that there can be hardly found a Person amongst them who is fit to be a Patriarch Montconys after the same manner tells us that the Coptites Montconis Voyages P. 129. hold the heretical Doctrine of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and are very Ignorant in matters of Religion EUGENIUS Roger a Franciscan Fryer one of the Popes Emissaries Description of the Holy Land L. 2. in Barbary speaking of these Coptites tells us That this Nation is the most dull and Ignorant of all the Eastern Christians They are never heard to discourse concerning Divine Mysteries or Religious Matters The greatest part of their Priests can neither Write nor Read and seem to act with as little Reflection as bruit Beasts as far as I could perceive all the time I sojourned in Egypt He adds that the greatest part of the Religious who dwell in Monasteries in the Deserts of Thebes are extream Brutish and work like Horses Mr. De Sponde Bishop of Pamiez giving an Account in his Annals of a Spond Ann. Tom 3. Ann. 1561. pretended Union of the Coptites with the Church of Rome made in the Year 1561 Pius the fourth being Pope he tells us amongst other things that their Patriarch whose Name was Gabriel was a very ignorant Man and one of their Errors was they reckoned seven Sacraments and instead of those of Marriage Confirmation and extream Unction they substituted Faith Fasting and Prayer which they adopted into the Number of Sacraments The Armenians are no less Ignorant for Anthony de Gouveau tells us Gouveau's Relations L. 3. C. 3. P. 368. they are a Peope wholly Unlearned and Simple and that moreover David their Patriarch knew no more than only to Write and Read in his own Language which is adds he a thing very common amongst them JOHN Barbereau a Jesuit whom I already mentioned saies they are in Constantinople to the number of above sixty Thousand and are if possible more Ignorant than the Greeks They hold the same Errors with them and have a particular Heresy which distinguishes them from the rest Their Ignorance addeth he is so great that I have heard themselves say they never go to Church Forrain Lettors Let. 1. but when they Consecrate knowing neither the Use nor Design of that Mystery and who can instruct them in these things their Patriarchs and Prelates are busied in getting Mony like the Greeks that they may have whereon to live VINCENT le Blanc speaking of the Christians of the India's called the Christians of St. Thomas and who follow the Nestorian Heresy the Le Blanc's Voyages Part 1. P. 115. Christians of these Places saies he have still retained some part of the Instructions left them by St. Thomas but they are extream Ignorant in the principal Articles of Faith and know not how to sing in their Churches so that 't is a hard matter to keep them in any kind of Tune THE Inhabitants of the Isle of Socotora saies Du Jarric the Jesuit call themselves Christians being likewise Christians of St. Thomas that is to say History of the East Indias L. 1. C. 6. P. 84. Nestorians they very much honour and reverence the Cross They are all of them very Ignorant so that they can neither Write nor Read and 't is the same with their Caciques that is to say their Priests who having learned certain Prayers by rote sing them in the Church and often repeat a Word which comes near to our Halleluja THIS same Du Jarrick who wrote the History of the Reduction of the Nestorians of Malabar to the Obedience of the Pope which was brought to pass by Alexis de Meneses Arch-Bishop of Goa in the Year 1599 does sufficiently set forth the Ignorance of this People For he tells us that there was so great Confusion amongst them in respect of the essential form of Baptism that every Cacanar for so do they call their Priests baptised after a several manner and the greatest part of them addeth he cannot be said in any kind to administer the Sacrament seeing they use not Words essential thereunto So that the Arch-Bishop found one of the greatest Towns of this Bishoprick of Angomalé to have bin deficient in this important Point of our Religion whereupon he privately Baptised the greatest part of the People after a right and due manner He relateth moreover that there were several amongst them who were not Baptised at all and yet received the Eucharist which was a very common thing amongst them that they usually did not Baptise their Children till some Months or Years after their Birth and that there were some at ten or eleven years of Age Unbaptized That they were wont every Sunday to kindle a Fire in the middle of the Church and having cast Incense thereon every one drew near to take of the Smoak with his Hand with which carrying it to their Breasts they thought thereby their Sins were chased out of their Souls He adds that the Latin Bishop which was sent them after their Reduction visited several Places of his Diocess in which there had no Prelate bin for this thirty Years where he found such a Degeneracy both as to Points of Faith and Manners that most of them had no more of Christianity in them but the Name ALTHO the Maronites have bin long since reconciled to the Church of Rome yet are they not better Instructed than the rest Joseph Besson in his Treatise of the Holy Land saies They are striken with four Plagues worse than the Plagues of Egypt viz Ignorance want of Devotion Usury and Injustice they can scarcely be perswaded saies he that the second Person of the Trinity is the Son of God and that Jesus Christ who is God dyed and that God ever had a Son It is incredible say they with the Turks How can he have a Son seeing he was never married and if he was God how could he dye I could easily produce several Testimonies touching the State of the Moscovites Abyssins and Jacobites for their Condition is no better than the rest God having suffered all these Churches which were heretofore so favoured with the Light of his Truth to fall insensibly into so great Darkness that a man can scarce perceive the least Mark of Christianity amongst them There is not in
Moscovia saies Possevin the Jesuit any Greek Books or Academies having made diligent Search for some that understood Greek I could find none They have heaped up Error upon Error and altho they brag of their Bibliot Select L. 6. C. 5. Christianity above other People yet do they refer all things to the Wisdom of their Prince as to an Oracle having imbibed this Principle from their Infancy They value not Strangers nor suffer them to come into their Country unless they be Polanders Germans or Portugaises for they despise all others He saies moreover Derebus Mosco P. 2. the Moscovits have such Confidence in their Prince that when they are asked touching any Point they commonly answer God only and our Prince know that Our great Czar knows all things he can immediately solve all Difficulties There is no Religion whose Ceremonies and Opinions he is not acquainted with Whatsoever we have or are whether on Horsback or in Health 't is all owing to our great Prince he saies farther they have neither Schools nor Academies amongst them only bringing up their Children to Write and Read learning them the Gospels the Acts of the Apostles a certain Chronicle which they have with some of St. Chrysostom's Homelies and the Lives of some of their Saints that should any Person endeavour to make a farther Progress in Learning he would be in danger of being punished As to their Priests and Monks he assures us they are prodigiously Ignorant for having demanded of them who was the founder of their Order not one of them could answer him and as to the People he saies they work at all times not excepting Sundaies and Holy-daies and think it belongs to Gentlemen and not to them to frequent the Church That they are very well pleased with their own Simplicity and often make the Sign of the Cross and are great Worshippers of Images As concerning the Russians which are under the King of Polands Government he saies that sometimes their Bishops performe the Divine Service in Greek altho few of them if any do understand that Language and that they are very Ignorant in Divinity AS to the Abyssins the Relation of the Jesuit Paez which Du Jarrick has inserted in his History of the East Indias gives us sufficiently to understand their Ignorance For he tells us that the Spiritualities of the Empire depend wholly on the Emperour That the Ecclesiasticks do nothing but what he would have them and that should he command them all to turn Catholicks they would not disobey him He tells us he disputed with one of them upon occasion of the legal Ceremonies which they observe and that this Person could not tell how to answer him otherwise than that there were some who could satisfy him on that Point He farther adds That these People knowing little there was immediately spread a Report concerning me that I was a great Doctor and thereupon never came any Person afterwards to dispute with me Du Jarric observes that the Jesuit Paez having taught some Children their Catechisme the King and all his Court were so astonished at the matter that he told those about him saying what should our Monks dispute with this Father for who are not able to answer these little Children the plain Truth of it is we have neither Doctrine nor Instruction neither any thing more than the Name of Christians MAFFEUS the Jesuit relates that a Priest named Gonsalvus Rhoderick sent from Goa to Claudus King of the Abyssins in the Year 1556. Found History of the Indias L 16. P. 938. him and his greatest Courtiers very Ignorant both in the Knowledg of Councils and all kinds of Divine and Humane Learning These are his own Words Mr. De Sponde relating in his Ecclesiastical Annals the principal Articles Annal. Eccl. ad ann 1524. of their Belief according to the Confession of Zaga Zabo concludes in these Terms They have so many ridiculous Fopperies amongst them that they have scarcely any thing more of Christianity than the Name MOREOVER they are not only Ignorant of the Mysteries of Religion but likewise in all kinds of Learning which made Besson the Jesuit say concerning Syria That the Sciences are more rare in the Eastern Parts than the Phenix and mechanical Arts more prized than Sciences wherefore addeth he the continual multitude of Books which encrease every Day in Europe continually decrease in Syria The best of them have already passed the Seas several of which are to be seen in the Libraries in France so that those which remain are very ordinary ones TO this gross Ignorance we may joyn their Superstition the usual attendant of Ignorance for 't is certain these People are incredibly guilty of Hisâ—r Eccl. L. 18. C 53. it The Armenians according to the Testimony of Nicephorus still Celebrate Easter after the manner of the Jews slaying Sheep and Oxen and sprinkling the Posts of their Doors with the Blood of a Lamb and instead of communicating of the Blood of our Saviour they Sacrifice a Lamb which being Roasted they divide it amongst them This Custom being a very antient one is yet in use amongst them BESSON the Jesuit tells us They call this Sacrifice Korban and that he that offers it causeth a Sheep to be brought to the Church Porch where the Priest Holy Syria Part 1. of the Armenians P. 48. blesses Salt and puts it down the Throat of the Sacrifice afterwards Consecrates the Knife and then laies his Hand on the Head of the Sheep and cuts its Throat The Bishop and Priest take their Share one part whereof is distributed to the Poor and another serves for the Feast which is Celebrated with all publick Testimonies of Rejoycing The same Emissary informs us that the great Disorders of the Levant are its Superstitions and the Peoples Recourse to Magicians the number of whom is very Considerable amongst Christians whose Poverty and Sicknesses make them use these wretched Remedies THE Coptites and Abyssins besides Baptism use Circumcision which they receive the eighth day after the manner of the Jews The Abyssins Boucher Bouquet sacr L. 4. C. 7. Brerowood ' s Inquiries C. 22 23. Villamont alii passim de reb Mosco P. 6. Baptise themselves every Year on Twelfth Day in the Lakes or Ponds in remembrance of our Saviours Baptism Possevin relates the same of the Moscovites For he tells us that twice a Year viz. on the day of the Epiphany and that of the Assumption the Metropolitan Blesses the River of Mosco and that the Priests Bless after the same manner other Rivers that several Men and Women Wash themselves therein with the Ceremony of a triple Immersion that the Horses and Images are Baptised in like manner and that this in their Language is called Baptism Christoph Angel Stat. rit Eccl. Graec. C. 25. vide Annot. Geor. Felsau Eucholog Goar P. 689. Allat Epist de quorunâ— Graecer opin I scarce know what to think of that Custom amongst
others as I shewed in the preceding Book Now Mr Arnaud cannot in reason bring these sort of People into the reckoning and I think it will not be taken ill If I separate them from the rest for in effect the Abuse would be too gross to pretend to determine this Question touching the Greek Church by the Testimony of Converts or Persons brought up from their Infancy amongst the Jesuits and other Religious Orders and Latin Doctors who instructed them in their Doctrines and I have already shewn that the number of these is not small and Allatius himself assures us of it The Greeks say's he that reverence the Pope and receive his Decrees as Oracles are more in number than we Allat de perp cons lib. 3. cap. 11. imagine and were they not with held by the fear of a most cruel Tyrant and that of the Calumnies and Accusations of some wicked People we should see every day them who possess the greatest Dignities amongst the Greeks come and prostrate themselves at the Popes Foot-stool This is the Fruit of the Missions and Seminaries IN the third place the Question is not here whether the Greeks have the same Opinion with us concerning the Sacrament This is Mr. Arnauds continual device to dispute on this Principle to wit that I affirm the Greeks to be of the same Opinion with us As for example he takes a great deal Lib. 2. C. 12. of pains to shew that 't is not likely we would make use of Euthymius his words to instruct a man in our Doctrine and that Euthymius has not taken the term Est in our Saviour's words This is my Body in the sence of Significat Lib. 2. C. 13. He likewise takes a great deal of pains to prove that Nicholas Méthoniensis Lib. 2. C. 15. was not a Berengarian and one that believed the Bread was the Figure of our Saviour's Body that the Profession of Faith which the Saracens were caused to make when they embraced the Christian Religion was not in such terms as to make them understand that the Bread and Wine were not really our Saviour's Body but only the Figure or Representation thereof indued with its Virtue and that Pope Innocent the Third did not reproach Lib. 3. C. 1. the Greeks with their believing that they eat only the Figure of Christ's Body All this is but a mere Artifice to impose on the World and blind those that have not continually the point in question in their minds and suffer themselves to be easily carried off from one Subject to another I say then it concerns us not to know whether the belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist is the same in every particular with that of ours and whether they explain themselves on that Subject in the same manner as we do This we never yet affirmed to Mr. Arnaud but the contrary viz That several Answer to the first Treatise of the Greeks have since the seventh Century rejected the terms of Figure Image and Type which the Ancients made use of and we use after their example The present Question is whether the Greeks do believe concerning the Sacrament what the Church of Rome doth this is the only point of the Dispute to which Mr. Arnaud ought to have stuck and not to wander into wide Discourses and fruitless Consequences In effect the design of the Treatise of the Perpetuity being to make us confess that the belief of the Church of First Treatise of the Perpetuity Rome touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in all Ages and that Author having for this purpose made use of the Conformity of the Greeks with her in this Point and this Conformity having been denyed it is clear that the Question does not concern our Sentiment but that of the Roman Church to know whether the Greeks hold and teach the same thing IN the fourth place our Dispute hitherto has not been concerning the real Presence as Mr. Arnaud supposes but only on the Subject of Transubstantiation and the Adoration thereon appendant so that he has dealt very dis-ingeniously in making the World believe that our debate reached to the Real Presence Our Question say's he is concerning the belief of all these Lib. 2. C. 3. P. 128. Sects and People touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 'T is yet more absurdly he complains that contrary to the intention of the Author of the Perpetuity I have turned the Question upon Transubstantiation Notwithstanding say's he that the Author of the Perpetuity has only in his first Ibid. Treatise discoursed of the Real presence and contented himself with maintaining that this Doctrine was received by all these Schismatical Churches yet Mr. Claude has continually turn'd the Question upon Transubstantiation which was not the point precisely in question But in fine 't is the effect of a most unwarrantable Lib. 2. C. 10. P. 191. Liberty to write that he knows not whether the boldness of a man can proceed to that point where mine must needs be in maintaining to the end that the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are Doctrines unknown to the Greek Church And I dare to affirm that his cannot be greater than it is for 't is certain that here the Question only concerns Transubstantiation and the Adoration and not the Real Presence concerning which I have not yet said any thing 1. Let Mr. Arnaud read the last Section of my first Answer and he will find precisely these words I affirm that Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Sacrament are two things unknown to all the World the Roman Church excepted for neither the Greeks nor the Armenians Russians Jacobites Ethiopians nor in general any Christians but them who have submitted themselves to the Pope do believe any thing touching these two Articles 2. Let the passages of my second Answer be perused where I handle again the same Question and it will be found that they only concern Transubstantiation there being no mention therein of the Real Presence 3. I desire the Reader to peruse the last Chapter of the second Treatise of the Perpetuity and he will find it contains these words for its Title That all the Sects separate from the Church of Rome are at accord with her in the point of Transubstantiation and especially the Greeks He will find likewise that in the body of the Chapter there is not a word of the Real Presence THERE is no body then but Mr. Arnaud who has thought of bringing it into our debate and this without any other reason but that he will have it so maugre us imagining he shall be able to save himself by the Ambiguity of the term of Real Presence For as to what he tells us that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting That this Doctrine was received by all the Schismatical Churches I am sorry I must tell him that I know not any
Ch. 4. That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine The equity says Mr. Arnaud of this Consequence is apparently visible For why must these terms subsisting in Authors that lived since the seventh Century with the persuasion of the Real Presence be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages And in fine what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages Reflection Mr. ARNAVD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made and which he himself has sometimes used concerning a natural language and one that is forced will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it and use it against his pretended Consequence There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence the former have done nothing like this The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions and such as are contrary to their natural sense as well knowing they may be used against themselves The first have used them indifferently in all occasions because they contained their real opinion but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use for dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said that the Bread loses not its nature or substance dared they say what Facundus said that the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ but is so called because it contains the mystery of it whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions 't is by constraint because they must endeavour to accommodate as much as in them lies their stile to the stile of the Ancients whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established There they explain the real Belief of the Church here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief which is expounded in another manner There they must be taken in their natural signification here in a forced and forein one THE natural sense of these words of Justin Ireneus Cyril of Jerusalem and some others that the Eucharist is not mere Bread common Bread is that it is in truth Bread but Bread that is Consecrated The strained sense of these words is that 't is only Bread in appearance and in respect of its accidents THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers that our Lord called the Bread his Body that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body That our Saviour made an exchange of names giving to the Bread the name of his Body and to his Body that of the Bread Their natural sense is I say that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread has assumed the name of Christ's Body the forced sense is that the Bread takes the name of it because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols signs figures images of our Lords Body and Blood is that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of being the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ without losing their own nature The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self or that the accidents that is to say the appearances of Bread and Wine are signs IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients To take from us the liberty of making use of them we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraordinary and distorted sense Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences The fifth Consequence HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining and which is contained in his fifth Consequence is less reasonable than the rest He proposes it in these terms That the Catholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident demonstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority and with which he has enriched his 5th and 6th Chapters The result of all which amounts only to this That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions that they take the Body of Jesus Christ for the Body of Jesus Christ and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them That in this contest 't is evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks The other thing is that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them and hinder our reason from acquiescing in them The first Reflection THE first of