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
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
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ Bâââ 1683. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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
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
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 Râunion 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
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
accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. â P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to
or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
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
Nicetas Pectoratus and Theophilact Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran of Thomas Aquinas and all the School-men and in short of the Council of Trent with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Zonaras Nicetas Choniatus Cabasilas and Jeremias and you 'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed and on the other no such thing I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine who had a particular Commerce with the Greeks and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere neque voce neque re De publicis instrumentis puta Symbolis confessionibus catechismis c. intelligi volo quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem neque in eorum vel unico ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã vocis ut rei ipsius priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae vel vola vel vestigium Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror quoniam non sum nescius quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli illam vocem ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã intrusisse qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation I mean in their publick Symbols confessions and catechisms c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transubstantiation or the thing it self signifi'd thereby which Doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers I matter not some private Doctors amongst them for I know that a certain Monk of the number of these false Greeks had secretly inserted the Term of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Transubstantiation in his Catechism which I saw at Constantinople but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks It will be perhaps replied that Mr. Basire is a Protestant and consequently to be suspected in this case but besides that he is a person deservedly honoured for his integrity and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice and moreover a Divine and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession being a person of great Learning and one that dwelt long in those Parts and had not only the curiosity but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates besides this I say Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground that he is a Protestant seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew and Mr. Picquet and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn I suppose there 's no body doubts but that Mr. Arnaud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks and 't is certain had he found any passages containing in express Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would not omit them Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book is but a meer Sophism imposing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and Latins by Michael Paleologus and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses wide Consequences and negative Arguments which at bottom conclude nothing For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact we expect thereupon Testimonies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud and the impossibility wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World CHAP. III. The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion The Fourth that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion discovered THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist are these They call the Symbols the holy gifts the holy things the ineffable mysteries the body and blood of Jesus Christ the sanctified bread the particle or parts the pearl and the like They say that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is the real Body of Jesus Christ AND to express this change they use the Terms of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifie to change Now 't is certain these expressions whether we take 'em severally or joyntly cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation For besides that being general they are capable of several particular sences and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined as may be justified by a thousand Examples if it were needful besides this I say our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determinate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms unless it evidently appears from something else that they had this particular sence in their minds I confess that in this case that is to say if it appears they have had a particular sence in their minds we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence how general soever they may be but if they come not up to this we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning We know for example that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is commonly believed when then we are told that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that 't is changed into the Body of Christ although these words are general yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ But had she not
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâm 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
Lord are they not Matter You must either then overthrow the Veneration and Worship of all these things or grant the Adoration of the Images of God and his Friends the Saints It is evident that by this Body and Blood of Christ he means the Eucharist and distinguishes it from the Natural Body for speaking of the Natural Body as of a Matter he adds As to the other Matter c. which shews he passes over to another kind of material things distinct from the Body hypostatically united to the Divinity It is likewise apparent he ranks this Body and Blood in the same order and degree with the wood of the Cross Mount Calvary the Holy Sepulchre the Letters of the Gospel and the Communion Table and attributes no more to all these things than one and the same Adoration an Adoration proportionable to that of Images WHEN he has occasion to discourse on the Adoration which ought to be given to the Natural Body he expresses himself after a different manner I adore say's he one God Father Son and Holy Ghost I give to him alone the Ibid. worship of Latria I worship one God one Divinity but I adore likewise the Trinity of Persons God the Father God the Son clothed with Humane Flesh and God the Holy Ghost which yet are no more than one God I worship not the Creature besides the Creator but I adore the Creator who hath made me and who without the loss of his Dignity or suffering any Division has descended to me to honour my Nature and make me partaker of the Divine Nature I do also together with my God and King adore th'enclosure of his Body if a man may so express himself tho not as a Vestment or fourth Person God forbid but as having been declared God and made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed Here the Humanity is adored in Person with an Adoration of Latria whereas the Mystical Body and Blood are only adored with a relative Adoration after the same manner as the Cross the Holy Sepulchre and Images If you say say's he in another place a little farther that we ought only to be joyned with God in Spirit and Understanding abolish then all corporeal things Tapers Incense Prayers uttered with an articulate voice nay even thâ Divine Mysteries which consist of Matter to wit the Bread and Wine the Oyl of Unction the Sign of the Cross the Reed and Lance which pierced his Side to make Life issue out from thence Either the veneration of all these things must be abolished which cannot be done or not reject the Worship of Images What he called a little above the Body and Blood he here calls Bread and Wine but whether he designs them under the name of Body and Blood or whether he calls them Bread and Wine he attributes no more to them than a proportionable Adoration unto that which he pretends ought to be given Images and other material things he mentions that is to say a relative Adoration WE find in Photius a Passage like unto those of Stephen and Damascene in which he justifies after the same manner the relative Adoration given to Images by the example of that which is given to the Mysteries He compares these two Worships together and makes them of the same order and quality When we adore say's he the Image of Jesus Christ the Cross and the Pho. de Synod Sign of the Cross we do not pretend to terminate our Worship or Adoration in these things but direct it to him who by the unspeakable Riches of his Love became man and suffered a shameful death for us And thus do we adore the Temples Sepulchers and Relicks of Saints from whence do proceed those miraculous cures praising and glorifying God who has given them this Power and if there be any such like thing in our mystical and holy Sacraments we acknowledge and glorifie the Author and first Cause of it for the Gift and Grace which he has bestowed on us by their means AND this is what I had to say on this Point I leave now the Reader to judge whether my denyal that the Greeks do adore this Sacrament according to the manner of the Latins be the effect of an unparallel'd rashness as speaks Mr. Arnaud or whether it be not rather the effect of a Knowledge and Consideration more just and disinteressed than that of his I ground my negative on the express Testimonies of Sacranus John de Lasko Peter Scarga Anthony Caucus Francis Richard all Roman Catholicks and Ecclesiasticks who lived in those Places and are consequently unreproachable Witnesses in this particular who all of 'em expresly affirm the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament after Consecration and reproach them with it as a capital crime and brand them in this respect with the name of Hereticks I confirm this not only by the Silence of Travellers who exactly relate the Ceremonies of their Office without observing this essential particular but likewise from the proper Rituals of the Greeks and their refusal to practise the chief Ceremonies the Latins use to express their Adoration without substituting others equivalent to them I farther confirm it by express Passages taken out of other Greek Fathers who only attribute to the Eucharist a relative Adoration like unto that given to Images Temples Crosses and Relicks of Saints And yet Mr. Arnaud tells me that he is both ashamed and sorry for me and that my negative is the effect of a rashness beyond example and he grounds this fierce charge on voluntary Adorations and internal Venerations which no body ever saw but himself that is to say on Chimera's with which the necessity of maintaining his Thâsis right or wrong has furnish'd him Yet how greatly soever mens minds may be prejudic'd I doubt not but good men of his own Communion will be of another mind I hope at least they will not say I have been rash in affirming the Greeks adore not the Sacrament as do the Latins For were there any rashness in this assertion they must blame these Canons Archbishops and Jesuits and not me who only denied it after them I hope likewise the Proof I have made touching these same Greeks not believing Transubstantiation will not be esteemed inconsiderable my Consequence being grounded on Mr. Arnaud's own Principle Not only say's he the Doctrine of the real Presence is necessarily Book 10. chap. 9. annexed to the internal Adoration but also to some act of external respect For altho they may be separated by metaphysical Suppositions or extravagant Errors such as those of some Hereticks in these latter days yet is it impossible to separate them by the real Suppositions of Persons endued with common sence 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
and speaks not of the Troubles raised by Berengarius his Heresie but only as hapning in the Year 1051. Secondly because Durand Abbot of Trorand in Normandy who lived about that time refers the Council of Verseil to the Year 1053. only And there is no reason to pretend as a Learned Lawyer of Anger 's does that there is a mistake in this Passage of Durand and that we must read 1050. seeing that according to the judicious Observation of Mr. de St. Beuve the King's Professor at Sorbornne in a Manuscript on this Matter the same Durand testifies that in the Year he speaks of Alfred was Abbot of the Abby of Preaux in Normandy which was not founded till the Year 1053. according to Du Bec ' s Chronicle HERE then we have upon good Grounds and undeniable Authority the two Condemnations of Berengarius referred to the same Year in which Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote their Letter It remains only to know whether Mr. Arnaud may suppose without Proof that the Letter was written after Berengarius his Condemnation and whether 't is not a plain Delusion thus slightly to pass over a Point of this importance on which depends the greatest part of his reasoning For if this Letter was written before the time wherein Berenger was first condemned what can be then concluded from Cerularius and Leo de Acrida's Silence Wherefore must they ground an Accusation against the Church of Rome on a Condemnation which was not then in being Now this is a matter of Fact which I affirm to be very uncertain and which Mr. Arnaud must demonstrate and not suppose without Proof They wrote say's he against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo had condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil There being but one Letter from both Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida we must conceive 't was written to the Council at Rome after Berengarius his first Condemnation and near the time they were about calling th' other Council at Verseil Now this has no likelihood for as Baronius has well Baron ann Eccles ad ann 1053. observed Leo answered this Letter in the same Year namely 1053. whence it follows if we reckon right we shall find that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida could not have written their Letter but in the beginning of the Year at farthest and consequently before there was any mention at Rome of Berengarius his Condemnation and especially before the news thereof came to Constantinople In effect it must not be imagined that this Patriarch and Archbishop indited their Letter without mature and deliberate advice and consideration nor that they sent it without communicating the Contents of it to some of their Clergy to bring them to take part with them and engage 'em in their Interests seeing the matter concerned the censuring of a Church such as that of the Latins and which they were sure would highly resent it Affairs of this importance are not wont to be precipitated It required also some time before this Letter could come from Constantinople to Tranys in the Kingdom of Naples John Bishop of Tranys to whom 't was directed must likewise have some time to send it to Cardinal Humbert and he must get it translated out of Greek into Latin Humbert must go to Rome for he carried it himself to Pope Leo after he received it from the Bishop of Tranys In fine Leo must examine it and answer it For all which Mr. Arnaud allows but three Months Cerularius say's he and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins Baron ad ann 1053. and at the same time and not long after again Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil This not long after can only relate to the Council at Rome which was the first and consequently this at the same time must relate to the Council of Verseil which being not called till September as appears by Lanfranc who positively affirmeth it and the Pope having wrote his Answer at farthest in December infr de corp sang Dom. it must needs be if we believe what Mr. Arnaud supposes that is to say if the Letter was written in the Month of September that all that which I come now from observing was transacted in three Months time And thus does Mr. Arnaud hasten the time that it may answer his necessities TO this Delusion we may add another which will be the Thirteenth It consists in supposing without Proof that Leo the Ninth in condemning Berengarius precisely established Transubstantiation and the real Presence For if we take not this Fact for a certain Principle there can be no Pretence for demanding wherefore Cerularius reproached not the Church of Rome about her erring in the Doctrine of the Eucharist YET is there nothing more uncertain for there are none of the Decrees of this Council extant and I think not one Author that relates the proper Terms of these Condemnations They tell us that Berengarius was condemned that John Scot's Book was burnt but this is not sufficient to conclude that Transubstantiation and the real Presence were established in Terms which might offend Cerularius and the Greeks and give them occasion to form an Accusation against the Roman Church Sober men are not wont to accuse People upon confused Reports and equivocal Terms And it will be to no purpose to say we must not doubt but that Leo's intention was to assert the substantial Conversion against Berengarius seeing Lanfranc assures us that he himself having declared in full Council his Belief touching the Eucharist in opposition to that of Berengarius it was approved and the other rejected as erroneous For he that states an Opinion contradictory to that of Berengarius does not necessarily assert Transubstantiation there being several other ways and means of opposition It concerns us not here to inform our selves from Lanfranc what was the sence of the Synod but whether what came to Cerularius his knowledge concerning that matter was sufficient to make him say those People established a real Conversion of Substances Now to imagine as Mr. Arnaud does that a Patriarch which is at Constantinople can make such a Judgment with Discretion it will not be sufficient to inform him of the intention and secret design of the Latins altho even this is not to be supposed without Proof but he must have before him the distinct and express Terms relating to this Affair and this Mr. Arnaud cannot prove seeing there is no such matter extant HE will say without doubt that this is a very strange thing for whatsoever falls not under his sence is strange to affirm that a Pope and Council that intended to establish Transubstantiation in condemning Berengarius yet have not done it in intelligible Terms Neither will he forget to censure me here a little as he is wont at every pinch saying I consider the matters I
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
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
to wast Greece by their Incursions Romanus Diogenes succeded him who was taken by the Turks and afterwards released but being returned his Subjects put out his Eyes and made him dye a miserable Death Michael Parapinacius who came after him Ibid. was not more fortunate Nicephorus Botionatus having Dethroned him put Ibid. him into a Monastery Nicephorus having ill Reign'd was treated after the same manner by Alexius Comnenus who took the Empire in the Year 1081 Alexius Ibid. Reign'd thirty seven Years and dishonoured his Reign by a thousand perfidious Actions and Wickednesses The French beat him several times and in fine he dyed forsaken by all the World HIS Son John Comnenus succeded him and after him Emanuel a wretched Idem Lib. 8. Cap. 21. and perfidious Prince who delighted to disturb the Peace of the Church by his curious Questions and new Decrees and who in fine to crown his Life with the most horrible Impieties designed to bring in Mahometism into his Empire Emanuel left his Crown to his Son Alexius who kept it but three Ibid. Years for he was miserably put to Death by Andronicus who seized on the Throne as the Reward of his Crime Yet did he not enjoy it long for two Years after Isaack Angelus stirred up the People against him who cut him in pieces Alexius Angelus a while after caused his Brother Isaac's Eyes to be put out and took from him the Empire His Nephew whose Name also was Alexius addressing himself to the Latins they drove out the Usurper from the Throne and setled him in it against whom arose one Mursulphus and both one and the other having undone themselves by their Perfidiousness the Empire fell into the Hands of the Latins in the Year 1204. THE Latins held the Empire fifty eight Years till 1261 wherein Michael Paleologus took the City of Constantinople from them Which Michael obtained the Empire by Murther he caused the lawful Emperors Eyes to be put out who was John Theodorus Lascaris's Son being but twelve Years of Age and seated himself in his Throne He was both a cruel and crafty Prince and abused his Subjects in a thousand manners being ever ready to Sacrifice the Church and Religion to his Interest Andronicus his Son succeded him against whom his Grandson named likewise Andronicus arose several times and at length took from him his Crown and reduced him to the condition of a private Person His Successors were all of 'em effeminate Persons under whom the Greek Empire retain'd not the least Shadow of its first Dignity till such time as at length in the Year 1453 Constantinople was taken by the Turks and every one knows how since that time the Greeks have lived under the Domination of those Infidels A Man may easily imagine Greece could not be long happy nor quiet under such Emperors There were nothing but Seditions Monopolies Revolts and civil Wars within and unfortunate Wars without sometimes against the Saracens otherwhiles against the Turks and Latins Peteau the Jesuit discoursing of the State of this Empire under the Paleologues Ration âem Lib. 9. C. 7. did not stick to compare it to a Sea Monster whom the Element had thrown on the Shore deadly wounded yet still strugling with Death or a Poysoned Body that with much difficulty sustains it self and crawls along till such time as the Poyson strikes into the Heart and then it falls to the Ground and gives up the Ghost III. IT already appears to be no wonder if a Church amids such dreadful Confusions and Circumstances and orespread with such Clouds of Darkness never exactly discussed the Difference betwixt its Doctrine and the Latins but contented her self with keeping her own Belief But consider we moreover the Influence the Latins had on the Greeks and the manner after which they handled them wheresoever they got the mastery We have seen in the second Book how they drove the Greek Bishops from Syria and Palestine as soon as ever they setled themselves as likewise in Greece We have also observed that the Greek Emperors instead of encouraging their Patriarchs and Bishops and upholding the Interest of their Church have on the contrary favoured to the utmost of their Power the Latins and under pretence of an Union endeavoured to subject the Greek Church to the Roman Not that these Emperors had any kindness for the Religion of the Latins but feared their Power and therefore used all possible Complyance with the Court of Rome They would not suffer its Doctrines to be ill spoken of We have seen that in Leo the ninths Quarrel with Cerularius Constantin Monomaque fail'd not to take Leo's Part countenancing his Legats and constraining Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his own Book which he wrote against the Latins We have likewise observ'd that John Veccus Library keeper of the Church at Constantinople saying one day in the Emperor's hearing that altho the Latins were not termed Hereticks yet they really were so Michael Paleologus was thereupon so inraged that he resolved to ruin him causing him soon after to be imprisoned and had effected his Resolution had not Veccus changed his Mind Moreover 't was not two or three of these Emperors that were of this Temper but almost all of 'em as appears by what I already related in the second Book We must then add to the second Preceding Considerations this third Remark that the Greeks were forc'd to be silent for fear of the Latins and their own Emperors It may be perhaps replyed this hindred them not from Disputing on the Procession and Azymes I grant it but there is a great deal of Difference betwixt maintaining old Controversies and raising new ones which commonly beget Hatred The Latins and the Emperors laboured to make them silent in the old Controversies how then could they suffer without the greatest Punishment there should be others begun which would render the Design of a Reconciliation more difficult IV. BUT besides what I already mentioned it is requisite to observe for what end the Emperors endeavoured this Reconciliation seeing this will give us a great deal of light into the Question Pachymerus relates that Michael Paleologus used this only Argument with his Bishops namely that notwithstanding the Agreement there should be no alteration made in their Religion Do not doubt say's he but after this Peace the Church shall remain in its Pachymer hist lib. 5. cap. 18. former state It shall not be my Fault if it does not And again You need not be told by me how ready our Forefathers have been to comply as often as the publick Good required it They considered that even God himself has not disdained to accomodate himself to our Weaknesses in taking upon him our Flesh and Suffering the Pains of the Cross by which he hath purchased the Salvation of the World so ready was he to comply with our Exigencies no man can then blame us if from the like Intention we endeavour to
have given the Confession of Faith which we observed in the preceding Book in which those Terms are found They have set 'em down in Latin in the Acts of the Reunion But in the Greek of these same Acts they have contented themselves with the general Expressions of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as we have already seen They have not quarrelled with them about 'em for Reasons not hard to be understood and which we shall see hereafter and when the Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries found their Terms were not receiv'd they became angry thereat but on the contrary accomodated themselves to others We cannot then wonder if this Conduct has kept the Greeks from discussing any farther the Differences which separate the two Churches They agreed in the general Expressions that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into his Body and the Latins required no more THE Snare lay hid under this Complyance and this Conduct kept off the Greeks from all Inquiries For for to find the Difference there is between the Doctrine of the Greeks and that of the Latins and make a right Judgment thereon we must not lightly and superficially examine them seeing they require an application of Mind and Study We must read Latin Authors compare them with the Doctrine of the Ancients and with that of the Greek Church and not suffer our selves to be surprized with false appearances but consider the two Doctrines themselves and especially their Consequences to find wherein they differ For at first Sight the Difference seems not great They explain themselves sometimes in the like manner but their Consequences infinitely differ as has been observed in the last Chapter of the preceding Book Now how few amongst the Greeks have been able to go thro with this Discussion and of those that were capable how few were in a condition to make a right Judgment We have seen what Bozius said of 'em from the Relation of one Gregory that under the Empire of Andronicus he means I suppose Andronicus the younger in whose Reign the Re-union of the Churches was again proposed there was no Person to be found in all Greece that was able to Dispute with the Latins about Religious Matters Can it seem strange that People who could not maintain their ancient Controversies so greatly insisted on by their Fathers and which are as it were hereditary to them should neglect to discuss those new Doctrines I speak of and content themselves with keeping their own Belief without concerning themselves with that of Strangers X. MOREOVER we must consider that the Greeks have ever referred to almighty God the knowledg of the Change hap'ning in the Eucharist without offering to determine it This appears as well by their general Terms as by what I already related concerning the Confession of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria and the profession of Faith compiled for the Sarracen Proselytes from the Prayer in their Euchology the Judgment which Nicetas made on the Conduct of the Patriarch Camaterus and the Dispute of John the Patriarch of Jerusalem When then they hear the Latins who determine the manner of this Change saying 't is a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine we must not find it strange if they contain themselves in their generalities and neither Receive nor Condemn this Doctrine Whether they do well or ill in this I shall not here determine But howsoever 't is in no wise strange that People of that Temper the Greeks are of should thus deport themselves I have already observed elsewhere that he that shewed himself most forward amongst them was the Patriarch Cyrillus for he proceeded so far as to a positive Rejection of Transubstantiation and yet he rejected it only under the Title of Rash ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã say's he ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Transubstantiation rashly invented ALL which things being considered let any Man judg whether what I say concerning the Greeks not expresly opposing the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances altho they did not believe it be not grounded on all imaginable Probability and whether on the contrary Mr. Arnaud's Consequence how surprising soever it may seem at first is not in effect void of all kind of Probability They have lived time out of mind in most stupid Ignorance They have been overwhelmed in Confusions and oppressed with domestick Misfortunes They have been continually urged by their Emperors to comply with the Latins that they might thereby avoid their Displeasure and procure their Favour They have been perswaded that this Complyance will bring no Prejudice to their Religion They are moreover a People that were ever noted to be naturally more than others fixt to their temporal Interests preferring the Preservation of their Estates before their Religion They are not ignorant how the Roman Church resents it when accused of Error as appears by the Complaint of Cyrillus who speaking of the Latins say's that they obstinately defend whatsoever they do right or wrong let their Errors be made Epist. Cyrill ad Wittemb in Epist. Viror erud never so apparent That they maintain they can neither Err in Belief nor Practice and that which is yet worse they fly in the Faces of those that Christianly admonish them and shew them their Errors That they persecute such with Fire and Sword as if it were not lawful to repel the Injury they do to Christianity and to guard and defend our selves against the Evil. It appears in their ordinary Conversation how reserved and fearful they are of offending the Latins The Question of Transubstantiation is not to be found amongst their primitive and original Disputes They might likewise reasonably doubt whether the Roman Church determin'd it before the Council of Constance The Latins have not disputed with them about it but accommodated themselves to the form of their Expressions It is no easy matter for them to penetrate as far as the real Differences which distinguish the Doctrines of the two Churches And in fine one of their Maxims is that they may very well leave the Knowledg of the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto God without troubling themselves any farther about it Is it not nearer to Truth to say as I do that it does not follow these People believed Transubstantiation altho they have not made thereof a Point of Controversy and kept themselves in a kind of Medium neither Believing it nor Condemning it than to say as Mr. Arnaud does that if they have not opposed it nor disputed on it nor reproached the Roman Church with it as an Error it inevitably follows they have and do still believe it CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of Mr. Arnaud's Negative Arguments A particular Reflection concerning what past in the Treaties of Reunion and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards THE more we consider the Principles on which Mr. Arnaud Reasons the plainlier appears the Nullity of the Consequence he pretends to draw thence
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
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
Judgment and you 'l clear the Difficulty His Testimony is that the Moscovites believe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has denoted by these Terms which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation which he signifies by these following words They hold Transubstantiation SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own persawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say They hold Transubstantiation says he that is to say the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood THIS that is to say explains what he means and punctually determines what the Moscovites hold If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing his Proposition must be received in its full extent if they are not the Change belongs to the Moscovites the Transubstantier to the private sence of M. Olearius We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity but as to his particular Judgement we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry Neither had he any reason to be offended Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8. at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity That 't is very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures and that having heard of the change of Bread he imagined this was the change of Substance which is the same thing I say now The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Justice will allow me I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions which agree not well with the Character he bears and which I suppose he has learned of the barbarous People he has so long conversed with Why would he have us believe the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins seeing we find on the contrary that this is the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the Greeks of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant the Greeks say the Bread is changed the Moscovites affirm the same the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation he adds that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ but even in this he is mistaken for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecrated and called the Body of Jesus Christ and not the Remains of the consecrated Bread BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject 'T is the Testimony of an Honorable Person who lived a considerable time in those parts and since M. Olearius who wanted neither Judgment Sincerity nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people in reference to Transubstantiation without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self as having no other design then that of Relat. of the Ambas of M. Carlile discovering the Truth Moreover says he I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions namely that they hold Transubstantiation and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion For first when we discourse with them touching the Consequences of this Doctrine they testifie their dislike of it and to maintain it fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do 2. 'T is more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation they would respect this Mystery more than they do and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome In fine had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whether he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius but having already considered it in the foregoing Book we shall trouble our selves no farther with him 'T is not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose 'T is certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome and sworn to observe it's Confession of Faith but sent on purpose to communicate it to others prevailing by means of their Ignorance whether soever they be whether in Muscovia or Greece their Testimony shall not be wanting But every body knows the Value of them Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest that accompanied not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France who after Dinner as 't is say'd at the Arch-Bishop of Sens was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucharist There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation but not to enter into particulars I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith or knows the Religion professed in other Countries These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet ãâã has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raânald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
real presence of the Body of Christ acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper There has hapned upon the Account of this Translation a very Remarkable circumstance You must know then that Mr. Arnaud in the first edition of his Book having made an Objection to himself concerning this Passage of Herbert and heightened it asmuch as he could to the saying he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it being so considerable as to startle most People that he thought there could Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. First Edition be nothing replyed to such an express passage and that this Author seemed to speak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themselves Having I say proposed this Objection he Answers that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calvinistical Translator That having desired some of his Friends to Translate from the Original English whatsoever related to the Armenians in that Book he found by their Translation that not only he does in no wise speak of the real Presence but that almost all the discourses contained in the 249 th and 250 th page were foysted in by the Translator who made his Dreams and Fancies pass for the Relations of a Traveller That 't is likely he has done the same in several other places so that this whole Book is rather the Translators Romance than the true account of a Voyage This Discourse being very disingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman who has ever manifested in his Writings and Conversation an exemplary sincerity it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having seen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly justifyed himself from it And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embassadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew Herbert's Book in English Printed at London 1638. by Rich. Bishop wherein is precisely these words They administer the Lords Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine and deny a real Presence They allow but our two Sacraments Having produced this Original he caused a Letter to be Printed and directed to me in which he complains of the injustice Mr. Arnaud has done him and protests he is not of that Temper to make use of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofesses as knowing it abhors them and makes no difference between the cheats which the Modern Divinity of some call pious and the falshood that destroys the Soul of him that utters it He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expressions and refutes his Calumnies and offers for his justification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related ' um Afterwards he says he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now justify that in the Original English there is no mention of the real Presence nor affirm 't is a mere imposture of the Calvinistical Translator That he also affirms whatsoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250 concerning the Baptism of the Armenians their Proselytes Fasts Images Priests their Belief touching Purgatory their Superstitions and Efforts which the Jesuits have made to subject them to the See of Rome is really contained in the Original English there being nothing of his Invention in all this And to justifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Language THIS so well grounded defence has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accusation Printed in the First He has retrenched all those Injurious Discourses against the Reputation and sincerity of Mr. Vicqfort and acknowledged his Translation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original He has at the same time discovered to us the cause of his mistake to wit that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634 th' other in 1635. in which the Author contained himself within the Relation of his Voyage and the Second in 1638 wherein he had added several particulars relating to Religion and History those whom he consulted had seen only the first Edition but that Mr. Vicqfort Translated from the Second in which was found the Passage in question I am far from being of that Humour to insult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occasion nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors who mean not the least hurt to him I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own rashness in grounding a charge of this importance on a supposition he has found to be false without considering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one But he must suffer me to tell him that what he has inserted in his Marginal Notes is not a sufficient excuse for him the French Translation says he making no mention of two different Editions of this English Book we could not Divine it Much less could Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition the Translator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impostour for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book These kind of Accusations pronounced with such confidence do suppose a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the least pains in this respect he might have easily discovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book and found what he has bin since shewed He needed not divine but certainly inform himself for this Book being Printed at London in 1638 and being moreover famous in that kind he might have been soon satisfyed concerning it But supposing he could not he ought not presently to call a Person a Deceiver But rather to have proposed his doubts and require a solution of Mr. Vicqfort himself and not thus rashly charge a Gentleman that never offended him I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology did not the interest of my cause oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Discourses if they be not upheld by solid and convincing Proofs which they never are as appears from this whole dispute BUT laying aside this contest see we what Mr. Arnaud offers against the Authority of Herbert who expresly affirms the Armenians deny the real Presence We matter not says he the advantage which the Calvinists C. 8. 2. Edition would make of this Testimony of Herbert who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book has added what he pleased touching the Religion of those People through whose Countrys he travelled without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them for he only says what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect who have treated of them as Breerewood has done Those Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Armenians do fully solve this Point And not to mention others there is no comparison between a Calvinist who speaks in his own cause and according to his interests without Authority and proofs and a Lutheran such a one as Mr. Olearius is who speaks against himself and
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
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.
tell him my Answer will be no less good in the main when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin who expresly says touching this passage That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. Sacrament of the Eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh was because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh Mr. Arnaud will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellarmin THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a passage Answer to the Perpetuity p. 2. ch 2. of Justin which says That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink but that this meat being made the Eucharist with which our flesh and blood are nourished by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is celebrated in remembrance of his taking on him our nature it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words and 't is moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say That my sence is without proof and Authority contrary to the Letter and Experience Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34. and consequently not worth considering And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus Cyzique and Cyril of Jerusalem for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise and the second Part and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book I am certain will not like his proceedings finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express declaration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture and that they are not distinctly asserted therein He says every Book 10. ch 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38 39. body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the institution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope he could never resist the perspicuity of them That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Saviour and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them of whom he himself writes that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one which has says he all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression He adds That these words This is my Body do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ than that 't is the figure of it and this the consent of all Nations who have taken them in this sense shews us in a convincing manner He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John wherein there 's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood and what S. Paul says in the 11th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood Whence he concludes That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks that it appertains to them to say their Doctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture in the sixth Chapter of S. John ' s Gospel in the three Evangelists and in S. Paul ' s Epistles But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular Yet must I tell him I have reason to suppose without any other proof that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence nor are they distinctly asserted in them Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject let him communicate it to us But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them IT cannot be denied but these words This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dispute 't is sufficient the words will bear it to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident for besides that he found no evidence in them for Transubstantiation but only for the Real Presence with which he was much prepossessed One may oppose against Luther's prejudice the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no Cajetan in 3. Thoma quest 75. art 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem 1588. evidence in them neither for the one nor th' other of these Doctrines but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that
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
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
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
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
dead in it self They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality recommending Hope Charity Humility Chastity Temperance Sobriety and condemn Pride Envy Hatred Variance Drunkenness Calumny Magick Divinations c. HERE we have without question very commendable endeavours but they reach no farther than the instructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality These Fathers in their greatest zeal to reform both themselves and others make no mention of the Real Presence 'T was not then above fifty years when the Dispute was very hot on this subject and Books were wrote on both sides Yet it seems they took no notice of it much less determin to instruct the people in what they ought to hold of it All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greatest parr spent their lives Now this shews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from these essays of a Reformation for supposing they had their whole effect they extended not so far as the question of the Real Presence because they suppose either that the people were not ignorant of it or that the Pastors were themselves so persuaded of it that t was needless to instruct them in it or exhort them to instruct their Flocks in it But what likelihood is there that this in numerable multitude of people of both Sexes and of all Ages and conditions of life that knew not their Creed nor the Lords Prayer and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Christian Religion should know the Doctrin of the Real Presence Were they all in those days born imbued with this Doctrin What likelihood is there those Abbots that knew not the Statutes of their Monasteries and who to excuse themselves from reading 'em when offered to them were forced to say nescimus literas were not likewise greatly ignorant of the Mystery of the Eucharist What reason is there to say the Pastors themselves were commonly instructed in it seeing Odon Abbot of Clugny as we have already seen testifies that those who pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paschasus his Book THERE were likewise other Reformations made in this Century but they served only to establish some order in the Monasteries and the observance of particular Statutes under which the Religious are obliged to live by their profession and this does not hinder but that ignorance and carelesness were very great in respect of the Mystery of Religion AS to the Conversions 't is certain there were some but Mr. Arnaud knows very well the greatest part of 'em were wrought by force or the interests and intrigues of Princes And thus those that were converted might well embrace their Religion implicitly or in gross without troubling themselves with particular Doctrins as the greatest part of the People of the Roman Church do at present In the year 912 according to Matthew of Westminister Rollon or Raoul Duke of Normandy embraced the Christian Religion to espouse Gill the Daughter or Sister of Charles III. King of France In the year 925 Sitricus King of Denmark caused himself to be Baptised to espouse Edgite the Sister of Etelstan King of England but a while after he returned to Paganism In the year 926 Elstan having vanquish'd in Battle several petty Kings which were then in England obliged them and their Subjects to receive the Christian Faith In the year 949 Otton King of Germany having subdued the Sclavonians these people redeemed their lives and Country by being Baptiz'd In the year 965 Poland was converted to the Christian Faith by the Marriage of Miezislaus its King with the Daughter of Boleslaüs Duke of Bohemia John XIII Anti-Pope to Benedict V. sent thither Gilles Bishop of Tusculum to establish under the Authority of the King his Religion in that Country In the year 989 Adalbert Arch-Bishop of Prague went into Hungary to endeavour the conversion of those people but this was under the authority and power of Geisa King of Hungary who was converted by commerce with Christians whom he freely permitted to live in his Kingdom So that all these conversions about which Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity make such a noise to advance the glory zeal and knowledg of the Bishops of the 10th Century do not at all conclude what they pretend LET the Reader then joyn all these things together and judg which of us two has most reason Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impossible that the belief of the Real Presence supposing 't were a novelty in the Church could make any progress therein in the 10th Century without Disputes and Commotions or I who maintain that these progresses were not only possible but easie to be conceiv'd First There were Disputes on this subject in the 9th Century which is a matter of fact not to be denied Secondly Altho the question was therein agitated yet was it not decided by any Council nor by the Church of Rome nor by any other publick Authority Thirdly Those of the 10th Century fell into a very confused knowledg of the Mystery of Christian Religion in general the People the Religious and the greatest part of the Priests and Bishops lived in very gross ignorance and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge as we have fully proved Fourthly Ecclesiastical Discipline was wholly laid aside in this Age and the temporal state of the Church lay in a perpetual and general confusion Fifthly It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Presence was therein preached in several places Sixthly It also appears that that of Paschasus was so too and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles and Pastors exhorted to read Paschasus his Book to be instructed in the Mystery of the Eucharist Seventhly To which we may add that the persons that taught the Real Presence in this Century were people of great credit and authority Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbishop of Canterbury and was in great reputation Th' other Odon who had such an esteem for Paschasus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny a restorer and reformer of several Monasteries of whom Baronius says That he was chosen by God as another Jeremiah Baron ad an 938. to pluck up destroy scatteâ plant and build in that wretched Age. ALL these matters of fact being clearly proved as they are what impossibility is there that the Doctrin of Paschasus which he taught in the 9th Century as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church confirming it as much as he could by several passages of the Fathers taken in a wrong sense no publick Authority having condemn'd it should have followers in the 10th That these his Disciples finding ' emselves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance carelesness and confusion reign'd have themselves communicated
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 âor 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
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
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
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
several places that those who introduce new Opinions by way of addition or explication of the ancient ones do not openly declare 'em to be new but on the contrary endeavour to make 'em slip in by means of received expressions besides this I say this humility of Paschasus relates not to the things themselves which he wrote nor his sentiment for he could not term them scarcely worth his Readers perusal whether they were new or not But this relates to the manner of writing 'em according to what he says to Frudegard Celare non debui quoe loqui ut oportuit minime potui BUT pass we on to the second proof which shews Paschasus to be an Innovator 'T is taken from the effect which his Doctrin produced in several persons minds which was that they opposed him I have discoursed Comment in Matth. 26. says he of these things more at large because I am informed some people have blamed me as if in the Book which I publish'd of the Sacraments of Christ I would give more to his words than they will bear or establish something else than the truth promises These censurers proceed further for they opposed a contrary Doctrin against that of Paschasus to wit that 't was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure in Sacrament in virtue Which Paschasus himself tells us Let those says he that will extenuate this term of Body hear Ibid. They that tell us 't is not the true Flesh of Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church nor his true Blood They tell us or rather feign I know not what as if 't were a certain virtue of the Flesh and Blood He afterwards repeats two or three times the same thing They proceeded so far as to accuse Paschasus of Enthusiasm twitting him with having a young mans vision as we remark'd in the foregoing Chapter For this is what may be justly collected from these words to Frudegard You have at Epist ad Frud the end of this Book the sentiments of the Catholick Fathers which I briefly marked that you may know that 't is not thro an Enthusiasm of rashness that I have had these Visions being as yet a young man Supposing Paschasus taught nothing but what the whole Church believ'd and commonly taught the Faithful whence I pray you came these Censurers The whole world lived peaceably during eight hundred years in the belief of the Real Presence all the Preachers taught it all Books contain'd it all the Faithful believ'd it and distinctly knew it there not having been any body yet that dared contradict it and yet there appear persons who precisely oppose it as soon as Paschasus appeared in the world But who so well and quickly furnish'd 'em with the Keys of figure and virtue which Mr. Arnaud would have had all the world to be ignorant of and th' invention of which he attributes to the Ministers Why if we will believe him they were people that dared not appear openly that whispered secretly in mens ears and yet were so well instructed that they knew the principal distinctions of the Calvinists and all the subtilties of their School But moreover what fury possessed them to attack thus particularly Paschasus who said nothing but what all the world knew even the meanest Christian and what all the world believ'd and who moreover had no particular contest with them They could not be ignorant that the whole Church was of this opinion supposing she really did hold it for as I already said the Doctrin of the Real Presence is a popular Doctrin It is not one of those Doctrins which lie hid in Books or the Schools which the learned can only know 'T is a Doctrin which each particular person knows if he knows any thing Why then must Paschasus be thus teas'd If they had a design to trouble the peace of the Church why did they not attack its Doctrin or in general those that held it which is to say according to Mr. Arnaud the whole world Why again must Paschasus be rather set upon than any body else Does Mr. Arnaud believe this to be very natural Are people wont to set upon a particular person to the exclusion of all others when he has said no more than what others have said and what is taught and held by every body Is such a one liable to reproaches and censures Are we wont to charge such a one with Enthusiastical rashness and pretence to Visions It is clear people do not deal thus but with persons that have gone out of the beaten road and would introduce novelties in the Church 'T is such as these whom we are wont to accuse to censure and call Enthusiasts and Visionaries and not those that neither vary from the common terms or sentiments TO elude the force of this proof Mr. Arnaud has recourse to his Chronology Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861 862. He says that the last eight Books of Paschasus his Commentaries on S. Matthew were not written till thirty years after his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini That he speaks therein of his Censures as persons that reprehended him at the very time he wrote this Commentary Miror quid volunt nunc quidam dicere and that it does not appear he was reprehended before seeing he did not attempt to defend himself Whence he concludes That this Book which Mr. Claude says offended the whole world as soon as 't was made was publish'd near thirty years before 't was censur'd by any body I have already replied to this Chronology of Mr. Arnaud Supposing there were in effect thirty years between Paschasus his Book and the Censures of his Adversaries 't will not hence follow that his Doctrin received a general approbation during these thirty years for perhaps this Book was not known or considered by those that were better able to judg of it than others Printing which now immediately renders a Book publick was not in use in those times and 't is likely Transcribers were not in any great hast to multiply the Book of a young Religious of Corbie which he at first intended only for his particular friends Supposing this Book was known it might be neglected thro contempt or some other consideration as it oft happens in these cases altho a Book may contain several absured and extraordinary Opinions because it may not be thought fitting to make 'em publick till it afterwards appears there are persons who be deceiv'd by it and that 't is necessary to undeceive them Moreover what reason is there to say that the censures of these people hapned not before the time wherein Paschasus wrote his Commentary on S. Matthew 'T is because says Mr. Arnaud he says Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere But this reason is void for this term nunc according to the common stile of Authors does refer it self rather in general to the time in which Paschasus lived than precisely to that in which he wrote
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
corrupt the Catalogue of S. Hildephonsus his works by inserting in 'em these words which are to be found in the Edition of Miroeus as well as in the Manuscript He wrote a little Book of the Virginity of the Holy Virgin against three Infidels We know likewise that Paschasus his Book touching the Eucharist was father'd on the famous Raban as appears from the Cologn Edition in 1551. and from the Manuscripts of which the Author of the Dissertation says he has another of 'em in his hands altho it be certain that Paschasus is the Author of this Book and that Raban was of a contrary opinion to Paschasus But without such appearance and without any ground proof or Witnesses we must be gravely told that Berenger or his Disciples who were not convinced nor accused of any such thing have fathered on Bertram the Book which was condemned at Verseil and Rome and which is in effect John Scots and that six hundred years after we must be informed of this pretended supposition which no body before ever imagin'd what is this but imposing on the Readers credulity THE second change which the Author of the Dissertation makes of Mr. De Marca's sentiment is a mere cavil that has no foundation as I shall shew hereafter In effect Mr. De Marca as well before as since his new conjecture has acknowledg'd that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same AND as to what that Author imagins in the third place that Mr. De Marca was mistaken in his maintaining that Bertram's Book is plainly against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence whereas it ought only to pass for an obscure and perplex'd Writing 't is evident this was to save the Author of the Perpetuity's reputation In effect if he had not this consideration how could he content himself with barely treating this Book as obscure and perplex'd seeing he himself supposes that 't is John Scots First Does he not know that Scot's Book was condemned by the Synod of Verceil as an Heretical piece Secondly That 't was so before at Paris by a kind Durand Troar de Corp. Sang. Chr. part 9. De Praedest cap. 31. Epist ad Berenger in Lanf oper of Synod who censured it in the same terms Thirdly That another Council at Rome caused it to be burnt six years after the Council of Verceil Fourthly That John Scot's Book was composed on this platform That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body nor true Blood of our Lord but only a memorial of his true Body and Blood as Hincmar and Ascelin say Fifthly That Berenger has taken the Book of John Scot for an authentick testimony of his Faith and Lanfranc also for an avowed adversary of Paschasus Sixthly That in the 12th Century Cellot's anonymous Author testifies the Author of this Book was respected as an adversary to Paschasus in the same manner as he had been in the preceding Century Seventhly That supposing Bertram's Book be John Scot's whatsoever I now mention'd must be referred to him Eighthly That in effect Bertram's Book was attributed to Oecolampadius Ninthly That it was proscribed by I know not how many expurgatory Indexes Tenthly That the Divines of Doway and others with 'em not being able to admit the Doctrin have affirm'd it has been altered In fine that the Author of the Dissertation himself acknowledges that Berenger or his Disciples considered this Book as a Buckler for 'em which 't was their interest to preserve at the expence of the greatest fraud and treachery DARE the Author of the Dissertation say that Hincmar has understood the sentiment of John Scot better than John Scot himself that the Councils of the 11th Century have rashly condemned a Writing which at most was but an obscure and perplex'd one That Pope Leo IX Nicholas II. and the 113 Bishops which constrained Berenger to burn John Scot's Book were deceived in it that Berenger nor his Adversaries nor his Disciples have not comprehended what made for 'em or against 'em during several years Dispute and that in fine the 12th Century remain'd in as great an ignorance I wonder how the Author of the Dissertation or Mr. Arnaud can speak of this Book as they do which is to say that it is obscure and perplexed in supposing John Scot to be the Author of it I can scarcely believe that if these Gentlemen do satisfie themselves they can also satisfie the ingenuous of their own party that have read it But that I may handle more fully this point I intend to establish clearly two things First That this Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord publish'd under the name of Bertram is in effect Ratram's and not John Scot's Secondly That the authority of this Book will not cease to be very considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it I hope I shall commodiously reduce under these two heads whatsoever the Author has treated of greatest importance in his Dissertation CHAP. III. That Ratram is the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood publish'd under the name of Bertram TO confirm this truth I shall first bring as convincing proofs as can be brought for these kind of Facts Secondly I shall produce the acknowledgment of the most learned Romanists who have acknowledged this verity even since some of 'em have question'd it Lastly I shall shew that this is not a discovery which Vsher first made and that whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation brings against that Prelates proofs cannot overthrow them See here the proofs FIRST Sigebert a Monk of Gemblou attributes in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to the Author of the Book of Predestination Now this Book of Predestination is acknowledged to be Ratram's And in effect altho Suffridus Petrus who caused Sigebert's Catalogue to be Printed has inserted the name of Bertram in his Edition he does himself remark that two Manuscripts one of the Abby of Gemblou the other of the Priory of Vauvert had distinctly the name of Ratram and not that of Bertram This testimony of Sigebert is considerable for three reasons First Because he was one of the most inquisitive Historians of his time as appears by his Chronicle Secondly Because he did not write his Catalogue till he had spent the greatest part of his life in the reading of the Authors of which he speaks in his Catalogue Thirdly Because that having lived a great while in the 11th Century for he died but in the year 1113. he had a particular knowledg of what passed in the Disputes between Berenger and his Adversaries and the Authors which were alledged on either hand AS Trithemius in his Catalogue has followed Sigebert excepting that he spoke more particularly of the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of Predestination it is plain that altho it has likewise the name of Bertram or Bertramnus he design'd Ratramnus and that the rather that 't
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic ãâã voce Bertram ãâã lib. 2. de ãâã Aut. 39. p. â 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 Siâ 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 oâ 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
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
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