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
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
Philosophy I have shew'd the difference which there is between the genius of Bertram and that of John Scot. Tenthly It is equally false that neither of 'em dared to discover their minds touching the Real Presence Our Author himself will have Bertram's Book to be John Scot's and John Scot's Book was burn'd in a full Council because it opposes it Eleventhly There is no great matter of wonder that after the question was moved and the Book of John Scot burn'd there should be more diligent search made after the Books which respected a Dispute touching which Berenger maintain'd that Paschasus gave the occasion by his novelties and thus the Book of Ratram has appear'd since that of John Scot has disappear'd IN fine twelfthly There are no rational people that will be perplexed with this imaginary difficulty of the Author of the Dissertation to wit that of one of these Authors which is Bertram there should remain nothing that is certain to posterity neither in respect of his quality nor his name altho his Book has remain'd and that the quality of the other to wit John Scot should be well known altho his Book be lost It is apparent enough who Ratramnus was and that Bertram is but a name corrupted thro the ignorance of the Transcribers But what I now represented is sufficient to dissipate the illusion which the name of Bertram had produced and all reasonable people will be fully convinced that Ratram is the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and not John Scot. We have only then to shew that the authority of this Book will be of no less weight supposing John Scot were the Author of it For which purpose I have design'd the second part of this Answer THE SECOND PART That the Authority of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram will be never the less considerable supposing John Scot were the Author of it CHAP. VI. That John Scot was in great esteem both in his own and succeeding Generations THERE are so many things which advance the repute of John Scot that one may well wonder Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Dissertation should mention him with such lessening terms and persuade themselves that to diminish the credit of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord they needed only to attribute it to John Scot. For he was a person who by his merit had gain'd the esteem and affection of Charles the Bald which is to say of a judicious Prince who took to heart the interests of Religion as Ratramn praises him in his Book of Predestination These two things says he exalt your Majesty in a manner really illustrious T. 1. Maug p. 29. That you seek after the secrets of the heavenly Wisdom and burn with Religious Zeal And indeed this Prince deserv'd the Title of Orthodox which Concil apud Vermer T. 2. Nov. Bibl. Mss. p. 735. was given him by a Council held in 869. Henry a Monk of Auxerre praises him also for his knowledg and piety as we see in the Epistle Dedicatory in the Life of S. Germain of Auxerre related by Du Chene and Baronius But Hist Fr. T. 1. p. 470. Annal. 876. sect 3. 39. T. 3. A. 886. sect 10 11. amongst other things he commends him for having drawn over into France Learned Ireland meaning thereby John Erigena that is to say John the Irish man according to the Observation of Alford the Jesuit in his English Annals HE that wrote the lives of the Bishops of Auxerre describing the advantages which Heribald had in his Youth reckons for a great happiness that he was brought up under the tuition of John Scot. He applied himself T. 2. Nov. Bib. Mss. p. 4â—5 says he to John Scot who in that time imparted to the Gauls the Rays of his Wisdom He was a long time his Disciple and learn'd from him the art of knowing divine and human things and to judg rightly of good and evil THE Authority of John Scot was so considerable in the 9th Century that Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Reims and Pardulus Bishop of Laon who found themselves engaged in sharp Disputes touching Predestination and Grace with Gotthescalc believ'd they could not do better for their party than to oblige John Scot to write on these two subjects He did so in effect and T. 2. Maug 132. altho the choice which he made of the worst side drew on him the censures of the Councils of Valence and Langres and that Hincmar himself defended him but weakly yet did he keep up his credit and Charles the Bald set him upon translating the works which bear the name of Denis the Areopagite HIS Reputation maintain'd it self not only in France but passed over into Italy and Rome it self Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper gives him particular Commendations in a Letter which he wrote to Charles the Bald. I speak says he of John Scot of whom I have heard say that he is a Saint Syll. Epist Hyber n. 33. p. 64. seq It is a work of the Spirit of God to have made this man so zealous as well as eloquent WE may likewise here add the kindness which Alfred King of England had for him and the Employs which this Prince gave him but of this I shall discourse hereafter I shall only say that John Scot was in effect worthy of the esteem and affection which the world shewed him his Wit was lively and piercing he was not only a profound Philosopher but also very well read in the Fathers and especially the Greek ones which was very rare in the 9th Century wherein the learning of the greatest men was bounded by the knowledg of S. Hierom S. Augustin Gregory the Great Isidor of Sevil and their skill lay in copying out these Authors word for word IN fine we may moreover observe in favour of John Scot that altho his Book of the Eucharist was condemned in the Councils of the 11th Century yet the reputation of the Author was perpetuated in the following Ages as appears from the authentick Testimonies which all Historians give him I shall not relate here what Ingusphus William of Malmsbury Simeon of Durham Roger de Hoveden Matthew of Westminster and Florent of Worcester have said of him we may find this in the Answer to the first Part 3 ch 3. Treatise of the Perpetuity WE need only add to these testimonies First that of the Manuscript of the Library of S. Victor which has for Title Memoriale Historiarum Tempore eodem fuit Joannes Scotus vir perspicacis ingenii mellitoe facundioe qui rogatu Caroli Calvi jamdudum verbo ad verbum Hierarcham Dionysii de Groeco in Latinum transtulerat post super eundem librum fecit commentum fecitque librum de naturoe divisione librum de Eucharistiâ qui postea lectus est condemnatus in Synodo Vercellensi â Papa Leone celebrata eodem
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâ—m 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
to examine their Style in other like Matters it being impossible but in comparing their expressions some of 'em will give light to others Had Mr Arnaud followed this method he would never have valued so highly several expressions in Greek Authors for he would have seen at the same time that they deliver themselves almost after the same manner on other Subjects where there 's no Transubstantiation to be suspected I know 't is a hard matter for a Person that is prejudiced to consider the question he handles in those respects which are disagreeable to him but besides that this prejudice is a fault and therefore to be avoided especially when men write on a Publick Account or take upon them to instruct People besides this I say there are several considerable matters which so offer themselves to be seen that we cannot abstain from beholding them and 't is more especially in respect of these that mens neglect is blame-worthy because 't is affected and is inconsistant with the Rules of Sincerity As for instance how can we approve of Mr. Arnaud's proceeding who has scarcely mentioned a word in his Book touching that prodigious ignorance which has overspread the East in matters of Religion How can we approve his taking no notice of that multitude of Emissaries wherewith all that Country has been filled for I know not how many Ages together nor of the means used for the propogation of the Romish Doctrines nor the progresses they made These are things he could not be ignorant of and are not matters of small importance seeing the Judgment to be made of this whole Controversie does in some measure depend thereon But not to rehearse what we already mention'd how can we bear with him when he passes over in silence several Greek expressions like unto those from which he would draw advantage and yet are applied to Subjects which have not the least relation to Transubstantiation These expressions offered themselves to him and there needed little deliberation to determine what use was to be made of them and what rank they hold in the decision of this Controversie Yet has he taken no notice of them for his desire of vanquishing has far exceeded his love to Truth BUT howsoever 't is certain the Greeks speak almost after the same manner concerning the Church it being likewise the Body of Christ as they do concerning the Eucharist Cabisilas is one of the Authors Mr. Arnaud has quoted with most complacency having filled a long Chapter with Passages taken out of him he alledges amongst others these words of his 38 Chapter The Church is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are marked by the Heart the Tree by the Root and the Vine-branches by the Vine forasmuch as the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ and that this Body and Blood are the Nourishment of the Church So far is his Allegation but 't is requisite to hear Cabisilas himself in the full extent of his Discourse to judge of the Style of this Author and Mr. Arnaud's Delusion The Church say's he is represented in the Mysteries of Religion not as in the Signs but as the Members are in the Heart the Branches of the Tree in the Root and the Vine-leaves in the Vine as speaks our Lord. For here is not only a Communion of Names or a reference of likeness but 't is the Identity of the thing it self For the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Now they are the real nourishment of the Church and when she partaketh of them she does not change them into a humane Body like unto other Food but she her self is changed into them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the most excellent part has the predominancy Behold the iron when 't is joyned with the fire it becomes fire and it does not make the fire become iron for the fire effaces all the properties of the iron so in like manner if any one could see the Church of Christ in that respect whereby 't is united to him and partakes of his Flesh he would behold nothing but the Body of Christ and therefore St. Paul say's you are the Body of Jesus Christ and each of you are his Members For when he calls him the Head and us the Members he does not represent to us thereby the cares of his Providence nor our subjection to him in the same sence as we call our selves the Members of our Parents or Friends by an hyperbolical way of speaking But he means what he says That the faithful by the efficacy of this Blood live the Life which is in Jesus Christ and have their real dependance on him as their Head and are clothed with this Body It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud why he cut short this passage of Cabisilas seeing the reason manifestly appears for if we take but the pains to compare what he alledges from this Author touching the Eucharist with what I now related touching the Church we shall soon find that these last expressions are far stronger and significant than what he say's concerning the Sacrament He excludes the bare communion of name and resemblance between Christ and the Church and establishes a perfect Identity He say's the Church is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He uses the comparison of iron inflamed which others apply to the Eucharist and as if he design'd to make us understand that the Church is Christ's Body in a litteral and complete sense he assures us this is no Hyperbole and that St. Paul speaks the same thing I am greatly deceived if there can be any thing found so pressing and comprehensive in relation to the Eucharist either in this Author or any other of the true Greeks and this shews on one hand how vain and groundless Mr. Arnaud's Triumphs are and on the other how requisite and necessary a thing it is for men to shew the Substantial Conversion clearly and expresly in the Doctrines of a Church before it be concluded she believes it CABISILAS is not the only man who speaks after this manner touching the Church for others borrow his proper Terms to explain themselves fully like him for we may find the same passage at large in the first Answer of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Divines of Wittemberg PHOTIUS spake likewise to the same purpose and Oecumenius after him as appears by the Commentaries of the latter of these on the Tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians The Apostle say they tells us that the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ but forasmuch as it seems that that which is communicated is of a different nature from him to whom 't is communicated he would now shew us that we do not communicate but that we are all of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Body of Jesus Christ For as one piece of Bread is made of several
acknowledges them to be Types and Figures because he would have a difference made they being not as yet the Body and Blood of Christ But this is not to say they ought to give to the Gifts either before or after their Consecration an honour which terminates it self in them alone AS to what he alledges out of Simeon de Thessalonica we have no other Ibid. assurance of the truth of these passages than the bare word of Allatius that is to say of a passionate man ready to assert and maintain any thing right or wrong for the interest of the Court of Rome We shall have occasion to speak more of him hereafter but in the mean time shall only say that the words of Simeon be they what they will do not conclude we ought to yield the Gifts an absolute honour which terminates it self in that Substance which the Priest carries on his head when he enters into the Church THE passage the Author of the Perpetuity quoted as of Gabriel de Philadelphia Second part pag. 257. was more specious but because Cardinal Perron from whom 't was borrow'd does not recite the Greek Text and Arcudius who relates some clauses thereof describes him as a Person void of all kinds of Learning either in Divinity Philosophy or Grammar and that moreover the same Arcudius assures us the Greeks do give very little honour if any at all to the Sacrament after its Consecration I therefore said I would suspend my Judgment till I could ascertain my self by reading the Book it self MR. Arnaud who is ever upon his Criticisms and willingly passes over the Answer to the 2. Treat of Perp 2. part cap. 8. matter that he might fasten on the Person imagines he has found here a lucky occasion to triumph over me But I am sorry to find my self oblig'd to disturb his Enjoyments which I would not do could I well avoid it I affirm then first I had reason to suspend my Judgment because that to judge aright of the sence of an Author it is not sufficient that we see a passage translated into French by Cardinal Perron For besides that his Translations are not always very exact as several have observ'd no more than those of the Office of the Blessed Sacrament according to their Relations that have examin'd them 't is probable this passage of Gabriel has been already made to his hand by Persons unknown to us and for whose Fidelity he was not willing to answer In effect forasmuch as he has not inserted the Greek in the Margent as he has done in the most part of his other Quotations may justly give us a shrewd suspition of this Moreover we meet therein with the Term of Transubstantiation which Mr. Arnaud himself confesses is not an usual expression with the Greeks There is likewise mention therein of the Accidents of Bread which remain which is not the usual Style of the Greeks I have then wrong'd no body when I suspended my Judgment but have rather done what I and every man else ought to do in the like occasion I was not oblig'd to ask Mr. Arnaud's leave for this altho he pretends I was for he is not the Sovereign Arbitratour of Affairs which are treated of in the Empire of Reason there being several things which pass there in which he takes no part BUT say's he Arcudius Mr. Claude ' s great Author relates several passages Ibid. out of Gabriel which are as expressive as that now in question I answer that what Arcudius relates obliges me yet more to suspend my Judgment because that in it there are several Contradictions and manifest Absurdities as I shewed in my Answer to Father Noüet which the Reader may consult if he desires information touching this particular I confess adds Mr. Arnaud that having not the least reason to doubt of the Ibid. Sentiment of this Author touching the passages produced by Arcudius I have therefore avoided giving my self the trouble to inquire after his Book And I for my part profess I am not so easily satisfi'd for I cannot thus take things upon trust What shall we say every one has his way Mr. Arnaud's humour is immediately to catch hold of any thing but mine is not so hasty and indeed I never had cause to repent of my slowness in this particular reckoning it to be the best way to prevent mistakes Not that I would have him put himself to the trouble of seeking after this Book of Gabriel's as he has proffer'd me to do for our Dispute may be as well carri'd on without this Archbishop whofe Book if we will believe Arcudius is a very extravagant one and the Civilities of such a Person as Mr. Arnaud is may be expected in a weightier occasion BUT as we must not suffer our selves to be prevailed on by his kindness so neither must we suffer our selves to be run down by his Injuries For he charges me with disingenuously suppressing Arcudius his words which would have discovered the true sence of what I cited He chages me with likewise impertinently designing to invalidate the Testimony of Gabriel by that of Arcudius I must then justifie my self concerning these two particulars The first of which will be soon dispatched by considering that having in the first Edition of my Books only set down in the Margent the particular places of those Authors where are to be found the passages I made use of I have in the last Edition inserted these passages themselves in full length according as they are in the Original Now that very place of Arcudius in question may be seen there set down at large together with the Clause which Mr. Arnaud say's I have suppressed Let but any man take the pains to read the 296 page and he shall find these very words therein Nam etiam postea in elevatione Sacratissimae Hostiae quamtumvis eam non aspiciant quamprimum tamen Sacerdos ea verba protulerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sancta sanctis statim procumbunt cultu Latriae adorant which are the same words Mr. Arnaud makes his efforts upon This is then a groundless Accusation for he cannot alledge he knew not of this Edition seeing he has mention'd it himself in the Eighth Chapter of his Seventh Book upon occasion of the Council at Nice BUT it will be demanded perhaps why I did not insert into the Body of my Discourse these words of Arcudius which do so plainly manifest his meaning I answer that if I had argued on the sence of Arcudius I should have been to blame in not alledging whatsoever might give light to this sence For when we would draw a true consequence we ought to establish the Principle in a clear and perfect manner to take away all occasion of mistakes But Mr. Arnaud needs not be told what kind of Person this Arcudius is being a Greek latiniz'd Priest brought up at Rome in the Seminary of the Greeks extremely passionate for the Interests of the
Roman Church having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essential Points I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact which do now and then escape him after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron and Bellarmin and Mr. Arnaud himself not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude but as Persons who affirm things from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé and sundry others of our Authors Now 't is evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom nor to relate all the words which may make it known for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing but to tire the Reader 's patience and trifle away the time It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me seeing I published this illustration in my Answer to Father Noüel which altho well known to him yet has it not stopt him in his carreer concealing my Justification neither more nor less than if I had said nothing IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist notwithstanding whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted Which is what I take upon me to maintain He say's that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts Arcud lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying this is my Body this is my Blood he then shews them little or no respect at all he bows not his head neither does he adore them nor prostrate himself before them nor lights Candles nor makes any Reverence Mr. Arnaud answers the question concerns not the Adoration in it self but the time of the Adoration Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission which both one and the other do as soon as the Consecration is performed that as to what concerns the second the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration and the Greeks later to wit at the Elevation of the Hoste which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate THAT we may examine this Answer we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks than his bare word or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence but this is what 's in question and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucharist immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary and that in their intention this is a sovereign honour But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence and to perswade us the Greeks do this is a plain abuse for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts and guessing at their thoughts Those that have this inward reverence to the Eucharist do certainly shew it by some outward Sign and the Greeks shewing none Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter SACRANUS Scarga and Caucus who lived amongst the Greeks were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence for had they known any thing of it they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence Respect or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration nor would they call them as they have done Heretical and Prophane People Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration knew nothing of this This inward Reverence had its residence and operations in their Souls and yet they knew nothing of it for had they known it they would never return such an Answer None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret but if he gives us not other Proofs it is to be feared his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite or Ceremony which is used as he say's at the Elevation of the Hoste and see whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned The Greek Liturgy has these words That the Priest and Deacon adore three times in saying thrice with a low voice O God be propitious unto me a sinner The Author of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sacrament Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's that the Priest adores and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are in saying thrice softly Lord be propitious to me a sinner My Answer was that I found in Goar ' s Book of Rites and Answer to the second Treatise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies not this Term of Lord but that of God which shews that this Adoration terminated it self in God and not in the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist But he ought to proceed sincerely it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore but it is likewise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O God be propitious to me a sinner from whence 't is plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist AS to Arcudius's Testimony who tells us that the People prostrate themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis Holy Things are for Holy Persons and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria we need not be much concerned thereat being a Person prepossessed and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant Goar in not in S. Joan Chrysost Miss pag. 153. Arcudius say's Goar altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of
hearers receiving more or less but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all when they should be several thousands in number altho it be but one Body for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue as the things I offered by way of example do and that he fully and intirely exists in them I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done He mentions what precedes and follows them but leaves out those that are in the middle 'T is probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air without losing its Unity for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression nor in the Air which receives the voice and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its Image or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves and with the Seal or the first Air in respect of the Characters or Articulation but not at all in respect of the Substance whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament which is to say that the Bread altho it receives the impression of the virtue of Christ's Body yet does it keep its Substance after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread 'T is probable he did not like that in proposing the comparison of the Seal Eutychius has observ'd that 't is not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters whence it follows that they are not likewise changed substantially into him 'T is likely he could not well rellish this expression that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the Seal does in things and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy against which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the real Presence For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood and become the same numerical Substance But be it as it will Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest or if he design'd to do it not to reproach me for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zonarus I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself for it will appear at the end of this Chapter that 't would have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length and the reason why I did it not was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long and the sum of which may be represented in few words besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Margent of the last Edition of my Book We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me to his humour and not to his Judgment for had he taken time to consider he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment and not of his humour for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums IN fine Nicetas having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence he introduces the other and adds these following words Which things being alledged by these and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church the others replied on the contrary That the Mystery is not an acknowledgment of the Resurrection but only a Sacrifice and consequently is corruptible being without Soul or Understanding and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire but in part For were it say they incorruptible it would be indued with Spirit it would be alive it could neither be touched seen nor chewed with the Teeth and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence we need only inquire whether they had common sence for unless they were deprived of it they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord which is seen handled cut and chewed with the teeth and which altho inanimate yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used If Mr. Arnaud can make us believe this he may make us believe any thing How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth and cut his flesh in pieces that every one may partake thereof to believe he is without Life and Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet that he is pained and grieved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us That all this would be ridiculous if we understand it as meant of Bread which is only the Figure of our Saviour and which contains only his virtue I answer 't is no hard matter to give their words a national sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as dead and sacrific'd for us and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding from amongst those things I say which we see handle and chew with our teeth and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ when he lived on Earth and was subject to pain and misery whereas were he represented in it in his incorruptible State wherein he is no more visible to our eyes nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols wherein these dolours are not so lively represented And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire but in part this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
makes no mention therein of Agapius Leo Allatius has outragiously used the same Patriarch in his Book de Perpetua Consensione and has not fail'd to describe at length the Councils of Cyrillus de Berrhaea and Parthenius but he mentions not a word of Agapius The aforesaid Allatius wrote a Book against Dr. Creygton wherein he indeavours to prove the Greeks believe Transubstantiation He has made a Collection of whatsoever favours his Cause out of all Authors whether Prints or Manuscripts Mr. Arnaud knows it very well seeing 't is from thence he has taken his most specious Arguments but he tells us not a Word of Agapius which makes me justly Suspect that 't is the Work of some Imposture But be it as it will 't is silly to Triumph with it till 't is proved Authentick IN fine to clear the Dispute of all Impertinencies and Illusions with which Mr. Arnaud has pestered it we must retrench the Testimonies of the false Greeks that is to say of those who having bin brought up in Latin Seminaries and being in their Hearts Romanists yet Live in the Communion of the Greek Schismatical Church and even sometimes Possess the highest Dignities Gerganus Bishop of Arta in the Epistle before his Catechism complains In Refuta Caryophr very much against these sort of People He says they are secret Enemies outwardly seem to be Greeks but are Latins in their Hearts and Caryophilus that relates this Complaint of Gerganus agrees in this Particular We have already seen by Report of the Jesuits themselves that one of the chiefest Employs of the Missionaries in the East is to gain privately the Bishops and Priests to make use of them upon Occasion or insensibly to insinuate the Romish Faith into the Minds of the Greek Youth under Pretence of teaching them Languages and Philosophy that by this means they may fill by degrees the Ecclesiastical Charges with their Creatures We have already seen even by the Testimony of Allatius and Thomas a Jesu that this is the Advantage received from the Seminary at Rome wherein Greek Children are brought up in the Opinions and Maxims of the Roman Church and from whence they are sent into their own Countries to receive Orders from Schismatical Bishops to the end they may be promoted to Bishopricks by the Schismatical Patriarchs and carry on the Latin Interest under this false Pretence I do not pretend to decide here the Question whether this way of Proceeding be justifiable or not this being not my Business Let every Man judg thereof as he pleases But I Affirm 't is not possible for People to be more disingenuously dealt with than we are by Mr. Arnaud in making use of the Testimony of these Persons whereby to decide the Question between us If this be his way of Confounding Ministers and Triumphing at their Defeat his Victories indeed will be easy but his Triumph neither Honourable nor Just Is it not a disingenuous Artifice thus to make use as he hath done of the Mystery of the Missions and Seminaries to blind the World imagining his indirect Dealing will scape being taken Notice of AND thus does Mr. Arnaud gloriously retayl out to us the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius together with the Letters of Mr. de Pompone his Nephew He first produces some Collections out of him Translated into our Language and in fine has Translated his Treatise into Latin and inserted it in his 12th Book Would we know who this Paysius Ligaridius is observe what Mr. Pompone has writ of him in his Letter He is a Greek say's he by Nation and a Religious of the Order of St. Basil He was sometime a Student at Rome and Padoua and being returned from thence to Constantinople was made Archbishop of Gaza in Palestine Mr. Pompone seems to make this Acknowledgment with some kind of Constraint I the rather tell you say's he whatsoever I know of this Archbishop because I do not doubt but some Calvinists here have given notice of this Treatise to Mr. Claude and informed him he ought to be Suspected seeing he was Educated at Rome and went out Doctor at Padoua so that he may think his Testimony ought to be rejected being brought up in our Religion Should we not have known then of Mr. Pompone what kind of Man this Archbishop was were it not for that he feared some Calvinists at Stockholm would give an Account of him to Claude the Minister Alas we are not beholding to him for his Account for we can be informed elsewhere by a Latiniz'd Greek at Venice who goes under the Name of Signor Gradenigo observe what he lately Wrote concerning him Paysius Ligaridius studied at Rome and when he left that City was a Zealous Defendor of the Latins but I heard since he has publickly abjured the Romish Religion when made Metropolitain of Gaza TO give the World a more particular Character of this Person and such as are like him it will not be amiss to relate at large this Abjuration mentioned by Signor Gradenigo Observe here then what Dr. Bazire an English Divine whose Testimony I have already Cited wrote to me who was present at Jerusalem when Paysius was made Archbishop of Gaza In the Year 1646 say's he during the Troubles in England King Charles the first of Blessed Memory sent me over from England to France to his Son then Prince of Wales my now gracious Sovereign Charles the Second whom God grant long to Reign After an abode of two Years in France I resolved to make a long Voyage and to visit all Syria Mesopotamia and Palestine which I did in five Years time Being in the Year 1652 at Jerusalem in the Temple of the Sepulchre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray and behold the Holy Places in Imitation of that Alexander mentioned by Eusebius in the sixth Book of his Ecclesiastical History Paysius Ligaridius came to me from the Patriarch of Constantinople whose Name likewise was Paysius to present me with a Cake on which was described the whole History of our Saviour from his Annunciation to his Ascension and in leaving me Invited me to be present on the Morrow at his Spiritual Marriage these were his Expressions meaning his Installment into the Dignity of Metropolitain of Gaza The next Day being the fourteenth of September 't was performed and I was present at the Ceremony The Patriarch sat upon his Throne which was hung with rich Turky Carpets and under him sat the Metropolitains and a little lower the Bishops Archimandrites c. Whilst the Office was Celebrating Ligaridius rehearsed a Confession of Faith a Copy of which he afterwards gave me Before his Consecration he twice or thrice trampled under his Feet a Picture which represented a City scituated on seven Hills with a two headed Eagle soaring over it The Latins there present were extreamly offended thereat for they knew well enough this City represented Rome After the Consecration was ended I withdrew into a publick House of Entertainment in
no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest When any Authors savour them they are worthy of publick Praise and when they do not they deserve to be Contemned and their Arguments become strong or weak good or bad accordingly as they are serviceable or otherwise It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form they are equal for we suppose the same Principles and draw thence the same Consequences but if they be compared in respect of the matter the Advantage is wholly on my side for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument whereas they weaken his The Pagans were Learned they had the Power in their Hands they needed not dissemble with the Christians They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World There can be nothing said like this concerning the Greeks as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment and Mr. Arnaud's Argument if we believe himself is undeniably Evident that is to say these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments when they are pleased to make use of them the Title of good ones but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones This partiality proceeds only from prejudice BUT in the second place without wandring from the Subject in Hand I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his and consequently deserve to be preferred before them according to the Rules of right Reason The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject nor the Concomitancy or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits nor his Existence in several places They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bodies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist nor several other Questions In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation which a man cannot but consider and which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book ALL that I now desire is that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins The Greeks say's he have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins they neither opposed nor condemned it therefore they believed it as well as the Latins The Greeks say I have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance they neither handled this Point nor so much as made mention of it therefore they do not believe it nor consequently Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his for 't is a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases and yet and tast behold all the Qualities and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist or at least to speak in some sort of it than 't is natural to those that do not believe Transubstantiation to reproach them with it that do believe it If we weigh all Circumstances we shall find the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people or with themselves in reflecting on what fell under their Sence has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them than what the Latins taught or Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds must needs be more prevalent with them than that of quarrelling with the Latins The occasions of satisfying themselves and instructing their people oftner presented themselves than those of condemning strangers with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters The reasons of their Silence in respect of the Latins are easilyer found out than those which would oblige them to be silent in respect of themselves For what signifies the telling us the Glory of God and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject For this same Glory of God and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to declare the reasons of their Silence to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge and to exhort them to the same Silence Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Argument I should tire my Readers Patience for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see and administer the Eucharist to discourse and partake of it the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate touching the Sick that desire it and received it the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it and in general touching whatsoever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantiation seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject 'T IS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversion A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ according to the Sence of the Latins it is not in the usual form of a humane Body whence there immediately arises this Consideration how it can be without this Form How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner neither palbable nor divisible thus more like a Spirit than a Body and yet without Motion Sense or Action and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend that if the Substance of Bread ceases there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attributed the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence Neither needs there much Study to find out that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament he is then in several places at the same time to wit in Heaven and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery Yet do they make no mention of
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
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but mentions not a Word of Confession Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiastical History their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place where their common Devotion brings them do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession nor that of Confirmation as appears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject he I say that believes these latter are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sacraments THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites and purging their Books from some Thom. a Jesu lib. 7. part 2. c. 7. Errors which were common to them say's he as well as to other Eastern Nations that is to say other Christians in that Country they found they misunderstood some Passages of Scripture and especially that touching the Institution of the Sacrament this is my Body They affirm say's he that we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins 't is the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption or such an Interpretation of the Words of Christ seeing 't is only on the literal Sence of these Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded I shall prove in its place as clearly as 't is possible to prove a thing of this nature that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation nor the substantial Presence This Truth will be plainly manifest and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion or made thereof a Point of Controversy Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it because they do not make thereof a Controversy AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument and discover the weakness of his Consequence But we must proceed farther for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable to wit that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation altho they never disputed against it I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity but even no Probability I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century till this present For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre James de Vitry Belon Cottovic Anthony Caucus Francis Richard Allatius du Loir Thevenot and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter I moreover produced the Testimonies of Bozius and Thomas a Jesu All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century There are Barlaam Epist 1. Bibl. patr Tom. 2. Edit 4. say's he few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it to which they willingly apply themselves All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Salvation So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith there are Millions ignorant of it Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book writes I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People for I know their Ignorance Epist ad Wittemborg in Epist Virro erudi and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith whom they Combat not with Arms but Patience and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops and therefore I continually upbraid them with it but to no purpose The Jesuits making their advantage thereof have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth and are like Foxes amongst Geese It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading written since Photius's time excepting some few Histories and Collections of the antient Canons the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy and some pittiful Treatises wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word without any Art or Sence almost II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present for there can be nothing imagined more dreadful and miserable Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate continually accompanied with Misfortunes or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers by means whereof Greece became divided into Factions and horrible Confusions In the Year 1034 Romanus Argirus Peteau Rat. tempor ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid. the Emperor having lost Syria was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit He lost Sicily and Bulgaria and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopted one Michael Calaphatus and made him Emperor but four or five Months Ibid. after she caused his Eyes to be bored out and gave the Empire to Constantin Monomaque whom she espoused He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054 and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him who Reigned but one Ibid. Year After her came one named Michael Stratiotique who Reigned also but one Year Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place wherein he remained Ibid orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull Ibid. and mean Spirited Prince who suffered the Barbarians
touching the Conversion but only in token of their Union each Church keeping its own particular Belief Who will wonder if People who could against their Consciences sign a Decree wherein they expresly abjured five of the Articles of their Faith whereby to reconcile themselves with the Church of Rome should yield to be once present at its Service Yet this was not without offering Violence to themselves for Syropulus observes that the Pope having sent them word that on the morrow they must celebrate Mass and consummate the Union and that if there were any amongst them would partake of the Mysteries of the Latins they should prepare themselves at these Words the Greeks were seized with Horror 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist Conc. Flor. Sect. 10. cap. 9. Moreover I know not whether what Andrew de St. Cruce says be true that they adored the Mass in the same manner as the Latins for the same Syropulus relates that they stood all the time of the Office We stood say's he in our Sect. 10. c. 10. Vestments during the Liturgy But supposing it were true they used the same external Ceremonies as the Latins it would not hence follow they believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation nor gave the Eucharist a sovereign Adoration For to kneel before an Object is not in the Sence of either Greeks or Latins a token that a Man adores it neither with an absolute Adoration nor that of Latria I am so far from excusing this Action that I believe it is on the contrary inexcusable both before God and Men But how great soever their Fault was in assisting at the Service of the Latins which they so greatly abhorred it appears that what they did was not to testify they believed the same things as they but that the Union after a sort was accomplished For they were present at their Service only in hope the Latins would likewise assist at theirs and in effect the Emperor was very urgent with the Pope for this To which the Pope replied he would first examine their Liturgy and particularly consider in what manner they celebrated it and see whether he could satisfy their Demands Whereupon the Emperor finding himself abused thus expressed Sect. 10. c. 11. himself We hoped the Latins would have amended several Errors but I find them not only Innovators and Blame worthy in several things but that which is worse they take upon them to reform us It is worth while to observe what kind of Union this was which being perfected the Pope declares on his side that neither he nor his Latins had considered the Liturgy of the Greeks and the Emperor on the other hand protests the Latins are Innovators and guilty of several Errors BUT say's Mr. Arnaud supposing Policy hindred the Greeks from opposing the Doctrine of Transubstantiation what end could Syropulus have in concealing from us this Mystery Why discovering to us as he does his Countrymens weakness he mentions not one word concerning that which ought to be the chief Subject of his History Why does he not blame the Ceremonies of the Latins Wh◠has he not detested in his History the Adoration of the Host and Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness Why did he not deplore the Abominations of those of his Nation that were present at the Popish Mass who shewed it the same Respect as the Latins which is to say adored the Eucharist To all these Wherefores I shall oppose others Why didnot Syropulus take notice of the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article touching the Salvation of the Damned and Christ's descent into Hell and offering them his Gospel Why did he not censure the Neglect of both one and th' other in that they mentioned not a word concerning the Marriage of Priests nor communion under both kinds nor of all those other Articles I denoted in this Chapter These kind of Questions which Mr. Arnaud makes are good for nothing but to impose on inconsiderate Persons Syropulus is an Historian that contents himself with relating what passed of moment in this Affair and sometimes to give his Opinion in general thereupon but it plainly appears he never intended to reflect on every Particular wherein his Nation was concern'd A History is not a Dispute Wherefore then should he Discourse of Transubstantiation in it Why blame the Ceremonies of the Latins or detest the Adoration of the Sacrament and its Feast Why tell us of the Adoration which the Greeks rendered to the Host of the Latins seeing he assures us on the contrary that they stood bolt upright during the Liturgy Mr. Arnaud who calls upon others so much to think upon what they write has he I say considered what he saies concerning the Feast of the Holy Sacrament Wherefore say's he has not Syropulus detested the Feast of the Holy Sacrament of which he was a Witness For I shall only tell him He has not mentioned a word of it and yet 't is certain the Greeks do not approve it but on the contrary condemn it as I already show'd in the foregoing Book It does not then follow the Greeks hold Transubstantiation altho Syropulus speaks not of it AND thus much concerning the Council of Florence Mr. Arnaud likewise draws some Arguments from what passed after the Greeks had renounced this Union And first he takes for granted that Transubstantiation was established in this Council and that the Greeks solemnly approved of it On this Principle he runs on arguing beyond all bounds that those that violated the Union should inveigh against this Doctrine of the Latins and those that approved it He introduces again Syropulus and alledges Marc of Ephesus and describes his Hatred against the Latins He tells us of a Synod held at Jerusalem against the Patriarch Metrophanus and those of his Party This was the time say's he if ever to reproach those with Transubstantiation that had consented to the Union and approved this Doctrine in it He takes Occasion Lib. 4. c. 3. p. 355. hence to bless God the Greeks had renounced this Union acknowledging the Divine Providence therein which permitted it thus to come to pass to the end he might not want matter for his Book Whatsoever we related say's he touching the Greeks approbation of Transubstantiation would have less force had Pag. 347. this Agreement subsisted It would have been alledged that politick Interest having made the Greeks consent to the receiving of this Doctrine they were afterwards withheld by Fear from condemning it and being insensibly accustomed to it dared not immediately reject it by reason of the bad estate of their Affairs But to the end their real Belief might appear in this Subject it was necessary this Agreement should be disturbed and their Passion at liberty to break out that they should indeavour to make void whatsoever they had confirmed at Florence That they should attack the Union in all possible manners and denote whatsoever they could gainsay reproachfully
Election for 't is clear their Elections are invalid being as they are Schismaticks and consequently have have no Jurisdiction Moreover it seems to be rather the Turk that makes the Election than they for they Consecrate him whom he Presents So that here will this Advantage redound from this aforementioned Election 1st That as fast as the Schismatical Bishops dye the Scholars of the Seminary or others of whose Judgment there is no cause to doubt will take their places 2d The Reformation of the Schismaticks may be happily undertaken and effected in particular Synods But his Holyness must never despair nor be weary or think it sufficient that he has elected one Patriarch He must on the contrary substitute another again and again ever putting Scholars of the Seminary into the places of the Deceased until all the old Schismatical Prelates be dead and their places filled with Catholicks And seeing that the Election of Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch depend likewise on the Turk because they are Greeks and that the Government of these Churches is in the Hands of Greeks the same Measures must be taken in respect of them by means of Ambassadors It is certain that this Affair will be successful for Money does all things in this Country So that all the Patriarchs being Roman Catholick and their Duty obliging them to establish Catholick Bishops and Curats according as their Wisdom shall direct them nothing will hinder us from saying in a short time behold one Flock and one only Shepherd The Schismatical Prelates will be rooted out and those who from their Infancy have been piously brought up in the Bosom of the Catholick Church will take their places These new Prelates by the uprightness of their Lives and soundness of their Doctrine may govern a People who are only Erroneous upon the account of their natural Facility and Proneness to believe what their Bishops tell them And this is the Course Thomas a Jesu would have taken and not that of Disputes and Controversies CHAP. VII Several Passages of Greek Authors Cited by Mr. Arnaud Examined THAT which remains to be examined of Mr. Arnaud's Dispute touching this matter of the Greeks since the eleventh Century will not long detain us He produces some Passages out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon de Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several of the Greek Books of Divinity They are the same we find in all the Controvertists in Bellarmin Cardinal Perron Coccius Father Noüet and especially Allatius from whom it seems Mr. Arnaud has taken them rather than from their Originals It will be a needless Labour to relate them at length one after another together with Mr. Arnaud's Commentaries on them It will be sufficient I examine as much as is necessary to give the true Sence of them and to discover Mr. Arnaud's Errors which I hope to do so clearly that the Readers will remain satisfied FIRST Theophylact Euthymius Cabasilus and Jeremias assure us that the Bread of the Eucharist is not an Antitype that is to say a Figure or Representation but the very Body it self of Jesus Christ because he did not say this is the Antitype but this is my Body I grant all this and I joyn all these four Authors together on this Head that I may thereby avoid Mr. Arnaud's Prolixity who having proposed them one after another could not avoid the oft repeating of the same Inductions and Arguments One Answer shall serve for all Theophylact say's he keeps to the propriety of Words he excludes Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 180. whatsoever varies from 'em He overthrows and absolutely rejects all metaphorical Significations and keeps close to the literal Signification of the Word EST. C. 12. p. 215. Euthymius say's he excludes the Key of Figure and plainly shows he has not taken the Word EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT He has then taken it in a Sence of Reality From whence he concludes that these Authors could not mean that the Bread is the Body of Christ in Virtue seeing they would argue contrary to their Intention For as our Saviour said not This is the Figure nor that the Bread he would give should be the Figure so neither has he said that he would give the Virtue of his Flesh or that the Bread he would give should contain the Virtue of his Flesh I answer Mr. Arnaud need not trouble himself with shewing us that the Greeks admit not the figurative Sence in our Saviour's Words neither take the Term EST in the Sence of SIGNIFICAT We grant it him And we grant likewise that we agree not with them in this But the Question here is to know whether it thence follows they believe Transubstantiation Now I maintain that not only this does not follow but that the contrary does for they hold a kind of middle way between the Sence of Figure and that of Transubstantiation In a word they believe that the Bread remaining Bread as to its Substance is yet the proper Body of Christ by Augmentation of the natural Body as we already shewed in the last Chapter of the foregoing Book What does Mr. Arnaud desire more Would he have us shew that the Greeks believe the Bread is made the Body of Christ by this means in the same manner the Food we eat becomes our Body They say so in express terms Would he have us shew him that by this means the Substance of Bread loses not its Existence nor is changed into the proper Substance of the Body that 't was before The thing it self speaks as much and we have shewed it in its place as clearly as a thing of this Nature can be shew'd Does he doubt that the Greeks believe by this means to keep the precise and literal Sence of our Saviour's Words They do themselves declare that they understand them no otherwise Would he have this in fine to be but a bad way of keeping the literal Sence The Greeks maintain the contrary and alledg for this Effect the Instance of Food which is made one with our Body by this same way of Assimulation and Augmentation and that it cannot be said these are two Bodies but one and the same Body BUT as say's he our Saviour said not this is the Figure so neither did he say this is the Virtue of my Body but this is my Body 1st This is to dispute against the Greeks and not against us who never undertook to warrant the Truth of their Opinions 2d They will answer him this Impression of Virtue is sufficient to make the Bread our Lord's Body without a Figure and there is no need of a change of Substance because the Substance of Food is not precisely changed into that which we have already but only added to it to make a Growth or Augmentation yet becomes our Body in a proper and literal Sence not a Figure but our Body it self not another Body but the same we had before Besides they
for a Proof The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi into the Body of Jesus Christ or to be the Body of Jesus Christ They believe then Transubstantiation 'T is evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion there is need of Ibid. something more precise than this But say's he this is a Catholick that speaks thus and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself and the question concerns his own Faith we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist by the Body of Christ he means the proper substance of this Body for we know that this is the Sence and Style of the Roman Church But when he Discourses of the Moscovites and the question concerns their Faith we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi he pretends no more than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give ' em What Sense is that This Sacranus does not determine and to go about to decide it by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates Moscovit Religion that the Consecration is performed amongst them by pronouncing our Saviour's words and that they attribute to them so great Vertue that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator we must tell Mr. Arnaud that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation such as is this le Ferre's This Author assures us that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation that they do it by the laying on of Hands in making the sign of the Cross and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People which they do not only every Sunday but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate as being Christ's Vicar and St. Peters Successor That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins This is all false as appears by other Relations of these People Possevin Com. 2. de reb Mosc And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors which are counted fabulous because say's he they have been mis-informed or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom to apply thereunto a Remedy What signifies then such peoples Testimony NOT to take notice that these Terms The Creature gives place to the Creator are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses For when we should say with Theodoret that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature or with St. Austin that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament or with the Greeks that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body the Creature will still give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 't is invalid and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre was to make the World believe that the Moscovites hold this Doctrine so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority as Lasicius has done do take it no otherwise Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's he would have found it full of false Reports and easily find his Authors main Design was to render the Moscovite Religion as Conformable as he could to the Roman and by this means to deceive his Readers and especially the Protestants whom he had at that time in his Eye He would then have absolutely rejected the Authority of such a Man who has palpably disguised the Truth He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question Ferre's Sence from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves supposing they were their own Words But this he has not done altho he ought to have done it and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation Whence it follows we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us concerning the Religion of Strangers but it does not follow 't is true in the main that the Moscovites believe the Conversion of Substances WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper Persons of greater Reputation Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation They put say's Dannaverus into the Wine contained in the Chalice the Bread broken into pieces they Bless it and believe 't is Transubstantiated They hold Transubstantiation say's Mr. Olearius So that here we have two express Testimonies and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged As to Dannaverus he has only followed Olearius's Authority knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors as appears by his Treatise But as to Mr. Olearius he is a Person of great Learning and has lived in those Countries and made it his Business to be informed of this Point and who not only gives us this Account in his Book but has likewise Confirm'd it in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony and clear it from all Perplexity And this will be done by considering his own Perpe of the Faith Part 3. C. 8. Words as well in his Book as Letter Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them from the Original High-Dutch are They believe Transubstantiation that is to say that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ Those of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438. related by Mr. Arnaud I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation that is to say they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony from his private
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
himself and howsoever he uses it that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients the way to be informed is not to take passages in a counter sense and captiously heapt up one upon another but to apply our selves to the testimony of the Ancients themselveâ— produced sincerely and faithfully some of which are these TERTULLIAN Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours Tertull. de resur car c. 37. discourse hard and insupportable as if he design'd to give them TRVLY his Flesh to eat To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salvation were spiritual he tells them 't is the Spirit that quickens ORIGEN There is in the New Testament a letter which kills him that Origen hom 7. in Levit. does not understand spiritually the meaning of it For if we take these words in a literal sense if you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood THIS LETTER KILLS S. ATHANASIUS The words of our Saviour Christ were not carnal Athanas in illud si quis dixerit c. but spiritual For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient and how could he be the food of the whole world Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven to take them off from all carnal thoughts and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above heavenly food a spiritual nourishment EUSEBIUS of Cesarea Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITVALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh Euseb lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles cap. 12. and Blood Think not says he to 'em that I speak of this Flesh which I now have on as if ye were to eat it nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sensible and corporeal Blood know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew under the name of Author oper imperf in Mat. hom 11. S. Chrysostom If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not contained but the MYSTERY of his Body how much more the vessels of our body which God has prepared as an habitation for himself S. AMBROSE The shadow was in the Law the IMAGE is in the Ambros lib. 1. de officiis c. 48. Gospel THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb an Heifer now Jesus Christ is offer'd he is offer'd as a man as capable of suffering and he offers himself as a Priest HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH S. AUSTIN Before the coming of Christ the Flesh of this Sacrifice Aug. contr Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. was promised by Victims of Resemblance In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION IN another place You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU Aug. in Ps 98. SEE nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you AGAIN elsewhere The Body and Blood will be the life of every one Aug. Serm. 2. de ver Apost of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT si quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur Spiritualiter bibatur THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Jerom Hieronym Com. in Psal 147. Altho what Jesus Christ says He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood may be understood in reference to the Mystery yet the word of the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ FACUNDUS The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus Facundus def trium capit l. 9. Christ nor the Cup his Blood but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them RABAN Of late some that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTIMENT Raban in paenitent have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord that 'T IS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary OECUMENIUS The servants of the Christians had heard their Oecumen in 1 Pet. cap. 2. Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and they imagin'd that 't was INDEED flesh and blood CHAP. IX That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Transubstantiation nor the Substantial Presence WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged as from a sampler what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General That of the 7th and 8th Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence or conversion of substance nor existence of a Body in several places at once nor accidents without a subject nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit nor concomitancy nor adoration of the Eucharist nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these WE shall find on the contrary as I have already observed that the Greg. Mag. Isidorus Beda Haymo alii passim Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps 3. in quest in 2 Reg. cap. 3. in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin de Septuagint Isidor in alleg Vet. Test Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment in Genes cap. 12. Idem Comment in Genes c. 23. Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the figure of Christ's Body which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion Who in another place assures us That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and Blood And Charlemain to the same effect That he broke the Bread and delivered the Cup as a figure of his Body and Blood WE shall therein find that this Sacrament or figure is Bread and Wine properly so called without any equivocation The Sacrament says Isidor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world Elsewhere Melchisedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine Again in another place Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate to wit the Oblation of Bread and Wine that
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time wherein this change has most advanced it self It was not in Hilaries nor Athanasius's times nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin but in the 10th and 11th Centuries that is to say in the most dark Ages c. 'T is no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not And this distinction methinks does sufficiently limit my Principle To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense Now my whole sense does not consist only in a general Principle which I lay down nor in the general application I make of it but in the exception and limitation I give them But neither has Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus choosing rather to run after their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth MOREOVER Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say when he sets himself on reproaching me that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation 't is not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book which might be easily found in turning over some leafs If I passed over 'em 't was because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite which contain the whole substance of my discourse and which are no less significant than the others But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time altho there 's no such Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577. thing in my Book Mr. Arnaud's answer is that the Author of the Perpetuity represents my sense and not my words and because that this proposition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms Mr. Arnaud says that 't is the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter I will believe it because he says so but yet my sense ought to be faithfully related and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my express declarations contained in several passages of my first and second Answer rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot represent in this condition but half of that which I would say Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense Father Maimbourg the Jesuite who wrote since Mr. Arnaud ingenuously perceived and related it as it is in truth Mr. Claude says he asserts A Peaceable Method by Father Mainbourg ch 3. page 108. there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pastors Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence or absence because they studied not the point This is in effect my meaning and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ THE first of these three Remarks I now made considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question and determines it to the Real Presence alone excluding Transubstantiation The second considers it in respect of the persons and determines it to the Christians only excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries and the third considers it in respect of the time and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Darkness that is to say to those wherein according to us the change was introduced which are the 9th and 10th and part of the 11th For altho according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Berenger yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute we shall neither complain of him nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em for on this depends the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible BUT before we enter upon this enquiry 't is necessary to make two farther Observations The first is that the question is not whether the Christians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort when the Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them that it agreed not with the Principles of nature but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine they had knowledg enough to discover 't was an innovation contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it it is not enough to shew that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason I confess that if men did always what they ought to do this alone were sufficient to put them upon rejecting this Real Presence as we have elsewhere proved it But people are liable to be deceived and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery they hearken no longer to sense nor reason We should then proceed and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty which the Church never held and which consequently was not a true mystery of Faith THE other observation which we must make is that we ought to distinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question from the belief of the corporeal Absence To believe the corporeal absence is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a humane body such as is that of our Saviour's and to reject it as false and extravagant But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence such as the Roman Church conceives and rejects as an error A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place and yet not reject it either generally under every notion be it what it will nor in particular under the notion of an invisible existence after the manner of a Spirit as appears from the example of the Roman Church which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence but yet
was a formulary of Practice I acknowledg 't was a formulary of profession of Faith But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove I prove it says he by the word Amen which the Communicants answered The Amen which the Communicants pronounced signifies nothing less than this Presence of substance The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est It is Ambros de iis qui myst init cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr Serm. de quarta feria truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ The Author of the Book of Sacraments wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud under the name of S. Ambrose refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself which we have in the Sacrament S. Austin refers it to our selves being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ and effusision of his Blood Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ against the Error of the Eutichiens And it signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says Hoc ore sumitur quod fide creditur frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur for 't is clear enough that these terms signifie nothing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe to wit that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature because 't is the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth so that when the Hereticks dispute against it they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce And this is the sense of Leo in all which there 's no substantial Presence AS to what remains Mr. Arnaud takes a strange liberty I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use and action designed for the stirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ and prov'd it very clearly by these words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we should always remember THAT HE DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST WE ARE TOLD THAT 'T IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST and by those of Primasus Every time we do this we ought to remember THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US AND THEREFORE WE ARE TOLD 'T IS THE BODY OF CHRIST to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon He conceals these passages and concludes from his own authority That these notions of use and this extasie of the Soul immediately transported by these words Corpus Christi to the meditation of the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto are Mr. Claudes Dreams exactly opposite to the sentiments of the Fathers and the Churches intention and that there 's small likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immediately into these kind of Meditations 'T IS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleases he suppresses my Arguments recites my words in a contrary sense turns things into ridicule and flourishes all this over with passionate expressions But proceed we to his third remark IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground Page 573. my Arguments were supposed a true one Altho says he 't were true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite in them certain inward motions and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words and 't would be still ridiculous to suppose that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them I ANSWER Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly the first That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to instruct the Faithful but only to excite internal motions in them which I never imagin'd I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary as may be seen by whosoever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin There 's Answer to the second Treatise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit little sincerity in this imputation and as little in charging me with a conclusion which I do not draw and in suppressing that which I do I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense But I say there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated applied themselves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion which these terms excited without going any farther and making reflection on what the terms being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd Let any man now judg whether my supposition be ridiculous extravagant and sensless as Mr. Arnaud would make people believe or whether 't is not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it IT may also be here confider'd by the way whether he has had reason to call absurd the notion I instanc'd touching light when I said our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident or motion of air but under the idea of a thing which serves us and leads us forth to labour And this I think is the sense of the greatest part of the world and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would speak his mind there being few persons who think when the day begins to appear or withdraw of conceiving the light under the notions which Philosophy offers be they what they will At least I have the anonimous Author of the Discourse containing several reflections on the modern Philosophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my side for he freely acknowledges That this idea is such in
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
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
that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane persons much less can it be concluded hence there were then but three sorts of persons the Paschasists the Bertramists and those that pass'd from one opinion to another 'T is sufficient says Mr. Arnaud to tell Page 916. Mr. Claude in a word that to act as he must suppose they have done they must not have been men but some other kind of Animals and such creatures as we never heard of To which I answer that if he will not allow 'em to be Men he shall make Satyrs or Centaurs of 'em if he will for as to my part I must suppose 'em to be what they are If he does not find the Paschasists had zeal enough for the Real Presence he ought to impart more to 'em if he can And if the Bertramists have not well discharged their duty we for our share must deplore their stupidity seeing we cannot help it But howsoever 't is certain there were Paschasists and that there were Bertramists and 't is likewise as certain that the Pastors carelessness and the People ignorance were both very great These are matters of fact against which 't is in vain to dispute All that can be rationally said is that the ignorance of the one and the carelessness of the others made 'em agree in the subject of the Real Presence I mean they disputed not about it because they wanted ability to do it as well as zeal and industry Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to persuade us that the disorders Book 9. ch 9. page 957. of the 10th Century were no greater than those of the others and that the state of the Church in this world is to include in the same external Society both living and dead Members Stubble and Wheat 't is a necessary consesequence of this state that a man may reproach every Age with several disorders and that each time of the Church may be respected as having two different faces according as a man casts his eyes upon the good that credit it or the wicked that dishonour it WHAT he says is but too true and so 't is too true that the 10th Century has improved the former errors for besides that the common disorders have appeared in it in a different degree there were particular ones in it which the preceding Ages were not acquainted with Never was there such an ignorance before which the Council of Trosly then denoted The neglect of the Bishops and Priests was never so great as that Council Elfric Arch-bishop of Canterbury and William of Tyre describe it Covetousness never reigned so much amongst the Monks and Priests as Polydor Virgil testifies it did then Such an universal degeneracy as we find attributed by Authors to those times we never yet heard of There were never seen in the Church of Rome the like disorders as those that were observable throughout this whole Century Such a relaxation of Discipline in the Cathedral Churches the superintendency of which was committed to Children of 5 10 12 and 14 years was never before known Most Writers that have mention'd it are Historians that design'd not to pass censures or aggravate in general the degeneracy of men but to remark the particular characters of this Century which distinguish them from the rest And therefore they call it the unhappy Age an Age of lead the iron Age an obscure and dark Age an Age of darkness and ignorance a most wretched time wherein the just were not to be found and wherein truth had for saken the earth an Age in short wherein hapned a general decay of all virtues 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say again 't was an Age of Zeal Fervour Book 9. ch 7. page 947. Conversions Reformations in Princes in Princesses in Bishops in Religious Persons and in the People For first 't is certain that in respect of those which Mr. Arnaud speaks of that their Zeal their Fervour their Conversions their Reformations such as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em dispute amongst themselves of the Real Presence On one hand was taught as we have already observed That there 's a great difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ suffered and that which is Consecrated in the Eucharist that the one is born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Nerves and is endued with a reasonable Soul but that the other which is his spiritual Body consists of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul That as in the Water of Baptism there are two things to be considered one that according to nature 't is corruptible water and the other according to the spiritual mystery this water has a salutary virtue so the Eucharist according to the natural understanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature and according to the spiritual virtue life is in it it gives immortality to the Faithful 'T was taught that the Bread and Wine are spiritually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Manna was changed into his Flesh and the water of the Rock into his Blood That the Bread is not in any wise the same Body in which our Saviour suffered nor the Wine the Blood which he shed for us but his Body and Blood spiritually In this Age were several passages of the Fathers collected and urged against Paschasus touching the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ On the other hand the Pastors were exhorted to come and learn in Paschasus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of Miracles were likewise wrought to confirm those that doubted of the Real Presence but we do not find they disputed about it one against another If the reason which I offer from the ignorance and negligence of the one and the other does not well relish with Mr. Arnaud let him give a better I 'll gladly receive it provided he denies not certain matters of fact against which no arguments must be offered THE Zeal Fervour Conversions and Reformations which he attributes to the 10th Century hinder not the truth of what we observed concerning the Religious living without Rule their Abbots being married and Lay-men the Bishops neglecting to instruct their Flocks and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer and living and dying in this ignorance This is a matter of fact attested by Witnesses of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Roman Church was for this whole Century in a fearful disorder as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity and Baronius too when he tells us Our Saviour Bayon annal Eccles Tom 10. ad ann 612. Christ slept then in his Ship He slept and made as tho he saw not these things he let them alone he arose not to take vengeance and that which was worse there were no Disciples who by their shrieks should awake the Lord sleeping for they were all asleep themselves What think you were the Cardinals Priests and Deacons that
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.
a man ought to approach to 'em the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book All this is contained under the word intelligence and he comprehends it therein himself in explaining afterwards what he means by this term and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence The question then is whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illusions At the entrance of his second Chapter wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance and remedy the evils it caused he describes it in this manner Sacramentum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur nemo sidelium ignorare debet nemo nescire quid ad fidem quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was Paschasus tells you immediately Nescire quid ad fidem Paschas de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 2. quidve ad scientiam pertineat Here are precisely the two parts of Mr Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection and nescire quid ad scientiam is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence So that Paschasus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith which is to say according to him the Real Presence and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things But let us hear Paschasus further Fides says he est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute We must instruct our Faith lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not sufficiently discerning this Sacrament and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it Can any man explain himself more clearly The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which in his sense signifies not to know that 't is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and th' intelligence on the contrary consists in knowing it But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity and knows not the circumstance of it and does not truly know that 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth is to be it substantially and really Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this and by the reason of contraries the intelligence consists in knowing it according to Paschasus Mr. ARNAVD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter intended only to shew the necessity there is of instructing persons before they come to receive the Communion but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church and that on the contrary this necessity of instruction in the manner which he exaggerates denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Presence But this evasion will not serve turn For besides that Paschasus says expresly That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard where it cannot be denied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church I say there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he understands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book For having immediately proposed as from the part of Frudegard the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi Sanguis esse dicatur which respects as Epist ad Frud every one sees the Article of the Real Presence and having endeavoured to satisfie it he passes over to another objection which respects the same Real Presence Multi says he ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood He answers this Objection as well as he can then immediately adds Here you have dear Brother what came into my thoughts at present and because you are one part of my self I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 't is necessary As to your self I desire you would read over again my Book touching this matter which you say you have heretofore read and if you find therein any thing reprehensible or doubtful refuse not the labor of reading it again For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence His whole preceding dispute was on this Article and these terms If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful can only relate to the same Article for there was no question of any thing else When then he adds That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery 't is clear that he has respect to the same thing and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil I need only represent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory the Council of Ephesus S. Jerom and some others he adds Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point What can be
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
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Presence BUT before we leave Amalarius we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercoranism which is to say they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacrament is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes into Excrements William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges attributes to all three of 'em this opinion The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit attributes the same sentiment to Heribald and Raban without any mention of Amalarius Et his quidem says he qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium quid nunquam antea auditum est id est Heribaldo Antisiodorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assumpsit turpissime vero conclusit suus ad respondendum locus servetur Thomas Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874. Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban Heribaldus says he Altisiodorensis Episcopus Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchariristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui Mr. Arnaud endeavours to substract Raban from this number The single testimony says he of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author and by William of Malmsbury This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony William of Malmsbury asserts the same why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it and if these two be not sufficient Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment without any need of other witnesses for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book De naturis rerum The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful and serve 'em for food in pastum eorum redigi others read in partem eorum redigi to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect For as material food nourishes and strengthens the Body so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks he formally In instit Cleric c. 31. teaches that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth reduced into nourishment for our Bodies and converted or changed in us when we eat it There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists be consistent with the Real Presence or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were he will tell us that in his time they were accounted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration They say says he that the gifts of Bread Durand de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 1. and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ not naturally but in figure And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places and calls these people Stercoranists without mentioning several kinds of 'em as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these accidents and others who understood it of the substance of Bread IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond that this was the sentiment of Berenger and his followers for he introduces 'em thus arguing 'T is absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements Guitmund de verb. Euchar. lib. 2. Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth as our Saviour says descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught From this visible and corporeal manducation in the Sacrament says Algerus has sprung the filthy Heresie of the Alger de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7. Stercoranists For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements Which they endeavour to strengthen by several arguments and especially by the words of Jesus Christ who says in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast forth into the draught 'T WILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd after the Consecration but that it does not hence follow that all the Stercoranists and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the subsistence of the Bread and Wine I answer It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists the one who held the Real Presence and others that did not believe it For why must we be led by his authority we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation If Mr. Arnaud will needs have that there were two sorts 't is his part to prove it for as long as he supposes this without proof we have right to deny it him Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which is to say in a word that 't is exactly the opinion of Berenger and that 't was only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea or representation of Stercoranism Which is what justifies it self from the testimony of Thomas Waldensis who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said We should interrogate the Priests whether they did not think that this thing Thom. Valdens tom 2. cap. 52. which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught according as adds he the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught for they say ALL that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATVRAL BREAD is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament the consecrated Host which according to them passes into Excrements is The natural
Bread The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff says Ibid. cap. 26. that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature because a man may be fed with Hosts Whence adds he I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food 'T is plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff Elsewhere he also more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained or as he speaks that he was of the Sect of the Panites because he alledges the passage of Raban which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food Et ipse enim says he de secta Panitarum Rabani versum Ibid. cap. 90. ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe Sacramentum inquiens ore percipitur in alimentum corporis redigitur BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken moreover unto reason we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists and that those who will have these two opinions agree together have never well considered what they undertook to establish It is not possible to believe the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin and is now in Heaven without believing at the same time that this substance is not sensible in it palpable visible extended capable of being divided in the same manner as 't was when our Lord conversed on Earth 'T will be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes and see the Eucharist and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible indivisible impalpable after the manner of spirits as they also do of the Church of Rome Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats that one part of it passes into our nourishment and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach penetrated by our natural heat divided and separated into several parts reduced into Chyle then into Blood distributed thro all the several parts of our Body and joyn'd immediately to 'em after it has been made like 'em whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement What likelihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents an indivisible and inpalpable substance which exists after the manner of Spirits Moreover they were not ignorant that the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time animated with two Souls with that of Jesus Christ and ours to be united hypostatically to the Word and hypostatically to us On what hand soever we turn 't is certain that 't is an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it It must be acknowledged that they were Panites as Thomas Waldensis calls them that is to say they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius Heribald and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of ' em One of 'em to wit Amalarius was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Antiphonaries as he himself testifies The other to wit Heribald was Bishop of Auxerre and reputed a Saint after his death as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre Here lies the Body of S. Heribald and the last to wit Raban was Abbot of Fulde and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence accounted one of the most learned men of his Age as appears by the testimonies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne TO these three we must add Bertram for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists which is to say he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion and passed into our nourishment He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book For having related these words of Isidor The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus Bertram de Corp. Sang. Dom. Christ because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebriate the outward man so the Word of God which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul when she participates of it he makes this remark Saying this he clearly confesses that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood is used for nourishment to our Body And a little further Secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ Negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur And again Non attenditur quod corpus pascit quod dente premitur quod per partes comminuitur sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur THESE two last Authors to wit Raban and Bertram besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest have especially this that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Writings Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related for he says in proper terms that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus to wit Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles and that they defamed him for offering this proposition that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose again from the Sepulchre and is at this day offered for the sins of the world WE have no reason says Mr. Arnaud to believe that Raban attack'd Paschasus Book 8. ch 12. p. 874. otherwise than
advantage But moreover says Mr. Arnaud how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any person nor reproached to those that taught ' em There are strange instances of this and here is one from amongst the rest which is singular in its kind Photius testifies that Theodorus Mospueste wrote a Book against the Doctrin of Original Sin Both East and West have been as greatly animated against this Author as can be imagin'd He was condemned even after his Death in the fifth Council There was never then any person to be less favoured than he Yet we do not find that this Capital Error observed by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th Century in the very time when Theodorus was used with most severity We must acknowledg with Mr. Arnaud that these kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church it follows that this Church has held it and approved it are not convincing and what he relates of Theodorus of Mospueste is a considerable argument of it But it must also be granted that never man was more at variance with himself than Mr. Arnaud for what he now said overthrows the better part of his Book Those that have read it may remember that the greatest part of his dispute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments perfectly like unto those which he now condemns The Greeks says he without ceasing have not condemned then Transubstantiation of the Latins Therefore they believed it with ' em Cerularius did not concern himself at Berenger's condemnation he believed the Transubstantiation Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Presence and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it therefore they were agreed in this Article We can scarcely meet with any thing else but these kind of conclusions in every page He does the same on the subject of the other Schismatical Churches he argues from the silence of the Emissaries the silence of the Popes the silence of the Armenians and that of the Nestorians and others When the question concern'd the 12th Century how many times has he remembred thâ— necessity of the Disputes of the Paschasists and Bertramists how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned at their not baiting one another And when the discourse was about Paschasus and the Innovation which we charge him with with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument That Paschasus was not publickly reprehended by any person for thirty years was never punish'd nor admonish'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick what he says now of this great number of errors in Ecclesiastical Authors which have been never animadverted by any body nor reproach'd to those who have taught ' em Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Mospueste and that of John Scot of whom he says likewise afterwards that it does not appear that these errors have been condemned by any Ecclesiastical Censure of that Age and that of Raban for he supposes he might have erred on the Eucharist by a capital Error in denying the Real Presence and he affirms that in this case 't will not be strange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error lay I say all this together and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book retrench whatsoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us and I am sure you 'l reduce his Volume into a less compass by half AFTER these first Answers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps Page 876. well satisfi'd he hazards another which is that this proposition That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Real Body born of the Virgin may have two senses the one that the external part of the Sacrament which is to say the visible vail is not really the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really white round and has not in it self all these sensible accidents which appear to us the other that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really contain'd in the Sacrament He pretends that Raban denied this proposition only in the first sense and not in the second But this answer has neither sincerity nor truth in it First it confounds what ought necessarily to be distinguish'd For 't is not the same thing to believe that the visible Vail which is to say the accidents of Bread are really the Body of Jesus Christ and to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round and has in it self all the sensible accidents which appear to us There is a great deal of difference between these two as any man may see Supposing a man believed that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round 't will not hence follow he must say that this whiteness and this roundness which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud speaks of were really the Body of Jesus Christ In the second place I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that these sensible accidents of whiteness and roundness in abstracto as they term it are really the Body of Jesus Christ and whosoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy charges him with opposing such an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind AS to the other proposition That the Body of Jesus Christ is really white and round as 't is not customary to express it in these terms That the Eucharist is the same Body which was born of the Virgin so 't is not usual to refute it in these That the Eucharist is not the same Body which was born of the Virgin and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is so forced and remote from the natural sense of Raban his words that there are few reasonable persons to whom 't will not appear a pitiful evasion YET does Mr. Arnaud earnestly urge not only that 't was the sense of Raban to attack this Proposition but likewise that of Bertram in his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini And altho the anonymous Author who according to all probability lived about the 9th Century expresly says that Raban and Bertram refuted Paschasus Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the contrary and says that he demonstratively proves it He says for this effect That there were people in that time who grosly said that the Body of Jesus Christ was such as the Sacrament appeared to be which is to say that the Body of Jesus Christ has really the form of Bread That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded that the Body of Jesus Christ issued thro the pores and applied unto it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur That it is apparent from the accusation which Florus forms against him of having corrupted France by these fantastical opinions that Amalarius had
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
Author of it This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes for supposing 't were true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca which is that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's and not Ratram's yet 't is certain what he says of the person of this Bertram or Ratram for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name is on our supposition that 't was the Religious of Corby Whether he admits our supposition as believing it in effect to be true or whether he admits it merely thro condescention 't is needless to inquire for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true which he does not he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author to wit that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings which suffices to justifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers Mr. ARNAVD's second complaint is that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin ' s Book an excellent piece which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs and his Proofs into Objections Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words intermixing several common places of raillery alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question to distinguish and argue in mood and figure and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable WERE it worth our while 't would be easie to shew he deceives himself in whatsoever he offers But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles we shall only say if either he or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery it does not follow that others have been so too We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections and Objections into Proofs is a conception so rare and well express'd that 't is hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter Moreover there 's a great deal of difference between saying that to discover the falsities of a Book we need only to confront the passages of it with the Originals and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs The confrontation of passages is the juster means the most natural and most ordinary to discover falsities but the change of Proofs into Objections and Objections into proofs is a kind of world turn'd upside down We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd 't would be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side there being few of them but what consist of Proofs and Objections and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary which are called Objections We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs and of Answers to Objections and this is what cannot be changed so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs yet would he be perplexed by these instances and answers and consequently must acknowledg he has lost his time and pains and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abused him Mr. ARNAVD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity He proposes it in his 9th Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable He ascends his tribunal and thence pronounces this sentence against me that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130 1131. of an heinous crime such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction I is says he again a detestable calumny an abominable crime the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches this is no jesting matter He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence If he has express'd himself thus thro incogitancy I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world and if he has done this with mature deliberation I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was and am certain there 's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding I protest before God with a sincere heart that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me I have answer'd his Book and am therewith content But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute which the publick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure and having discrediied it I say with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him What reason has he for such a passion I wrote these words in my Book God will one day shew who they are that wrong his Answer to the second Treatise part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter Church the light of his judgment will discover all things yea and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance and then 't will be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome and regaining peoples favour for when the face of things shall be changed this worlds wisdom will be useless Here is my crime this the spark that has set all on fire We Book 11. ch 9. page 1131. understand says he this language and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself and what interpretation his words will bear He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persuasion but out of policy and for worldly respects For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united if he believes what he says we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defended So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly respects is to charge him with not believing what he writes and to give this account of it THIS passion is a strange thing Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat he would have
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
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
acknowledgment that Bertram is no other than Ratram an Author in whom these three things meet if we compare the Title of the Book with what Authors say that have spoken of this Religious This is the judgment of the Divines of Doway whom Vsher has only followed AFTER the Divines of Doway and Bishop Vsher who discovered this truth more distinctly Mr. De Marca was one of the first who lent his hand to it as appears from his Treatise in French of the Eucharist wrote before the year 1640. and publish'd by Monsieur the Abbot Faget his Cousin Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has since likewise follow'd the same sentiment Erotem p 132. Dissert Hist p. 134. in his Treatise of good and bad Books Mr. Mauguin acknowledges it likewise in his famous defences of Grace wherein he has been follow'd by Mr. Hermon a Canon of Beauvais under the Title of HIERONYMVS AB ANGELO FORYI Cellot the Jesuit agrees in this point with Mr. Epist 3. S. xxiii seq opp ad hist Goth. p. 569. col 2. Herman and Mr. Mauguin altho he elsewhere opposes the later in several things De Luc d' Achery and Mr. De S. Beuve have equally testifi'd they were of the same opinion the one in his Preface on the first Tome of his Spicilege th' other in his Manuscript Lectures on the Eucharist 'T IS true that since the late conjecture of Mr. De Marca became publick to wit that John Scot is the Author of the Work of our Lords Body and Blood and not Ratram De Luc seems to yield to this novelty and has Praefat. in T. 2. Spicil Part 3. c. 5. T. 1. de Script Eccl. p. 53. T. 2. p. 06. Triumph of the Euchar. p. 18 63 66 68 94 95 96 97. since been followed by the Author of the Perpetuity who speaks of it in a doubtful manner and by the Author of the Dissertation which I examin But a while after the learned Jesuit Labbeus opposed this conjecture of Mr. De Marca as handsomly as he could in a Book which he dedicated to him For in this Book he takes indifferently Bertram and Ratram for one and the same Author Mr. Pavillon also ingenuously acknowledges in his Book against Mr. Daillé that Ratram and Bertram are but one and the same person citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The famous Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament book 5. ch 2. p. 264. Jesuit Noüet against Mr. Claude shews in this matter the same sincerity as Mr. Pavillon and Mr. Arbusti has follow'd them in his declaration HOWSOEVER it be after the reasons which I have alledged I believe I may affirm with all these learned men of the Church of Rome that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same Author It only then remains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Dissertation offers most considerable against some of these reasons TO one of these reasons viz. that the Religious of Corby being named Artic. 2. of the Dissert on John Scot. Ratram and Cellot's anonymous Author saying that Ratram wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord known under the name of Bertram is then Ratram's to this reason I say our Author answers that altho Cellot caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous wherein are mention'd Paschasus his Adversaries yet 't is not thus found in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor but in the first there 's Intramus and in the second Ratramnus Cellot having caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed contrary to what the Manuscripts bear BUT this answer is not sufficient First Cellot has caused his Anonymous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy who had taken it from a Manuscript of Corby and not from the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor Secondly These two Manuscripts which are apparently false are not so considerable as the Manuscripts of the Anonymous mention'd by Vsher and others which have all of 'em the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscript De Success Eccles p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666. of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bears the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscripts of the Catalogue of Sigebert of which we have spoken The Intram of the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor is the Transcribers fault who has disfigured the name of Ratramnus just as his Babanus is the famous Raban TO another reason drawn from Sigebert who makes the Author of the De Success Eccl. c. 2. Book of Predestination to wit Ratramnus the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of whom in effect two Manuscripts represent the name of Ratramus instead of Bertramus to this reason I say the Author answers First That the work of Bertram of Predestination is different from that of Ratramnus because that according to Trithemius the work of Bertram contain'd only one Book and was not dedicated to Charles the Bald whereas that of Ratram is dedicated to him and contains two Books Secondly That all the Editions of Sigebert having constantly the name of Bertram we may believe that a fault has slipt into the Manuscripts of Gemblou and of Vauvert where we have the name of Ratramnus BUT these two Answers are not satisfactory As to the first Trithemius as well as Sigebert says positively in two places that the Book of Bertram of Predestination is dedicated to Charles the Bald and brings such reasons for the proof of what he says that there 's no way to avoid the force of his testimony Secondly Either our Author supposes that Trithemius saw a Treatise of Predestination under the name of Bertram which contain'd only one Book or he will have him not to have seen it as he believes that Trithemius has not seen the Book of our Lords Body and Blood If Trithemius has seen this Treatise of Predestination what is become of it since Trithemius his time How comes it to pass no body ever heard of it but this our Author If Trithemius never saw it why will our Author give credit to his testimony when the question concerns this Book of Predestination and yet will not have us believe what he says of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thirdly Our Author abuses the passage of Trithemius Trithemius has follow'd Sigebert and by librum seems to understand opus a work without having respect to the number of the parts of which it is composed unless we will suppose that one number has escaped the Printer and that instead of these words de Predestinatione j. we should read de Predestinatione jj which is very possible and of which there are an hundred examples in the Catalogue of Trithemius now in question OUR Author's second Answer is something worse than the first I
with its consequences as the Adoration the Sacrifice c. which has made him judg that Hincmar must respect the opinion of John Scot as a detestable Heresie Now 't is certain that the consequences of the Real Presence were then unknown to the whole Earth and were not received into the Latin Church till some Ages after Hincmar But this last remark respects the main of the question which does not belong to me to handle CHAP. IV. A Refutation of what the Author of the Dissertation offers to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the Name of Bertram is of John Scot. HAVING hitherto firmly enough establish'd that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood is of Ratram I might pass by whatsoever the Author of the Dissertation alledges to fortifie the Conjecture of Mr. De Marca and truly seeing that before Mr. De Marca no man of learning nor any of Berenger's enemies either in the 11th Century or in the following made this discovery seeing that the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith entertain'd at first the opinion of Mr. De Marca with mistrust that he might handsomly leave it if he were forced It thereupon seems I have right to despise whatsoever our Author alledges to make the world believe that the Book of Bertram is the Book of John Scot under a forein Title Nevertheless I will shew that the proofs which he offers have no solidity THESE proofs are 1. That the Book of Bertram is entirely conformable Art 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. to what we read in ancient Writers concerning that of John Scot. 2. That the proper character of John Scot is therein to be met with But at bottom he establishes neither one nor the other AS to the first our Author relates a passage of Ascelin in a Letter to Ibid. sect 1. Berenger whence he believes one may gather that the work of John Scot contain'd only one Book and that small enough that a man cannot presently perceive in John Scots Book what was his opinion on the mystery of the Eucharist that maugre the dissimulations of John Scot yet Ascelin found therein his whole design was to persuade the Readers that what is Consecrated on the Altars is not truly the Body and Blood of our Lord that to compass his drift John Scot made use of several passages of the Fathers and at the end of each passage added some gloss to bring the sense of 'em to his purpose that amongst others John Scot recited at length an Orison of S. Gregory which begins with these words Perficiant in nobis and having trifled with some places of S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin whom he principally made use of as Berenger insinuates he forms his conclusion in these terms Specie geruntur ista non veritate And these are the things which as our Author thinks agree with Bertram's Book BUT these reflections which our Author pretends one may also make on the Book of Bertram are either uneflectual for his design or want a foundation 1. Nothing hinders that two works touching the Eucharist may have been short enough to be equally treated as small Books 2. I have shew'd that our Author is mistaken when he calls Bertram's Book an obscure and intricate piece Even Ascelin does not scruple to treat John Scot as an Heretick by reason of his sentiment on the Eucharist and our Author has not well enough comprehended the Text of Ascelin 3. Two Authors who hold the same opinion should likewise aim at the same mark They must if they are endued with common sense from the same reflections in substance on the passages of the Fathers which they would have to serve their designs These two Characters then are too general and wide And for the two last considerations 1. Who doubts that two Authors one of whom has apparently read the Book of the other as Ratram may have read that of John Scot may not cite the same authorities Ratram and Raban have done it as we are inform'd by the Anonymous of Cellot 2. 'T is not true Berenger has insinuated that John Scot cited principally S. Ambrose S. Jerom and S. Austin Berenger says John Scot cannot be respected as an Heretick without throwing this ignominy on these Fathers and several others But he does not say that John Scot cited particularly these three holy Doctors and should he have said it this character would be too general there having been scarcely any of the Authors of the 9th Century who have not affected to follow chiefly these three Doctors 3. Our Author ought not to propose as a character of identity that Bertram has drawn the same conclusion from the Orison Perficiant in nobis as John Scot has done for to speak properly this conclusion Specie geruntur ista non veritate is not of Bertram nor of John Scot but the Text it self of the Prayer which bears Vt quoe nunc specie gerimus veritate capiamus now it is apparent that they were equally obliged to conserve these terms in their conclusion and that they could neither of 'em do it in a more natural manner than in forming it thus Specie gerunter ista non veritate We must also observe and that as Ascelin relates that John Scot cited this Orison under the name of S. Gregory whereas Bertram cites it as the common Service of the Church and that how great soever the conformity has been between the conclusion of these Authors in respect of the sense and words it is not so great in respect of the construction of ' em Bertram having these words In specie geruntur ista non in veritate and John Scot these Specie geruntur ista non in veritate which proves that these are two different Authors THE second witness which our Author produces is Berenger who informs us that the Book of John Scot was wrote at the intreaty of a King of France and that this King was Charlemain Our Author pretends that these two particulars are to be met with in the Book of Bertram which is dedicated to Charlemain and was written by his order BUT these conformities conclude nothing not the first because 't was very possible that Charles the Bald had at the same time obliged two learned men to write on the same subject one who dwelt in his Palace to wit John Scot and the other whose name was so illustrious in his Kingdom that he had already oblig'd him to write on the questions of Predestination to wit Ratramnus This Character is too general Not the second for it does not seem that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood nor that of John Scot of the Eucharist were inscribed Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem but only Ad Carolum Regem which is what one may recollect from Sigebert from the Abbot Trithemius from John Bishop of Rochester and the De Script Eccl. catai c. 95. Catal. fol. 57. Prolog in
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
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the