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
charge and caluminate the Latins with whom they had treated and the Greeks who had consented to the Union that their Hatred and Rage should discover it self-without Disguise and Constraint ADMIRE I beseech you this flight of Fancy and vast extent of Thought The Good and Evil which befel the Christian World two hundred Years ago appears design'd for the Glory of Mr. Arnaud's Book with this only Difference that the Evils contribute to it more than the Good for 't is the Schism Passion Hatred and Rage of the Greeks which give him a compleat Victory It was necessary say's he they should be thus furious which is as much as to say it was necessary half of the World should be damned according to him that God should be dishonoured by a thousand Crimes and his Church torn to pieces by a dreadful Division And why For to furnish Mr. Arnaud with an Argument and that he might have Matter for one Chapter more BUT he will be much amazed to find this Argument so dear bought to conclude nothing being grounded on a false Supposition For 't is false the Greeks approved Transubstantiation in the Council of Florence That they Disputed not of it I acknowledg but that they approved it I deny Bessarion speaking in their Name say's that the Bread is Consecrated and made the Body of Christ and the Decree bears that the Body of Jesus Christ is truly Consecrated Therefore they approved Transubstantiation What a Consequence here is Mr. Arnaud has a Secret above my Apprehension for he can change the very Nature of things he can diminish and augment them as he pleases But the Misery on it is this appears contrary to Reason Why will he have the new Schism of the Greeks to have hapned meerly for the furnishing him with an Argument It was not known in those days he was to make a Book Why will he have the Greeks approve Transubstantiation at Florence Seeing there was not the least mention of it Why must those that broke the Union reproach the others with approving the Doctrine of the Latins Why will he have Syropulus Marc of Ephesus and the Council of Jerusalem to declaim on this Point seeing they had no reason to do so Certainly such gross Illusions as these deserved not such Exclamations IT only remains for the finishing of this Chapter and this matter of Negative Arguments to show a Reason for the Silence of the Latins and that will be no hard matter to do The Latins have innovated in the Doctrine of the Eucharist They have grounded their Innovations on certain Expressions of the Fathers which bear that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ They have made it their Business for some Ages to make the World believe these Terms signify a true and real Conversion of the Substance of Bread into that of the Body of Christ to defend themselves by this means from the Reproach of Innovation Observing then that the Greeks do commonly use these kind of Expressions and even added to 'em some others which seem more emphatical as for Instance that the Bread is not a Figure that it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and that the Body born of the Virgin and the Bread are not two things but one and the same they well knew it was their Interest to rest satisfied with these general Expressions altho in effect they signify nothing less than Transubstantiation Had they condemned them as insufficient and urged the Greeks to admit of theirs they would at the same time condemned themselves as Innovators They chose then rather to pass over softly this Article than to venture near a Rock against which their Cause ran a risk of being dashed to pieces And this obliged them in their Dealings with the Greeks to content themselves with their Expressions and accommodate themselves to 'em that they might not move 'em as appears by the Formulary of the Reunions already mentioned and Decree of the Council of Florence wherein was used only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek and Confioi in Latin YET we must not imagine but that judicious Persons amongst the Latins and especially those that had the Government in their Hands saw well enough the Difference between these general Expressions of the Greeks and the precise and determinate ones of the Roman Church That learned Man I mentioned in the seventh Chapter of the foregoing Book who was consulted on the Articles which the Russians in Poland proposed in order to their Reunion with the Roman Church amongst which was this that they should not be obliged to Celebrate Corpus Christi Feast nor carry about the Sacrament in Procession answered That as to what concern'd the Procession it was not a Thom. a Jesu Lib. 6. p. 3. c. 3. matter to stick at but there were things of greater Importance to be considered touching the Sacrament De processione infesto corporis non laborarem multa tamen circa hoc Sacramentum examinanda sunt And therefore when particular Persons amongst the Greeks imbrace the Roman Religion the usual terms of their Church are not counted sufficient but they are made to understand distinctly the substantial Conversion and to receive the term of Transubstantiation as we already offered in the Procession of Faith they are obliged to make Hence proceed all those Efforts since so long a time to introduce insensibly amongst the Greeks this Belief by means of false Greeks as appears by the Example of that Monk mentioned by Mr. Basire who had slily insinuated the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Catechism and was censured for it by the rest When the Scholars of the Seminaries are sent into Greece to live amongst the Schismaticks and procure the establishment of the Roman Religion they are made to sign the Confession of Faith I now mentioned which expresly denotes Transubstantiation So likewise is their Language far different from that of the real Greeks as appears by the Example of the great Paysius Ligaridius and the terrible Baron of Spartaris And this is evident in the Greeks that imbrace the Romish Religion for they speak not as others nor as they did themselves before their Conversion as I already instanced in Bessarion Emanuel Calecas and John Plusiadene IT is the Latins great Interest not to dispute against the Greeks on all the Points wherein the two Churches differ And therefore they give in charge to the Emissaries to use the greatest Caution in handling Controversies It is sometimes expedient to fall upon Controversies say's Possevin but they must be Possevin Bibl. select l. 5. c. 24. warily and moderately handled Neither must a Man mention any of these five Articles which were heretofore the principal ones and which the Synod of Florence and Gennadius handled For now the Controversies of the Azyme and Eucharist are no longer agitated neither in Candia nor any other of the Eastern Parts And therefore these
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.
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. â— P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
Grains so we likewise altho several are made one and the same Body with Jesus Christ I believe there 's few expressions to be found amongst the Greeks in the Subject of the Eucharist which exceed these BUT besides what I now mentioned touching the Church we must likewise consider the manner after which the Greeks do express themselves concerning the Book of the New Testament or Volumn of the Gospels when the Deacon who carries it in his hand lifted up enters into the Church This entrance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the small entrance designing to represent by this Ceremony the coming of the Son of God into the World They bow before this Book and speak of it as if it were our Saviour himself crying out altogether at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come let us worship Christ and fall down before him Save us O Son of God Assoon as they begin to read the Bishop throws off his Mantle and Simon of Thessalonica giving an account of this action tells us 't is to give a publick testimony of his Servitude For say's he when our Lord himself appears speaking in his Gospel and is as it were present the Bishop dares not cover himself with his Mantle Isidorus de Pélusé used almost the same expressions before him when the true Shepherd himself appears say's he in the reading of the Holy Gospel the Bishop throws off his Mantle to signifie that the Lord himself the Prince of Pastors our God and Master is present I do not believe the Book is transubstantiated and yet they speak and behave themselves as if it was our Saviour himself which already shews us that the Stile of the Greeks is always very mysterious and that we have no reason to impute Substantial Conversions to them every time they make use of excessive Terms We may likewise see here another Example of what I say even in the very Bread of the Eucharist before its Consecration The Greeks have two Tables one which they call the Prothesis and th' other the great Altar They place on the former of these the Symbols and express by divers mystical actions part of the Oeconomy of the Son of God that is to say his Birth Life and Sufferings They solemnly carry them afterwards to the great Altar where they consecrate 'em so that before this 't is but simple Bread and Wine yet on which they represent the principal passages of the life of Christ and they say themselves that then the Bread and Wine are but a Type or Figure Yet do they speak concerning them almost after the same Germaâ—â—n Theor. manner before they are consecrated as after Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople calls them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he say's that the Saints and all the Just enter with him and that the Cherubins Angels and all the Host of immaterial Spirits march before him singing Hymns and accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ who comes to his Mystical Sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands Behold say's he the Angels that come with the Holy Gifts that is to say with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from Mount Calvary to the Sepulchre And in another place the Translation of Holy Things to wit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which come from the Prothesis and are carry'd to the great Altar with the Cherubick Hymn signifies the entrance of our Saviour Christ from Bethany into Jerusalem He say's moreover that our Saviour is carried in the Dish and shews himself in the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as yet 't is no more than Bread and Wine un-consecrated ARCUDIUS observes some call this Bread the dead Body of Jesus Arcud lib de Euch. c. 20 21. Christ He say's farther that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the imperfect Body of Christ and proves the Symbols are called in this respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy divine and unutterable Mysteries which are the same names they give them after their Consecration WHEN they carry them from the Prothesis to the great Altar the Quire loudly sing that which they call the Cherubick Hymn in which are these words Let the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus Christ our God draw near to be sacrific'd and given to the Faithful for Food At which time their Devotion is so excessive that Arcudius did not scruple to accuse the Arcud lib. 3. de Euch. Greeks in this respect of Idolatry Goar clears them of this crime yet say's himself that some bow others kneel and cast themselves prostrate on the ground Goar in Euch. notis in Miss Chrys as being to receive the King of the World invisibly accompani'd with his Holy Angels that all of 'em say their Prayers or recommend themselves to the Prayers of the Priests and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ as if he was personally present praying to him in the words of the good Thief Lord Remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom The Priests answer the Lord God be mindful of us all now and for ever THEY repeat these words without ceasing till he that carries the Symbols is ent'red the Sanctuary and then they cry out Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet so far there 's not any Consecration and much less a Conversion of Substance WHILST the Symbols are still on the Table they separate a Particle from the rest of the Bread in remembrance of our Saviour and call the remainder the Body of the Virgin Mary They afterwards lay another small piece on the right side of the first in honour of the Holy Virgin to the end they may say in effect say's Goar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Queen is at thy right hand in a Vestment of Gold wrought with divers colours They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist another in honour of the Apostles and several others for a remembrance of other Saints Goar tells us they separate Goar ibid. nine pieces after this manner besides those of our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin his Mother and that this is done to represent the whole Celestial Court They afterwards carry all these to the great Altar where the Consecration is performed but when they speak of these Particles they call one of 'em the Body of the Virgin Mary th' other the Body of St. John th' other the Body of St. Nicholas and after the same manner all the rest I know Goar denies they are thus called affirming the Greeks say only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle of the Virgin and not the Body of the Virgin I know likewise that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in this Point and perhaps the Latins have at length caus'd the Latinis'd Greeks to leave this way of speaking But Goar himself say's that some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine that the Greeks believe the real Presence of the Body of
their Faith as well as their Communion In effect the Terms of the Greeks are for the most part of 'em general and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conversion yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of Possevin Bibliot select lib. 1. this Conversion seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent This is so true that when they send into the East those that have been educated in their Seminaries they make 'em sign this same Formulary to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine It is no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Change Mutation Conversion there is not enough in this to make a good Catholick it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Change of Substance Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks But that he may avoid this trouble hence forward let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled CHAP. XI The Two and Twentieth Proof taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus to some Questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck The Three and Twentieth is another Answer in Manuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus and Hieroteus Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia The Four and Twentieth is the Testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church The Five and Twentieth is the Testimony of Zacharias Gerganus WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth against the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I hear that several pious and learned men who cannot indure the World should be thus imposed on do interess themselves in this Dispute and having read this Famous Book I examine they have wonder'd its Author should with such confidence affirm that the Greeks believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Some of 'em have sent me some Manuscripts which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Question I will produce them then here naming the Persons from whom I receiv'd them to the end if any doubt arise they may address themselves to them from whom I had them for their satisfaction MONSIEUR Spanheim a Reverend Minister and Divinity Professor in the University of Heydelberg sent me an extract of a Manuscript he has by him containing Seven and Twenty Answers made by the same Metrophanus Critopulus whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter to so many Questions that were put to him by Monsieur Oosterwieck who was then in the East and was so curious as to inform himself not concerning the particular sence of Metrophanus touching these Articles but of the whole Greek Church in which he then held a very considerable rank being Patriarch of Alexandria One of these Questions was thus expressed in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I desire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching these Articles of the Christian Faith The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Sacrifice of the Mass to wit whether Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament The Answer is this We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice that is spiritual and commemorative spiritual as having nothing of carnal in it according to that of our Saviour the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life Commemorative as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Cross according to that other expression of our Saviour do this in remembrance of me Which is what is taught by Saint Chrysostom and the whole Church saying this is done in remembrance of what was done then do this say's our Saviour in remembrance of me We offer not any other Sacrifice as did heretofore the High Priest under the Old Testament but we offer every day the same or to speak better we commemorate this Sacrifice But we never believed Christ was bodily present in the Mystery Had the Greek Church believed Transubstantiation it was here a fit place to declare it and to reply yes we do believe that Jesus Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament inasmuch as that the proper Substance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread or some such like equivalent thing It will be to no purpose to alledge that Metrophanus means Christ is not corporally in it that is to say after the manner of visible and sensible Bodies with all their Dimensions for this would be to make him return a captious Answer and such a one as is unbecoming an honest man seeing he well saw this was not the Question askt him and that the Term of corporally in the Question propounded respected the proper Substance of his Body So that the force of this Testimony cannot be evaded This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642. THE said Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Answer of Meletius Metropolitan of Ephesus made some twenty years since to the Divines at Leyden touching some Questions they proposed to him They askt him amongst other things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether we may pray to Angels or the Virgin Mary and religiously worship them and whether we must believe the Bread to be transubstantiated in the Sacrament Observe here what he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I declare say's he there are none of these things to be believed for I may not believe the Doctrines of men before those of Christ and his Apostles The Superscrâ—â—tion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania am of the same mind in all things here above contained with the most holy and prudent Metropolitain of Ephesus and all Asia according to what he has declared DR Benjamin Woodroff an Eminent Divine in the Church of England and Chaplain to the Duke of York has favour'd me with an Extract whose Original he has by him and which was given him by its Author being then at Oxford It is a Declaration of the sence of the Greek Church drawn up by a Greek Doctour named Jeremias Observe here its Contents The different use of the Mystery of the Eucharist having produced different Sentiments some celebrating it with unleavened Bread others with that which is leavened and kneaded some believing it to be only a Sign others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word Those that believe the change are the Western People which administer this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and all the rest hold the Sign except the Eastern People For the Eastern Church differs from both
the Bread SIXTHLY These principal and essential differences produce others For it hence appears that altho they agree with the Latins in these general expressions which bear that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ into his real Body into his own proper Body yet they differ from them in the sence of these expressions understanding them in a quite different manner For the Latins mean the Bread is changed into the Body by a real Transubstantiation which making the Substance of Bread cease becomes the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same in number which it was before The Greeks on the contrary mean that the Bread remaining Bread in its proper Substance is changed into the proper Body of Christ in asmuch as that 't is made an increase or augmentation by the impression it receives from its virtue So that when both one and the other say the Bread is the Body of Christ they in no sort agree in the sence of this Proposition the Latins understanding it in a divided sence as they term it which is to say that that which was before Bread is now no longer so but the Body of Jesus Christ the Greeks on the contrary that that which is still Bread is also this Body VII THE Latins following their Hypothesis are forced to admit the Existence of Accidents without a Subject the Greeks are not Whence it is they never mention this pretended Existence and we find no such thing in their Authors VIII THE Latins are obliged to give a reason for several natural Experiments which denote that the Substance of Bread remains and which seem incompatible with their Belief as that our Bodies are nourished with the Eucharist that it breeds Maggots in it c. in which they are extreamly puzled The Greeks are not so neither do we find the least hint thereof in their Books IX THE Latins cannot but admit the Existence of the same Body in several places at once The Greeks know not any thing of this neither are they concerned at it X. THE Latins are forced to make the Body of Christ exist in the Sacrament void of his natural proportion and properties The Greeks do not so and therefore we see them never troubled at these difficulties which follow the Doctrine of the Latins XI THE Latins by an unavoidable consequence of their Doctrine adore with a Sovereign Adoration the Eucharist which is according to them the proper Substance of our Lord 's natural Body separate from any other Substance The Greeks do not so as we observed in the seventh Chapter XII THE Latins believe the wicked receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the mouths of their bodies altho to their condemnation The Greeks hold that the Bread and Wine are made this Body and Blood only to the Faithful NOT to insist on several other differences which do not precisely relate to our Question as that the Greeks do all of 'em communicate of both kinds whereas the Latins give only to the People that of Bread that the Greeks hold the Consecration is performed by the Prayer of the Priest and the Latins on the contrary by these Words This is my Body that the Latins use Wafers or unleavened Bread whereas the Greeks abhorring the Azymes use only that which is leavened There are likewise several other differences which I shall not here repeat because the Reader may find them in what has been already said in the foregoing Chapters AND here have I represented as exactly as I could the Differences and Agreements of the two Churches If it be now demanded in what Points we agree with the Greeks this may be easily collected from what I have already said WE agree almost with them in all Points wherein they differ from the Latins 1. In that we do not believe the Conversion of Substances any more than they nor admit the substantial Presence of the Natural Body of Christ under the Species of Bread and Wine that we adore not the Sacrament nor acknowledge any of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. We agree with the Greeks in that they conceive the change which is made in the Bread and Wine to be a change of virtue by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit God not destroying the Nature of Bread and Wine but adding his Grace to Nature 3. In that we do not believe any more than they that the wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ 4. In that we believe with them that we ought to communicate of both kinds 5. In our holding the Consecration is performed by Prayer 6. In fine that we deliver the Sacrament in leavened Bread altho we hold the use of the Azyme an indifferent thing YET it must not be imagined we pretend there 's no difference in the Opinion of the Greeks and ours I do not believe any of our Doctors ever asserted such a thing Mr. Arnaud would make the World believe I maintained this and has triumphed thereupon in several places of his Book as if I supposed the Greeks were Berengarians or Calvinists But this is a groundless charge I only denied that the Greeks which are called Schismaticks believed Transubstantiation and the Adoration It belongs to him therefore to see whether he had reason to accuse me in this of rashness and inconceivable boldness or whether he himself rather was not guilty of this when he bragged of confounding Ministers with the number of his Proofs Perhaps he would have hit better on it had he said he had confounded his Readers But to let this pass I shall here truly denote the principal differences between the Doctrine of the Greeks and ours I. THE Greeks since the Eighth Century rejected the Terms of Type and Figure in reference to the Eucharist altho they use them of Symbol and Representation We admit equally both as the Fathers of the first six Ages ever did II. THEY seem willing to keep in some sort the literal sence of these Words This is my Body which we do not For we understand 'em in this sence this Bread is the Sacred Sign or the Sacrament of my Body or which is to the same effect the Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the Term est in some sort according to the Letter will have the same Substance which is Bread to be also the Body of Jesus Christ and therefore they so often say that the Bread is not the Figure of the Body but the Body not the Figure of the Flesh but the Flesh it self because the Lord did not say this is the Figure of my Body but this is my Body Whereunto relates that saying of Theophilact we already cited which is we must not be troubled to believe Bread is Flesh III. 'T IS likewise to keep this pretended literal sence that they would have the Bread to be made one with the Body by its Union to the Divinity by the impression of the Holy Spirit and by a change of
amongst them And 't is in fine from their proper Testimonies I have clearly shown that that which the Greeks hold touching the Eucharist is not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which is the chief and only thing I had to do Yet shall I answer in the following Book all Mr. Arnaud's vain Objections as briefly as I can for considering what I already established 't is easie to judge that his Arguments will not prove invincible Demonstrations as he would perswade the World BOOK IV. Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Belief of the Greek Church refuted CHAP. I. Mr. Arnaud's First Proof taken from Cerularius his Silence examined The rest of his Illusions discovered AFter what I have established in the two former Books it will be no difficult matter to answer Mr. Arnaud's Objections and shew as I promised that all his endeavours to demonstrate the Greek Church ever believed Transubstantiation are ineffectual and that the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends And this shall be the subject of this Book Which I shall divide into two Parts in the first I shall examine what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to prove his supposition since the Eleventh Century to this present and in the second consider what he has alledged for the same purpose from the Seventh Eighth Ninth and Tenth Centuries IN the first Part of this Book I shall handle four principal Heads under which I shall exactly gather whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has dispersed in his Second Third and Fourth Books and part of his Twelfth Book wherein he has treated on some Particulars respecting this Question OUR first Remark shall be touching some of Mr. Arnaud's Delusions besides those we already discovered in the former Books It is certain we may justly so term all the Parts of his Work but more especially what he has written touching the Greeks for 't is all delusory But at present we mean to apply this Term to certain things only wherein his Artifice plainly appears and which are wholly inconsistent with that sincerity wherewith Controversies ought to be managed THE second Head contains the Testimonies of some Protestants whom Mr. Arnaud has alledged which seem in effect to attribute to the Greeks the Belief of Transubstantiation THE Third shall contain the Negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of both Greeks and Latins that is to say they never disputed one against another on this Article of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucharist IN the Fourth we shall explain all the Passages Mr. Arnaud has taken out of Greek Authors and from which he would infer by dint of Argument that the Greeks hold this Conversion of Substances TO begin at his Delusions the First or to speak better the Twelfth after those we already discovered consists in that he would have us upon the account of his own bare word without any Proof suppose that when Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida wrote their Letter against the Church of Rome Leo the Ninth the then present Pope had already condemned Berengarius and that the Greeks could not be ignorant of this censure But 't will not be amiss to hear him speak himself To shew say's he the consent of the Greek Church with the Roman Lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 139. in the Subject of the Eucharist we have made use in the refutation of Mr. Claude ' s Answer of the contest which arose in the year 1053. between Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Archbishop of Acrida on one hand and Pope Leo the Ninth and the whole Latine Church on the other For these Persons altho such passionate adversaries against the Western Church upon the account of the Azymes yet never reproached her as erring in the Mystery of the Eucharist altho they wrote against the Latins AT THE SAME TIME AND AFTER Pope Leo had censured Berengarius in two Councils of Italy the one held at Rome th' other at Verseil whence we conclude they were agreed with the Latin Church in the Doctrine of the real Presence which she so loudly asserted at that time This is Mr. Arnaud's first Proof which he has set forth to the life in the best colours wherewith his Eloquence could furnish him having turned it several wayes by his usual dexterary in amplifying and exaggerating the Subjects he handles IT is certain that to make this Argument valid he must clearly establish before all things that Berengarius his Condemnation preceded Cerularius and Leo of Acrida's Letter and preceded it to a very considerable time to shew that these Prelates were well informed of it and had reason to mention it in their Letter for without this we can conclude nothing from their Silence Yet Mr. Arnaud has not troubled himself with the clearing up this matter of Fact contenting himself in saying only that Cerularius and Leo of Acrida wrote against the Latins at the same time and a little after Pope Leo condemned Berengarius in two Councils of Italy A man would then think this was a Point out of doubt and at which Mr. Arnaud has no need to stop a moment having judged it evident beyond contradiction in his Chronology But he will be much startled to find there is nothing more uncertain than his supposition and moreover that there is nothing more unlikely than what he say's TO be ascertained in this Matter we must know that Cerularius and Leo d' Acrida's Letter was written in the Year 1053. as Mr. Arnaud and all the World grants We must moreover know that although Baronius and Binius attribute the two Condemnations of Berengarius to the Year 1050. 3 Years before Cerularius his Letter was written yet there are Authors that are better informed in this Matter than Baronius and Binius who refer these two Condemnations to the Year 1053. being exactly the same Year wherein the Letter was written And these are such Authors whose Testimony will go far with Mr. Arnaud Being those that published the Office of the B. Sacrament that is to say this same Office to which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity in its primary Design was to serve as a Preface as a Preface as we have been already twice informed Observe here what they say Neither Malmesbury nor Baronius have exactly observed all the Office of the B. Sacrament Hist and Chron. 11. Cent. Councils which were called touching this Heresie of Berengarius The first of them was held at Rome by Pope Leo the Ninth the second at Verseil in the Month of September in the same Year under the same Pope We cannot doubt after the Testimony of Lanfranc in his Book against Berengarius but that these two Councils were held both in the same Year But some as Baronius and Binius will have this Year to be 1050. others the Year 1053. First because Sigibert say's that Pope Leo held two Councils in 1050. but he immediately observes likewise this was only to reform the abuses of the Ecclesiasticks
Silence signifies no more on either part but that both were quietly permitted to enjoy their own Opinions We must not imagine they pretended to approve by Virtue of this Union all the Doctrines of the Latins and there could be no more concluded thence at farthest than a simple Toleration as of other Points which were not discussed Now if humane Interest was so powerful over the Greeks as to make 'em abjure their own Opinions and embrace in appearance others can it be thought strange they should pass over in Silence an Article of that kind It seems on the contrary that Zeal for their Religion if they had any spark of it yet left should oblige 'em to restrain the Dispute to a few Points for they would lose as many of 'em as they proposed The necessity of their Affairs forced them to make a Sacrifice of 'em to the Latins so that all those they could smother by their Silence were as so many Points won because they were not lost MR Arnaud tells us that their politick Interests were not so prevalent over Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 337. 'em as to take away from 'em all kind of Liberty and carry them forth to the betraying of their own Judgments without resistance that on the contrary they managed their Pretensions and that the Question touching the Holy Spirit was discussed in this Council with as much exactness as ever any was in any Council That if they betrayed their Conscience it was thro humane Weakness having first rendred to their Opinions all the Testimonies which could be expected from weak Persons But what could be alledged to less purpose All this is true in respect of the Doctrines which they were forced to abandon to subscribe to contrary ones but this signifies nothing to others they mention not and which consequently they were not obliged to receive amongst which that of Transubstantiation was one and moreover this Resistance and Management he speaks of only appeared in the Doctrine of the Procession and not in other Points contained in the Decree for they passed them over without Examination and Discussion except that of Purgatory which was slightly regarded MR. Arnaud sets himself to show afterwards that the Latins did not suspect the Greeks held not Transubstantiation that they betrayed not their own Sentiments nor were wilfully ignorant of those of the Greeks We shall hereafter consider the Conduct of the Latins But make we first an end of examining that of the Greeks Does Mr. Claude say's he know what he say's when he makes such unreasonable Suppositions Does he consider into what absurdities he plunges himself Or will he pretend the Greeks agreed amongst themselves before they parted from Constantinople to conceal their Opinions on this Point from the Latins and carried on this Design so dexterously that amongst so many Greeks there were not one of them that discovered this Secret to the Latins There are certainly judicious Persons enough still in the World to determine which of us two seems to consider most what he say's I do not pretend that either the Greeks plotted together at Constantinople or that they carried it so closely at Florence but that the Latins might know if they would what was their Belief touching the Eucharist Their Books speak their Minds These Complots and Conspirations are Phantasms which appear to Mr. Arnaud in the heat of his Study I pretend no more than what is true to wit that the Greeks passed over in Silence several Articles on which they had not the same Sentiments as the Latins and I believe Transubstantiation was one of them If Mr. Arnaud pretends the contrary it lies upon him to produce his Reasons Let him tell us what Complot there could be between the Greeks and Latins in reference to their Silence in so many other Points which were not discussed Let him tell us at least why in the Acts of the Council and other Writings wherein is mentioned the Eucharist when the Latins say Transubstantiate the Greeks on the contrary say only Consecrate and Sanctify Wherefore in the Decretal of the Union whether we read it in Latin or Greek we find no mention there of the substantial Conversion Why the Article of the Sacrament was expressed in these general Terms Corpus Christi veraciter confici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was it Policy or Ignorance or Complot or Conspiration which made them reject the Terms of Gregory the VII The Bread and Wine are changed substantially into the true proper and living Flesh c. or those of Innocent the III. The Bread is transubstantiated into the Body and the Blood into the Wine For for to tell us that the Greeks meant by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true and real Transubstantiation because 't was thus the Latins understood their Confici is a frivolous Pretence which I have already refuted MR. Arnaud takes a great deal of Pains to prove the Latins could not be Ignorant of the Sentiment of the Greeks nor the Greeks of the Latins But to no purpose It signifies nothing to me whether they did or did not know one anothers Opinions We will suppose if he will they made this their particular Study but then what signifies this to our Question I am satisfi'd they were reunited without any formal Declaration of their Agreement in this Point for as it cannot be concluded from their Silence on other Points that there were no difference betwixt them so is it the same concerning Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud reasons ill because he argues from this Principle that the Greeks disputed on all Particulars wherein they knew they differed from the Latins This is a false Principle as appears by the Instances I already produced It appears from the very Acts of that Council that the Emperor wearied with the Debate hastned to Expedients whereby to conclude the Union We have left say's he to his Greeks our Families in danger exposed to the Concil Flor. Sess 23. Fury of the Infidels Time slips away and we advance nothing let us lay aside these Disputes and betake our selves to some Medium And therefore we find Sess 25. the Greeks telling the Latins That they were not for Disputing because Disputes generally ingendred Trouble But they should indeavour to find out some other means of Union We have already told you say's the Emperor to Cardinal Julian that we are not for any more Disputes for Words are never wanting Sess 25. to you Your Dialect will never suffer you to acquiesce in any thing being ever ready at a Reply and to speak the last Let us I pray then lay aside these tedious Controversies and betake our selves to some other means for reuniting us BUT the Greeks assisted at the Service of the Latins and adored the Mass in the same manner as the Roman Church say's Andrew de St. Cruce I answer Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 343. they were present at the Service of the Latins not to show they approved their Doctrine
more impertinent than Anastasius his Argument if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection that is to say whilst he was in the World because it is corruptible in the Eucharist Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence to that wherein he was before his Resurrection It follows that when he was in the World he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread intirely such as he is in the Eucharist Which is to say that when he Talked Walked and Conversed he did all these things under the form of Bread For unless this be so there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a corruptible Form seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist which cannot be but by changing its Form It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World in the same Form 't is now in the Sacrament for supposing it changes its Form I understand not the Conclusion The Heretick Gaynite might still alledg that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven altho it be so in the Eucharist neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth and that 't is the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible And thus Anastasius his Argument concludes nothing unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth that it has now in the Sacrament Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Folly there being no Man of Sence that will own it we may easily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius as Mr. Arnaud handles him BUT 't is certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Transubstantiation nor the real Presence for had he believed it he would never have reasoned as he does nor supposed as he has done a Principle altogether inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine BUT what is then this Author's Sence I answer that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread such as is sold in the Market His meaning is manifest to wit that it is consecrated Bread when he adds That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat which the Jews offered It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure but in the Sence of a legal Figure which represented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630. is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors which teach the one teach the other So that so far there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy When he adds That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body which not only is so perfect a Representation of it that one may say it is the true Body and not a Figure but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof or if you will the Character of it which is its Virtue in the same Sence that we say of Wax which has received the Impression of the King's Seal that it is his real Seal If we find any roughness in this Expression we must remember Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Roughness and Offensiveness in the Terms and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning than that wherein common Sence is not to be found We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks themselves do give to these kind of Expressions that the Eucharist is the true Body the Body it self the proper Body of Christ to wit inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body but is the same as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book We must know in fine that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body and not a real humane Body which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ that is to say the Mystery not of a chimerical but real Body THIS being thus cleared up the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us He means that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is expressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation being as it is corruptible it must necessarily be concluded that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body whil'st it was in the World is observed in the Bread Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence and there will appear no difficulty in it AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed wherein this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus who affirmed Ibid. p. 634. the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation to be the only Divinity We must make the same Judgment of it as the former For as to what he say's That the Divinity cannot be Detained Chewed Divided Changed Cut c. as is the Eucharist and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eucharist to be in truth Christ's visible terrestial and created Body and Blood He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist being in no wise agreeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alteration but only to his Body we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed whence it follows that it could not be said as it is that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy Had he believed Transubstantiation how could he miss telling his Adversary 't is not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity and
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
confute those that durst not shew themselves SEEING therefore on one hand the Doctrin of the Real Presence taught in the 10th Century and on the other the contrary Doctrin preached and publickly held it seems to me we may say with boldness that this Century was mix'd and Mr. Arnaud cannot give us a greater prejudice against his way of arguing by pretended moral impossibilities than to use them in a case wherein the matter of fact so plainly appears 'T IS moreover very strange that Mr. Arnaud should endeavour to persuade us 't was not possible there could be in this Century ignorant people that had no other than a confused knowledg of Gospel Mysteries after the testimonies we have brought him of so many Authors who unanimously depose the contrary Does he expect we will believe him sooner than William of Tyr an Historian of the 12th Century who tells us speaking of the 10th and 11th That the Christian Faith was decayed amongst those who William of Tyr. lib. 1. cap. 8. called themselves Christians that there were therein no more justice equity or any other virtue that the world seem'd to draw towards an end and was about returning to its former Chaos that the lives of Church-men were no better than the peoples for the Bishops grew negligent of their charge were dumb dogs that could not bark Does he hope we shall give a greater deference to his reasons than to the testimony of Hérivé Arch bishop of Rheims an Author of the 10th Century who assures us that Christian Religion was nigh decayed Prâ—f ad Concilium Trosl and standing as it were on the edg of a precipice We have says he in the Council of Trosly scarcely any good order observed amongst us the whole state of the Church is overthrown and corrupted and not to spare our selves we that ought to correct the faults of others are as bad as the rest we are called Bishops but do we do the office of a Bishop We leave off Preaching we behold those committed to us forsake God and plunge themselves in all manner of lewdness and yet are silent we reach not forth to 'em the hand of correction If at any time we tell 'em that which does not please 'em they answer us in the words of our Saviour the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his seat c. So that in this manner are we struck dumb and the Lords flock is lost are drowned in vices and exposed to the cruel teeth of wolves There being no body to shew 'em the way of life how can it be but they must wander into the paths of error Thus in them is accomplished what is said by the Prophet This ignorant people shall be struck with jealousie and again My people are gone into captivity because they had no knowledg Where are they who are converted by our Preaching and have brought forth fruits worthy of repentance Who is the man that by hearing us has left his luxury covetousness or pride This good Bishop who deserves without doubt for his zeal not to be Concilium Trosl cap. 3. comprehended amongst the number of others describing in a decretal of his Council assembled at Trosly the condition of the Monasteries of his time says That as well the Monks as the Nuns lived without Rule and Discipline applying themselves to worldly affairs that some of 'em were constrained by necessity to return into the world again that the Monasteries were possess'd by Lay-Abbots who lived therein with their Wives Children Soldiers and Dogs that the Abbots were not in a capacity t' examine the Rules of their Convents to read or understand 'em and if at any time the Book was offered 'em their reply was Nescio literas He afterwards represents the violence of those that ravish'd the goods of the Church persecuted and put to death the Priests forcibly took away their Neighbors Estates laying snares for the innocent putting 'em to death and plundering their houses and says the number of these latter was infinite and that they imagin'd 't was a gentile thing to live by Rapine Afterwards he turns his discourse to the Ravishers of Virgins and Women and those that contracted clandestine and incestuous Marriages and shews the number of these was not small Thence he comes to the scandalous conversation of Priests with Women to perjured Persons Quarrels Murthers and in fine concludes by an exhortation to the Bishops his Suffragans to do henceforward their duty Alas says he Ibid. in Epil alas thro our negligence and ignorance and by the neglect and ignorance of our Predecessors and that of our Brethren who are still living several do perish in their Vices and at this time there are an infinite number of people of both Sexes Ages and Conditions ignorant of the Faith know not their Creed or Pater noster How can these people supposing they were of honest conversation do good Works having not the foundation of Faith And what excuse can we make for our selves when they die they enter not into life for they are unacquainted with it but they enter into eternal death which they cannot avoid being without Faith for the just live by Faith We are then as Gregory says the murtherers of these people that perish whereas we should be their guides to save them For 't is for our sins this multitude are degenerated because we carelesly neglect the giving them the instructions of life Will Mr. Arnaud now persuade us 't was impossible there should be persons in the 10th Century that had only a confused knowledg of Christianity THE ignorance says he of the mystery of the Eucharist cannot subsist with Book 9. ch 7. pag. 915. a million of Preachers of the Real Presence and a million of people that rejected it When Mr. Arnaud is in his Closet a million of Preachers costs him no more than thirty and his Commission is as soon given to a great number as a small But what is most admirable is that when we come to count these Preachers of the Real Presence we do not find 'em to be above four or five at most one of which as I already observed plainly tells us that those of his time that personated learned men had small knowledg of this mystery till they read Paschasus his Book which must be according to him the fountain of their light 'T is moreover to be observed that what I now alledged of Hérivé in the Council of Trosly is of the year 909 that is to say in the beginning of the 10th Century Now it is certain the darkness waxed greater after this Century but we see to what degree it arrived then Most of the Abbats knew not how to read The Pastors left off Preaching to and instructing of the people and an infinite number of people of either Sex both young and old could not say their Creed nor the Lords Prayer during their whole lives Methinks it cannot be well concluded hence there were at
exceeding strange that so many Bishops Priests and Religious should so suddenly renounce their former Opinions and embrace contrary ones without any Divisions amongst ' em But 't is yet strange they should change 'em without perceiving it without acknowledging they had made great and considerable Innovations in their Church and comparing their first and ancient Faith with this new one For 't is certain that in respect of all these Articles which are in contest the Greeks positively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing If this change was wrought by succession of time let us be shew'd the Disputes and Divisions they have had amongst 'em since on these Articles they have separated from the Church of Rome till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins which is to say during above two hundred and fifty years If it be alledg'd the change was made insensibly we must return to the four times of the Author of the Perpetuity and apply to 'em the same difficulties and objections he has raised IN fine if we suppose a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions yet mutually bearing with one another without proceeding to an express condemnation of the contrary Opinions besides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful could suffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith Besides this I say 't will be demanded how they could change so suddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles holding 'em before for unnecessary points and afterwards for necessary ones respecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors and afterwards respecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones whereupon one may make the same questions how it could come to pass that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Eucharist of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheless the true Body of Jesus Christ an object of supreme Adoration and in another that 't was only a dead Azym a Jewish abomination that she should respect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God and at another immediately succeeding the first which is to say from night to morning regard it with horror washing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted WE may apply the same questions and difficulties to the Armenians Jacobites Coptics Nestorians in reference to several of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot shew the original nor tell us after what manner they were dispersed amongst these people nor how they have left the contrary opinions which the Church of Rome still holds as being of Apostolical Tradition How has it hapned for instance that the Nestorians have left the use of Confirmation and that of Extreme Unction that the Jacobites have left that of Confession and the belief of Purgatory that the Coptics have laid aside the Doctrin of Purgatory and use of Extreme Unction and so of the rest For Mr. Arnaud I think would have me suppose that according to him these points have been heretofore held and practis'd by all Christians THESE examples do clearly discover the vanity of these pretended moral impossibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged with such great exaggeration For they may be all as strongly applied to the changes which have hapned in these Eastern Churches and yet it must be granted that these changes hapned there Mr. Arnaud may argue as long as he pleases start questions and raise difficulties these insensible changes are more than possible for they are come to pass either in these Churches or in the Latin which has Opinions and contrary Customs which shews that these Gentlemens whole Philosophy is but a mere Speculation proper only for persons that abound with leisure which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world BUT in short the use which is made of the Seminaries and Missions and the course which the Emissaries take in the East as we have observ'd in the second Book with the project of Thomas à Jesu to make in a short time all the Greeks good Roman Catholicks according as I have related in the fourth Book all this I say shews clearly that at Rome and elsewhere amongst the most zealous it is not at all accounted impossible to introduce insensibly and without disturbance the Doctrins of the Romish Church amongst people that have 'em not and in effect it must be granted that their present labors are not unsuccessful and that time will probably finish the work CHAP. VIII That Paschasus Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and Conversion of Substances Mr. Arnaud's Objections Answered WE must come now to particular matters of fact which relate to the History of the Change Not but to speak truly this difcussion appears to me very needless considering what we have already done For if the principal question which respects the novelty of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence be ended and moreover there results from our Dispute that the change was possible and that there 's nothing more vain than the objections which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have made on this subject I see not any necessity there is of informing a man's self in what manner this change hapned What matter is it to us who was the first Author of this Innovation who the promoters of it what facilities or difficulties were met with in the establishing of these Doctrins whether Paschasus carried on his business with craft or simplicity whether John Scot Bertram and Raban wrote against him before or after his death What signifies the knowing of these things provided we are certain not only that the change in question was possible but actually hapned And this does now appear so plainly as will satisfie every rational man In examining Mr. Arnaud's 6th and 9th Book we have made it appear that his pretended impossibilities are mere chimera's And as to the actual change besides that we shall always have right to take it for granted by our proofs of fact which is to say by the passages of the Fathers which we have cited till Mr. Arnaud and his friends have taken pains to answer 'em solidly besides this I say what I shewed concerning the Eastern Churches not holding the Doctrins in question neither in the 11th nor following Centuries and the Greeks and Latins not knowing 'em in the 7th and 8th Century is more than sufficient for the concluding that these Doctrins are not of the first establishment of Christian Religion and consequently that their introduction is an innovation Yet will I not desist from examining the points of History which respect this change because this change is indeed the first and principal subject of the Dispute
conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
a man ought to approach to 'em the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book All this is contained under the word intelligence and he comprehends it therein himself in explaining afterwards what he means by this term and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence The question then is whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illusions At the entrance of his second Chapter wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance and remedy the evils it caused he describes it in this manner Sacramentum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur nemo sidelium ignorare debet nemo nescire quid ad fidem quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was Paschasus tells you immediately Nescire quid ad fidem Paschas de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 2. quidve ad scientiam pertineat Here are precisely the two parts of Mr Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection and nescire quid ad scientiam is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence So that Paschasus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith which is to say according to him the Real Presence and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things But let us hear Paschasus further Fides says he est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute We must instruct our Faith lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not sufficiently discerning this Sacrament and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it Can any man explain himself more clearly The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which in his sense signifies not to know that 't is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and th' intelligence on the contrary consists in knowing it But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity and knows not the circumstance of it and does not truly know that 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth is to be it substantially and really Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this and by the reason of contraries the intelligence consists in knowing it according to Paschasus Mr. ARNAVD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter intended only to shew the necessity there is of instructing persons before they come to receive the Communion but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church and that on the contrary this necessity of instruction in the manner which he exaggerates denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Presence But this evasion will not serve turn For besides that Paschasus says expresly That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard where it cannot be denied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church I say there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he understands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book For having immediately proposed as from the part of Frudegard the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi Sanguis esse dicatur which respects as Epist ad Frud every one sees the Article of the Real Presence and having endeavoured to satisfie it he passes over to another objection which respects the same Real Presence Multi says he ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood He answers this Objection as well as he can then immediately adds Here you have dear Brother what came into my thoughts at present and because you are one part of my self I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 't is necessary As to your self I desire you would read over again my Book touching this matter which you say you have heretofore read and if you find therein any thing reprehensible or doubtful refuse not the labor of reading it again For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence His whole preceding dispute was on this Article and these terms If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful can only relate to the same Article for there was no question of any thing else When then he adds That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery 't is clear that he has respect to the same thing and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil I need only represent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory the Council of Ephesus S. Jerom and some others he adds Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point What can be
said to this Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Presence on the same Article which was disputed him by his Adversaries on the same Article on which he produc'd the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body and the clause of the Liturgy Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi on the same Article whereon he had alledged several passages of the Fathers Quamvis says he ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent DOES any man desire another express and formal testimony of Paschasus I need only produce these words of his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew to satisfie him I have been more large on this subject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of 〈◊〉 Commentary permits because there are several that have another sentiment touching these mystical things and several are so blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing else but what we see with our eyes and tast with our mouths Here we have then actually persons that did not believe the Real Presence and those not inconsiderable for their number seeing he denotes them by the term of several and which he expresses so clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loss what to answer Mr. ARNAVD who well perceived he might be opposed on the first answer bethought himself of giving us another in which contrary to his usual manner he relaxes something of what he advanced Not but that says Book 8. ch 10. p. 852. he this word intelligence may likewise respect the Real Presence not as a new truth but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended and in a manner which penetrates more lively the heart for there are several degrees of growing in the knowledg of a mystery which one believes already by Faith He would say there might be people who knew less strongly and livelily the Real Presence and that in this respect they might acquire the intelligence of it but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it or to whom Paschasus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth But Paschasus himself refutes this gloss Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent This is an ignorance which according to him extends so far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Presence To err in an Article thro ignorance is it not a not believing of it at all as having never heard it mentioned Is not this a knowing nothing of it a having no knowledg and consequently no Faith in it Now such were Paschasus his ignorant persons who were far different from those of Mr. Arnaud In a word they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing else in respect of their substance than what they appear to our eyes and tast as Paschasus now spake THIS Principle being well establish'd as I believe it is at present 't will be no hard matter to see the consequence of it The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence of the Presence if it were taught in the Church of the Absence if the Presence were not therein taught Whereupon I raise this Argument There cannot be any person in a Church wherein the Real Presence is commonly taught but knows distinctly the Real Presence Now in the Church of the 9th Century at which time Paschasus lived there were people that were ignorant of the Real Presence and erred in this Article thro ignorance Therefore in the Church of the 9th Century the Real Presence was not commonly taught The first proposition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud without distinction or restriction the second is of Paschasus himself the conclusion of it I think then is inevitable 'T WILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of those called ad hominem which does indeed press an adversary by his own proper Principles but which are not always absolutely conclusive because it may happen that the Principles of an Adversary on which they are grounded be false and imprudently offered This Argument then may be convictive against the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be false and consequently the conclusion I draw thence TO solve this difficulty besides that 't is a great advantage for the cause which I defend that as able Doctors as these Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles 'T is to be observ'd that theirs being alternative must be distinguish'd into two propositions one of which is All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence if the Church of their time taught it And the other All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Presence In respect of this second proposition the Principle is false as I have shew'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity and in the beginning of his 6th Book in I think an unanswerable manner But in respect of the first the Principle is true and must be granted for in effect it is not conceivable that a Church should believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and yet let persons of age Communicate without instructing them in it That she should believe and teach a man must adore this Sacrament which we receive publickly practise this supreme Adoration and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it and in this respect err thro ignorance It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of those term'd ad hominem seeing 't is not grounded on the second proposition of these Gentlemens Principle which is in contest but on the first in which both sides are agreed so that my conclusion has all the strength and truth that can be desired in every respect NEVERTHELESS we must answer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections Paschasus says That he dedicated his Book to young People 'T is Book 8. ch 10. p. 859. then says he unlikely that Paschasus design'd to instruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant I answer 't was not indeed likely that he had immediately so vast a design 'T is more likely he proposed his Doctrin as he himself says petentibus to hir Scholars who pray'd him to shew them his sentiment in this matter but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new He says says Mr. Arnaud again That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains Now no man who discovers a mystery of this importance uses such humble expressions which suppose he says nothing but what 's vulgarly known Mr. Arnaud deceives himself for besides what I intimated in
his Commentary And as to what Mr. Arnaud adds That it does not appear he was reprehended before seeing he did not attempt to defend himself This concludes nothing unless we suppose that Paschasus was in a capacity and in humor to defend himself as soon as he knew he was censured Now this supposition must be proved before it be offered as a thing certain for this supposition does not establish it self How many persons are there who having set forth singular opinions do for a long time patiently undergo all censures and reprehensions without replies in expectation of a convenient time to defend themselves Paschasus had begun his Commentary on S. Matthew a great while before he became Abbot 't is probable he was willing to stay till the explication of these words This is my Body which he believed so advantageous to his cause should furnish him with an occasion to speak of his sentiment and to defend it against the attacks of opposers So that Mr. Arnaud's Chronology for this time will stand him in no stead WHO has given this liberty adds he to Mr. Claude to give the name of Page 868. world to these unknown persons of whom Paschasus only heard some mention but who never contradicted him to his face nor ever wrote against him This term cannot be reasonably used but to denote the greatest part of Christians or at least those who had read Paschasus his Book Now it is exceeding false in this sense that the world was astonish'd at Paschasus his Book seeing none of his Friends none of his Society none of those with whom he met in Ecclesiastick Assemblies and Councils have formally reprehended him for it BUT who has given Mr. Arnaud Authority to attribute the name of unknown persons to Paschasus his Adversaries and to say thereupon what he says seeing he has no grounds for it as I have already shew'd Who told him that John Scot Bertram and Raban who were not obscure persons in the Church of the 9th Century have staid till Paschasus his death before they declared themselves against his Opinion supposing 't were true they did not write till after his Death which is very uncertain Who has given him power to conclude That the world was not astonish'd at Paschasus his Book under pretence it does not appear That he was formally reprehended about it neither amongst his own Society nor in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies nor Councils seeing it does no more appear that Bertram and Raban when they taught a contrary Doctrin to that of Paschasus have been formally reprchended for it either by any one of their Order or in the publick Assemblies or Councils wherein they assisted Who has given him right to say as he does that the world of whom I speak consists of some small number of rash and troublesom Disputers who privately blamed what they dared not contradict in publick I shall not here repeat what I have already observed That 't is absurd to endeavour to make us conceive the Adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin as persons that blamed in secret what they dared not contradict in publick seeing the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are forced to acknowledg at least that after the death of Paschasus there were publick Writings against this very Doctrin and of which writings the Authors being famous men did not at all conceal their names as if the reason of this pretended fear depended not on the Doctrin but person of Paschasus who must have been at this rate the terror of Ecclesiastical Writers whilst he liv'd I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has no reason to reduce Paschasus his Adversaries that is to say those who would not receive his Doctrin to a small number One may in truth reasonably suppose that amongst those that rejected this novelty there were some that made head or appeared more than the rest and in this sense Paschasus might say that he understood some reprehended him But to conclude hence that these were the only persons of their party and that all the rest of the Church follow'd the sentiment of Paschasus is a groundless fancy Raban speaking of Paschasus his party calls 'em formally Poenitent Rab. cap. 33. some Quidam says he nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est And the anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has caused to be Printed expresses himself in the same manner on this subject Some says he say that what is received from the Altar is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin Others deny it and say 't is another thing Paschasus himself formally acknowledges that those who were not of his opinion were not a small number for he describes them under the name of several or many Ideo says he in hac coena Christi prolixius elaboravi quam brevitas poscat tractatoris quia in his mysticis rebus plures aliud sapiunt AS oft says Mr. Arnaud as a difficult mystery is proposed altho believ'd universally by the Faithful in a manner which causes a greater application of Spirit those mens minds which are not sufficiently humble are likely to be dismayed at it and to endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear And thereupon they often set upon the person who has proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful Even sometimes these ill opinions be already formed For there are found too oft persons in the very bosom of the Church who giving too great liberty to their thoughts and reflections conceive ideas of mysteries different enough from those which the other faithful have of 'em in turning to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any one else in following the common notions uses any term which they also cannot reduce to their particular sense they charge this person with boldness and rashness And this is properly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time DOES Mr. Arnaud think to escape by these circuits and artifices A difficult mystery says he believed universally by the Faithful is proposed in such a manner as makes people apply themselves the more to it Does he pretend Paschasus had said any thing which is new in his Book concerning the Real Presence to make men consider more that point supposing it believ'd universally by the Faithful Does Paschasus examin the consequences of it or exaggerate the miraculousness of it or offer several objections on the contrary He does nothing of all this But only says 't is the same Flesh of Christ which was born of the Virgin and rose again That the substance of Bread is converted into the true Body of Jesus Christ altho the colour and savour of Bread remains That the substance of Christs Body enters into our flesh Now this is what
his imagination that the substance of Bread does no more subsist in the Sacrament of our Lords Body Sapis contra omnes naturoe rationes contra Evangelicam Apostolicam sententiam si cum Paschasio sapis in eo quod SOLVS sibi confingit Sacramento Dominici Corporis decedere panis omnino substantiam Now on one hand this shews Mr. Arnaud's injustice which attributes to the modern Ministers th' invention of this History which makes Paschasus the first Author of the opinion of the Real Presence and on the other this gives a great presumption that what the Ministers say touching Paschasus is true seeing in the 11th Century when the Dispute about the Eucharist grew hot people said the same thing then we do now We see Paschasus in the 9th Century charg'd with Enthusiasms and Visions in the 11th respected as the Father of Transubstantiation as he that drew it only from his own fancy these two matters of fact are moreover confirm'd by I know not how many other considerable matters hereunto relating And Mr. Arnaud comes telling us confidently that he marvails we should dare still attribute this Innovation to Paschasus and that our proofs are mere sophisms and conjectures not worth the minding THE anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has publish'd furnishes us with a 9th proof in his way of defending Paschasus For having said That some assert what we receeive from the Altar is the same as that which is Cellot in append ad Hist Cottesch born of the Virgin and that others deny it and say that 't is another thing he adds a little after Now for those which say 't is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin or say 't is another thing we shall relate the several opinions of the Holy Fathers which do indeed appear to be different but yet be satisfactory enough were they fully understood with discretion Now I speak of Paschasus Ratbert Abbot of Corby who whether he was required or provoked for 't is uncertain which has wrote on this matter a Book of about an hundred Chapters which he has fill'd with several Authorities of the Fathers and under the name of S. Ambrose has therein establish'd that what we receive from the Altar is entirely the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross risen from the Sepulchre and is at this day ossered for the life of the world Raban in his Epistle to the Abbot Egilon and one Ratram in a Book dedicated to King Charles argue sufficiently against him saying that 't is not this same Flesh which they prove by the testimony of S. Hierom which says that the Body of Jesus Christ may be said to be in two manners and by the Authority of S. Augustin which says that this term may be taken three ways And because they maintain that in S. Ambrose ' s Books we do not find it exactly thus we shall relate not only the passage of S. Ambrose without any alteration but also those of S. Augustin S. Hierom and others in the manner we found 'em to the end that having considered them it may appear to those to whom it shall please God to reveal it that these great men did not differ one from another in opinion and that in the Catholick Church we must all have the same mind without the least Schism Hitherto we do not find that this defender of Paschasus has recourse to the publick Belief of the Church of his time or protests that Paschasus has offered nothing but what all Christians did generally agree to except some small number of troublesom Disputers who denied in secret what they dared not contradict in publick as Mr. Arnaud speaks .. We find on the contrary that he denotes those which held the Doctrin of Paschasus under the name of some and the opposite party under the name of others Dicentibus quibusdam idem esse quod sumitur de altari quod illud quod natum est ex Virgine aliis autem negantibus This is not the language of one who was persuaded the whole Church spake like Paschasus But this will still further appear if we consider what this same Author adds afterwards for having alledged some passages of the Fathers which he believ'd favour'd Paschasus Hoec ideo says he posita sunt si forte per ea simplicitas Paschasi Ratberti possit excusari unde maxime ab obloquentibus Rabano Ratramno sugillari videtur quid dixerat eandem esse carnem quoe de Altari sumitur de virgine generatur quoe quotidie adhuc pro mundi salute immolatur I have brought these passages to see whether one could not excuse the simplicity of Paschasus Ratbert especially in respect of that particular for which he is blamed by his Adversaries Raban and Ratram for saying that what we receive from the Altar is the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin and is still every day immolated for the salvation of the world Now let any man seriously tell me whether people are wont to defend after this manner one who has the whole Church on his side excepting some troublesom rash Disputers Is such a ones simplicity endeavoured to be excused by any body Do we say in such a case if perhaps it may be excusable Do people place on one hand irreconcilable Adversaries who defame him and on the other simple excuses and excuses offered in a fearful and doubtful manner Si forte simplicitas Paschasii possit excusari Let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases the discourse of this anonymous Author offers such an idea of the Adversaries of Paschasus as of persons that delivered themselves openly in the Church who had then advantage over Paschasus even to the defaming him for teaching the Real Presence and furnishes us at the same time with the idea of Paschasus as of a man who must be excused upon the account of his simplicity but yet his expressions may be defended by some passages of the Fathers Now these two ideas plainly enough shew that Paschasus was an Innovator THERE are other proofs in my Answer to the Perpetuity which I do not think necessary to repeat here having nothing more to add to ' em We will pass then to Authors who were Contemporaries with Paschasus to know of them whether they taught the same Doctrin as he did CHAP. X. Of Authors in the Ninth Century Walafridus Strabo Florus Remy of Auxerre Chstriian Drutmar WE may now say I hope with some kind of confidence notwithstanding Mr. Arnaud's insultings that Paschasus was an Innovator This is a truth sufficiently clear'd by what I have already done in the two preceding Chapters But to make this if possible more plain we must make some few reflections on the Authors which were of the same Century as Paschasus besides what I already said of 'em in my Answer to the Perpetuity For if it appears that these Authors have not held the same language as he did
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
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
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
lib 4. adv Oecol Indic Belg. Censurers of Doway in reference to the Book of Bertram whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius and Charles the Bald altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain had the Manuscripts for title Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem And for that of John Scot it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time and having an Inscription almost alike Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain Sigeb Catol c. 85. 99. De Script Eccl. fol. 53. 55. Praefat. gener in vit Sanct. c. 4. sect 7. Labbe de Script Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. seq what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 't is by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Vsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknowledg in respect of Vsuard BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same Because says our Author if we suppose that this Title is equally false 't is very difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books which in other respects had so great resemblance And if it be pretended that the Title is true it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different persons to meet in giving it this Title THIS difficulty is a small one we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald but affirm it not to be so strange a thing that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning as having been the restorer of it The examples which I alledged prove the thing possible seeing they prove it to have hapned Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was AS to Durand of Troarn I see moreover less reason why our Author Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 9. should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur concilio soluto discessum est For if it be true as our Author will have it that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned yet was it not so evident a matter that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger which as our Author believes agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram which he treats as obscure and perplexed there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council wherein was condemned for heretical what only ought to be esteemed obscure BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc who reproaches Berenger that as soon as the Council assembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot and blaming that of Paschasus Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful for 't is not credible the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot even to the condemning his Book to the flames had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris at Verceil and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot OUR Author pretends in the last place that seeing Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin and the rest of the Writers of the 11th Century mention only John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their condemnation one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot. BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies In effect supposing that in the 11th Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Raban in the time of Berenger Lanfranc and Ascelin MOREOVER our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors for it appears by the testimony of Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus Paschasus was therein either named or at least apparently meant which is not so in the Writings of Bertram who handles matters in a less polemical manner and never names Paschasus nor seems to give the least hint of him which has apparently tended to its preservation And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author TO establish the second to wit that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot our Author pretends that the several Article 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius that is to say of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd or dissimulative which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of and affects to contradict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment and avoid censures He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures and in his Book of Predestination whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Bertram is John Scot's It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused
anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit unde sicut dicit Lanfrandus ipse in fide desipuit Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat à graphiis suis ut fertur perforatus martyr oestimatus est Secondly That of Petrus Crinitus De honesta Discipl 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30. who speaks of him in almost the same terms Thirdly That of Naucler Alfred says he had enriched the College of Oxford especially with John Scot as with a Divine Star which he drew over into England from France where he was in favour with Charles the Bald. If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Roman Church in the 11th Century but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th Century wherein he lived and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons and the terms of the Council of Valence and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament yet did not accuse him on this Article Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Doctrin of the Eucharist turns the business into admiration and offers a pitiful reason of this silence I cannot sufficiently wonder says he that leaving Append. ad Hist Gothesc p. 583. the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist these droans for thus does he call those of Lyons should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination This shews adds he that they did not matter so much the defending of the Faith as the ruining the Party of those of Reims which is to say of Hincmar and his friends who had condemned Gotthescalc But both his astonishment and reason too would equally vanish if he would have taken notice of what every one sees that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th Century but in the 11th was that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th Age and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the Artic. 1. of his Dissert o◠John Scot. same of John Scot's name and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eucharist was not condemned in the 9th Century He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue entituled Of Natures the Author of which is this same John Scot and that this Book is full of Errors He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care and draws from 'em these two consequences 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies having been only tanght by a particular person who had no followers that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew because that on one hand it is full of Errors and on the other we do not find it was condemned AS to the first I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's and that there are Errors in it but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head but herein only follow'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and Latins as S. Basil S. Gregory of Nysse and S. Ambrose the pretended Denis the Areopagite and S. Maximus which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church John Scot cites them on each of these opinions he sets down their passages which made William of Malmsbury to say That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult questions provided he be excused in some things in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins by reason of his following too much the Greeks AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures and that of the Eucharist of the same Author First The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons because 't was wrote at the entreaty of a particular person to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had excited much clamour in the Church Secondly Altho the Book of Natures had been known the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers whose names are venerable in the Church we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention altho they have not approved all their sentiments But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation and Real Presence the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles would have been his only and not the Fathers and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book and openly condemning it Thirdly The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the common road and reach of sense whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament which is continually before the eyes of Christians for supposing as I said the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as the Roman Church believes them at this day and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church The King himself by whose order he wrote would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the borrow'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the reputation and authority of John Scot's name and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram should be in effect of John Scot this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot. THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with
II. BOOK V. Wherein is treated of the belief of the Moscovites Armenians Nestorians Jacobites and other Churches called Schismaticks of the belief of the Latins in the seventh and eighth Centuries and of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of these Churches in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation CHAP I. Of the Moscovites That the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation HAVING thus cleared up the Point in reference to the Greeks I come now in order to the Examination of Mr. Arnaud's fifth Book wherein he treats of the other Churches called Schismaticks which are separated as well from the Greek Church as the Roman The first of those Churches which he Offers us is that of the Moscovites and he immediately acknowledges that she makes up a part of the Greek one and that the same Proofs which serve for the one suffice for the other But this acknowledgment ill agreeing with the Design he had to make this the Subject of four Chapters he say's afterwards he thought himself obliged to treat of this at lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423. large as well for that the Fallacious arguings which Mr. Claude makes thereupon deserve to be represented as that also the Opinion of the Moscovites appeared to him very Considerable in this matter To speak plainly these are meer frivolous Pretences as it will appear in the sequel and unless he imagined this Multiplication of Objects would contribute something to his Glory and make it more Illustrious there can be no reason alledged for the mentioning of the Moscovites apart for if it be true these People profess to follow the Greek Religion as he say's assoon as ever we are satisfied of the Doctrine of these last we need not trouble our selves any longer concerning the Belief of the others Yet we must accommodate our selves to Mr. Arnaud's method and treat of the Moscovites seeing he will have it so TO begin with the state of these People Moscovia is a great Nation professing the Christian Religion but otherwise extream Barbarous and Ignorant of the Doctrines of Christianity Some have questioned whether they may reasonably be called Christians whereupon Mr. Olearius has Pleasantly Voyage into Moscovia lib. 3. p. 234. say'd That it may as well be questioned whether they are Men seeing their Religion does not so greatly differ from that of other Christians as their Morals and way of Living does from that of other Men but as they shew themselves Men by speech and Laughter so in like manner they appear to be Christians by Possevin Bibl. sel lib. 6. C. 5. and lib. de reb Moscov Thom. a Jesu Lib. 6. C. 5. Olearius voyage Mosc Lib. 3 p. 237. 234. Baptism and the outward Profession of the Christian Religion They refer themselves upon all Accounts to their Prince as to their Oracle saying when they be asked touching any Point That God and their Great Czar know it and that 't is by the especial Grace of their Czar they are in Health and can sit on Horseback One of their Chief Maxims is to suffer no Preachers amongst them and in Effect they have none but content themselves with the reading of the Psalms some Chapters of the Scripture and S. Athanasius's Creed to which they sometimes add an Homely of S. Chrysostom or the Life of some of their Saints Mr. Olearius adds That one of their Priests setting himself to Preach and exhort the People out of the word of God to the duty of Prayer the Patriarch deposed him together with some other Priests who followed his Example that he excommunicated them and sent them into Siberia THERE are neither Accademy's nor Colledges amongst them and it would be a Crime punishable by the Laws of that Kingdom for a man to Possev ubi supra apply himself to the study of Sciences They have only some small Schools wherein they teach Children to Write and Read and perhaps a little Greek and Latine in one Corner of the Kingdom HENCE it is their Ecclesiasticks are so Prodigiously ignorant that Olear Lib. 3. p. 234. Mr. Olearius tells us There is scarcely any amongst their very Monks and Priests that can give an Account of his Faith because they have none to Preach the word of Olear Lib. 3 p. 237. God to them And therefore the Patriarch will not permit 'em to Dispute about Religion nor inform themselves by means of Strangers Possevin likewise tells us that demanding of their Monks who was the founder of their Order Possev ubi supra not one of 'em could return him an Answer And thus are we informed in the Ambassage of the Earl of Carlile The Religion of the Moscovites is the Relation of the Ambassag of the Earl of Carlile same which the Greeks profess for they follow their Faith Rights and Ceremonies but they are so Ignorant that they scarce know themselves what Religion they are of THEIR Superstition is no less than their Ignorance witness their calling Olear Lib. 3. p. 261. their Images their Gods saying when they enter into any House I est le Boch where is the God Witness likewise their re-baptizing themselves every year and not only their own Persons but in like manner their Images Olear Lib. 3. p. 261. and Horses And their giving a Testimonial or Pass port in due form and manner to their Dead attesting they have lived good Christians and observed the Greek Religion to the end that S. Peter in seeing their Testimonial may admit them into Heaven Witness moreover that fabulous and impious Book mentioned by Olearius wherein they have corrupted the Historical passages of the Gospel adding thereto filthy and abominable Circumstances such as is this amongst others That Mary Magdalen prostituting her self one day Olear p. 249. out of Charity her Action was so Meritorious in the sight of God that it expiated all her past sins and caused her to be Canonized in the Register of Saints I could willingly forbear mentioning things of this Nature did not I find that Mr. Arnaud in his Discourses concerning these People seems to represent us with an Idea of the most happy and flourishing People in the World THIS is say's he a great Kingdom almost intirely separate from all others Lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423. This is a Nation which has ever had but little Commerce with the rest of the Nations of the World few Persons Voyaging into those parts and few Moscovites into Asia and Europe There was never in this Country a mixture of Persons of divers Communions It cannot be say'd the Latins have brought over their Opinions here by Croisados and 't is observed by all Authors that these People are exceeding careful to preserve their ancient Customs and Doctrines In fine there is no Country in the World more tenacious of their Opinions and which less easily admits a new one The Church of this Kingdom is a Church purely Greek and owes it's
Conversion to the Greek Church having received from her the Doctrine she Professes There are scarcely any other Books read amongst them than some Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Tongue The writings of these Fathers are expounded amongst them they have no other Sentiments than those which Nature imprints in their Minds Will not a man be apt to say in reading this Description that this Land is a kind of spiritual Canaan BUT what signifies disguising of things at this rate Besides what I now related touching the Ignorance and Superstitions reigning in this Church we need only observe what judgment Possevin who lived several years in Moscovia makes of them In respect of Schism say's he it cannot be imagin'd how deeply Possev de reb Moscov p. 24. they are ingaged in it holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims or rather adding still somthing to them than abating any of them It is the same with the Moscovites as with those who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle the forwarder they go the more they multiply their Errors just as may be observed in the Innovators of our times The Moscovites having receiv'd their Schism from the Greeks have departed from 'em and having no Books nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies And yet according to Mr. Arnaud this is the only Country in the World for conserving a Doctrine already established and the least likely to embrace a new Opinion The same Possevin tells us that the Great Duke Possev de reb Moscov p. 1. Basil having caused a Greek Priest to come into his Country whom the Patriarch of Constantinople sent him he threw him into Prison and would not release him altho requested by the Turkish Emperor because the Priest told him he found the Moscovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church and from that time they had no more Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moscovia In another place he observes expressly that they differ in several Ibid. p. 38. things from the Latins Which caused Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia Elucid error ritus Ruth Joan. Sacra to say that they abuse in several things the Rights of the Greeks and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks which have departed from them This proposition of Sacranus may be excessive but it may be well concluded thence that the Moscovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion but have not so carefully preserved it but that 't is alter'd in several things THIS pretended firmness which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them has not hindred the Greek Religion from being corrupted amongst them neither has it hindred the Latins from using their utmost Endeavors to introduce their Doctrines amongst them nor Possevin from laying his Designs in Order thereunto It has not hindred the Popes from sending their Emissaries amongst Possev de reb Mosc Com. 1. 2 Chap. 4. them as I have already show'd in the second Book nor from making use of Merchants who under pretence of Commerce obtain an easier access into these Countries as appears by the History of Paul Jovius nor Arcudius Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Mosc a Latiniz'd Greek from spending twenty years in Lituania Russia and Moscovia in the propogating of the Romish Religion as he himself testifies Arcud Epist dedicat ad Sigism in his Letter to Sigismond King of Poland nor Seminaries from being set up in Lituania and other places for the instructing of the Moscovites Children in the Romish Religion as Possevin tells us This firmness does not hinder Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. but that they have made use not only of Polanders for the Reduction of these People who hold a particular Commerce with them but especially of the re-united Russians who appear less suspected to the Moscovites because they Possev Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1. observe still the Greek Rites In fine this does not hinder the false Greeks who having finished their studies in the Seminary at Rome do return into Greece from promoting the interest of the Roman Church under the habit and disguise of Schismatical Greeks and from passing over from Greece into Moscovia when occasion Offers as appears by the Example of Paysius Ligaridius who wrote in Mosco it self his Treatise of the Eucharist in favour of Mr. Arnaud and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone IS not this then a delusory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made That it cannot be alledged the Latins have brought their Opinions into these parts by Croisado's This is true but if they have not brought them thither by Croisado's they have done whatsoever they have been able in order to the introducing them by Missions and Seminaries by Commerce of Merchants by Poland Russia and Greece it self which is their Mother-Church Now can it seem strange to us if with all these Machins and by abusing the Ignorance and stupidity of these People they have been made to believe that Transubstantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion and consequently one of theirs And can it be imagined we are such Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People What Mr. Arnaud adds That there is scarcely any other Books Possev de reb Moscov Comm. 1. read amongst them than the Writings of some of the Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Language does not well agree with what Possevin tells us that they understand not any more of the Sclavonian Language than what nearly relates to theirs or that of Poland What signifies the reading of Greek Fathers Translated into a Language which the People understand not BUT let us see what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation The first he Offers is the silence of all Authors that have written on the Religion of this Church who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane To enhance the Value of this Proof he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Positive whereby to maintain my Thesis It is strange say's he that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter should choose rather to devine the Opinion of these People on weak Conjectures than to inform himself whether he might not meet in so many Books that mention the Religion Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425. of the Moscovites real Proofs of what he would willingly find He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading those Books and Protests he has not been guilty of the like having read whatsoever he could find written on this Subject eight Authors on one side several Treatises on the other such as Possevin Baronius Raynoldus Botter Breerwood Hornbeck and several others THERE is no need of this Account There being no body as I know of that questions Mr. Arnaud's industry we on the contrary blame him for taking so much Pains for nothing As
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
one hand the Book could not Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 134 135. be denied to be true and acknowledging moreover that this Bertram to whom 't is attributed is no other than Ratramnus whom he lately mention'd with such great Elogies as being the defender of the Doctrin of the Church concerning Divine Grace he I say believ'd 't was best to attempt the justifying him by any means from the crime of Heresie touching the Eucharist And for this effect has bethought himself of maintaining that Ratramnus in the Book in question defends the same Doctrin which Paschasus Ratbert defended in that which he wrote on the same subject that both one and the other to wit Ratramnus and Paschasus had to deal with the same Hereticks to wit certain Stercoranists who according to Cardinal Perron appeared in the 9th Century that they both of 'em admirably well agree in defending the Catholick Church so that there can be no charge of Heresie brought against Bertram as they of his Communion had hitherto done without any reason Mr. HERMAN Canon of Beauvais has approved of this sentiment of Mr. Mauguin in a Letter to Mr. De St. Beuve Printed in 1652. under the name of Hierom ab Angelo forti and 't is by this means he endeavours to defend Jansenius his Disciples against Mr. Desmarests Professor in Divinity at Groningue who argued against Transubstantiation from the authority of this same Ratramnus whom the Gentlemen of the Port Royal quoted as one of the most famous Witnesses of the Belief of the Church against the novelties of Molina IT seems also that Mr. De St. Beuve does not disapprove of this opinion of Mr. Mauguin and Mr. Herman in his Manuscript Treatise of the Eucharist as we may collect from the Preface of D' Luc d' Achery on the second Tome of his Spicilege Yet by a strange kind of injustice after the testimony of Cardinal Du Perron and others who have seen Bertram's Manuscript he still suspects it to have suffered some alteration Howsoever he would have us remember that Ratramnus died in the bosom of the Church and bear with his offensive expressions This is the part which these two Gentlemen have taken for the preservation of Ratramnus his authority whose testimony is useful to 'em in other matters CELLOT the Jesuit on the contrary designing in his History of Gottheschalc and in his Appendixes to oppose the sentiments of Mr. Mauguin in the subject of Grace and to discredit its Champions has attackt the person of Ratramnus He does indeed acknowledg him for the true Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord but he does all that he is able to discredit it and bereave it of all the Authority which these other Gentlemen attribute to it Howsoever he yields it to the Protestants as being for them and maintains with Possevin that altho this Book may be read with corrections yet Pope Clement VIII has done well in prohibiting it OTHERS of better judgments in the Romish Communion have clearly foreseen that if what Cellot the Jesuit offers against Ratramnus is of use to him against the Disciples of Jansenius and if his way of proceeding be advantageous against the Adversaries which he had at his back 't was not the same in respect of us For as fast as he deprived his Adversaries of so famous an Author as Ratramnus in decrying him for an Heretick on the subject of the Eucharist he yielded him to us without any dispute and by this means does himself furnish us with a very authentick Author against Transubstantiation and the Real Presence They have believed then that to prevent the falling into this inconveniency they must invent some other new means which on one hand might be less bold and more likely than is that of Mr. Mauguin which cannot reasonably be maintain'd and which on the other would not give us so great advantage as Father Cellot has given us in placing Ratramnus absolutely on our side AND this is what Mr. Marca the deceased Arch-Bishop of Paris has seem'd to have done when he offered as a new discovery that the Book in question is of John Scot or Erigenus For by means of this opinion he pretended to secure to Ratramnus his whole authority and reputation and attribute at the same time to the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the infamy of an heretical piece according to the Decree of the Roman Censurers We may charge Mr. De Marca with inconstancy seeing that in his French Treatise of the Eucharist which was publish'd since his death by the Abbot Faget his Cousin-german he acknowledged that Bertram and Ratram were but one and the same Author and that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is truly of Ratramnus HOWSOEVER Mr. De Marca affirms in his Letter to De Luc d' Tome 2. Spicil Achery wrote in 1657. First That the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not of Ratramnus as the learned have thought Secondly That 't is John's surnamed Scot or Erigenus Thirdly That John Scot acknowledging this Book was contrary to the Doctrin of the Church publish'd it under the name of Ratramnus by a famous Imposture to give it the more weight Fourthly That this Book is then the same which was condemned in the Council of Verseile by Leo IX as Lanfranc reports and was at length burnt in the Council of Rome under Nicholas II. in 1059. And thus does he reject his former opinion thro human weakness from which the greatest Wits are not exempt and wherein a man easily falls when 't is his interest to be of another mind Mr. De Marca well perceiv'd what a troublesom thing it was to the Roman Faith to say that Paschasus which is as it were the head of it according to the Hypothesis of the Protestants was opposed by all the learned and famous men which were then in the Church He also well foresaw that those who would reflect on the person of Ratram would be extremely surpriz'd to see that upon the contests to which the Doctrin of Paschasus gave birth Charles the Bald having consulted Ratram this great man took part with Paschasus his Adversaries He knew likewise that 't was this same Ratram who was consulted on the subject of Grace by the same Charles the Bald and who shew'd himself so zealous for the truth that he feared not to withstand three times Hincmar his Arch-Bishop as Mr. Mauguin has Dissert Hist c. 17. p. 135. observ'd That this Ratram was so famous in his time that after these bickerings with Hincmar Hincmar himself and the other French Prelates commission'd him to answer in their name the objections of the Greeks in the dispute which arose between them and the Latins There was no likelihood of making such a one pass for an Heretick Moreover Mr. Marca could not deny but that the Book of our Lords Body and Blood ought to be attributed to Ratram should we