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
the Body and Blood of our Lord. WE might confirm the same truth by comparing the Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord with the other works of Ratram were that trouble any way necessary But I believe this is sufficient to persuade those who weigh things IT is certain that our Author produces a reason to shew that Ratram is not the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He draws it from the silence of Hincmar This silence says he discovers so evidently th' injustice which has been done to Ratram in attributing the Book of Bertram to him that supposing we had no other proofs to justifie him this here will be more than sufficient to take away all suspicions which within these few years have been entertain'd touching his integrity in the Faith There is no likelihood if we believe our Author that Hincmar who on one hand was animated against Ratram and wrote against him a great Book concerning Predestination and this expression Trina Deitas and who on the other condemned as an error and novelty contrary to the Faith the Opinion of John Scot who said that the Eucharist was not our Lords true Body but only its figure and memorial would not have reproached Ratram on this subject had he believed him the Author of this Book which goes under the name of Bertram seeing this Book yielded occasion enough to a passionate enemy as Hincmar was to charge him with this Heresie BUT this reflection is but a silly one First from one word which Hincmar has uttered against John Scot in favour of Paschasus we must not conclude that Hincmar was at full liberty to write against Ratramnus and t' encounter him as an Heretick Secondly I do not see why Hincmar should be so mightily transported against Ratram who spake without heat and mentioned not any of those against whom he wrote If Hincmar was transported against Ratram on another subject it does not hence follow he must be always in the like passion on all subjects which he had to debate with this Religious Thirdly This our Author supposes without reason that Hincmar was in a condition to insult over Ratram on the question of the Eucharist as he did in that of Predestination and there is herein a great deal of difference When Hincmar was so greatly transported against Ratram 't was because he had the Council of Cressy on his side 't was because Maug Dissert Hist p. 141. John Scot declared himself for him against Gothescalc and Ratram 't was because the famous Raban had prejudicated in his favour in a Council held at Mayence in 848. but there was nothing like this in the question of the Eucharist John Scot had declared himself against the sentiments of Paschasus the King knew it and kept him in his Palace which was a sufficient prejudice against Hincmar The famous Raban consulted by Heribold Bishop of Auxerre and Arch-Chaplain that is to say great Almoner had clearly taken part against the sentiments of the same Paschasus and the learned Church of Lyons who had persecuted John Scot whilst he defended the opinions of Hincmar touching Predestination ceased molesting him when he combated the sentiments of Paschasus on the Doctrin of the Eucharist Fourthly Our Author supposes with the same rashness that Hincmar believed this Controversie to be as important as it is at this day which is contrary to all probability For First Hincmar contents himself with criticising on the opinion of John Scot in very soft terms he does not call it Heresie but novelty of words whereas Raban and Hincmar term'd the opinion of Gotthescalc on the Divine Grace Heresie and Schism Secondly If we come to compare what Hincmar says against Ratram on the trina Deitas shall we not find that what he says against John Scot contains nothing so outragious Hincmar was a friend of Raban's who wrote a Letter to Egilon Vide Dissert Hist Maug p. 357 358. Penit. cap. 33. Abbot of Prom and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Sens against the Doctrin of Paschasus he was a friend of this Raban who had opposed him in his answer to Heribold publish'd by Stewart Hincmar always mentions Heribold T. 1. Maug p. 21. with a great deal of respect even after his death altho Heribold was so far from being of Paschasus his opinion that in the later ages the name of Heriboldiens was given to the Disciples of Berenger as we find in the Writings of Tho. Waldensis Fifthly If this silence of Hincmar proves T. 2. de Sacra c. 61. that Ratram did not write the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord because Hincmar would have reproached him with it what judgment must we make of this Authors affirming that John Scot wrote this Book of Bertram's altho the Church of Lyons which wrote so fiercely against him has not reproached him with it Why did not also Prudentius do it in his Treatise against Hincmar and Pardulus Was not this the ready way to decry these two Bishops to reproach them that they made use of the Pen of a profest enemy to the Real Presence and Transubstantiation Why did Nicholas the first suffer this Heresie growing in the bosom of Charles the Bald without warning this Prince of it That same Nicholas who concerned himself so much in the affairs on this side the Mountains and used all means to inform himself of ' em Nicholas the first shall bestir himself in the affair of Rothadus of Soissons in that of Hincmar of Laon where the point was only about Discipline and remain unconcerned in the business of John Scot altho he erred in the Eucharist He shall take notice of the affairs of Ebbon of Reims and those whom he had ordain'd and not take any notice of a question agitated at the Court of Charles the Bald in which this Prince did interest himself He shall know that Raban had opposed the Real Presence by publick Writings that he to whom Raban wrote was become Arch-Bishop of Sens that an Arch-Chaplain had erred in this matter and all this without being concerned The fault which our Author commits in this reflection on the silence of Hincmar proceeds from his not minding two things the one is that we must not always ground our selves on peoples proposing their sentiments in advantageous terms and speaking the opinion of their adversaries with disdain and contempt This is particularly the stile of Hincmar in every malter he treats of as it has been already observ'd by Mr. Mauguin and Mr. De la Motte which cannot be unknown to our Author Dissert Hist p. 357 358. Apol. for the Holy Fathers part 5. p. 297. For example he always treats Gotthescalc as an Heretick altho it be believ'd at Port Royal that Gotthescalc defended only S. Austin's Doctrin on the matter of Grace THE other is that our Author has conceiv'd that the censure of Hincmar against John Scot imports that Hincmar believ'd the Real Presence
am not greatly solicitous whether Trithemius has seen or not seen the Writings which he attributes to Bertram Yet I cannot but observe here the vanity Hieron ab ang Forti Epist 3. p. 63. of mens judgments In 1652. the Elogies which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige Mr. Herman to believe that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is the most Orthodox piece in the world And in 1669. these same commendations which Trithemius gives to Bertram oblige the Author of the Dissertation to affirm that Trithemius never read it and so prais'd Bertram without any consideration Thirdly It seems to me that the manner after which Cellot's Anonymous has treated Ratram not knowing him but by his Book makes him not an Author unknown to others For supposing Ratram were entirely unknown to this Anonymous who lived in the 12th Century we know that Florus the famous Deacon of the Guil. Malmsb. A. 883. Sim. Dunelm p. 148. Math. Westm ann 889. apud Baron A. 1118. sect 29. Church of Lyons was likewise treated no better than a quidam by the Historians of the 12th and 13th Century and Paschasus himself was so little known by Gaudefredus the Monk of Claravod at the end of the 12th Century that Gaudefredus confounds him with Paschasus Deacon of the Roman Church who lived about the year 500. Amalarius was very famous in the 9th Century and well known by Lewis the Debonnair by whose order he See Labb of Writ Eccles in Amalar. wrote The Transcribers have corrupted his name in the Catalogue of Sigebert and turned it into Attularius Trithemius speaks of him in his Catalogue under the name of Hamularius and after an hundred Disputes he remains still in a manner unknown Fourthly It is surprizing enough to see the Author of the Dissertation attributing to the Authors themselves the faults of the Transcribers who have written the name of Ratram He tells us that Sigebert gives to Bertram the name of Ratram in some Manuscript Copies that Trithemius speaks of him under three different names of Bertram of Bertramnus and of Bertrannus that the Anonymous Author calls him Ratramnus or Intram I know not whether he speaks in good earnest or to deride us But if he speaks seriously that those who according to his supposition changed the Title of the Book of John Scot made it pass on purpose under these different names in different Copies 't would have been good before a conjecture of this kind was offered to undertake the confirming of this discovery by the Authority of some Manuscripts of the Body and Blood of our Lord wherein might be seen these different names THE last mark of the supposition which the Author of the Dissertation Ibidem offers is that if we will not acknowledg Bertram for a feign'd Author and the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord for the work of John Scot we shall find our selves forced to admit such strange consequences and which approach so near to impossibilities that the like cannot be parallel'd by all Antiquity BUT we need only to run thro the principal difficulties which our Author proposes to find that all this is nothing First It is not an absurdity to pretend that in the 9th Century there were two Authors one named John Scot known of all the world for the Author of the first Translation of the Hierarchy of the feign'd Denys into Latin The other called Ratramnus whose name thro the ignorance of Transcribers was corrupted into that of Bertram or Bertramnus or Bertran as that of Amalarius has been into Attularius that of Aimoinus into Aumoinus Ammonius and Annonius under which this Author was first publish'd at Paris in the year 1514. Secondly Neither is it any more an absurdity to say they were both of 'em adversaries to Paschasus not sercet as our Author affirms but open ones in writing against his Doctrin The Anonymous Author mentions several adversaries of Paschasus as Raban and Ratramnus Thirdly It is not so monstrous an impossibility to maintain that Ratramnus and John Scot wrote both of 'em on the subject of the Eucharist and on Predestination There were in their times two Disputes on these subjects and in effect we have their two Treatises of Predestination publish'd by Mr. Mauguin We know that in the 11th Century the Popes burnt John Scot's on the Eucharist and without doubt their partisans who suppressed all Berenger's Books and those of his Disciples have likewise exterminated with the greatest care the Copies of that of John Scot. By good hap that of Ratramnus who is mention'd in the 12th Century as an adversary to Paschasus is yet extant under the corrupted name of Bertram Fourthly Neither is there any absurdity to conceive that the Writings of these two Authors touching the Eucharist have been the one dedicated to King Charles the Bald and the other composed by his Order Ratramnus and John Scot were both of 'em particularly known and esteem'd by this Prince Ratramnus has written by his Order the Book of Predestination and John Scot in obedience to his Commands has translated the Hierarchy of the pretended Denys and was always greatly esteem'd by him Fifthly It is not absurd to believe that John Scot was oblig'd to write on the same subject as Ratramnus their judgment was so considerable in their time that Hincmar and Pardulus two famous Bishops oblig'd John Scot to write on Predestination and an Assembly of Bishops oblig'd Ratramnus to write against the objections of the Greeks which Pope Nicholas had sent them Sixthly It is an imaginary difficulty to say they have both of 'em had the fancy to give to Charles the Bald the Title of Charlemain I have shewed that they have not done it but that Berenger has been mistaken in explaining this Title Ad Carolum Regem and that it is very possible those who Printed the Book of Bertram have understood this Title as Berenger did in a like subject and in the same dispute Seventhly It is not an impossibility for two Books of the Body and Blood to contain each of 'em but one Book of a very indifferent size Eighthly There is no more difficulty to believe that two Writers who treat on the same subject have used the same Witnesses the same Orison which was said every day in the Service than that they have drawn the same conclusions and in terms perhaps not absolutely the same but very near one another Paschasus bragged in his Letter to Frudegard that this Orison was made for him which caused all his Adversaries to examin it and urge the proper terms of it against him without changing any thing therein Neither do I any more believe that after what I have represented of the genius of these Authors any body will imagin they were both of 'em equally addicted to Aristotle's Philosophy and were both wont to illustrate the mysteries of Religion by Arguments put in form by Enthymemes by Maxims and Principles drawn from
done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against the Book of the Perpetuity till Mr. Arnaud hath shewed them to be Invalid ALthough the Passion which appeareth throughout Mr. Arnaud's whole Book doth in a manner perswade me that his Censures are not always reasonable yet shall not this hinder me from examining them with a composed Mind If they are found just I ought to make my Advantage of them without minding the sharpness which accompanies them and if they are not the Interest of my Cause requires I should endeavour to manifest the Injustice of them by a modest and Christian Defence AND this Method I intend to use not only in the beginning but likewise in all the following parts of this Work which I dedicate to the discovery of Truth and the advancement of Gods Glory who is the Author and Father of Lights and of Truth IT is certain saith Mr. Arnaud in the beginning of his Book that provided Mr. Claude may be granted the Priviledge which he immediately lays hold on of inventing and supposing what he lists he takes a very sure way to conclude from thence what he pleases I only admire that while he fancies he has this peculiar Liberty he yet still busies himself in writing Books For he can absolutely determine all our Differences with a great deal less trouble For he has no more to do but only immediately to suppose that the Reason is on his side and that the Catholicks are in the wrong and so the whole Controversie will be at an end and thus may he satisfie himself with writing half a Page instead of an entire Answer for it decideth the whole 'T is but supposing that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath gotten the Victory over the Romish Schools and that he has manifested to all the World the Change the Roman Church hath made That the Proofs are clear strong and numerous which make the Change sensibly apparent and that he hath not been opposed with any other than false and imaginary Reasonings What need is there then of any other reply and to what purpose does Mr. Claude take upon him all this Trouble Calvinism hath now won the Day and Catholick Religion is utterly Routed THE right of opposing to the reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity the Proofs of the matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book and to speak our Thoughts concerning it is not so marvelous nor such an extraordinary design that Mr. Arnaud should need raise such a Contest about it This Author having undertaken to make us confess if we are not desperately obstinate that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity and having made use of no other reasonings for this purpose but those which are taken from the moral Impossibility of this Change which we believe hath hap'ned Common Sense convinces us that he is bound to examine the Proofs of Matters of Fact on which the Opinion he would root out of our Minds is established for till then all his Arguings will be to no purpose Neither can we justly be denied the Liberty of mentioning these Proofs according to our real Thoughts For seeing we offer them against the Author of the Perpetuity only as a prejudication which hinders us from heark'ning to his Arguments it is therefore very requisite we should speak our Thoughts about them to the end that if this Author continues in the design of bringing us to an acknowledgment of what he pretends he especially take care to remove as much as in him lies those things which render all his other Endeavours ineffectual I do not at all doubt if mens Minds were free from Prejudice but it would be granted that Mr. Aubertin's Book doth perfectly decide the Controversie touching the Eucharist It being a complete Piece in which this matter is searched to the bottom He hath answered those who have treated on this Subject before his time and yet his Book has layn even to this present unanswer'd which is a sufficient Reason to presume he hath gotten the better and that his Proofs let Mr. Arnaud say what he will are plainly evident and numerous but for as much as it is needful for the ending of a Difference and quieting Contradiction to suppose Principles granted by both Parties and seeing the Church of Rome doth neither agree in the Proofs nor in the Change here in Question I do thereupon freely confess the Controversie lyes still open in this respect and that in general we cannot stop any mans mouth by the simple supposition of the Strength and Solidity of that Book for every Man is at liberty and hath Right if he pleases to examine and answer it BUT had not Mr. Arnaud suppressed a great part of what I wrot on this Subject as well in my first as second Answer it would immediately appear I have bin so far from making such a claim as that wherewith he chargeth me that I have every where expresly maintained the contrary SEEING that Mr. Aubertin has made it appear by express Passages taken out of the Fathers these are the Words in my first Answer That Transubstantiation was unknown to the antient Church we may then well conclude there has hap'ned a Change especially considering that this same Transubstantiation was not heard of till the 11th Century Now considering this for a Man to Philosophize on the impossibility thereof is to give himself a great deal of Trouble to no purpose If there yet remain'd any thing farther to be done it would be to shew that the Passages produced by Mr. Aubertin are either false or alleaged impertinently against Transubstantiation but to pass by these matters of Proof which are clear express and conclusive to adhere to I know not what kind of pretended impossibility this is to trifle with the matter in hand OBSERVE here again what I said in my second Answer We had reason to hope that the Author treating my Abridgment in the respects and relations which the sequel of its Reasons oblige him to should have applyed himself unto one of these two things EITHER to make it appear that Mr. Aubertin ' s Proofs on which we have relyed are false and of no force or that the Consequence which is pretended to be drawn from them is untrue That is to say it do's not follow a thing is possible altho it be made apparent that this very thing has actually hap'ned WHEN a man makes Suppositions of this kind how absurd is it to say such a one puts himself in Possession of any Priviledge or usurps that marvelous Right of terminating Differences or deciding Controversies by groundless Suppositions For I not only give this Author of the Perpetuity the liberty of opposing Mr. Aubertin's Proofs and to shew if he can the falsity of them but I conjure him so to do being engaged thereunto by the consideration of his own Reputation and the necessity of this Course to end the Controversie Now if this may be stiled
may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs and Difficulties brought against them and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture strength of Reason and plain Instructions of their Ministers may give to the mystical Expressions which were then in use These are things wholly different I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of He needed not be brought in question for this seeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter in the beginning of my Answer I affirm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers is in it self a way which is indirect preposterous and very tedious wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings These are my Words and Mr. Daillé has said no more and I do still affirm that if a man examines these Passages apart and protests he finds no obscurity in them we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and which resulteth from an exact consideration of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other is undoubtedly on our side whether these particular Passages which seem at first to be difficult are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them or when their Difficulty should remain it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the certitude of this general Judgment which I mentioned for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity they give us the like Examples in other Matters and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them and satisfy a mans Mind BUT he saith that neither the Romanists nor the Protestants have any reason Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of laâ—e the Discourses of the antient Fathers written by them upon other matters several years before What he saith is true for we should be to blame should we take them for declaratory Sentences But this hinders not but we may still conclude they held not Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because that if they had held these Doctrines they would not have expressed themselves as they do Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines that they held them â—ot Neither does this moreover hinder but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose when he undertook to shew this pretended Contrariety which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me But Mr. Daillé ' s Design saith he is to shew in general that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies and especially in that of the Eucharist Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it because these Difficulties he mentions do shew this way is long and troublesom and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps This I do not deny but on the contrary do ever affirm that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is necessary they would easily be able by the Guidance of common Sense to make this Evident and certain Judgment That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I. IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 't is because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance by making of them contradict one another But return we to the rest of our Observations CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Arnaud assures us viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé ' s Mind that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touching the Eucharist by the Writings of the Fathers seeing they are so obscure and intricate that it is a hard matter to make them agree cannot refuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity in case they judge them evident whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere on the one hand and on the other all they who cannot judge by themselves will acquiecse in these Proofs This Pretension is as ill grounded as the former For there being as I already said two Questions before us the one touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church the first of these which is that of Right respects in general all them of our Communion but the second for as much as it may be decided by History only respects them amongst us who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves So that the Prolixity Difficulty and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions whereon depends that of our Controversies seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought to satisfy their Curiosity neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs they will answer they have no need of it being satisfied with the Word of God and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church they will answer that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity and our Saviours Promises But if we proeeed farther and suppose it be enquired
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
any mention of it in the Reunions WE may moreover reckon amongst the Differences of the two Churches the Rejection which the Greek makes of several Books in the Bible which they esteem Apocryphal whereas the Latins receive them as Canonical Scripture For 't is certain the Greeks follow in this point the sixtieth Canon of the of Council Laodicea and the Authority of John Damascen as appears by the Testimony of Metrophanus Cytropulus who reckoning up the number of Canonical Books which he say's are thirty three in all has these Words As to other Books which some admit into the Canon of Scripture as the Books of Metroph Confess Eccl. Orien C 7. Toby Judith Wisdom of Solomon of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruc and the Maccabees We do not believe they ought to be wholly rejected seeing they contain several excellent moral Precepts But to receive them as Canonical and Authentick Writings is what the Church of Christ never did as several Doctors testify and amongst others St. Gregory the Divine St. Amphilocus and after them St. John Damascen And therefore we ground not our Doctrines on their Authority but on that of the thirty three Canonical Books So that here is the Opinion of the Greeks very opposite to that of the Latins and yet we do not find they made a point of Controversy of this Difference nor any mention of it in their Reunions WE can give another Instance to the same purpose and that touching the Eucharist too The Greeks since the seventh Century reject the terms of Type Figure and Image but the Latins use them and yet they never made this a point of Controversy betwixt them It cannot be said they slighted this Point for when they explain themselves thereon they add to their Rejection a form of Detestation God forbid say's Anastasius Sinaite that we should say the Holy Communion is the Figure of Christ's Body God forbid say's Damascen we should think the Bread and Wine are the Figure of Christ's Body and Blood Yet how averse soever they have bin to this way of speaking they never objected this as a Crime to the Latins nor accused them of Error in this matter WE can Instance in several other Examples of Differences between the two Churches about which the Greeks never fell out with the Latins but those I already denoted are sufficient to shew Mr. Arnaud the nullity of his Consequence and at the same time the possibility of my Proposition For why may not Transubstantiation bin passed over in Silence as well as other Articles Why must the negative Argument which is of no validity in these particulars be good in that of Transubstantiation If the Greeks could remain in their own Opinions and keep their Belief to themselves touching the Damned and Christ's preaching to them touching the number of Canonical Books c. without entring into Debate with the Latins and charging them with Error in these Points why may not the same have hapned touching the Change relating to the Eucharist MR. Arnaud will reply without doubt the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a Point of greater Importance than those I now mentioned and therefore it might well happen that these slight and inconsiderable Matters were never disputed of but that we must not suppose the same Moderation in reference to the substantial Conversion which holds a higher rank in Religion I answer first it cannot be said these Articles I mentioned are of small Importance For as to the first of them it is of great Importance to Christian Piety not to give this Encouragement to the Wicked that live how they will they may hope to be delivered one day from the Pains of Hell As to the second it has bin already reckoned amongst the Number of Heresies by St. Ireneus Epiphanius Philastrius St. Austin and Gregory the great The third concerns the Canon of Holy Scriptures which ought to rule our Faith and the fourth is attended with the Execration of the Greeks These things then cannot be slighted as small and inconsiderable Matters But in the second place I answer to judg rightly of the Importance of Transubstantiation we must consider it not in it self nor in relation to our present Disputes but to the Greeks and their Disputes with the Latins which is to say we should consider what Judgment Persons plunged in Ignorance could make of it and whose whole Religion almost wholly consists of Grimaces and superstitious Ceremonies who have lived hitherto in Disorders and perpetual Confusions and have had the Latins continually to deal with and bin forced to accommodate themselves with them as much as possible who never found Transubstantiation amongst the Points about which the two Churches disputed in the beginning and separated afterwards in fine Persons with whom the Latins never openly quarrelled about this Article but agreed with them in certain general Terms Let any Man consider whether Persons in these Circumstances are capable of making all due Reflections on the Opinion of the Latins and examining the Importance and Weight of this Difference which is between the Doctrines of the two Churches Let any Man judg whether 't is impossible they should abstain to make thereof a particular Controversy and content themselves with their own Opinion and Expressions without concerning themselves with other People's III. I produce in the third place Examples of the Silence of the same Greeks touching some Opinions of other Eastern Christians who have a nearer Commerce with them than the Latins and yet we do not find they reproach them with their Opinions nor dispute with them about ' em The Jacobits reject the Custom of confessing their Sins to the Priest They hold another Jacob. a Vitri hist Orient cap. 76. Error say's De Vitry which is no less an Error than that of Circumcising their Children which is that they do not confess their Sins to the Priest but to God alone in Secret They confess not their Sins to any Man say's Villamont but Vallim lib. 2. cap. 22. to God alone in private They cannot indure to hear of auricular Confession say's Boucher but when they have committed any Fault that troubles their Consciences they confess themselves to God alone They do not allow of the sacramental Confession Itinerar Hierosol Joa Cottoric lib. 2. c. 6. say's Cottoric altho 't is admitted by both the Greeks and Latins saying we must confess our Sins to God who only knows the Hearts of Men. The Jacobits are dispersed over all Palestine Syria Egypt and all the rest of the East One of their Patriarchs resides at Aleppo and they have an apartment as well as the other Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem and consequently hold a perpetual Commerce with the Greeks And yet do I not find the Greeks have ever disputed with them about auricular Confession nor denoted the Rejection they make thereof as if it was an Error Damascen mentions them in the Treatise he wrote of Heresies He
real presence of the Body of Christ acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper There has hapned upon the Account of this Translation a very Remarkable circumstance You must know then that Mr. Arnaud in the first edition of his Book having made an Objection to himself concerning this Passage of Herbert and heightened it asmuch as he could to the saying he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it being so considerable as to startle most People that he thought there could Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. First Edition be nothing replyed to such an express passage and that this Author seemed to speak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themselves Having I say proposed this Objection he Answers that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calvinistical Translator That having desired some of his Friends to Translate from the Original English whatsoever related to the Armenians in that Book he found by their Translation that not only he does in no wise speak of the real Presence but that almost all the discourses contained in the 249 th and 250 th page were foysted in by the Translator who made his Dreams and Fancies pass for the Relations of a Traveller That 't is likely he has done the same in several other places so that this whole Book is rather the Translators Romance than the true account of a Voyage This Discourse being very disingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman who has ever manifested in his Writings and Conversation an exemplary sincerity it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having seen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly justifyed himself from it And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embassadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew Herbert's Book in English Printed at London 1638. by Rich. Bishop wherein is precisely these words They administer the Lords Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine and deny a real Presence They allow but our two Sacraments Having produced this Original he caused a Letter to be Printed and directed to me in which he complains of the injustice Mr. Arnaud has done him and protests he is not of that Temper to make use of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofesses as knowing it abhors them and makes no difference between the cheats which the Modern Divinity of some call pious and the falshood that destroys the Soul of him that utters it He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expressions and refutes his Calumnies and offers for his justification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related ' um Afterwards he says he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now justify that in the Original English there is no mention of the real Presence nor affirm 't is a mere imposture of the Calvinistical Translator That he also affirms whatsoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250 concerning the Baptism of the Armenians their Proselytes Fasts Images Priests their Belief touching Purgatory their Superstitions and Efforts which the Jesuits have made to subject them to the See of Rome is really contained in the Original English there being nothing of his Invention in all this And to justifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Language THIS so well grounded defence has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accusation Printed in the First He has retrenched all those Injurious Discourses against the Reputation and sincerity of Mr. Vicqfort and acknowledged his Translation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original He has at the same time discovered to us the cause of his mistake to wit that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634 th' other in 1635. in which the Author contained himself within the Relation of his Voyage and the Second in 1638 wherein he had added several particulars relating to Religion and History those whom he consulted had seen only the first Edition but that Mr. Vicqfort Translated from the Second in which was found the Passage in question I am far from being of that Humour to insult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occasion nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors who mean not the least hurt to him I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own rashness in grounding a charge of this importance on a supposition he has found to be false without considering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one But he must suffer me to tell him that what he has inserted in his Marginal Notes is not a sufficient excuse for him the French Translation says he making no mention of two different Editions of this English Book we could not Divine it Much less could Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition the Translator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impostour for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book These kind of Accusations pronounced with such confidence do suppose a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the least pains in this respect he might have easily discovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book and found what he has bin since shewed He needed not divine but certainly inform himself for this Book being Printed at London in 1638 and being moreover famous in that kind he might have been soon satisfyed concerning it But supposing he could not he ought not presently to call a Person a Deceiver But rather to have proposed his doubts and require a solution of Mr. Vicqfort himself and not thus rashly charge a Gentleman that never offended him I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology did not the interest of my cause oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Discourses if they be not upheld by solid and convincing Proofs which they never are as appears from this whole dispute BUT laying aside this contest see we what Mr. Arnaud offers against the Authority of Herbert who expresly affirms the Armenians deny the real Presence We matter not says he the advantage which the Calvinists C. 8. 2. Edition would make of this Testimony of Herbert who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book has added what he pleased touching the Religion of those People through whose Countrys he travelled without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them for he only says what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect who have treated of them as Breerewood has done Those Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Armenians do fully solve this Point And not to mention others there is no comparison between a Calvinist who speaks in his own cause and according to his interests without Authority and proofs and a Lutheran such a one as Mr. Olearius is who speaks against himself and
the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor for 't was the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another He says moreover in another place expresly That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man which confirm the same thing Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences collected by Prosper He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinks his Blood altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing And he and Alcuinus Beda in Cor. 11. Beda Alcu. in Joan. 6. have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words Jesus said to them this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not but remains to life everlasting Why prepare ye your teeth and belly believe and ye have eaten it this is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that he which eats of it may not die This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament He that eateth internally not externally that eateth with the heart not with the teeth And a little further our Saviour explains what 't is to eat his Body and drink his Blood He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him does not eat spiritually his Flesh altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing And again The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank is that he dwells in Jesus Christ and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body and he dwells in us when we are his Temple And a little lower The words which I tell ye are spirit and life What is the meaning of that They are spirit and life That is they must be understood spiritually If ye understand them spiritually they are spirit and life if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life but not to you IN short we find these Authors of the 7th and 8th Centuries acknowledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity of his Grace or Providence and in no wise that of the substance of his Body Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven says Isidor has absented himself Isidor lib. 1. sentent cap. 14. as to the flesh but is ever present in respect of his Majesty according to what he has said I am with you to the end of the world THE passages of Bede on this subject are too many to be mentioned Beda Expos allegor ipsam lib. 1. cap. 12. here I shall only relate some of ' em The Lord says he having performed the duties of his Oeconomy returned into Heaven where he is ascended in respect of his Body but visits us every day by his Divine Presence by which he is always every where and quietly governs all things There is his Flesh which he has assumed and glorified for our sakes Because he is God and man says he again he was raised up into Heaven where he sits as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity by which he fills both Heaven and Earth Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country is our Saviour Christ who after his Resurrection Idem Comm. in Mare c. 13. ascended up to his Father having left as to his bodily Presence his Church altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Presence Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel who was a Widow and aged 84. years This Ann Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2. says he signifies the Church which is as it were a Widow since the Death of her Lord and Spouse The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church which is still burthened with this body is absent from the Lord expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said We will come to him and make our abode with him 'T was to the same effect that expounding these words of Job I have comforted the heart Idem Exposit alleg in Job lib. 2. c. 14. of the Widow he says that this Widow is the Church our Mother which our Saviour comforts and that she is called a Widow because her Spouse has absented himself from her as to his corporeal Presence according to what himself tells his Disciples The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity and Grace For having exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection He designed says he to shew by these frequent appearances Idem Hom. ast de temp feria 6 Paschal that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence He appeared whilst they broke bread to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment he will be likewise with us when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread when we receive the Sacraments of his Body which is the living Bread with a pure and chast heart We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament but that of the Divinity ALCVINVS teaches the same Doctrine for expounding these words of our Saviour The poor ye have ever with you but me not always He shews says he we must not blame those that communicated to him their good Alcuin in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28. things whilst he conversed amongst 'em seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus saying to his Church If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh I will
sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ yet not corporeally but spiritually That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist For the Body with which our Saviour has suffered was born of the Virgin has Blood Bones Skin Sinews and is indued with a reasonable Soul But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains without Blood Bones Members and Soul and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally but spiritually II. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder it from being true that the Ibidem people were instructed in this manner The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years and the Water which ran from the Rock represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which we now every day offer in the Church They were the same things which we offer at this day not corporeally but spiritually We have already told you that our Saviour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist and said This is my Body and Blood He had not yet suffered and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body and this Wine into his own Blood in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilderness before he was incarnate when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us but by this he means the holy Eucharist which is spiritually his Body and Blood which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally Vnder the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices which signified the Body of Jesus Christ to come this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ offered for us and Blood shed for us according as he himself has commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me III. Mr. ARNAVD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of Serm. Elfrici apud Eund Voloc Malmâ—sbury and who was afterwards as 't is thought Arch-bishop of Canterbury and lived in the same time wrote That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passion when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine and said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body and of the Consecrated Wine This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist and said the Bread was his Body and the Wine truly his Blood does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a spiritual mystery as we find it written This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord which was shed as to the corporeal matter but it is as to the spiritual The Bread was his Body and the Wine his Blood as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles they ate of the same spiritual food and drank of the same spiritual drink The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually For Jesus Christ was not then born nor his Blood spilt when the people ate of this food and drank of this Rock IV. Mr. ARNAVD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. his Sermon which he made to his Clergy from speaking in this manner This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered nor his Blood which was shed for us but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the water which gushed out of the Rock according to the saying of S. Paul I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud and pass'd the Sea and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them Now this Rock was Christ and therefore the Psalmist says he gave them the Bread of Heaven Man has eaten the Angels food We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ every time we approach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ V. Mr. ARNAVD must know that the people were publickly In eod Mss. Eccl. Vigorn taught That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body that he bless'd the Bread and brake it because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality And because Bread strengthens the body and the Wine begets blood in the flesh therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body and the Wine to the Blood VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of Sig de Script Eccles cap. 137. de Cest Abb. Lob. tom 6. Spicil p. 591. Liege publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new and contrary to the Faith of the Church Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs for both of 'em say That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. VIII Mr. ARNAVD himself confesses that John Scot who withdrew Book 9. ch 6. p. 909. into England about the end of the preceding Century made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin 'T is true he would have these Disciples to be secret But why secret John Scot kept not himself private Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th Century Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read Besides as I have already said there 's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury to
10th Century and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change 's being made with noise THE first of these Answers is already refuted We have nothing to do either with Greeks or Egyptians Moscovites Ethiopians Nestorians Jacobites Armenians nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation THE second Answer is frivolous We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the knowledg of the manner in which the change hapned whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations and Sophisms in their Books but of these we will not here complain We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side whose Successors and Defenders they are to deprive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question and I believe there 's a great deal of Justice in this complaint A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd there are none to be had of 'em at this day We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre the Letter of Raban to Egilon Eriger's Book against Paschasus Berenger's Works their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th Century We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books their real Works have been alter'd and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin I say Answer to Noüet nothing but what may be easily justified and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes advantage of these frauds put upon us and which he knows to be such in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hapned in the Latin Church whence I concluded 't was not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him has devised some distinctions some of 'em imaginary and others unnecessary by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question and they are these differences which we must now examine IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches so that the change has not been vniversal whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world and all Christian Churches This is his first difference which he amplifies and exaggerates after his manner But the answer is not difficult to wit that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches or if there be 't is brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it for its being less universal THE second difference is that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd which is says he extremely different a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches which being divided in such small matters cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers neither could it had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent I confess there 's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd and a new Doctrin that is establish'd But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good For ignorant people are more earnest to conserve their customs which they know than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abolish'd th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is introduc'd for the novelty of it is conceal'd 't is offer'd as being the ancient Faith and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressions turning 'em into another sense Customs are of themselves popular and when they are changed people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em but as to Doctrinals the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please and obediently receive it without any examination As to the rest 't is certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes that when we leave an ancient custom every man takes a different course and follows his own particular judgment For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and genuine explication of the Ancients which was that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have faln upon different sentiments the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Latins that of Transubstantiation But we must not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 't is strange it has found any followers had it not been authorised by an universal consent This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive But as the discussion of this question touching the universal
Author of it This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes for supposing 't were true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca which is that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's and not Ratram's yet 't is certain what he says of the person of this Bertram or Ratram for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name is on our supposition that 't was the Religious of Corby Whether he admits our supposition as believing it in effect to be true or whether he admits it merely thro condescention 't is needless to inquire for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true which he does not he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author to wit that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings which suffices to justifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers Mr. ARNAVD's second complaint is that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin ' s Book an excellent piece which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs and his Proofs into Objections Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words intermixing several common places of raillery alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question to distinguish and argue in mood and figure and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable WERE it worth our while 't would be easie to shew he deceives himself in whatsoever he offers But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles we shall only say if either he or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery it does not follow that others have been so too We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections and Objections into Proofs is a conception so rare and well express'd that 't is hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter Moreover there 's a great deal of difference between saying that to discover the falsities of a Book we need only to confront the passages of it with the Originals and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs The confrontation of passages is the juster means the most natural and most ordinary to discover falsities but the change of Proofs into Objections and Objections into proofs is a kind of world turn'd upside down We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd 't would be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side there being few of them but what consist of Proofs and Objections and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary which are called Objections We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs and of Answers to Objections and this is what cannot be changed so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs yet would he be perplexed by these instances and answers and consequently must acknowledg he has lost his time and pains and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abused him Mr. ARNAVD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity He proposes it in his 9th Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable He ascends his tribunal and thence pronounces this sentence against me that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130 1131. of an heinous crime such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction I is says he again a detestable calumny an abominable crime the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches this is no jesting matter He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence If he has express'd himself thus thro incogitancy I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world and if he has done this with mature deliberation I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was and am certain there 's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding I protest before God with a sincere heart that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me I have answer'd his Book and am therewith content But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute which the publick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure and having discrediied it I say with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him What reason has he for such a passion I wrote these words in my Book God will one day shew who they are that wrong his Answer to the second Treatise part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter Church the light of his judgment will discover all things yea and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance and then 't will be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome and regaining peoples favour for when the face of things shall be changed this worlds wisdom will be useless Here is my crime this the spark that has set all on fire We Book 11. ch 9. page 1131. understand says he this language and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself and what interpretation his words will bear He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persuasion but out of policy and for worldly respects For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united if he believes what he says we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defended So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly respects is to charge him with not believing what he writes and to give this account of it THIS passion is a strange thing Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat he would have
found nothing in 'em of what he saw at first I confess they may be understood in this sense that this affair was politically manag'd and with respect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome and regain the peoples good will and that this is a worldly wisdom But 't will not be found in 'em That the Author of the Perpetuity did not write by persuasion but only thro policy as Mr. Arnaud imagin'd This he will not find Why then does he extend my words beyond their natural signification and why does he wrong a man so scandalously on the imagination he said what he did not We understand says he The Book entituled The Port Royal and Geneva of Intelligence against the most holy Sacrament of the Altar this language He shews plainly he does not understand it seeing he charges me with saying what I did not and draws his Commentary only from himself and not from my words Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed against him wherein he is accused for formally opposing the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence by a proposition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Eucharist has been publickly in a Letter treated as suspicious that he has been told That if he be unwilling Answer to the request presented to the King c. Book 2. ch 6. p. 187. together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva he must change the act of the adoration which they perform assisting at the Mass to the Elevation of the Host for they say only I adore thee raised on the Cross at the general judgment and at the right hand of the Father without any mention of adoring him being present in the Church Had I severely applied my self to what he says somewhere in his Book on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philosophy That God sees in the matter in the figures and forms only a different order of parts to conclude thence that this proposition overthrows the existence of accidents without a subject in the Eucharist and consequently that 't is contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome as it has been observ'd in a Letter Printed not long since what tempests must I not have expected seeing for having only hinted that there might be some policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raised such a great disturbance Mr. ARNAVD protests he will never for my sake dispense with the Book 11. ch 9. p. 1132. rules of Justice that he will never devine my secret intentions Let him not then pretend to read in my heart nor attribute to me a mystical sense which I never intended nor is contained in my words All those that believe Transubstantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour Amongst those that are how many do betake themselves to other matters Is it not then a very likely matter that a person who is at liberty to write on any subject but pitches upon Transubstantiation is it not I say very likely his choice of this point is grounded on some worldly policy and carnal considerations In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very just and innocent And this is all that my words signifie to pretend to know more of my mind is to attempt a thing which is possible only to God and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do that he might have some colour for his passion Mr. ARNAVD I hope will suffer me likewise to tell him that what I said touching some words of the Author of the Perpetuity which I believed were not very advantageous to the common mysteries of our Religion do neither respect his person nor the main of his sentiments which I never pretended to handle but only his expressions which I judged and still do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we cannot shew enough respect We ought all of us to be very circumspect in our ways of speaking to give no oecasion to the open enemies of the Gospel truths which we joyntly profess This is my opinion and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we should be offended to hear these questions Why are the immortality of the soul and everlasting bliss so hidden and as it were so buried in the Books Perpetuity of the Faith refuted part 1. of the Old Testament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews Why did not Jesus Christ declare his Divinity in such clear and precise terms that 't were impossible to elude them What may the Pagans say on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin and this inconceivable transmission of a crime which is a spiritual and voluntary action to all the Sons of him that committed it altho they could not have any part in his action and of this dreadful condemnation of all humane nature for the fault of one man Can he think it strange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the mystery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner Were a man in this point to be guided by his reason he must needs start back at these inconceivable verities Should he pretend to make use of its lights to penetrate them she will only furnish him with arms to combat them Who can but be offended at the propositions which are in this last work of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of proofs which I alledged out of the Book 10. ch 6. p. 1042. Holy Scripture for the Trinity That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because he accompanies these proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition But that these same proofs are infinitely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority without possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority That Mr. Claude Page 1043. who alledges the best part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy yet in such a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert ' em I do not believe these questions or propositions are justifiable take 'em how we we will but supposing they were it must be granted they are conceiv'd in such rough dangerous and excessive terms that 't is for the publick edification to avoid 'em yea and to censure ' em BUT in fine we must leave these Personal Differences which cannot but be displeasing And therefore we will come to the Preface of my Answer to Father Noüet which seems to have much incensed Mr. Arnaud and seeing he seems to be much concerned at it we will endeavour to satisfie him about it What then does this Preface contain which is so troublesom and grievous I confess we have mention'd a matter of fact in
it wherein these Gentlemen have been concern'd to wit that their Book was refused an Approbation but this was a point which shew'd the reason why this Answer was publish'd against Father Noüet a fact moreover that was true and known by every body We have drawn thence a consequence which was not advantageous to Mr. Arnaud 't is true but a consequence which is very natural for that Gentleman whose approbation was sought for to this last work of Mr. Arnaud and who refused it is a publick person who gives not his Approbations as a private man but as holding a rank and very considerable employ in one of the most famous Universities in Europe If the face of things has been since altered Mr. Arnaud knows the reason of it and we too We have used some expressions of raillery and this perhaps has most troubled Mr. Arnaud but who ever told him that raillery ought to be wholly banish'd from a Dispute Not to fetch examples elsewhere we know very well that these Gentlemen have oft used it in their Writings and not without success and not to go further Mr. Arnaud himself has not abstain'd from it in this last Book he wrote against me I do not take it ill for I had rather at any time see him merry than angry I complain'd in this Preface of my being brought in impertinently into the abuses and nullities against the order of the Arch-Bishop of Paris But I believe 't will be now acknowledg'd that I had reason to admire what was said therein of me in charging me with inconceivable boldness in denying the most evident matters and maintaining the most false ones This has occasion'd my making a more general complaint which is that these Gentlemen omit no occasion of testifying their aversion to us in a very sharp and severe manner and many times without any pretence or cause To say hereupon as Mr. Arnaud does that they never speak otherwise than truly and Chap. 11. p. 1162. justly and herein only observe the Principles of their Religion this is to testifie further his passion and assert a thing the least favourable imaginable to the Church of Rome For here the question is not concerning the main of our Controversies nor whether we have reason or not This is a matter which we do not pretend to meddle with in a Preface and when this shall be the point we shall be able to shew that 't is neither with truth nor reason that these Gentlemen speak of us as they do The question here is touching the manner after which they speak ever rending us with injurious expressions To say that 't is their Religion which inspires them with these motions and persuades them this way of proceeding is just and reasonable is to impute to their Religion a thing which will render it odious and of which I believe 't is no wise guilty for how many persons do we see who are no less Roman Catholicks than these Gentlemen who speak and write as well as they and yet do not use their way of proceeding If I have attributed their affected animosity to the desire they have of freeing themselves from all suspicions that they held intelligence with us what is there in all this which may justly offend them Have not these suspicions been made publick and have we not seen Books Printed whose Titles declared more than bare suspicions This is a thing which I did not invent at leisure neither one of my conjectures nor a possible Romance nor a particular secret which I have imprudently divulged but a matter of fact which others besides my self have publish'd and which is known by every body Is Mr. Arnaud offended at my imputing to him the desire of clearing himself from this suspicion I wish with all my heart this were the occasion of his wrath neither would I complain in this case to be its sacrifice But I am afraid that in turning things on this side I shall pull on my self a new quarrel more terrible than the first What reason has he then to be angry We are the only sufferers in all this we suffer in the suspicion we suffer in the justification we suffer in the manner of the justification But God give us grace to suffer patiently and we hope he will not refuse us that of persevering in our duty to him and pursuing to the last truth with love till we arrive at his Kingdom where we shall find rest after our labors and where our reproach will be turn'd into glory AND here I shall finish this Chapter and Book and intreat Mr. Arnaud not to take any thing ill which I have said to him and to consider that I maintain my Cause a Cause of whose Goodness and Justice I cannot in the least doubt Let him not think I have been set on work by a spirit of contention I naturally hate it and several persons of Honor and Probity know I engaged in this Controversie much against my will my temper inclining me rather to live retired and quiet Neither let him think I thought of diminishing in any sort the Reputation which he has acquired in the world I take it as a great honor to be found in the lists with him and as to his person whatsoever sharpness he has used towards me he shall always find me respecting his ingenious qualifications If he be displeased to find himself deceived in the great hopes which he conceiv'd touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Churches this will shew him he must not always judg of things from their first appearances That which deceived him is that he has taken for the true Greek Church a Party of Greeks which has been a long time a forming and which the rest call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say those who are in their hearts and opinions Latins altho outwardly professors of the Greek Rites and live amongst the rest in the same Communion 'T was this Party who for so long a time opposed Meletus the Patriarch of Alexandria and Cyril his Successor afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople and who in fine o'rewhelm'd Cyril by the assistance of the Court of Rome as I have elsewhere said that Allatius himself has acknowledged and as I proved in the 12th Chapter of the said Book Since this great Victory which was follow'd by the promotion of Cyril of Beroe the Jesuits Disciple and a great favorer of the Latins to the Patriarchate of Constantinople I do not doubt but this Party has mightily strengthen'd it self and that several amongst 'em have declared themselves more loudly and openly than they did before In effect 't was about this time that a certain Greek of this Party called Meletus Syrigus wrote a Catechism which was sign'd in the two pretended condemnations of Cyril Lucar the one under Cyril of Beroe and the other under Parthenius with this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say An Orthodox Confession of the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern Church
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair
know but two Editions of Sigebert that of Suffridus Petrus and that of Miroeus which in my opinion has been publish'd from that of Suffridus Now as far as one can judg of 'em the Manuscripts of Gemblou and Vauvert ought to be preferred to these Editions because the Manuscript of Gemblou perhaps is the original of Sigebert's own hand who wrote and died at Gemblou We know very well how great a difference there is between the Edition of the Chronicle of Sigebert by Miroeus from a Manuscript of Gemblou and the other Editions publish'd from Manuscripts See Labb de Script Eccles in Sigiber which have been corrupted But supposing this were not Sigebert's own Hand-writing 't is certain the Monks of an Abby know best the hands of Transcribers who have preceded them in the same place It is likely then that this Manuscript was more correct than those to be met with elsewhere This Manuscript of Gemblou is moreover confirm'd by the Manuscript of the Priory of Vauvert and in fine by the Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the name of Ratramnus as I have represented OUR Author acquits himself not much better in another Argument which one may draw from this that in the Book of the Birth of Christ Ratramnus defends the same Doctrin which is taught in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He tells us that Bishop Vsher is he that has made this judgment on the Book of the Birth of Christ but that this Treatise being at present publick this conjecture of Vsher can only serve to discover the insincerity of this Protestant because there 's not to be found one word of the mystery of the Eucharist in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ He adds hereunto other things which do not belong to our subject and which I do not refute as I might lest I turn aside the Readers mind from the point in hand BUT he is to blame in accusing Bishop Vsher of deceit For what he says of this Book de Nativitate Christi is comprehended in a Parenthesis and there is neither affectation nor heat in producing it It appears that this is a new discovery which he made since he wrote his Treatise of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches wherein this remark had been proper When he made this observation on the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ he handled a quite different subject to wit the History of Gotthescalc The Manuscripts which he cites were not in his hands alone neither did he suppress them he carefully denotes the places where they were and they may be easily found out After all says he we are so far from reading the Doctrin of Bertram in the Book of the Birth of Christ that we find not one word of the mystery of the Eucharist therein Supposing this be true must therefore Bishop Vsher be an Impostor unworthy of credit That Prelate only says that the same Doctrin is to be found in the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ which is in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord. He does not make a particular mention of the Eucharist But if he meant so we need only cast our eyes on some places of this Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ to approve of his judgment We know that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord combating the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rejects likewise as an absurdity the opinion which asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ may be in several places and the Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ distinctly asserts that the Body of Jesus Christ is so determin'd by its nature to be in one Tom. 1. Spicil p. 323 324. c. 3. place that 't is impossible for it to be in two places at once altho our Lord is every where in respect of his Divinity And thus does it combat the natural consequences of Paschasus his opinion which certainly suffices to justifie Vsher if he respected this matter AS to the reason which we draw from the conformity which there is between the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and the works of Ratram the Author answers that this conjecture might have some force were the question whether the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord was written by Ratram or Oecolampadius but at present when 't is doubted whether it be the work of Ratram or of some other Author of the same Century it is useless most Authors of the 9th Century finishing or beginning their Books with acknowledgments of their own weakness and inabilities like to those which are to be met with in the undoubted Writings of Ratram and in that of Bertram for which he alledges some examples taken out of two Treatises of John Scot. BUT he pitifully eludes this reason It is taken from the whole style and genius of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord compared with the style and genius of the works of Ratram and not from some sentences which seem conformable therein Cellot and Mr. Claude were of this opinion And certainly th' Inscriptions of the Books are alike the Book of Predestination is adscribed Domino glorioso proecellentissimo principi Carolo T. 1. Mauguin p. 29. Microp p. 512. T. 1. Maug p. 109. Ratramnus and that of the Body and Blood of our Lord begins Gloriose Princips whereas John Scot calls Charles Seniorem He is treated with the Title of Magnificent in Ratram's Book of Predestination and in that of the Body and Blood of our Lord in like manner Ratram being engag'd by the Kings Command to write of Predestination shews great modesty in obeying which also appears in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram commends the King's Piety for his enquiries into Religion and submits to his Censures All which is seen in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ratram follows the holy Fathers with such zeal that in the first Book of Predestination he brings into every line almost the sayings of S. Augustin Prosper Salvien Gregory upon which he makes reflections And thus does he likewise in the second wherein he only cites Orthodox Authors and the same method he uses in the second part of the Book of the Body and Blood There can be nothing more regular than the method of T. 1. Maug p. 30. Ratram in his Books of Predestination he descends to the foundation and divides his whole subject into two questions we find the same regularity Microp p. 513 514. T. 1. Maug p 61. T. 1. Maug p. 13. in the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the recapitulations are in a manner the same We see therein the same modesty in not naming those against whom he wrote in conserving the glorious quality of the Moderator of Charles the Bald we meet with the same thing in the Book of
lib 4. adv Oecol Indic Belg. Censurers of Doway in reference to the Book of Bertram whose Author they place under the time of Lothairius and Charles the Bald altho the Book of Bertram has no mark of time whereas without doubt they would have placed him under the Reign of Charlemain had the Manuscripts for title Ad Carolum magnum Imperatorem And for that of John Scot it is to be believ'd that it having been written at the same time and having an Inscription almost alike Berenger is mistaken in applying to Charlemain Sigeb Catol c. 85. 99. De Script Eccl. fol. 53. 55. Praefat. gener in vit Sanct. c. 4. sect 7. Labbe de Script Eccl. T. 2. p. 820. seq what ought to be referred to Charles the Bald. At least 't is by a mistake of this nature that Sigebert has placed Vsuard and Hincmar under the Reign of Charlemain wherein Sigebert has been follow'd by Trithemius altho both one and the other have written under Charles the Bald as all the world acknowledges in respect of Hincmar and as Bollandus and Labbeus acknowledg in respect of Vsuard BUT supposing that the Book of John Scot was inscrib'd Ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem as is at this day that of Bertram in the Impressions how will it hence follow that these two Books are but one and the same Because says our Author if we suppose that this Title is equally false 't is very difficult for chance to produce the same falsity in two different Books which in other respects had so great resemblance And if it be pretended that the Title is true it will be moreover very strange for the fancy of two different persons to meet in giving it this Title THIS difficulty is a small one we do not say that Ratram and John Scot have given the Title of Charlemain to Charles the Bald but affirm it not to be so strange a thing that Berenger having attributed to Charlemain what ought to be apply'd to Charles the Bald those that came after should refer to Charlemain a like Title this Prince passing for a lover of Theological learning as having been the restorer of it The examples which I alledged prove the thing possible seeing they prove it to have hapned Berenger then is no more favourable to our Author than Ascelin was AS to Durand of Troarn I see moreover less reason why our Author Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. part 9. should produce what Durand has said of the Council of Paris wherein the Book of John Scot was condemned Damnatis Berengarii complicibus cum codice Joannis Scoti ex quo ea quoe damnabantur sumpta videbantur concilio soluto discessum est For if it be true as our Author will have it that by this way of speaking Durand has insinuated that altho in the Council of Paris John Scot's Book was condemned yet was it not so evident a matter that the Book of John Scot contains the sentiments of Berenger which as our Author believes agrees likewise with the Book of Bertram which he treats as obscure and perplexed there can be nothing thence concluded but what will be to the disadvantage of this Council wherein was condemned for heretical what only ought to be esteemed obscure BUT seeing our Author design'd to speak of the pretended obscurity of John Scot's Writings methinks he ought not to joyn to the place of Durand that of Lanfranc who reproaches Berenger that as soon as the Council assembled at Rome knew that by his highly praising the Book of John Scot and blaming that of Paschasus Berenger had deviated from the Faith of the Church he was thrown out from the Communion of the Faithful for 't is not credible the Council would have been so severe against the perplext style of John Scot even to the condemning his Book to the flames had not his Book been apparently written against Paschasus And truly how could this be at first so understood both at Paris at Verceil and at Rome as that in the sense of these Councils to praise Paschasus was properly to condemn John Scot OUR Author pretends in the last place that seeing Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin and the rest of the Writers of the 11th Century mention only John Scot when they speak of the adversaries of Paschasus and their condemnation one must conclude that from the time of Lanfranc and Berenger there was no other Book known which appeared contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus but that of John Scot. BUT the silence of these Authors is no more favourable to him than their testimonies In effect supposing that in the 11th Century there did not appear any other Book against Paschasus but John Scot's which cannot be affirm'd without rashness and injustice considering the care which has been taken to conceal from us whatsoever might inform us in this point it does not follow John Scot's Book and Bertram's be one and the same By this reason must the Epistle of Raban to Egilon and his answer to Heribold Bishop of Auxerre wherein he has opposed the sentiments of Paschasus be the Book of John Scot. For there was no mention of these Writings of Raban in the time of Berenger Lanfranc and Ascelin MOREOVER our Author himself refutes his own opinion when he urges the silence of these Authors for it appears by the testimony of Lanfranc Berenger and Ascelin that Paschasus and John Scot were regarded as the two principal men in this Dispute it is then very likely that the Book of John Scot was directly written against Paschasus Paschasus was therein either named or at least apparently meant which is not so in the Writings of Bertram who handles matters in a less polemical manner and never names Paschasus nor seems to give the least hint of him which has apparently tended to its preservation And this is what I had to remark on the first proof of our Author TO establish the second to wit that the proper character of the style of Bertram is the same as that of John Scot our Author pretends that the several Article 3. of the Dissert on John Scot. judgments of knowing persons of the Roman Communion and of our own touching the Doctrin of Bertram's Book are testimonies evident enough of the proper character of his genius that is to say of a genius naturally confused and perplex'd or dissimulative which fears to discover clearly its thoughts on the subject which it treats of and affects to contradict it self the more dexterously to insinuate its own sentiment and avoid censures He assures us afterwards that this character appears with greater clearness in John Scot's Dialogue of Natures and in his Book of Predestination whence he concludes that we must not doubt but the Book of Bertram is John Scot's It is in the same respect after our Author had alledged some instances of the contradictions of John Scot and judged uncharitably that they proceeded not from a perplex'd and confused