importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
all the Faithful universally believed and held distinctly according to Mr. Arnaud As all Christians believe the mysteries said he three pages before so they likewise all believ'd the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it They all then believ'd that 't is the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which he assum'd of the Virgin and which is now in Heaven and that the substance of the Bread is converted into it yet without any change either in the tast or colour of the Bread What has Paschasus done to make 'em more mind it Those mens minds adds Mr. Arnaud which are not sufficiently humble are apt to startle and endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to shun the difficulties which they cannot bear Whence should this startling come supposing they believed of the Eucharist what is commonly believed at this day of it in the Church of Rome Did they never hear say before that they received in the Communion the proper substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and buried nor that the substance of Bread is converted into this substance If 't were a novelty as to them they did not then believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence for 't is precisely in these ideas wherein these Doctrins do consist and if it be this particular manner of proposing the mystery which affrights them it must be necessarily acknowledg'd either that they were strangers to these ideas before or that they had been till that time very stupid and drowsie seeing they felt not the least trouble about it altho they had 'em always before their eyes whereas now a simple proposal of the same things without any objection without exaggeration affrights and constrains them to find out by their reason ways whereby t' avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear And then they commonly set upon him who proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful Which is to say that they then lose their senses For 't is mere madness to set particularly upon Paschasus who only proposed to 'em in a manner the most simple imaginable if we will believe Mr. Arnaud without either Preface says he artificial method or disguise what the whole Church believ'd and what they believe themselves Even sometimes these ill opinions are already formed Here Mr. Arnaud acknowledges one part of the truth For the truth is that these people here mention'd never heard of the novelties of Paschasus They knew only that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in Figure in Sacrament and in Virtue as they themselves explain'd their sense about it and this was the true cause of their astonishment and the only reason for which they accus'd Paschasus of Enthusiasms and Visions But let Mr. Arnaud explain if he pleases in what manner according to him these persons lived in the Communion of the Church They turn'd to their own sense says he most of the common expressions How happens it Mr. Arnaud who but the last moment could not suffer me to say Paschasus abused an expression of the Church and turn'd it to another sense now comprehended well enough that this whole Party turn'd to their sense most of the common expressions He that told us that Paschasus would be a mad man should he make use of this expression had he known the Church understood it in another sense will grant at present that these persons accommodated the greatest part of the Churches expressions to their sense without troubling ' emselves with the sense wherein the Church understood them Mr. Arnaud's Argument is like Aristotle's prima materia capable of any form at divers times Does his interest require the Churches expressions to be abused This may be done there are reasons for it Does the same interest require that it be a sensless thing to abuse 'em This cannot be and the reasons on the contrary are not wanting For in fine either these people were ignorant of the true sense in which the Church understood these expressions or they were not If they were ignorant of it Paschasus might be as well ignorant of it as they If they were not ignorant of it and yet abused it Paschasus might as well do the same contrary to his own knowledg They turn'd to their sense most of the usual expressions It seems that Mr. Arnaud by this supposes there were some of these expressions which might be turn'd by them Yet he adds And hence it happens that if any other person in following the ordinary notions makes use of any terms which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they charge this person with rashness This discourse thus couch'd has no coherence for if amongst the ordinary expressions there remain'd still some of 'em which they could not reduce to their sense why must they set upon Paschasus in particular who not only follow'd the sense of the Church but also her expressions to wit those which were too plain and full to be perverted Why must he then be accused of rashness 'T is evident Mr. Arnaud stood upon Thorns when he wrote this Answer A reason must be given why these persons before us reprehended Paschasus in particular and accused him of being a rash person Now there cannot be naturally any other but this That Paschasus had proposed a new Doctrin in the Church which was never before heard of having asserted the Eucharist to be the same Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and risen again Mr. Arnaud to avoid the making of this Confession supposes there were a party in the Church that did not believe the Real Presence he will have these persons turn to their sense the common expressions but not being able to do the same with that of Paschasus this was the reason why they set upon him in particular and accused him of rashness To make this answer pass currant it must be necessarily supposed that the expressions of Paschasus were peculiarly of this nature that they could not be turn'd to the sense of these people and that this was their particular character which distinguish'd them from all the common expressions for a reason must be found why they set particularly upon Paschasus as a rash person and this reason must be something that was singular in Paschasus But to acknowledg this frankly and clearly Mr. Arnaud must engage himself in terrible ill conveniencies for this would be an acknowledging there was not any thing in the common expressions of the Church at that time which was expresly for the Real Presence and which might not be turn'd to another sense which is to say that all the common expressions were general equivocal and ambiguous By this means he would have exposed himself to abundance of questions as amongst others to these Whence Paschasus could know the Church believ'd the Real Presence seeing all her expressions were capable of another sense Whence he
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
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
Servitude by which the Sacrament links us to God The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification as well that of the Virtues as that of the Mysteries If then the Soul has no need of the Body to receive Sanctification but the Body on the contrary of the Soul why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery than those stript of them We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue it is easie to comprehend what he means but if we suppose Transubstantiation how shall we then understand what he say's viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack and does it not remain there till the change of the Species How then shall we understand him when he say's that our Communion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul For 't is certain that to judge of it in the sence of Transubstantiation it would be established on the contrary first of all in the Body which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse to wit that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living for the living do communicate after two manners Spiritually and Substantially whereas the dead only in one How in fine shall we understand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery than that which comes to it from the Soul Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God CABASILAS stay 's not here for concluding by way of Interrogation that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them he continues to demand what they have more Is it say's he that they see the Priest and receive from him Cap. 43. the Gifts But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest who is to them all these things It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does should it be supposed he believed Transubstantiation Could he not remember that the living have not only this advantage above the dead to behold the Priest and receive from him the Gifts but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour Could not he call to mind that the Spiritual Communion remaining common both to the one and the others the Substantial was particularly to the living Moreover what does he mean in saying that as 't is Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis the Truth and Reality and which Mr. Arnaud always understands when he finds these kind of expressions the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it I say that this is not a Truth MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases and 't is likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation seeing he himself has heretofore written that God admits Of frequent Com. part 3. P. 725. us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all Eternity there being no other difference betwixt them and us but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it reserving both one and the other of these for us when we come to Heaven He will tell us there 's no body doubts but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators seeing he has with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas for if there be no other difference between the participation of the Faithful on Earth and that of the Elect in Heaven than that of the sight and sensible taste which we have not here nor shall have but in Heaven I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies and which enters into our Stomacks is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing 't is certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors all that I can do in his favour is this freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The Thirteenth Proof Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion VVE may I think already begin to doubt whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touching Transubstantiation and whether the assurances Mr. Arnaud has given us thereof be well grounded He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point and behaves himself as a Person that has already conquered but 't is more than probable that these flourishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause to the end they may obtain that by noise which they could not by reason But howsoever it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections Arguments Attestations Consequences Keys Systems those confident Defies and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy Aurae Omnia discerpunt nubibus irrita donant THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it
God alone THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambassadour Mr. Haye's Voyages part 49. observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar wherein they put the consecrated Particles He says he thus saw it at Selivrée and several other places But because this remark might offend his Readers he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks but this is but a false colour for the Greeks are not so poor but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ The true reason of this Custom is that they do not believe what the Latins do or as speaks Caucus they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages part 2 ch 77. the manner which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sacrament but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration and he is even forced to say that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service Montconis's Voyages p. 228. c. which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai and observes not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament and several other Proofs which might be added and which conclude the same thing has betook himself to his usual Artifices First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation or the real Presence He on the contrary handles it only as a necessary consequence of it I would say that instead of arguing thus the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance he reasons on the contrary after this manner the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence therefore they adore the Sacrament Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method for although Transubstantiation may be used when 't is agreed 't is believed as a means whereby to conclude that those who believe it adore it yet who sees not that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees and consequently is more sensible and apparent and more easily known than an Article of Faith concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned judge of Persons and weigh their expressions It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does or one equivalent thereunto than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion We may be imposed on by this last for there may be forged attestations produced and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses whom a small pension will byass either way or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged as of that of a true one and moreover 't is no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Arguments But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration In a word it plainly appears that Mr. Arnaud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs THE second thing he does seems to correct the first for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs which he calls gross Proofs to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof which he draws from the real Presence He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9. these Terms The faithful desirous to shew their Faith in receiving the Communion do adore bless and praise Jesus Christ as God who is manifested in the Gifts I answer he ought faithfully to translate this passage Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts and say's That the Faithful adore bless and praise Jesus Christ who is understood in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now a man must be very Cap. 37. little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know that when the question is concerning the Symbols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Spiritual and Mystical Object represented by the outward Sign Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts is adored according to Cabasilas and not the Gifts themselves Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Presence For say's he Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is really present in the Sacrament and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317. in the Gifts Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist I answer that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as I shall make appear in its place and had the Author of the Perpetuity alledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud we should not have been wanting to examine them but the question then in hand only concerning the Adoration I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dispute about the real Presence before I could alledge one formal passage touching the Subject I handled MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards that Cabasilas blames those that adore before Lib. 10. cap. 9. the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration I answer that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it as to our Saviour himself and yet it cannot hence be concluded they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration as if the Book were in effect our Saviour himself Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecrated Gifts but does not approve they should do it before their Consecration altho he already
substituted some others equivalent to them which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this He thinks it sufficient to tell me I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence that I make extravagant and ridiculous Conclusions and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me that he laughs at my Arguments being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist These are his usual Civilities which yet shall not make me change my humour I hope he will be one day of a better mind and to that end I shall deal with him not only in a calm and gentle manner as it becomes a man of my Profession but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him BUT before I finish this Chapter I am obliged to tell him he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist a passage taken from Stephen Stylite who told the Emperour Copronymus That the Christians adore and kiss the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Either he has not examined this Passage or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day to wit that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration such as is given to Images the Cross and consecrated Vessels whose matter is not adored And this appears throughout the whole sequel of his Discourse The Emperor accused him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images He answers that his Adoration related not to the matter of the Image but to the Original which the Image represented And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry altho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless he alledges the example of the Cross holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise adored and in fine that of the Eucharist Loe here his words which justifie what I say What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damascen Biblii shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen and whom we worship Is this to adore a Creature or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will We adore the Holy Vestments and Sacred Vessels without incurring any censure for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood We worship and kiss them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation or he has deceiv'd himself or which is worse he has design'd to deceive others when he produc'd this passage for 't is certain that hence arises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive There needs little strength of reasoning to make this Conclusion and as little Meditation to comprehend it We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist and ranks in the same order the Adoration given to the Cross to the sacred Vestments to the Vessels of the Church to Images with that given to the Eucharist We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist the Anti-Type Image and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucharist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us but which refer to the Original they represent wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored but where by means of a material Symbol a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds In fine it needs only be observ'd that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament never man was more impertinent than he in endeavouring to excuse a relative Adoration by an absolute one never man betrayed more his Cause for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings for which he may be justly reproach'd he may be likewise told he falls into a new Heresie and horrible Impiety making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels or that of Images whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped and consequently means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored He say's they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents but to the whole Subject called the Eucharist He say's in short that in partaking of these Anti-Types we obtain Sanctification which appertains to the whole Eucharist and not the bare Accidents DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen and stifly maintain'd the same Cause thus argues I worship not say's he the Orat. 1. d. Imag Matter but the Author of the Matter who has himself become Matter for my sake and exists in it to the end he may give me Salvation by it and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me I will ever worship it not as the Divinity God forbid for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed and remains what it was by Nature to wit Living Flesh indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding which has had a beginning and bin created AS TO THE OTHER MATTER by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us I honour and worship it as being full of the Divine Grace The blessed wood of the Cross is it not Matter The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary is it not Matter The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ and which was the Spring of our Resurrection was it not Matter Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written are they not Matter This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life is it not Matter In fine the Body and Blood of our
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
him and so much the more because Mr. Arnaud acknowledges this Cardinal was very hot in this Dispute and on the other 't is very uncertain whether the Greeks went so far as this Consequence Besides this I say the Consequence it self is neither demonstrative nor unavoidable for it does not follow from a mans denying the Eucharist is digested and breaks ones Fast that he acknowledges no other Substance than that of the Body of Christ He may believe the Substance of Bread becomes incorruptible as soon as 't is in the Stomach and that it passes immediately without Digestion into our Substance according to the Opinion of Damascen Zonaras and almost all the Eastern Churches as we shall see hereafter For in Humbert's sence all Food that breaks our Fast is digested and passes into Excrements as the common nourishments do Whence I conclude that Mr. Arnaud deceives us when he say's this Dispute does invincibly prove the Roman Church then believed Transubstantiation and that her Belief was sufficiently made known to the Greeks for neither one nor the other of these do hence necessarily follow NEITHER can it be thence concluded she believed the real Presence I mean this local and physical Presence of the proper Substance of the natural Body of Jesus Christ as she does believe it at this day nor that Humbert thought the Greeks believed it and this Mr. Arnaud's last Consequence is moreover found defective altho this is not the Point in question betwixt us For supposing the Bread remaining Bread becomes the Body of Christ by way of Augmentation of this Body being united to the Divinity and receiving by the Holy Spirit the impression of the inlivening virtue which is Jesus Christ according to the Sentiment of the Greeks Humbert might without being thought senceless or extravagant tell Nicetas that in teaching the Eucharist breaks our fast he exposed the Body of Jesus Christ to the condition of common Food For altho on this Hypothesis the Bread is not the Body of the Son of God in propriety of Substance yet is it his Body in such a manner that seems to exempt it from the quality of other Food which is sufficient to occasion Humbert's Reproach and render ineffectual all these little Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I replied in my Answer to the Perpetuity that this Dispute of Humbert Answer to the second Treatise and Nicetas furnished us wherewith to shew that the Greeks did not believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins forasmuch as Nicetas maintains therein that the Eucharist breaks our Fast which supposes it conserves its first nature of corporeal Aliment and that he believed it descends into the Stomach like other Food which moreover shews he held it still for real Bread I strengthened this Proposition by the Testimony of Humbert Algerus and Cellot the Jesuit I added likewise that Durand Abbot of Troarn tells us that those heretofore called Stercoranists were the Berengarians which is to say those held the Bread keeps its first nature and I confirmed my Proof by several weighty Considerations as that it was not to be imagined men that were Christians would expose the proper Substance of the Son of God to these Accidents of Corporeal Food that this Opinion would be inconsistent with that State of Glory wherein we all believe it to be as also with that Sacramental State wherein 't is made to be in the Eucharist MR. Arnaud finding he could not establish his own Proof applies himself to the refuting of mine and immediately making use of his Priviledge he singles out what he pleases and leaves the rest He takes no notice of Cellot the Jesuit's Testimony for what reason he best knows He passes over in silence what I said touching the State of Glory wherein the Son of God now is and so likewise what I mentioned concerning his Sacramental State And from the remaining part of my Proof he is pleased to make this Argument The Greeks are Stercoranists according to Humbert and Algerus The Stercoranists are Berengarians according to Durand The Greeks Lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 153. then are Berengarians But seeing my Proof is to be modelled I crave leave to take it out of his hands and state it my self Observe here then how I reasoned Those that believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and give cause to charge them with Stercoranism hold the Substance of Bread remains But the Greeks believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast and yield occasion to accuse them of Stercoranism They hold then the Substance of Bread remains And thus do I reason but by misfortune Mr. Arnaud can neither deny the major minor nor Conclusion of this Argument He was constrained therefore to new mould it and then knew not how to give it a direct Answer IT is true say's he that Humbert charges Nicetas with believing the Body Ibid. of Christ was digested but this is only as a Consequence of what he offered touching the Eucharist ' s breaking our Fast and not as a Doctrine which he expresly asserted It is all one to me whether he attributes to him this Opinion either as a Doctrine or a Consequence either of 'em being sufficient to establish the solidity of my Proof Mr. Arnaud may dispute this Point with Cellot or Algerus it not lying upon me to prove it When it should be true this Consequence were not well drawn from the Principle which Nicetas lays down from the part of the Greeks and that the Greeks might reply thereunto there would be still enough in the Principle it self to make my Conclusion just and necessary For those that absolutely and sincerely believe the Eucharist breaks our Fast cannot but likewise believe that it nourishes after the manner of Food which is to say that it distributes it self through all the parts of our Body being added to our Substance and consequently that 't is still real Bread And it will be to no purposE to say the Greeks might believe That the troublesomeness of fasting is effectually eased thereby and that we are really Ibid pag. 155. nourished not with the Body of Christ but by some other means known only to God For there being in the Eucharist only the Substance and Accidents those that believe 't is in Substance the proper Body of Christ and yet affirm it nourishes must attribute this nourishment either to the Body of Christ or to the Accidents As to the Body of Christ it is absurd to affirm that a Substance which exists after the manner of an invisible and insensible Spirit can nourish our Bodies that is to say augment the Substance of them And as to the Accidents besides the absurdity there is in supposing Accidents alone nourish us the Greeks know not what belongs to the existence of Accidents without a Subject which Mr. Arnaud himself grants when he say's they trouble not themselves with these Phylosophical Consequences To affirm likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that the Greeks perhaps only asserted the Lib. 2.
no more mens Thoughts than those which were written concerning the Pagans or those the Fathers wrote on the Subject of Christian Religion IT seems these Gentlemen Consult only their own Interest When any Authors savour them they are worthy of publick Praise and when they do not they deserve to be Contemned and their Arguments become strong or weak good or bad accordingly as they are serviceable or otherwise It is certain if Mr. Arnaud's and my Proof be compared together in respect of Form they are equal for we suppose the same Principles and draw thence the same Consequences but if they be compared in respect of the matter the Advantage is wholly on my side for all the Circumstances strengthen my Argument whereas they weaken his The Pagans were Learned they had the Power in their Hands they needed not dissemble with the Christians They knew very well the Doctrines of Christianity The matter concerned the pulling down of their Altars and they were interessed to conserve their ancient Religion to decry these Novelties which had introduced themselves into the World There can be nothing said like this concerning the Greeks as will appear in the Sequel of this Chapter And yet my Argument is not Conclusive in the Author of the Perpetuity's Judgment and Mr. Arnaud's Argument if we believe himself is undeniably Evident that is to say these Gentlemen bestow on Arguments when they are pleased to make use of them the Title of good ones but when the same Arguments are urged against them then they become bad ones This partiality proceeds only from prejudice BUT in the second place without wandring from the Subject in Hand I can oppose against Mr. Arnaud's negative Proof several other Proofs of the like kind I have already made use of in the preceding Book which conclude with a thousand times more strength than his and consequently deserve to be preferred before them according to the Rules of right Reason The Greeks in explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist do assert neither the Existence of Accidents without a Subject nor the Concomitancy or Existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits nor his Existence in several places They trouble not themselves with inquiring how our Bodies are nourished when they receive the Sacrament nor of what matter the Worms are formed which are bred in the Eucharist nor several other Questions In short they mention not a Word touching any of the natural Consequences of Transubstantiation which a man cannot but consider and which common Sence discovers without the help of any Philosophy as I already shewed in the tenth Chapter of the foregoing Book ALL that I now desire is that my negative Proofs be compared with that Proof Mr. Arnaud draws from the Greeks not making Transubstantiation a point of Controversy between them and the Latins The Greeks say's he have bin silent on the Transubstantiation of the Latins they neither opposed nor condemned it therefore they believed it as well as the Latins The Greeks say I have for Example bin silent on the Existence of the Accidents of Bread separated from their proper Substance they neither handled this Point nor so much as made mention of it therefore they do not believe it nor consequently Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must acknowledg that my Proof is far more conclusive than his for 't is a thousand times more natural for people that hold the Substance of Bread ceases and yet and tast behold all the Qualities and Properties thereof to consider how these things subsist or at least to speak in some sort of it than 't is natural to those that do not believe Transubstantiation to reproach them with it that do believe it If we weigh all Circumstances we shall find the Commerce the Greek Doctors have had either with their own people or with themselves in reflecting on what fell under their Sence has bin more particular and frequent than that which they have had with the Latins That which they saw and believed has bin more distinctly known to them than what the Latins taught or Gregory the VII or Innocent the III. determin'd in their Councils The Interest of quieting their own Consciences and satisfying their own Minds must needs be more prevalent with them than that of quarrelling with the Latins The occasions of satisfying themselves and instructing their people oftner presented themselves than those of condemning strangers with whom they dealt only by their Ambassadours and Interpreters The reasons of their Silence in respect of the Latins are easilyer found out than those which would oblige them to be silent in respect of themselves For what signifies the telling us the Glory of God and Respect to his Mysteries were the cause of their Silence touching the Existence of the Accidents without a Subject For this same Glory of God and respect to his Mysteries would engage them to declare the reasons of their Silence to the end they may be known to all the Faithful under their Charge and to exhort them to the same Silence Were I willing to enlarge my Book after Mr. Arnaud's Example who has hunted after little Stories whereby to bring over again a hundred times the same Argument I should tire my Readers Patience for I could argue touching all the Occasions the Greeks have had to see and administer the Eucharist to discourse and partake of it the Easters in which time the people do universally Communicate touching the Sick that desire it and received it the Books wherein they explain'd the Mystery of it and in general touching whatsoever may administer them an Occasion of considering the Accidents and I might as often draw this Conclusion that they do not believe Transubstantiation seeing they have said nothing concerning this pretended Miracle of the Existence of Accidents separated from their Subject 'T IS the same with the other Consequences of the substantial Conversion A Man needs only his Eye-sight to assure himself that if what we receive in the Eucharist be really and substantially the natural Body of Christ according to the Sence of the Latins it is not in the usual form of a humane Body whence there immediately arises this Consideration how it can be without this Form How it can be in a place after an unlocal manner neither palbable nor divisible thus more like a Spirit than a Body and yet without Motion Sense or Action and in this more like an inanimate Body than a Spirit A Man needs but little Sense to comprehend that if the Substance of Bread ceases there can be nothing found in the Eucharist to which may be attributed the effect of the Nourishment we receive thence Neither needs there much Study to find out that if the Substance of the natural Body of Christ be present in the Sacrament he is then in several places at the same time to wit in Heaven and on all the Altars whereon are celebrated this divine Mystery Yet do they make no mention of
Judgment and you 'l clear the Difficulty His Testimony is that the Moscovites believe the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has denoted by these Terms which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood His private Judgment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation which he signifies by these following words They hold Transubstantiation SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own persawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say They hold Transubstantiation says he that is to say the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood THIS that is to say explains what he means and punctually determines what the Moscovites hold If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing his Proposition must be received in its full extent if they are not the Change belongs to the Moscovites the Transubstantier to the private sence of M. Olearius We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity but as to his particular Judgement we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry Neither had he any reason to be offended Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8. at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity That 't is very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures and that having heard of the change of Bread he imagined this was the change of Substance which is the same thing I say now The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what common Justice will allow me I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions which agree not well with the Character he bears and which I suppose he has learned of the barbarous People he has so long conversed with Why would he have us believe the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins seeing we find on the contrary that this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant the Greeks say the Bread is changed the Moscovites affirm the same the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation he adds that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ but even in this he is mistaken for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecrated and called the Body of Jesus Christ and not the Remains of the consecrated Bread BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject 'T is the Testimony of an Honorable Person who lived a considerable time in those parts and since M. Olearius who wanted neither Judgment Sincerity nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people in reference to Transubstantiation without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self as having no other design then that of Relat. of the Ambas of M. Carlile discovering the Truth Moreover says he I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions namely that they hold Transubstantiation and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion For first when we discourse with them touching the Consequences of this Doctrine they testifie their dislike of it and to maintain it fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do 2. 'T is more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation they would respect this Mystery more than they do and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome In fine had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whether he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Explication WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius but having already considered it in the foregoing Book we shall trouble our selves no farther with him 'T is not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose 'T is certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome and sworn to observe it's Confession of Faith but sent on purpose to communicate it to others prevailing by means of their Ignorance whether soever they be whether in Muscovia or Greece their Testimony shall not be wanting But every body knows the Value of them Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest that accompanied not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France who after Dinner as 't is say'd at the Arch-Bishop of Sens was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucharist There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation but not to enter into particulars I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith or knows the Religion professed in other Countries These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use
present we must not any longer defer the Consideration of his seventh Book wherein by an odd kind of Humour he ascends upwards to the seventh Century and so descends down again inclusively to the tenth I call this an odd and proposterous way of proceeding For why begin at the eleventh Century seeing he designed to treat of the seventh and following Ages Why skip over the first and six Centuries if he sincerely design'd to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the real Presence The Question being to know whether these Doctrines were ever believed and taught in the Christian Church and especially in Greece there is no other direct way than that of taking Tradition from the Source and to pass on from the first Century to the second from the second to the third and so on to the last If he thought this Method tedious he would have done better to have abridged it in shewing these Doctrines were taught in the first six Centuries and suppose the same in those that followed than to shew them established from the eleventh and seventh whereby to suppose the same in the six foregoing Centuries To speak sincerely there ought to be neither of these Suppositions made for it does not absolutely follow from a Point's being held in the first Ages that it has been likewise held in the last neither does it any more follow from a Points being held in the last that it was so in the first This does not follow in respect of Fact Yet it is certain that in respect of Right which is far more considerable than Fact 't is more advantageous to shew a Doctrine in the beginnings of Tradition than in the sequels of it For it rather follows from a Doctrine's being held in the beginnings of Tradition that it ought to be held still than it does follow from its being held at present or since the eleventh or seventh Century that it ought to be held or that it was held in effect in the first Ages of the Church Why then has Mr. Arnaud divided his Tradition into three parts one since the eleventh Century to this present th' other since the seventh to the tenth and the third from the first Century to the sixth seeing Tradition ought to be taken successively in order Why has he in his Division made the last part the first seeing in effect it is the last in order Why in short thus injure his Cause in spending all his time upon the two least important and which signify nothing as to the main of our Question and remit the most important to another time when his Conveniency will serve him to consider them Howsoever we purpose to follow him every where and therefore shall examine here his seventh Book because it treats still of the Belief of the Greeks For by this means the Readers will see in order whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in relation to this Church THE Publick having nothing to do with our personal Quarrels and the Cause which I defend depending neither on what I am or am not I shall therefore pass by all the Invectives with which the first Chapter is filled The first thing which appears in it is my Picture which cannot but be well done coming from his Hands for persons Characters are the chief Weapons Mr. Arnaud and his Friends use in their Disputes But he may describe me how he pleases for I shall not be much moved thereat Those that read our Discourses will do us both right I hope I shall only say then that Mr. Arnaud has captiously abused my Words touching the eight first Centuries when I called them The Churches happy Days peaceable and blessed Days wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flocks and remove all the Difficulties which might arise Answer to the 2d Treat 2 p. c. 3. from the Sacrament's being commonly called the Body of Christ 1st I joyned all these Centuries together when I spake of them in this sort and Mr. Arnaud only considers the two last of them taking no notice of the other six as if what I said of these two last were to be taken alone and apart 2dly That altho the two last are comprehended amongst the number of the eight yet I never meant that the Title of happy Days Days of Peace and Blessing belongs equally to all of them The happy Days have an end and altho their last Hours which draw nearest to Night are darker than those which preceded them yet are we wont to comprehend them amongst the rest under the Name of happy Day because when we distribute the Sence of these kind of Expressions to all the Parts or Hours rational Persons make this Distribution proportionably to what each of them deserves May not that Person be justly derided for his Impertinency that carps at the calling of a happy Day a time wherein there 's scarcely any longer Light under pretence that the last Hour which approaches nearer the Night is darker than the rest Now this Mr. Arnaud exactly does he pretends 't is impertinently that I call the eight first Centuries The Churches happy Days seeing the other Ministers assert the seventh and eighth that is to say the two last were Ages of Ignorance and Superstition To dissipate all these Subtilties we need but distinguish these Centuries in two respects in which we may consider them either by comparing them with the preceeding or following Ages In the first they were Ages of Ignorance and Superstition And in the second they were the last Hours of the Churches happy Days or the approaches of a Night that is to say in one Word that altho Knowledg and Zeal suffered very much Diminution in them and several Errors troubled the Purity of Religion yet this was nothing in comparison of what followed afterwards This is the Judgment I think we ought to make of them in general But in particular in respect of the Mystery of the Eucharist I firmly believe that the Doctrine of the real Presence and Transubstantiation were not then established in the Church during these two Centuries we may indeed meet with some hard Expressions and such as are contrary to those of the preceeding Ages but no substantial Conversion We shall find the care of instructing the People in the sound Knowledg of the Sacrament greatly slackned in comparison of the preceeding Ages yet were they not wholy ignorant how the Eucharist is the Body of Christ to wit in that it is the Sacrament or Mystery of it It was in this Sence I understood the seventh and eighth Centuries were comprehended amongst the Churches happy Days Let any Man judg now what Reason Mr. Arnaud has to represent me as a Person That never respect Lib. 7. c. 1. p. 614. things as they are in Effect but only as I would have them that has no regard to Truth nor Probability but only the advantaging of my Cause that disposes of Historical Passages and real Events with more liberty
than Adventures are dealt out in Romances that builds Castles in the Ayr and makes all Men in the World Senceless provided they speak and think according to my Desires and Pretensions that prefers the smallest Reasons before the strongest and clearest Proofs and proposes all this in a confident insulting manner giving myself those Applauses which I would willingly receive from others and treating my Adversaries with Contempt and Disdain And here is the Tempest which has followed my Sun-shine my happy Days But I am sorry Mr. Arnaud should be thus angry upon no occasion Howsoever we will Examine the Passages he has offered THE first is a Passage taken out of Anastatius Sinaite wherein a Monk argues against Hereticks who asserted Christ's Body was incorruptible before his Resurrection To prove that it was Corruptible he takes it for granted by his Adversaries That the Eucharist is really the true Body and Blood of Christ Anast Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not mere Bread such as is sold in the Market nor a Figure such as was the Sacrifice of the paschal Lamb amongst the Jews To this Principle he adds another which is That the Eucharist is corruptible as Experience shews us and from these two Propositions he concludes That the Body of Christ was Corruptible before his Resurrection Every Man sees this Reasoning is grounded on this Supposition That the Eucharist is the Body of Christ such as it was before his Resurrection that is to say in the same State Now it is likewise manifest that this Supposition is wholy inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of the substantial Presence For besides that 't is both foolish and impious to imagine that our Lord's Body which is risen out of its State of Humiliation descends into it again and exists still Mortal Corruptible and Passible as it was heretofore This is moreover directly contrary to his Sacramental State wherein we must necessarily suppose it if we would have it to be in the Eucharist in proper Substance For it is not to be imagined that a Body which exists after the manner of a Spirit impalpable and indivisible which can be neither seen nor touched should be at the same time Mortal Corruptible and Passible as our Saviour's Body was before his Resurrection These two States are inconsistent with each other whence it follows that whatsoever otherwise the Sence of this Author might be he held neither Transubstantiation nor the Reality which the Church of Rome holds YET if we believe Mr. Arnaud he is a Witness for him For as soon as ever he finds in any Passage that the Eucharist is not a Figure but the true Body of Christ he requires no more for the making of a Proof altho he sees otherwise several things absolutely contrary to him One of the usual Artifices with which he imposes on his Readers is that when he offers any Passage importing what I now mentioned or something like it he sets himself to shew not that 't is the Romane Transubstantiation therein contained but that 't is not our Doctrine And thus has he done in that Passage of Anastasius's Can any Man say's he that has but the least spark of Sence and believes the Ibid. p. 625. Eucharist to be only a Figure of Christ's Body and not the real Body of Christ Express this his Opinion by these Terms The Eucharist is not the Figure but really the true Body of Christ Can any Calvinist in the World refuse to acknowledg this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine And I say can there be any Man that has but the least dram of Sence that believes the Body of Christ exists in the Eucharist after the manner of a Spirit and is therein in a Sacramental State and yet expresses this his Belief in saying the Eucharist is subject to Corruption and concluding from thence that the Body of Christ was then Corruptible before his Resurrection Is there ever a one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends that can contain himself from believing this Discourse overthrows his Doctrine When I speak in this manner I keep to the State of our Question and deceive no body But when Mr. Arnaud speaks as he does he wanders from the Point in hand and deludes his Readers WHATSOEVER Anastasius his Doctrine may be 't is certain 't is not that of the Church of Rome which cannot consist with the Principle on which Anastasius argues He expresses himself say's Mr. Arnaud a little crabbedly towards the end of his Discourse in making use of weak Arguments not only here but in almost all parts of his whole Discourse But if Mr. Arnaud be forced to confess that this man's Expressions are of hard digestion when applyed to the Hypothesis of Rome Why may not I as well say they are so being applyed to our Hypothesis and consequently they must not be urged against us If Anastasius could not carefully consider the Consequence he drew himself how could he foresee that which Mr. Arnaud would one Day draw from his Discourse If it be usual with Anastasius to argue weakly why may it not also be usual with him to Discourse with little foresight Why must Advantage be taken from some of his Expressions against us and we withheld from taking any against Mr. Arnaud from the whole Sequel of his Discourse and Coherence of his Thoughts which a Man more minds than his Terms or manner of expressing himself MR. Arnaud endeavours but all in vain to molify Anastasius's Sence in saying That he concludes the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Passion Ibid. p. â—3â— seeing he suffers still in the Eucharist an apparent Corruption by the sensible Corruption of the Species which are the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death This Arguing adds he is very weak and roughly Expressed but 't is no unusual thing for this Author to Reason weakly and it would be but a bad Consequence to conclude that an Argument is not his because 't is weak It is sufficient that it be not extravagant in the highest Degree as is that which Aubertin attributes to him ANASTASIUS his Argument according to Mr. Arnaud must be put in this Form The Body of Christ before his Resurrection was such as is in the Eucharist the Symbol of the State wherein he was before his Death But this Symbol is corruptible Therefore the Body of Christ was then Corruptible This Argument is like that which Mr. Aubertin imputes to him according to Mr. Arnaud That which happens to the Figure of Christ's Body P. 629. happened to his Body before his Passion Now it happens to the Bread which is the Figure of it to be subject to Corruption The Body then of Jesus Christ was Corruptible before his Passion Take the Word Figure from this Argument insert that of Symbol which Mr. Arnaud has used in his and the two Arguments are the same Yet he will have his to be good and Mr. Aubertin's ridiculously Extravagant BUT it