at least must byass a mans Judgment towards those things which are afterwards offered If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any mention of the Substantial Presence nor Conversion of Substances that never believed these Doctrines and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect Now we know 't is contrary to Nature to believe it I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious far from being sincere and tending to surprize mens minds by making 'um take a part beforehand without any ground or reason that being thus prejudic'd they may see what is not and not see what is For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions the one that a Church believed Transubstantiation but never disputed about it Th' other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation nor ever heard it a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say here 's one of these defective Expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer and on the other a man will say here 's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery In effect hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers the one believe they see Transubstantiation in 'um because they read the Passages with this Prejudice that the ancient Church held it and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd the others do not find it in 'um because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice that the ancient Church did not believe it and these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable For this effect we must consider the Church either as a Society of men or as a Society of Christians In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation If she held it it would be in the second respect I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion which is the Word of God or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures and Tradition of the first Six Centuries and shew therein the Doctrines in question which done he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages and make his Discussion on this Principle that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transubstantiation But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute This is a plain Deviation and Illusion For till such time as the contrary appears to us we must always predetermine on Natures side Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere we cannot but suppose the Church in what time and place soever we consider it in a State purely Natural in this respect WEE can never reasonably predetermine without some considerable motive contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men nor contrary to Universal Notions and general Customs Now 't is certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question For our Senses give in their Testimony against them and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to ' um Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters WEE ought never to prejudicate without exceeding great reason against an example I mean against the usual manner of proceeding acting thinking or speaking in such like matters as is this in question Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses but also contrary to their Deposition WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy that is to say the Relation Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines Maxims and Customs of the same Religion For 't is with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building or Aedifices of the same City or Members of the same Body or if you will as with Children of the same Family They are known by one another because they all do in some sort resemble each other now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Expressions for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ to wit that of his Abasement and that of his Exaltation without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental WE shall not find 'um applying to
what it believes or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe or that the representative Church that is to say the Councils or the Pope cannot err The first of these two Principles is natural the second is of a Supernatural Order I handle not at present this Point whether they are false or true at the Bottom it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so difficult and require so much time that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them is plainly to deride them I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter where I shall make it appear that 't is impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it 's built It suffices me to say that People are not commonly so regular in things which they believe by a distinct Faith but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries The Author of the Perpetuity tells us that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular There has bin made on this Subject I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity there have bin Catechisms compiled intit'led Catechisms of Grace Which evidently shew it has bin believed that it was not impossible to make the People recieve by way of Illustration or Addition Articles which they knew not before whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms if the People cannot of themselves either diminish or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith This Principle is not then so certain but that it may be doubted of nor so clear or evident in it self that the most simple may be ascertained in it having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it AS to the second it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils or Popes is not so easie that the most simple People may master it All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it If this Church hath this she hath it by a particular Priviledg which must be examined before it be received For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle which is that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible because she saies so and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true because she is infallible Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Authority this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable by things independent on the Church of Rome and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Conclusion For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith now she affirmeth she is infallible from whence it follows that she is so A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense will never be convinced by this Argument The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living before it can be supposed that such a one or any other will receive its Doctrine founded on this Principle Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities for if it be proved by way of Scripture it is not so plainly described therein but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense They are controverted Places and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judgment Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition and a Judgment accordingly he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture in relation to what is produced on either side NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments he that endeavours to do this engageth himself yet farther into tedious Prolixities and Difficulties which surpass ordinary Apprehensions In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question This Infallibility saith he Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible we must prove that it is supernaturally so either by the Principles of Faith or by a long Series of Arguments Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence And 't is for this Reason that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Priviledge Mr. Arnaud testifies as much for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular that is to say of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question Reason saith he doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility So that this Author meaning the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority or on abstracted and remote Arguings he must then necessarily contain himself within the reach of things in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error on any Point which it proposeth But it 's evident to Sense that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors relating to matters of Faith seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Sense there needs more abstracted and remote Arguments to prove it whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this Much less are they fit for this should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition for it would be to send them far enough in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils to be informed in this matter besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently their Testimony upon this account would signify nothing IT is then manifest that common Apprehensions not being able to ascertain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge as I come now from proving nor in the Point of popular Infallibility as I have already hinted and which I shall do
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
return home the whole Country was immediately filled with Priests and Latin Bishops to bring over the People to Piety and Orthodoxy WHEREUNTO Mr. Arnaud Consents and saies That they were L. 3. C. 1. P. 256. more rigorously handled for their Religion in Cyprus than in Greece that several Greek Authors have grievously complained of these Cruelties and that Germain the Patriarch of Constantinople residing in Asia most pathetically laid open their Sufferings to Pope Gregory the ninth FRYAR Stephen a Portugais in his History of the Kingdom of Cyprus General Hist of the Isle and Kingdom of Cyprus Fol. 71. Relates that altho Guy de Lusignan was King of Jerusalem yet was he forc'd to be contented with being King of Cyprus He brought along with him several Greeks Armenians Coptites Maronites Jacobites Indians Nestorians Iberians and Georgians who would not acknowledg the Romane Prelacy each of these having their own Patriarch 'T is true saies he that the Kings of Lusignan would not permit their Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them Ibid. but ordered they should only administer to them the Sacraments leaving the Overplus to the Jurisdiction of the Latine Arch-Bishop to whom these Nations in this respect were Subject He likewise Relates that about the same time there was published the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St. Bridget in which our Saviour himself exhorted the Greeks to submit to the Roman Church Let Ibid. the Greeks know these are the Words that their Empire Kingdoms and Lordships will never be in Peace and Security but always subject to their Enemies from whom they will continually receive exceeding great Dammages and perpetual Miseries till such time as they submit themselves to the Church of Rome with a true Humility and Charity obeying its Holy Constitutions and Ceremonies and wholly conform themselves to her Faith And after this manner did they make Heaven and Earth meet to cause these People to change their Religion WE may then I think plainly enough see that it has not bin the Latins Fault if the Greeks have not received their Doctrines from whence it follows that if it dos appear they have from that time Believed Transubstantiation and it not appearing they held it before we may then reasonably conclude they received it from the Latins This is a Consequence which follows naturally of it self The Testimony of the Greeks cannot be any longer produced as that of the pure Greeks after so many endeavours to make them embrace the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the more Mr. Arnaud strives to prove the Entercourse of these two Nations the greater hold he gives us to contest with him the Advantage he pretends to have obtained from hence But he uses an admirable Expedient to hinder us from minding this Consequence For having seen on one hand that these Histories were too well known to be passed over wholly in Silence and on the other that if he should sincerely produce them as they are in themselves they would certainly make for our Advantage as it hath bin already observed he has thereupon bethought himself and presented them in another kind of Dress whereby he may insensibly turn aside his Readers Minds and amuse them by an agreeable Diversion And to this end has thought good to suppose I denyed the Greeks knew what was the Belief of the Latins and to employ all these historical Passages in opposing this Phantastical Supposition that is to say in manifesting the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist I shall make appear in its proper place that this is but a vain Pretence and a meer quibling on Words which he has designedly taken in a Sence contrary to my meaning Wherefore I here declare it never entred into my Thoughts to deny what he makes me deny For this is an Invention he has used on purpose to conceal his indirect dealing CHAP. III. That the Greek Emperors led by politick Interests have themselves favoured the Design of the Latins in Introducing their Doctrines into Greece Mr. Arnaud's third Artifice discovered IT has not bin only the Latins that earnestly endeavoured to make the Greeks receive their Doctrines For even the Grecian Emperors themselves have favoured this Design induced by politick Respects which put them upon seeking the Friendship of the Western Princes and especially that of the Popes who in those times as speaks Mr. Arnaud gave Laws to all the rest and that even in Temporals We all know what a great Influence the Inclinations of Princes have not only on the People but Ecclesiasticks and Prelates It is usual with Subjects to turn themselves on that side which is most pleasing to their Sovereign and there are few Persons who make it not their Business so to do especially when Princes openly declare their Minds and make use of their Authority in punishing those that withstand them and rewarding those that approve them Now this the Grecian Emperours have often particularly done in favour of the Church of Rome to which they have endeavoured to unite their Subjects POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons up fourteen of these interessed Reunions De reb Moscovit P. 7. the Greeks saies he have bin reunited to us fourteen times by publick Confessions and have so many times departed from us And it is certain that as they have ever known the Popes earnest Desires to submit them to the See of Rome so likewise have they not failed to flatter this Desire by fair Promises when they needed that Churches Assistance either for the obtaining of some important Design or for the averting of some dangerous Tempest which threatned them But as soon as ever these have bin over they have returned to their first State and slighted these Reunions I know not how it hath come to pass that the Popes having bin so often deceived should still continue so Facile but perhaps it was not a single Interest but be it as it will the Popes have never bin backwards in these Matters MY Design is not to set down here all these Reunions one after another and relate their particular Circumstances seeing an Account thereof is to be met with in sundry Historians but more especially in the Book Leo Allatius wrote touching the Agreement of these two Churches I shall only here take notice of some of them observed by Mr. Arnaud and which will be sufficient to shew after what manner the Greek Emperors have proceeded in Favour of the Latins when they wanted the Pope's Assistance MICHAEL Cerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Leo Bishop of Acrida having written some Letters against the Church of Rome to Peter the Patriarch of Antioch thereupon caused the Latine Churches to be shut up at Constantinople Pope Leo the Eleventh was greatly moved at it He therefore wrote to Cerularius and Leo of Acrida a long Letter wherein he answered their Objections and accused likewise the Greek Church of Lightness Rashness and Presumption This hap'ned about
expresly to plant the Roman Religion and even to establish fixt Seminaries who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks This Artifice of his is not of small Importance for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars without which 't is impossible to make a true and right Judgment of this Controversie And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Arnaud's Ingenuity For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us if they are so publickly known that 't will be to no purpose to conceal them he then produces them but in so doing applyes them to other matters on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them and on the other hand if they are Passages less known and that he may well conceal them he then either not mentions them or but lightly touches on them to the end they may not be throughly considered He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them or if at all so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret and overthrowing himself what he has taken upon him to defend But seeing he has no reason to expect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity and that they must know no more but what he tells them so he must not take it ill if I relate what he would have concealed I say then that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire all Greece and other Eastern Nations have bin filled with Monks or Emissaries whose only design and employment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries Mr. Arnaud who commonly takes things in the worst Sence will be sure to tell me I am to blame in blaming this Design Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Religion it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith to do all they can to make Schismaticks and Heretical People to Embrace the same To which I answer I do not at all blame the Endeavours of the Roman Church to win these People Seeing she believes they are in an Error and therefore would undeceive them and so far is Christianly and Charitably done but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use which savour so much of worldy Policy they are in no wise to be commended I do not I say blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to propagate their Faith seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Communion YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud who knows full well what the Monks and Emissaries have done and do still in the East That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason That they are to be found established amongst these People For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind no means having bin left untried to effect this how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation this Doctrine hath bin received by them at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction Instruction Conversion or what else he please Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians for whose sake the Emissaries have taken such Pains do believe Transubstantiation it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches for this is a way of Arguing which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him that if these People believe Transubstantiation 't is because the Emissaries have taught it them unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them And this is the Contents of this Chapter The Consequence I pretend to draw hence is clear enough in it self and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks and Emissaries in the Levant FIRST then it is evident that after the Conquest of the Holy Land both Palestine and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry who tells us that multitudes of People resorted from all parts L. 1. C. 10. P. 194. of the World to the Holy Land being allured thither by the Odour of those Venerable and Holy Places where they repaired the decayed Churches Built new ones and founded Monasteries in several Places by the Liberality of Princes In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors who were present at the Councils held at Napolis a City of Samaria and at Antioch Guill Tyr. L 12. C. 1â— L. 15. C. 16. L. 12. C. 25. He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians and Patriarch of Jerusalem Mr. Arnaud himself saies there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks together with others of St. Norbet and St. Bennet in several Commodious Places NEITHER need we any more doubt but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof to which Mr. Arnaud consents and tells us That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors who had often performed this Office in France and Germany He farther saies that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks and examine their Doctrine which is not a difficult matter to believe IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius Pope Alexander the third sent Baron ad ann 1177. a certain Physitian called Phillip into Ethiopia to convert the Christians of that Country and Instruct them in the Romish Religion NOT long after Innocent the third obtained the Popedom and immediately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over Raynald ad ann 1193. num 55. to the Roman Church And sent for this Purpose John and Simon into Dioclia and Dalmatia and some others into Bulgaria Albertus and Albertinus to Constantinople and the Arch Bishop of Mayence into Armenia GREGORY the ninth his Successor continued the same Design Raynaldus Reports in his time all Asia was full of Religious who went up and Raynald ad ann 1233. down Preaching from place to place He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip which he wrote to the Pope in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of
'em beautiful Churches He tells us likewise that in the Isle of Nixia there are Jesuits Recollets and Capucins who make great Progress in the propagating of the Catholick Faith Besides the Jesuits and Capucins that are according Stochove's Voyage P. 225. to Thevenot's Relation in the Isle of Chios the Sieur Stochove tels us of Carmelite Fryars who are there likewise AT Smyrna there are both Capucins and Jesuits saies the Sieur Boulaye Boulay Le Goux Part 1. C. 9. P. 20. Le Goux and Villamont observes that in the Isles of Cephalonia and Zant there are Religious of the Order of St. Francis WE know that the Jesuits have settled themselves since the Year 1609 at Constantinople The Jesuits saies the Sieur Stochove have St. Bennet ' s Church where they are very well accommodated having a fine Garden The Villamont's Voyages L. 2. C. 4. Stochovie's Voyages P. 98. Church altho it be but small yet is a very beautiful one being covered with Mosaisk Work These Fathers saies he do make great Proficiency in the Conversion of the Hereticks and Schismaticks Instructing them in the Catholick Apostolick Roman Faith But besides the Jesuits there are Jacobins and Cordeliers The Cordeliers say's the Sieur Du Loir are at St. Marys the Jacobins at St. Peters and the Jesuits at St. Bennets which is a very fair Church and Painted Loir's Voyages P. 67. also with Mosaick Work very Rich but not well Contrived It is well known there are Emissaries likewise in Hispaham in Persia who have spread themselves as far as the Borders of the Armenians We have not seen any City in all our Travels saies the Sieur de Bourges which is better provided with Emissaries the Reverend Fathers the Austin Portugais Monks Carmelites and Jesuits have successively established themselves since some Years and by the Permission of the Prince they exercise with a great deal of Liberty their Functions The Reverend Fathers the Jesuits having setled themselves at Julfa which is a small City about a League distant from Hispaham chiefly consisting of Armenians have a particular Conveniency for the Conversion of Schismaticks He tells us likewise That there is at Surat a Mission of French Capucins and another at Babylon and speaking of the former of these These are says he the only Emissarys in this City We have been Witnesses of the Respect shewed them and of the Fruit of their Labours to bring home to the Church the Armenians Jacobites and Nestorians I shall not trouble my self with mentioning the Missions of the Indias nor them of Ethiopia for the relations of these are publick and known by all the World We may read what John Peter Maffeé and du Jaric both Jesuits have written in their Histories of the Indias touching this matter And likewise the Relations of Ethiopia taken out of the Letters written to the General of the Jesuits Viteleschy and another History of the East Indias Printed at Arras Anno 1628. but what I already mention'd is sufficient to discover the fallacy of Mr. Arnaud's Argument who pretends to prove the Perpetuity of his Faith from the Testimony of the Schismatical Churches For now after what I represented all which has been faithfully transcribed out of Authors never suspected by the Church of Rome what assurance can we have if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be found established amongst these people that it has not been communicated to them by all these Emissaries who have been sent for so many years for no other purpose It ought methinks to be shewed us to colour over this proof that the sources whence they drew their Christianity have not been adulterated that these Springs have run clear without being troubled to this day or at least the time of these Missions must be laid aside and Mr. Arnaud if he intends to deal sincerely must begin from the Ages which precede them for if it does not appear these Schismaticks believed the same as the Church of Rome concerning the Eucharist before all this care for their instruction what likelihood is there we shall suffer our selves to be surpriz'd by so frivolous an Argument I will suppose for once that I was deceiv'd when I maintain'd that any one of these Nations who profess the Christian Religion and submitted not to the Pope did not reckon Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Creed nor the Adoration of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies Will Mr. Arnaud then imagine that my mistake has prejudiced my Cause or justified the Consequence he pretends to draw from his Principle This pretension of his in my mind would be very unjust and unreasonable For whether the Greeks and other Eastern Christians do or do not believe Transubstantiation this is only a question between him and me to which the Subject I defend has no relation and therefore he can expect no more at utmost than a Victory over me and not my Cause seeing the Consequence he would draw hence will be continually disputed him to wit that Transubstantiation has been perpetually believed in these Churches Whence it follows that he has been to blame in passing over so slightly as he has done a point of this importance on which depends the whole force of his Proofs and he may justly be complain'd of in the Church of Rome in that he hath in his whole proceeding betrayed a greater care for his own private Reputation than that of the Church whose cause he takes upon him to defend As to what concerns my self I hope I shall be able to give the World a good Account touching what I denyed and were I mistaken I would not be ashamed to make an open Recantation without the least apprehension that this my Retractation would in any sort prejudice my Cause seeing in effect I do not believe it follows that a Doctrine has been perpetual in Religion altho Schismatical Churches now profess it as well as the Latins This Consequence must be proved as well as its Principle did Mr. Arnaud take a direct course and argue in a requisite manner to satisfie judicious Persons And therefore he ought to have given a sincere account of this whole History of the Missions which I come now from representing in this Chap. for I cannot imagine how Mr. Arnaud could pass over in silence as he has done an History so important and necessary for the making of a right Judgment of this whole Controversie seeing he could not be ignorant of it If he believes he has done right I must needs say he has a kind of sincerity different from that of all other people and if he believes he ought not to have taken this course we must affirm that his silence is so much the more criminal in that he has acted against the light of his own Conscience CHAP. V. That the means the Emissaries have used for the introducing of the Roman Religion amongst the Schismaticks The Seminaries which have been set up for the same design and the particular
Gain but one of them and you gain them all but if one of 'em holds out and will not yield what you have done already signifies nothing Discoursing of the Mission of Aleppo he say's that the Bishop of the Syrians at Aleppo before his Ordination conceived a great hatred against the Syrian Heresie and turn'd Catholick and within a while went to Rome from whence returning he was Consecrated by the Patriarch of the Maronites and settled in the Syrian Church at Aleppo From whence being constrain'd to withdraw he was brought there again at the request of the Curats and by the Assistance of Mr. Piquet He generously serves adds he Almighty God amongst his own people whom he exhorts to keep stedfast to the Church of Rome And thus have the Endeavours of our Emissaries been assisted by the Divine Grace which we doubt not but will prove of great consequence to the Syrians seeing that in gaining a person of his merit they have done as much as if they had converted a whole Nation The Sieur Stochove speaking of the Jesuits at Galata These Fathers Endeavours say's he have not been ineffectual amongst the Hereticks and Schismaticks Stochovius ' s Voyages p. 98. for they converted several Greek Bishops and disposed others in case of any Revolution to abhere to the Roman Church I acquainted my self say's Busbequius the Emperour's Embassadour with Metrophanus the Metropolitain and Superiour of the Monastery of Chalcy he Busbeq Voyages lib 4. p. 5. 26. is an honest and learned Man and one that passionately desires the re-union of the two Churches contrary to the custom of his Nation who detests them of our Communion as prophane and impure Persons GOUVEAU the Monk relating how he and other Augustin Portugaises Gouveau's relation lib. 5. 3. proceeded in order to the Re-union of the Armenians in Persia to the Roman Church tells us that they particularly applyed themselves to the winning David their Patriarch making use of him afterwards as an instrument to prevail on the Bishops and all the rest of the People NOW tell me I pray after this with what sincerity the Greeks and other Eastern Christians can be alledged in this matter they are won by Money several pretences are made use of by the Emissaries to introduce themselves into their houses they prevail on their Bishops not making them publickly change their Religion but leaving them in the same Communion wherein they find them to the end that they may likewise endeavour the Establishment of the Roman Faith Now what can be said of these people but that if they believe Transubstantiation it not appearing they believed it before all these Intrigues they have received this Doctrine from the Emissaries by these indirect ways which they practise BUT this is not all for one of the most usual and effectual Courses they take to establish insensibly and without any noise the Roman Religion in Greece and amongst all other Nations is the instruction of their Youth which employment they commonly take upon them wheresoever they come for under pretence of instructing them in Human Learning they instil into their minds the Principles of the Romish Faith so that a great part of the Greek Prelates are of this number that is to say their Schollars having received from them in their tender Age a favourable Opinion of the Roman Church WE are inform'd by the Author of M. de la Haye's Voyages who was Voyages of M. de la Haye c. 5. pag. 125. Embassador to the late King of France that the Jesuits at Galata are very succesful in their undertakings in this kind for besides their Preaching and Confessions they instruct all the Youth as also the Schismaticks whom they have convinced for the most part of them of their Errors so that several Principal Greek Bishops and Archbishops who have been their Schollars do favour the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and are capable of doing it great Service THE Sieur Stochovius speaks to the same effect the Greeks say's he do Stochov Voyages pag. 98. not at all scruple the sending their Children to School he means to that of the Jesuits wherein they are instructed as well in the Catholick Religion as in Human Learning And discoursing of the Isle of Chios he tells us that the Jesuits have a strong-built Convent there besides a fair Church that they are twenty in number who are all of them naturaliz'd and take upon them according to their custom the instruction of Youth and bring divers over to the true Religion The Carmelites adds he have a Church and Convent there who likewise apply themselves to the instructing of Youth and convert divers from the common Heresie of the Greeks THE Sieur du Loir tells us likewise that the Jesuits of Galatia keep Loir's Voyages pag. 67. Thevenot part 1 c. 61. School for the Children of the Greeks and Armenians And the Sieur Thevenot informs us that in the Isle of Chios there is a Convent of Capucins who teach human Learning and the Christian Doctrine to several Children who repair thither He tells us in another place that in the Isle of Andria the Capucins do greatly ease the Bishop by their Preachings and Confessions and by Chap. 13. their School to which go all the Greek Children and that some are sent from Athens for that purpose LA Boulaye le Goux tells us that the Jesuits have a convenient House at Boulay's Voyages part 1. c. 9. Relat. of St. Erinys c. 5. Smyrna wherein they instruct the Greek Children And the same do they at St. Erinys as appears by the relation of Richard the Jesuit who introduces another Jesuit speaking as follows I set open my School every day to all that will come and learn any thing being ever ready and most willing to instruct Youth as well out of Obedience to my Superiour who earnestly recommended to me this course as for that likewise it has been revealed to me from Heaven that this is the surest way to reform by degrees the Greek Church and perhaps one of the most likeliest means to maintain us in these forraign Countries IT already appears by these Testimonies that one of the principal things recommended to the Emissaries when they are to be sent abroad is the Education of Children as an infallible means to set up the Romish Religion in the midst of these people and that the Emissaries on their side do well acquit themselves in this particular But the Author of the Book called A Description of the Holy Land delivers himself more plainly For discoursing how the Jesuits employ themselves in the City of Aleppo he tells us that their chief business is to instruct Youth which has always been esteemed a matter of great importance and highly conducing to the reformation of these Nations Observe I beseech you what he says that the Emissaries do not only carefully apply themselves to this and that by order from their Superiors but that
and other places for the bringing up of Greek Children wherein they are taught on one hand the Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church and on the other the Doctrines and Opinions of the Church of Rome for leaving these Schools they betake themselves to the East where it frequently happens they are called to the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Functions and these are as so many of the Court of Romes Creatures who endeavour to the utmost of their power to establish the Doctrines and Maxims of the Latins It is well known that during the Popedom of Gregory the XIII there was a Colledge founded at Rome to what end we may be informed by Leo Allatius The Colledge of the Greeks say's he was built in Gregory De Perp Cons lib. 3. cap. 6. pag 970. the thirteenth's time to the end the Grecian Children might learn the Arts and Sciences which are not now to be found in Greece and also be instructed in the Catholick Religion that they may afterwards communicate it to others and especially to them of their own Nation And in the following Chapter relating what means has been used to propagate the Roman Religion in Greece since those Countrys have been possessed by the Turks he adds Thus thro a long series of time has Religion made its progress in Greece But at length Gregory the XIII desirous to quench the fire which wasted all Greece and remedy its miseries has therefore caused to be built at Rome the Greek Church which he Dedicated to St. Athenasius He bought likewise at the same time the neighbouring Houses for Dwellings to entertain the Greek Schollars which should be brought over from Greece being all the Children of Greeks He gave likewise a considerable yearly Revenue for their Maintenance to the end that they being instructed in the Greek and Latin Tongues might serve as an Ornament and help to their distressed Country Now this is not a matter needs proving seeing this Church continues even to this day at Rome in the same use for which 't was intended THE Fruits gathered hence are not inconsiderable for there has been and is now every day sent I know not how many persons full of Zeal for the Roman Church its Rites and Ceremonies into the East who spreading themselves over all parts of it and professing the Religion of the Schismatical Greeks and living in the same Communion with them do not fail to insinuate the Doctrines of the Church of Rome into their minds Leo Allatius has made a Catalogue of these Persons which the curious may see if they please he has observ'd that several of them have been made Archbishops and a great number of others promoted to Episcopal Charges some of them having been too zealous occasion'd the Greeks to rise up against them and others have been so succesful in their Endeavours that they gained the very Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves He mentions amongst others one Josaphat Azales who having finish'd his Studies in the Seminary was sent to Messene a City of Pelopenesus to instruct the Monks of St. Basil who live there and having been some time after made Papas that is to say a Greek Priest he went to Mount Athos and there say's Allatius he taught the true Faith Now it is to be observed that this Mount Athos is the general Seminary of the whole East as Mr. Arnaud tells us it being from thence the Religious do disperse themselves over all Greece from this place they have their Patriarchs Archbishops and Bishops so that to carry the Roman Religion to Mount Athos it is to go to the source which is a means to gain in a short time all the Greeks He mentions another whom he calls Ignatius Mindon who leaving the Seminary returned into Greece where he taught several years and from thence went to Trebizonde which is a City on Pont Euxin where as before he set himself to the instructing of people and that with such success that he was taken by them for a Prophet And in fine being sent for by Raphael the Patriarch of Constantinople to be Rector of the Patriarchal Church at Pera he endeavoured say's he with all his power to advance the Interest of the Church of Rome IT is in this Seminary wherein were brought up two Persons who made Arcudius Epist ad Sigism Regem Poloniae de reb Mosc pag. 10. a great noise in the World to wit John Mathew Caryophilus Archbishop of Iconia and Peter Arcudius the first of these was sent into Greece but having not discreetly carried himself was forc'd for his preservation to return to Rome where he set himself to writing against the Greeks and the other was sent into Poland Lituania Russia and Muscovia where he employed himself according to his own relation for the space of twenty years in the propagating of the Roman Faith POSSEVIN the Jesuit writing to Pope Gregory the 13th touching the means to be used for the introducing of the Doctrines of the Roman Church amongst the Moscovits he so highly esteems Seminaries that he advises him to settle one at Rome for the Russians and another at Vilna in Bibl. Select lib. 6. cap. 1. Lituania where he say's that the Jesuits have likewise their Colledge in which there are many Schollars He tells us in another place that this Pope in effect founded several Seminaries for the Russians in Lituania and other places M. the Bishop of Pamiez having told us in his Annals that Gregory founded Spondanus Annalaom 3. â—d ann 1584 a Seminary at Rome for the Maronites says farther that the same Pope founded others for the Eastern and Northern Countries as well at Rome as in the Provinces AS to what remains we must not imagine the Turks under whose Government the Greeks live do hinder the Endeavours of the Latins it was never heard of say's John Cottovicus that the Turks have been in any sort severe against the Religious who having finished their Studies at Rome and taken Orders returned into their own Countrys and were raised to Dignities nor that the Turkish Magistrate hath upon this account made them suffer the least Dammage In effect provided they oppose not their Religion they are ready enough to connive at all other matters They favour them that give 'em most Money and from thence 't is we see on the Patriarchal See of Constantinople Persons who keep a good Correspondency with the Court of Rome or else such who have been the Jesuits Schollars who feeing themselves rais'd to this Dignity do not fail to favour as much as in them lies this change so long prosecuted and 't is in this rank we must place Raphael Neophytus Timotheus Cyrillus of Berrhaea and I know not how many others whom the Roman Party has at divers times helped to the Patriarchate and who in requital did them afterwards great Service ALL this me thinks shews evidently that Mr. Arnaud has been very dis-ingenuous in his whole proceeding who concealing these Intrigues
confidently undertakes to convince us of the Antiquity of the Roman Creed touching the Eucharist upon this Principle that this same Doctrine is held by other Christian Churches as if all the passages from Rome to Greece were so blocked up that these Doctrines could never be transported thither or as if the Latins had never attempted this Had these People received these Doctrines elsewhere or invented them themselves Mr. Arnaud would have some pretence for his Argument neither could we then charge him with asserting things as we do now against the light of his own Conscience But seeing he knew well enough the Latins have been perpetually endeavouring to introduce their Doctrines in these Countrys and constantly laboured at this since I know not how many Ages he therefore upon supposal they have effected this comes and offers us the belief of these People as an undoubted Proof of the Perpetuity of this Doctrine this is to speak modestly such a way of proceeding as will never be approved by just and reasonable men IT will perhaps be objected that I do indeed here shew That the Latins endeavour'd to insinuate their Religion in the East but that I do not make it particularly appear they at any time endeavoured to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation To which I answer first this is not necessary for proposing only to my self at present to shew the Nullity of the Consequence Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw in order to the proving of the Perpetuity of the Roman Creed touching Transubstantiation in that he imagines the Eastern Churches hold the same it suffices me to shew thereupon That this Opinion might be communicated to them by the Latins themselves in their several attempts to introduce their Religion into the East especially considering that Transubstantiation is one of the most important Doctrines of it And if Mr. Arnaud would have his Proof subsist he must set aside all the time of these efforts we now mentioned and betake himself only to those Ages which preceded them For unless he proves that Transubstantiation has been believed in these Churches before all these endeavours to bring them over to the Roman Faith there is no Person endued with sence but will perceive how little strength his Argument carries along with it seeing he is ever lyable to be told they have received it from the Latins it not appearing amongst them before BUT in the second place I will not have it stick here to the end Mr. Arnaud may receive full satisfaction touching this point I say then that in the Year 1627. Clement the Fourth intending to make his Advantage of that Raynald ad ann 1267. num 75. great Earnestness Michael Paleologus shewed for the Reunion of his Church with the Roman as it has been observed in the third Chap. of this Book he thereupon sent him a Confession of Faith which he would have received by the Greeks because he found that which the Greeks sent him not only deficient in several things but full of Errors altho the Fryar Minorites then at Constantinople had accepted it Now Amongst other Articles in this Confession there is one which relates to the Eucharist and which runs thus in Latin Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens quod in ipso Sacramento panis verè transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi which is to say the Church of Rome Celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread Believing and Teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ He sent afterwards Dominicains to Confirm this Confession and procure its acceptance with the Greeks IN the Year 1272 Gregory the Tenth sent Fryar Minorites into Greece Raynald ad ann 1272. num 27. to endeavour afresh the Reduction of the Greeks under the Authority of the same Michael Paleologus who resolved to finish this Affair at any rate and to whom he likewise recommended the same Confession of Faith IN the Year 1288. Pope Nicholas the Fourth sent Fryar Minorites into Idem ad ann 1288. num 30. Esclavonia to bring off these People from the Greek Religion to that of the Church of Rome he gave them Letters to King Urosius and Helena the Queen Mother and recommended to 'em the same Form of Doctrine containing the Article of Transubstantiation to the end this might be the Rule of their instructions to the People THE same Pope sent it likewise to three Bishops in the East who embraced his Communion exhorting them to instruct the People according Ibid. num 33. to the Doctrine contained therein and at the same time he recommended to them the Emissaries sent into those Countries for the Conversion of the Greeks Bulgarians Valaquians Syrians Iberians Alains Russians Jacobites Nestorians Georgians Armenians Indians whence it is easie to conjecture that the Emissaries were likewise enjoyned to use this Formulary IN the Year 1318. Pope Innocent the twenty Second sent this Confession Raynald ad ann 1318. num 13. to the King of Armenia And not only say's Rynaldus The Armenians which inhabited Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrine of the Roman Church but others also who being driven out of their Country by the Sarracens had retired into Chersonesus Taurique They submitted themselves to the Roman Church in the presence of the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin The Pope adds he congratulated them and shewed 'em that in the Divine Mysteries the Substance of Bread is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species remaining entire IN the Year 1338. Bennet the Twelfth received Letters from the Alains Idem ad ann 1338. num 77. who were a sort of Christians that professed the Greek Religion and lived under the Government of the Tartars He return'd them an answer and sent the Confession of Faith I already mention'd for their Instruction Raynaldus referrs this Letter to the Year 1338. But there is an old Book I lately cited intitled The marvelous History of the great Cham of Tartaria which referrs this to the Year 1328. The Article of Transubstantiation is expresly mentioned in it IN the Year 1366. John Paleologus the Grecian Emperor designing to Idem ad ann 1366. num 6. reunite himself to the Church of Rome that he might be assisted against the Turks Pope Urbain the Fifth sent him as his Predecessors had done to Michael this same Confession of Faith SO that here then the Latins are not only enjoyned to propagate their Religion in general amongst the Eastern Christians but particularly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and to the end it may not be said this Confession contains the other Points of the Christian Faith as well as that of the Substantial Conversion it is to be observed that it has two distinct parts in the first of which the Articles of the Apostles Creed are explained and
man that writes things on such slight grounds as he does nor so easily exposes his Reputation in asserting matters of Fact of whose untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read For not to go farther we need but read to find in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise that the Author proposes to himself to make any man confess who is not extreamly obstinate by the evidence of truth it self that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Mystery is the same with that of all Antiquity Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Transubstantiation We need but read moreover for this purpose the eighteenth and nineteenth Pages of the first Treatise wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to shew us the universality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome tells us that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in these terms We believe the Terrestial Substances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sanctified on our Lord's Table by the Ministry of the Priests are CHANGED by the ineffable Operation wonderful and incomprehensible Power of God into the Essence of the Body of our Lord adds farther Behold here the Faith which the Church dispersed throughout the whole World which is called Catholick has held in all Ages and does at this time hold and that he confidently repeats this in the twenty second Chapter and presses Berengarius to inform himself of the Sentiments of all the Christians in the World in the East and West Ask the Greeks Armenians and generally all Christians of what Nation soever and they will all of them tell you they hold the same Faith which we profess We need but only read to be satisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity produces afterwards the Testimony of Guitmond in the same Sence and for the same end he cited that of Lanfranc to wit to prove that the Greeks and other Schismaticks do believe Transubstantiation and that in the twenty second Page he makes this remark That Guitmond does not only apply what he say's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Presence but likewise to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans which clearly shews us that this Testimony of Guitmond respects not only the Real Presence but likewise Transubstantiation In fine to be ascertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page after he had alledged that passage of Guitmond All the Books of the Schismatical Greeks say's he which have come to our hands since that time do clearly testifie they held the same Opinions as the Church of Rome touching the Eucharist After this Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us that although the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting that this Doctrine was held by all these Schismatical Churches Yet Mr. Claude turns aside the Question upon Transubstantion which Point this Author does not precisely Treat of What means then I pray these Quotations out of Lanfranc and Guitmond which he has expresly produc'd to shew that Transubstantiation was believed by the whole World both by the Greeks and Armenians and generally by all Christians Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himself an irreparable Injury thus to maintain things without consulting and examining them flattering himself with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this That he has observed in the Treatise of the Perpetuity that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schismatical Churches in the manner already mention'd that is to say positively in reference to Transubstantiation passing afterwards to the proposing of some Arguments by which he pretends to shew that the Mystery of the Eucharist is distinctly known by all the Faithful and that an insensible change is a thing impossible he restrains himself to the Real Presence but there is a difference betwixt these two points and Mr. Arnaud ought to have considered this a little better I say then that in this Dispute of the Greeks and other Christians separated from the Roman Church the question concerns Transubstantiation and not the Real Presence as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expresly mentioned Transubstantiation in his first Treatise as I come now from observing and for as much as I plainly kept my self in my first Answer to this Doctrine alone and that of the Adoration whereupon it follows that the Debate has been precisely continued on these two Articles Yet do I here declare to avoid all Mistakes that altho our debate at present is not concerning the Real Presence yet do I not yield to the drawing of this consequence from hence that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church in the same Sence as the Latins understand it This is not my Opinion and I shall say no more of it but that this point is not the Subject of our present debate It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Discourse what ought to be believed touching this matter it not being needful for this to alter the State of our question BUT besides the Observations I now made we must likewise observe that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expresly reject Transubstantiation or whether they have made it a point of Controversie betwixt them and the Latins but the question here is whether they do positively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples absolute rejecting of a Doctrine that is to say the making thereof a point of debate and the not receiving and reckoning it amongst the Articles of their Faith Our debate concerns only this last I mean whether the Greek Church as it stands separate from the Latin professes the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion or not This is the true state of the question Mr. Arnaud maintains the affirmative and I the negative so that we must see now who has the reason and truth on his side Yet let me tell him that designing throly to handle this Subject he ought to have laid down all these distinctions and leave the Reader at his own liberty to judge of them But instead of this there is never a one of these Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifestly perverted 1. He makes advantage of all those Parties which have been made from time to time either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches 2. He makes use of the Testimony of Persons won to the Roman Interest such as Emanuel Calecas Bessarion John Plusiadenus Gennudius Scholarius Baronius Spatarius Paysius Ligardius all of 'em Persons manifestly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome as shall be shewed him in the Sequel of this debate 3.
contained only that the Bread is really changed as we shall make it appear hereafter NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries and that the quality of the Persons who make these attestations does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church all these pieces are too new whereon to build alone a Tradition from the â—â—â—venth Century that is to say since six hundred years WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them which shall be done in its place but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument which is drawn from that the usual expressions of the Greeks I mean the clearest of them and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist only consist in general terms Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions seeing the belief of the substantial conversion as I have already established it is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is not possible but that a Church which believes it and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's BUT this Argument I now produced ought to be attended by this following consideration which will farther evidence its strength and solidity Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith the seven first general Councils to wit that of Nice against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great that at Constantinople against Macedonius under Theodosius that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine and his Mother Iréna Now 't is certain there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transubstantiation for what is produced concerning the first at Nice That we must conceive by Faith that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World lies ou this holy Table that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood This I say as any man may see is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book wherein he relates it And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances as that of Gregory the Seventh held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine and in fine that of Trent which established the preeeding decisions the Greek Church receives none of these nor makes any account of them They all commonly say say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed and the Priests make the people believe that at the end of the seventh Council an Angel descended from Heaven testifying that whatsoever concerned our Faith was therein perfected and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided Leo Allatius likewise only mentions seven Councils which they approve They have say's he in great esteem Allat de prep cons lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils and hold them inviolable they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians Guag in Mosc descrip which is the same as that of the Greeks relates their Belief is that 't was concluded in the seventh general Council that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils should remain firm for the time to come and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema wherefore adds he they say that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first are accursed perverse and desperately defiled with Heresie Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia tells us likewise that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art 9. the seventh saying they are not concerned in them seeing they were held without their consent SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour that there De uno past part 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded and that whosoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accursed Mr. Basire whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter confirms me in this matter by his Letter In publica say's he Graecorum professione non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recipiunt quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical And Metrophanus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration We only receive say's he the seven Oecumenical Councils and as to the particular Councils we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Councils and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversion are two things very inconsistent with each other especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd And in effect it seems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils and not amongst the common customs or practices which are still observed altho not expresly determined or amongst the Points which being minute and inconsiderable
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâ—m 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
make it appear either that the Matters of Fact which Mr. Arnaud proposes are not true or that he takes them in a contrary sence and draws from them false Conclusions but barely to say I deny the Consequence because it opposes my Thesis which I hold for a certain Truth this would be to make my self ridiculous I know that a man that answers supposes always his Thesis to be true and that he has liberty to draw thence if he can where withal to solve the Arguments of his Adversary but he must do it in another manner than by saying I deny the Consequence because my Thesis is true For otherwise his Adversary will tell him and I prove that your Thesis is false by the very Argument I offer so that this would be always to begin again Mr. Arnaud will reply he does not barely propose his Thesis for an Answer but proposes it as having already solidly established it by a great number of Proofs and pretends that his Proofs surmount mine I confess that if this be his sence he has right to oppose Proof against Proof and require a comparison to be made of them before the Reader passes his final Sentence But I demand likewise for my part that there be comprehended in this comparison not only one oâ— my Proofs but all of them together with the Answers which I shall return his to shew their weakness and insufficiency Which is what a judicious Reader ought to do at the end of the Dispute in the mean time each Proof in particular should have his force neither must he imagine to elude them one after another by barely opposing against them those which seem to establish the contrary If I pretended by the only force of my Argument drawn from the silence of the Greeks on the Consequences of Transubstantiation to acquit my self of the examination of Mr. Arnaud's Proofs and end the Dispute by this means alone he might reasonably bring me back to this Discussion For this would be to err in the same manner as the Author of the Perpetuity has done who would decide the whole Controversie of the Eucharist by an Argument drawn from the pretended Consequences of a change without any regard to our Proofs of Fact which conclude directly the contrary It would signifie nothing for me to alledge that my method is a method of Prescription and not of Discussion for this would be meer wrangling But this is not my design I proposed to my self having first established by divers most solid Reason that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation to answer in its due order whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to shew that the Greeks do believe it And yet this Proof which I here treat of comes with the rest into the order of the Dispute It hath then as I said its particular force and weight and Mr. Arnaud must not imagine to overthrow it by barely opposing his Proofs against it for before the Dispute be ended I hope to shew that what he terms Proofs are but meer Paralogisms and Delusions TO the end the Reader may better judge of the solidity of my Proof Answer to the Sccond Treatise of Perp. cap. 8. pag. 442. Edit 7. he must observe that I offered it in my Answer to the Perpetuity only on this Ground that there is no Law amongst the Greeks or general determination that establishes Transubstantiation that none of their Councils have decided it none of their Confessions of Faith comprehended it nor any of their publick Catechisms asserted it Now when men differ touching a matter of Fact they usually have recourse to the place where they may most reasonably expect satisfaction and if it does not appear there in it self sence obliges 'em to address themselves to its Consequences and if the Consequences do not manifest themselves any more than the Fact it self they draw thence a negative Argument which in its place has all the force that can be desired This method have I followed in this Answer to Mr. Arnaud for I produce not this Argument drawn from Consequences till I manifested that the Fact it self here in question that is to say Transubstantiation does not appear any where amongst the Greeks neither in respect of the Terms nor thing which the Terms signifie and to justifie it I have produced what Mr. Arnaud has alledged to the contrary IN effect if you set aside the Latiniz'd Greeks such as Bessarion Emanuel Calecas Plusiadenus the counterfeit Greeks such as the Baron of Spartaris and the Archbishop of Gaza whom I can prove to be a Pensioner of the Court of Rome and others that are notoriously suspected such as the pretended Samonas the Monk Agapius the six Priests of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Synod of Cyprus in the Year 1668. with some Acts that have been alter'd by the Latins already mention'd by us all the rest consists only in Arguings and Consequences which have even in this quality neither Evidence nor certainty as will appear hereafter For as to Mr. Arnaud's vaunting that he has shewed Transubstantiation hath been defined by Councils that it is expressly contain'd in the profession of Faith sign'd by the Sarrasins and in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks is what he ought not to affirm on such slight Grounds seeing People may be convinced of the contrary by the bare reading of these pretended Councils of Cyrillus Berrhea and Partenius and Passages he produces as well of the profession of Faith of these Sarrasin Proselytes as Ecclesiastical Writings for 't is certain we find Transubstantiation neither defined nor expresly taught therein THIS Belief then appearing not of it self in the Greek Church and the expressions she makes use of being lyable to sundry Interpretations a prudent man will consider the Doctrines which depend thereon and which are the inseperable Consequences of it for if these Doctrines do no more appear than the Substantial Conversion this must be granted a new Proof which confirms the first and very much helps us to make our final Judgment For as I said it is not possible that the Greeks can be in this Point agreed with the Latins without believing at the same time with them that the Accidents of Bread which remain subsist without being upheld by the Substance of Bread that the Body of Jesus Christ is substantially present in several places at one time that it exists in the Eucharist void of these natural dimensions and that the Body and Blood are equally found under both Species by vertue of the concomitancy c. These are the necessary dependances on Transubstantiation and the Greeks are so much the more obliged to explain themselves in as much as the Terms by which they are said to express their Belief touching this last particular are equivocal and capable of several sences for they ought at least to shew hereupon what is their meaning So that having not done it it is a Proof they are not agreed with the Church of Rome
are taken off the King's Table are always the remains of the King's Table while they last altho kept several years so it cannot be but that the remains of this Holy Mystery are the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ Let Mr. Arnaud tell us sincerely whether this be the Style of a man that believes Transubstantiation and whether he himself would call that which is reserved of the Sacrament the remains of the Body and Blood of Christ and compare the Sanctification which the Bread receives to the colour wherewith Wool is dyed Whether he would say that this Sanctification remains in the Mysteries and is indelible For 't is certain this gives us the Idea of Bread which so remaining yet receives an Impression of Grace and Holiness which resides in it as in its Subject and makes it to be the Body of Christ but no wise transubstantiated Bread If we were to understand by the vertue not an Impression of the Holy Spirit in the Bread but an Action that changed the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ it might then be said the effect which is produced by this Action or Conversion remains that is to say that 't is ever the Substance of the Body of Christ But it could not be said as Metrophanus does that the Action it self that is to say the Sanctification always remain'd because it would be conceived in this case as a momentary Action which ceases to be assoon as the Conversion is made Neither could it be moreover compared to the dye which Wool receives seeing Wool remains still Wool in respect of its Substance In fine if Metrophanus means no more but that the Mystery remains still what it has been made to wit the Body of Christ in Substance there can be no reason given why being able without doubt to explain himself easily and clearly he chose rather to use obscure and perplexed Terms which have an Ayr wholly contrary to his Mind and need a Commentary and Distinctions than to use clear and natural expressions for how many Commentaries need we to render intelligible that this indelible Sanctification which the Bread receives and is like to the dye which Wool takes signifies the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour I will finish this Chapter with another Proof taken from the Form of Abjuration which the Greeks make when they leave their Religion to embrace the Roman One of the Articles they are made to confess is this That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with his Soul and Divinity are really truly Apud Possevin Bibl. select lib. 6. and substantially in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that there is made a Conversion of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood which Conversion the Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation The Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HERE 's clearly expressed the substantial Conversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for thus do the Greeks speak when they become Latins and 't is thus they ought to speak that believe this Doctrine But why must the Greeks profess this when they change their Religion if they held the same Language before Is it usual when Proselytes are received to make them profess Doctrines common both to the Religion they forsake and that which they embrace Do the Greeks do so by the Latins that pass over to them and is not this a plain sign that their former Belief touching this Point was not that of the Church of Rome For 't is to be observ'd that this Formulary contains first the Symbol with the addition of the filioque which the Greeks do not receive Then it contains the Decrees of the Florentine Council which the Greeks reject and in fine the Articles determin'd in the Council of Trent and in respect of this last part 't is the same profession of Faith which them of our Communion make when they embrace that of Rome IT will be perhaps replied that amongst these Articles there are two to wit that of the Invocation of Saints and worshipping of Images which there is no necessity of making the Greeks confess seeing they practised them already in their Religion whence it does not follow that they believed not Transubstantiation altho found expressed in this Form of Confession for there ought to be the same Judgment made of this as of the other two Articles But if this Answer happens to be approved by Mr. Arnaud I will tell him 't is of no weight For as to the Invocation the Greeks will not practise it to the Saints of the Church of Rome which they do not acknowledge When I enter into a Church of the Latins say's Gregory the Confessor Hist Conc. Flâ—â— sect 4. cap. 31 Relig. Ruthen art 6. in the History of Syropulus I adore not the Image of any Saint because I know not any one of them that I see They blaspheme say's Sacranus speaking of the Russians against the Churches Saints who lived in the Communion and Obedience of the Roman Church In the Invocation of Saints say's the Error Mos ex Scarga art â— Jesuit Scarga they are guilty of several absurdities This Article then was not needless but on the contrary there was some kind of necessity to insert it in the formulary And as to that of Images we all know that the Greeks do abhor the Images of the Latins and therefore call their Worship in this respect Idolatry THE Greeks say's William Postel call the Western People that are subject De Repub. Turcor pag. 46. Voyages of the Sieur Bénard lib. cap. 24. to the Church of Rome grand Idolaters because we have Statues erected They have no other Images in their Churches say's the Sieur Benard than the Crucifix the Virgin Mary Saint John the Evangelist and Saint George which are Painted in Tables They teach say's the Jesuit Richard that carved Images are Idols and that 't is unlawful to worship any others than those which are painted POSSEVIN the Jesuit reckons likewise this amongst the rest of their Errours That they will not suffer a carved Image of our Saviour to be set up in their Churches And the Sieur de la Boulay le Goux asserts the same thing viz. that they suffer no other Images but those that are painted against the Walls their reason being that carved Images are forbid in Moses his Law which Nicholas de Nicolai confirms telling us They suffer no carved Images in their Churches only Table-Pieces IT was then moreover needful to insert in the profession of Faith this Article of Images But there can be nothing alledged like this touching that of Transubstantiation There could be no reason obliging the Popes to require an express Declaration from the Greek Proselytes unless that of this Doctrines being not taught in the Church they left and therefore they must change
Communion is imperfect in respect of the Institution of Christ who has ordain'd we should partake of both kinds and not in respect of the Body and Blood it self which we fully receive under one he thereupon explains himself clearly in the 68 Proposition This is an Ibid. Blasphem 6. impious Doctrine of the Papist say's he and of which Pope Eugenus has been the first Author that where the Body of Christ is there is likewise his Blood and for this reason it is not necessary that the Laity receive the Communion under both kinds So that here the pretended concomitancy is overthrown and consequently Transubstantiation inasmuch as one cannot subsist without the other This Author lived about the Year 1630. CHAP. XII The Twenty Sixth Proof taken from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople and what followed thereupon HAD Mr. Arnaud contented himself to the end he might get clear from the Confession of Faith of Cyrillus in saying this Patriarch studied John Calvin and was a great admirer of his Doctrine That his Confession of Faith contradicted several Articles of the Belief of the Greeks that 't was condemned by two Councils held since his death and that there is no reason the Doctrine of the whole Greek Church touching the Eucharist should be determined by his opinion had he I say only thus expressed himself we should not have complained against him but endeavoured to satisfie him in every one of these particulars But instead of containing himself within these bounds he has faln foul on the Person Lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 382 83. of Cyrillus himself whom he treats as a hireling charging him with receiving five hundred Crowns in Germany for subscribing to Articles against the Catholicks as a sacrilegious Person and Usurper who diverted the money he gathered in Candia under the name of his Patriarch Meletius to the purchasing the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the prejudice of another that was elected by common consent as an insatiable ambitious Wretch who not content with the Patriarchate of Alexandria would have that of Constantinople and which is yet worse as a Villain and Murtherer who having caused his Predecessor Timotheus to be poysoned got afterwards Janisaries to strangle him who assisted him in this detestable Action Tho I resolved not to be concerned at Mr. Arnaud's Passion which cannot but be displeasing to good People of either Communion yet I may tell him that seeing he publishes these Accusations against a Person that is dead he must be able to prove by good Testimony his charge to be true but having no better an Author than Allatius for this he cannot take it ill if I affirm his account of this Person to be meer Calumny and Forgery HE confesses he relates this whole Story chiefly upon the credit of Allatius who Ibid. pag. 383. made it his business to inform himself and being a Greek ought sooner to be believed than Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially than Hottinger who is one of the most passionate Ministers and least sincere Writers he ever read Let the Dutch or Switzers Ministers and especially Hottinger be what he pleases what signifies this to the Confirmation of the Truth of these Accusations and the sincerity of Allatius When the Ministers shall positively affirm any thing in favour of Cyrillus which they cannot prove then Mr. Arnaud may question their Testimony and term them passionate Persons not worthy of credit If Allatius relates the same thing otherwise than the Ministers he may say he is sooner to be believed than they and see what answer we will make him but for Allatius to charge Cyrillus with such hainous Crimes and to authorize his Impostures we must be told that Hottinger is no good Author and that Allatius is more worthy of credit this is mere mockery For to decide the Question whether what Allatius affirms be true or fabulous Hottinger and other Ministers are not concerned we are only to inquire whether Allatius cites any Witnesses or whether he himself is an Author worthy of credit Allatius say's Mr. Arnaud has taken special care to inform himself He must tell us then what his Informations contain and not affirm such important matters without good Grounds He was a Greek by Nation very true but a Greek that forsook his Religion to embrace the Roman Faith a Greek whom the Pope preferred to be his Library-Keeper a Person the most wedded of all men to the Interests of the Court of Rome a Person than whom none could be more malicious against those he took to be his Adversaries and especially against Cyrillus and those called Schismatical Greeks a man full of words but little sence His Religion and Office of Library-Keeper will not be called in question by those that ever heard of him His Zeal for the Interest of the Court of Rome appears in the very beginning of his Book De perpetua consensione for observe here how he expresses himself in the Pope's Favour The Roman Prelate say's he is independent he judges all the World and Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 1. cap. 2. is judged of none we must obey him altho he governs unjustly he gives Laws but receives none and changes them when he pleases he makes Magistrates determins Points of Faith and orders as seems good to him the greatest Affairs in the Church If he would err he cannot for he cannot be deceived himself neither can he deceive others and when an Angel should affirm the contrary being guarded as he is with the Authority of Christ he cannot change The sharpness wherewith he treats those against whom he writes such as Chytreus Creygton the Archbishop of Corfou and some others appears by the bare reading of his Writings every period honouring them with these kind of Titles Sots Vide Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 3. cap. 15 16 17 18. c. advers Châ—eygt passim Lyers Blockheads Hellish and impudent Persons and other such like Terms which are no Signs of a moderate Spirit To prove the Conformity of the Greek Church with the Roman in Essentials he takes for his Principle to acknowledge none for the true Church but that Party which has submitted to the Roman See and in respect of the other Greeks whom he calls Hereticks and Schismaticks he fiercely maintains that a good course is taken with 'em when they can be reduced by Fire and Sword That Hereticks must be exterminated Allat de Perpet Cons lib. 2. cap. 13. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 11. and punished and if obstinate put to death and burnt these are his Expressions and as to what concerns Cyrillus we need but read what he has written of him to be perswaded of his partiality and injustice Does Mr. Arnaud think he has done fairly to borrow the Weapons of such a man to defend himself against the aforemention'd Confession of Faith CYRILLUS had Adversaries whilst living and after his death but he has had likewise Defenders of
Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Sentiments nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks and forsake the Patriarchal Functions His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 't was his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge and of which he was to render an Account All which he did to the last breath He held not the truth in unrighteousness nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience He published his Confession and put it in the hands of all the Greeks and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs so that 't was only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud That he was a damnable Hypocrite and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest 'T IS the same Passion caus'd him to say That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion That the Spirit which animates us is rather a Spirit of Faction and a Cabal against the Catholick Church than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it Our Interests are in his hands and as we pray him to defend them so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us We appear extream odious in his sight but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments he will judge wholly otherwise In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles and of our Saviour himself who were accused say's Saint Chrysostom to be seditious Persons and Innovators that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment without forgetting our Duty is to bless them that curse us and pray for them that despitefully use us ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie were there occasion the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus without my interposing And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do so that 't is very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity when they found him at Constantinople But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion They helpt him to Books and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it who need be troubled thereat Strangers at Constantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Protestants believe to be of great Importance and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power and what is there unlawful in all this Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures or govern himself according to their Directions Had they said Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective Had they said they had in fine obliged him But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm seeing 't is the real truth As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm he knows we have no such power 'T is certain as I already mentioned his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ as I shall make appear hereafter but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs on the same Maxims on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged and the Ambassadors of England and Holland For not to go farther how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome which were wholly their Creatures sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thursday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem where their Sacrifice is abhorred and this Sentence read every Year in their Churches confounded be all they that In Triod offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice wherein Purgatory is rejected and 't is held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held carved Images condemned and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins How in Conscience can these said Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates elected and consecrated by Schismatical Metropolitains and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome and live in Communion with that of Jerusalem in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated What I say is grounded on matter of Fact which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny for should he do it he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu who expresly tells us That it has been ever thought fitting to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders when in Greece from the hands of Schismatical Bishops it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation to the end the Patriarchs may not
St. Andrews where they privately buried it MR. Arnaud will not fail to fay that Hottinger is a Minister and one of the most passionate and least sincere Writers he ever read But why must we rather believe Allatius than Hottinger The former of these has all the marks of a passionate man who is ever upon disguishing things whereas this last on the contrary let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases has all the Characters of a faithful Writer relating things according to the best of his Knowledge The former of these is I confess more polite but th' other has more simplicity Allatius relates from his own head what he pleases Hottinger alledges his Witnesses and what likelihood is there Mr. Leger and Conopius whose Letter in its Original I have by me invented these Stories thus circumstanced as we find them if it were moreover true that the Greek Church respected Cyrillus as a Heretick and did her utmost endeavours to deliver her self from him It was on the contrary the Latins and their Disciples who so strenuously endeavoured to get rid of a Person whom they could neither gain by Promises nor Threatnings and that hindred them in their great Design of a Re-union It was in reference to them that Cyrillus added at the end of his Confession We plainly foresee this short Confession will be as a mark of contradiction to them who are pleased to calumniate and persecute us His Presentiment was not vain AND thus much touching Mr. Arnaud's first Objection As to the second which asserts the principal Articles of his Confession are contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks I confess there are some of 'em wherein the Doctrine of the Gospel is more plainly asserted than in other Greek Books as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Articles for instance which treat of our Justification by Faith in Christ of Free Will and Divine Grace but 't is certain they do not in the main contradict the Doctrine of the Greek Church and may be easily reconciled with the Answers of Jeremias to the Divines of Wittemberg The Fifteenth Article acknowledges but two Sacraments and Jeremias say's Mr. Arnaud openly professes to hold seven But I say the Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 387 Confes cap. 9. Greeks have no rule in this matter Metrophanus acknowledges three of Divine Institution to wit Baptism the Eucharist and Penance and as to the other four he affirms They are called Mysteries improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremias acknowledges seven 't is true but he reckons properly but two to be of Divine Institution namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper and as to the five others he seems to acknowledge the Church has added them to the number of Sacraments Wherefore will Mr. Arnaud needs have Cyrillus who only speaks of the true Sacraments instituted by our Saviour and not of humane Ceremonies which are improperly called Mysteries because they have something that is mysterious in them as speaks Metrophanus to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Greeks Why seeing he opposes Jeremias to Cyrillus does he not sincerely relate the Sentiment of Jeremias Arcudius has dealt better in this respect than he for he acknowledges That Jeremias does Arcud lib. 2. cap. 2. not only teach that the Cream is a Sacrament of Tradition but that he passes the same Judgment on all the rest Baptism and the Lord's Supper excepted contrary to what he had asserted in the Seventh Chapter of his first Answer AS to the Eighteenth Article in which Cyrillus asserts That the Souls of the deceased are carried immediately into a State of Bliss or Misery Mr. Arnaud Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 6 pag. 388. say's he therein contradicts the general Opinion of the Greeks touching the State of Souls after death Hornbeck and Chytreus say's he And all that ever treated on the Opinions of the Greeks affirm they admit besides Paradise and Hell a certain dark and doleful place in which the Souls are purged after this life I answer the Greeks are not determinately positive touching the State of the Soul after death As to the Souls of the Faithful there are some who hold they will not enjoy the Beatifick Vision till after the last Judgment and in the mean time are in pleasant and delightful places places exempt from all kind of sorrows or else in dark and dismal shades where they continually ruminate on the sins they have committed and these hold there are three different ranks of deceased Persons namely the Unfaithful or Wicked the Faithful that dye in a State of Repentance and perfect Holyness and others who notwithstanding their Faith and true Piety yet have committed several sins for which they have not so truely repented as they ought Hell is designed for the first of these The second say they go into places of rest and refreshment and the last into those doleful places where they feel the want of God's favour and illumination BUT we must not imagine this to be the sense of the whole Greek Church for there are not a few that hold there are only two conditions of men after death namely that of the virtuous and wicked and two places to wit Heaven and Hell Syropulus relates in his History of the Council of Florence that the Greeks being urged by the Latins to express themselves Hist Concil Flor. Sect. 5. cap. 16. plainly touching the State of departed Souls Bessarion declared That the Souls of the Saints receive the Bliss prepared for them and those of sinners their punishments and that it only remains that each of these reassume their Bodies after which the Souls of the Just shall enter into a full enjoyment of Happiness with their Bodies and that sinners likewise with their Bodies c. shall suffer everlasting punishments We see here but two States after death We find in Allatius a passage of the Greeks which likewise asserts but two places We must know say's it that the Souls of the Just remain in certain places and Allat de lib. Eccl. disp 2. those of sinners in like manner separate from them Those rejoyce upon the account of the hope of Bliss These lament in expectation of their torments There is moreover a passage of Joseph Briennius which asserts That there are two Ibid. places designed for the entertainment of deceased Souls Heaven for the Saints and the Center of the Earth or Hell for sinners That the Saints are at liberty that they have all the World and especially the Garden of Eden for their abode That those who are condemned to Hell will not come out from their abode till the day of Judgment and that they cannot receive the least beam of light or relaxation For adds he the Saints will not enjoy eternal happiness nor sinners suffer their everlasting torments before the last Judgement But these last shall be shut up in the mean time in dark Prisons under the custody of cruel Devils Sigismond speaking of the Moscovits say's They believe not there is
do not differ from the Latins in the Subject of Transubstantiation I confess he has not made a Proof thereof as knowing the Matter would not bear it yet has wrote an express Chapter about it and produces them with a great deal of Art and Pomp hoping by this means to make some Impression on the Mind of his Readers and prepossess them with this Imagination that I alone amongst all the Protestants deny the Greeks believe Transubstantiation THE first he produces is Crusius Professor in the University of Tubinga who says that the Greeks believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood but this is not Transubstantiation there being a vast Difference betwixt this and that Crusius relates the Terms which they use and this is not Contested the Question is whether by these Terms they mean a real Conversion of Substances Which is what we deny HE offers us likewise something out of Grotius against Rivet and sets again before us the Testimony of Forbesius Bishop of Edinburg But we all know these two Persons altho otherwise learned enough especially Grotius suffered themselves to be carryed away by Prejudices and whimsical Projects in relation to the Differences between the two Churches which they pretended to Reconcile and Accomodate and thereupon wrote several things which they did not throughly Examine Moreover Grotius in those Passages alledged by Mr. Arnaud speaks not of Transubstantiation in particular and Forbesius only says that 't was received by most of the Greeks by most Here 's a Restriction Mr. Arnaud says that Forbesius does not prove it But whether he proves it or not we do not much matter for 't is not by such a man and his Writings that we are willing to regulate our Sentiments It lyes upon Mr. Arnaud who cites him to see whether the Testimony of such a man be sufficient He adds he alledges him neither as a Catholick nor Protestant but as a learned Man well skilled in all the Religions of Europe and as a great Traveller that he quotes him as St. Augustin quoted Tichonius to confirm an important Matter of Fact acknowledged by this Donatist who was more sincere than his Fellows BUT how comes he to forget so soon the Qualification which the Author of the Perpetuity gave him in citing him Forbesius says he one of the most learned amongst the English Protestants What account does he think we will make of a Person whom he can neither alledg as a Protestant nor Catholick and yet lived in the midst of the Protestants he alledges him says he as a learned Man I grant he may be so But was this learned Man a Jew Turk or Moor whilst Bishop of Edinburg St. Augustin never alledged Tichonius as a Person of this kind that was neither Catholick nor Donatist but as a real Donatist altho Tichonius sincerely acknowledged a Truth which the rest denyed accordingly as we alledg often the Doctors of the Roman Church which acknowledg those things others deny altho we do not thence infer they are not of that Religion they Profess FELAVIUS adds Mr. Arnaud derides the Insolence of Hottinger who Pag. 131. pretends to make advantage of Cyrillus his Confession and shews it does in no wise contain the Faith of the Eastern Churches Felavius does not speak of Hottinger's Infolence but on the contrary calls him Virum doctissimum Clarissimum Hottingerum He grants not indeed with Hottinger that Cyrillus his Confession Praefat. ad Christoph Angel contains the Doctrine of the Greek Church and shews his Reasons but inveighs not against Hottinger thereupon nor particularly mentions Transubstantiation OF all those that Mr. Arnaud alledges there are only Sands and Dannhaverus Professor of Strasbourg who attribute this Doctrine to the Greeks and Sands adds a term of Restriction saying that in the main they do in a manner agree with the Church of Rome in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation c. But for two Authors who perhaps wrote this without much Reflection how many others can we produce who stick not to deny there 's any Conformity in this Article between the Greeks and Latins For not to mention here Kemnitius Boxornius Hospinian and Episcopius whom Mr. Arnaud grants to be of this number we may here name the famous Bishop Morton the Author of a Book intituled Catholick Tradition or a Treatise touching the Belief of the Christians of Asia Europe and Affrica The Learned Saddeel for whom Henry the IV. had such great Esteem and Kindness Mr. Mestrezat Monsieur Ulric Minister of Zurich Mr. Hottinger Professor in the same City Mr. Robert Chreygton an English Doctor who published the History of Syropulus and several others which I mention not because 't is not necessary to make an exact enumeration of them It is sufficient that Mr. Arnaud knows I mean the general Opinion of the most Learned Protestants in this particular IF some amongst them as Chytreus Breerwood and Hornbeck for Instance who discourse of the Religion of the Greeks say nothing concerning the Article of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud must not think to draw Advantage from their Silence The reason of their Silence is that they set not themselves to the describing any other Points but those that have bin expresly Controverted between the Greek and Latin Church that is to say such Points as have bin openly and solemnly Debated on both sides such as the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost that of the Azymes that of Purgatory and some others All that then can be gathered from this Silence is that the Greeks never openly quarrelled with the Latins about Transubstantiation nor the Latins with the Greeks and that both one and the other contented themselves in keeping their own Sentiments and particular manner of Expressions without condemning one another But as it does not hence follow that the Greeks received the Doctrine of the Latins so we must not take the Silence of Chytreus Breerwood nor Hornbeck for an Acknowledgment or tacit Confession that there is no difference in this Point between the two Churches Which is what I already answered to the Author of the Perpetuity who would have prevail'd by the Silence of Breerwood in relation to the other Schismatical Communions For I told him that this Author does only transiently observe Answer to the Perp P 3 C. 8. the most common different Religions contenting himself to say what People Imbrace or what they positively and expresly Reject without proceeding to mention things which they believe not by way of Negation as not having heard of them That is to say as neither finding them in the Articles proposed to 'em to Believe nor in those which they were made expresly to Renounce as I have already explain'd Mr. Arnaud sets himself against this Answer and say's I Lib. 2. C. 4. p. 133. shew by this that provided I say any thing 't is enough for I trouble not my self whether it be Rational or not
But if he Believes my Discourse to be Irrational it lyes upon him to show the Absurdity of it without Misrepresenting my Sence and beating the Air as he does There is certainly no Discourse more reasonable than that against which an Adversary is forced to betake himself to Illusions and Wranglings about Terms for this is a sign he cannot attack it fairly with downright Blows AS to Mr. Aubertin of whom Mr. Arnaud say's he has temper'd himself and that altho he be otherwise one of the Confidentest Men in the World in asserting Ibid. p. 137. Untruths yet it appears he finds himself gravelled in the Subject of the Greeks and therefore falls to searching Means to escape I answer Mr. Arnaud himself is one of the boldest Men in the World at accusing Persons and yet proves his Accusations the worst of any man as appears in this whole Controversie so that what he says touching Mr. Aubertin's Falsities being grounded only on his own Word signifies nothing in respect of the Greeks 't is true that Mr. Aubertin has not throughly handled the Question of their Belief because his Design did not oblige him to do it for intending only to shew the Innovation which has bin made in the Church of Rome in the Subject of the Eucharist he has sufficiently done it without needless Enlargings on the Greeks He says something of them by the way he explain'd some Passages out of Anastasius Sinaite Germane Patriarch of Constantinople Damascen the second Council of Nice Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Jeremias and some others 'T is true he conjectured that the Error of the Western people has communicated it self to several of those of the East towards the end of the twelveth Century there having bin a more free Commerce between them after the Conquest of the Holy Land Yet has he sufficiently shew'd that altho the Expressions of the modern Greeks appeared to him Obscure Excessive and Different from those of the Ancients yet did he not believe they embraced the Transubstantiation of the Latins and 't is upon this ground that speaking of Cyrillus he say's that he returned to the ancient Faith and spake better of this Mystery than others This shews us he observed there was more Confusion and Ambiguity in the others and more Plainness and Distinctness in the Patriarch Cyrillus but not that he believed the Greek Church received the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion nor that she held the Substance of Bread ceases for he expresly maintains the contrary ALL the rest of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse consisting only of Heats and Invectives against me and my Cause receiving no Prejudice thereby I freely make thereof a Sacrifice to piety and Christian Meekness CHAP. V. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments drawn from the Silence of the Greeks and Latins on the Article of Transubstantiation Examined ALTHO the third order of Proofs which Mr. Arnaud has made use of consists to speak properly only in one single Argument yet this Argument takes up as much room as all the rest of the Dispute Mr. Arnaud has so great love for this Proof that he is never weary with offering it us He concludes all his Histories with it he makes it the matter of most of his Chapters and the perpetual Subject of his Reflections If he explains to us the Sentiments of Theophylact Euthymius Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis he forgets not to observe they did not Believe that the Greeks had any other Faith than the Latins touching the Eucharist seeing they made no mention of it If he relates to us the Conquests which the Latins made in the East during the twelv'th Century he fails not to conclude thence that the Greeks and they not reproaching one another on this Subject 't is a Sign they were agreed in it If he reckons up to us other Greeks who wrote against the Roman Church or Latins that wrote against the Greeks 't is only to draw this Consequence thence that there having never bin any Controversie touching Transubstantiation 't is a Sign these two Churches were agreed in that point If he has Occasion to mention the taking of Constantinople and the Establishment of the Latins in the Greek Empire one of the Uses he makes thereof is besure to let 's know that seeing there was no publick Dispute on the Article of the Substantial Conversion they all equally Believed it 'T is for this purpose he relates the Treaties of Agreement Formularies of Reunions and what passed in the Council of Lyons and Florence In fine this is his dearly beloved Argument which he Repeats a hundred times over without any Alteration but that of the Terms and Circumstances he represents it withal IT must be acknowledged Mr. Arnaud has some reason to please himself in this Proof and to bring it in again so often as he does for this is the most specious and best coloured Pretence in the whole Dispute altho at bottom there will be found no Solidity in it Which I shall demonstrate in this Chapter in which I hope to shew clearly the Nullity of his Consequence drawn from the Silence of the Greeks For this effect I shall make use of two sorts of Means the one shall shew that there is not only a great deal of Weakness but Falsity in his Argument the rest discover wherein this Weakness and Falsity do consist the one shall be more General and less Direct the others Particular and Direct I. FIRST it may here seem strange that Mr. Arnaud who so strictly urges the Silence of the Greeks and Latins does not remember what the Author of the Perpetuity answered to my Proof drawn from the Silence of the Pagans who upbraided not the Primitive Christians with Transubstantiation and the Consequence I drew from the Silence of the Fathers who mention not a word of the many Miracles which Transubstantiation Includes in it Who knows not says he in general how weak these kind of Probabilities are and that Perp. of the Faith Refut 1. part p. 121 122 123. there are abundance of things which might be said by the Pagans or Fathers which never came to our Knowledg And a little farther Books contain the least part of Mens Thoughts and Discourses 'T is Chance or some particular Accident which determines them to conserve to Posterity some one of their Thoughts suffering abundance of others to be lost which were more common to them and many times more important Perhaps says he the Pagans never discoursed of the Eucharist and perhaps again they did How comes it to pass that in so short a time the negative Argument which was in my Hands but a weak Probability becomes in those of Mr. Arnaud a puissant Demonstration The things which were said by the Greeks or Latins during three or four hundred Years are no more come to our Knowledg than the Discourses of the Pagans or those of the Fathers and the Books which have bin written touching these two Churches the Latin and the Greek contain
avoid the Dangers that threaten us but on the contrary we shall be the better approved of by those that understand the nature of Affairs And again You must not affright the People by telling 'em we design to proceed any farther in this Reconciliation than we ought and as if we intended to change our ancient Customs and Ceremonies for those of the Latins and make the same Confession of Faith as they do Which Discourse does manifestly shew us three things First that there is a great deal of Difference between being silent in the Doctrine of the Latins not Disputing and Charging them with Error nay proceeding so far as a Union with them and the Imbracing of their Doctrines let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases For Michael desires but the first of these and protests he intends not thereby to proceed to the other The second thing that appears from the Discourse of this Emperor is that the Principle on which I ground my Answer and by which I pretend to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument is not a Proposition forged in my own Brain from the necessity of my Dispute but a Principle not only well known by the Greeks but approved and practised in an Occasion far more important than that now in question betwixt us For 't is far less important to lay aside one of the Doctrines of a Church and not Dispute on it than to be united with her and yet 't is certain the Greek Church consented to this Reunion in hope she should keep her Religion Intire and not receive any of the Doctrines of the Latins In fine I gather from Michael's Discourse and the Effect it had on the Minds of his Clergy that the only care the Greeks took was to keep their own Religion being willing to be silent and Imbrace the Union provided they were not forced to Imbrace the Religion of the Latins If it be replied that this was indeed the Disposition of Michael Paleologus but not that of his Church I answer that Michael engaged 'em to consent to the Reunion upon this Regard that each of the Churches should keep its own Opinions and not contend and charge one another with Error Now People are not wont to be prevailed on by Principles which they do not acknowledg to be good and therefore plausible Pretences and fair Colours are made use to win them Whence it follows that the Greeks were far from imagining 't was the same thing not to dispute against the Latins on an Article and to receive and own it with them Whence it likewise follows that if this Reason or Hope which Michael proposed to them was sufficient to make them do a thing in which they feared he would deceive them as indeed he did a matter which was contrary to their Duty and Conscience and against which they had moreover the greatest Aversion it might likewise be sufficient to withhold and hinder them from doing another thing to which they did not believe they were obliged and from which they might refrain without the least Violence to their Inclinations THIS Reflection will be strengthened by considering after what sort Veccus the Patriarch justified himself when he became a great stickler in the Union which he endeavoured to promote as much as in him lay I never Hottinger ex Allat in Orth. Grec Pag. 65. design'd say's he by any thing I either thought said or did to disparage any of the Ceremonies or Doctrines of the Greeks but only to establish the Peace of the Church If any Person in imbracing this Peace has despised our Rites and Ceremonies and preferred the Doctrines and Ceremonies of the Roman Church before them let him be excluded the Kingdom of Heaven and have his Portion with the Traytor Judas and his Companions who Cracified our Saviour We see here this Patriarch supposes a great deal of Difference between the not Condemning the Latins and letting them alone with their Doctrines Nay so far is he from granting Mr. Arnaud's Consequence that he makes this a Principle whereby to justify himself to the Greeks which is a Sign that this Proposition agreed with the Genius of that Nation For People are not wont to justify themselves by Maxims odious and publickly abhorred if Michael Paleologus Veccus or the Greeks in general have displeased Mr. Arnaud by this their Deportment they are excusable For in those Days the World was not acquainted with the Secrets of his Reasoning The Rules of his Logick were not then published They may henceforward become a Rule to Posterity but he must not expect they should be more priviledged than the Edicts of Princes which have no retroactive Virtue V. TO convince Mr. Arnaud that the Greeks are averse to Controversies I need only represent to him what Anthony Eparkus of Corcyra wrote to Philip Melancthon For having told him how careful the Turks are to establish their Religion every where and to extend the Limits of their Empire It Turco Grec 1 8. Pag. 545. would be very absur'd adds he for us to Dispute of sublime Matters in the Condition we are in It behoves us to watch and apply our selves diligently to the avoiding the Danger threatning us lest we lose our Possessions here on Earth whilst we idly and over curiously inquire into the things of Heaven 'T is certain the Greeks do not care to concern themselves overmuch about the things of the next Life Their Thoughts being wholly taken up with their worldly Interest this being the Key that opens and shuts their Mouths POSSEVIN the Jesuit distinguishes the Greeks into three Ranks the first of People who are very Ignorant The second of those that having some Biblioth selert de rat ag cum Grec lib. 5. cap. 24. Experience and beholding on one hand the Majesty of the Roman Church and on the other the Misery of the Greek one the Pomp of the Sacrament of the Latins and the Neglect wherewith the Greeks treat theirs conclude that the Roman Church is better beloved by God almighty than the Greek one The third is of those who having some knowledg of the World are yet transported by an habitual Hatred against the Latins altho their Bishops and most prudent Persons amongst them are of another Temper and not knowing for the most part what they say or would have they Compare the Greek and Roman Church together their Ceremonies with ours and prefer their Priests to our Latin Priests supposing them not so vicious as ours Yet they dare not affirm we are in an Error or that what we believe or practise touching the Sacrament is unwarrantable But they affirm as to themselves that they are in the right Way and do not doubt of Salvation in their own Religion Observe these two things first that the Greek Bishops and prudentest Persons in their Church are averse to Controversies And secondly that those that are not content themselves with maintaining their own Doctrines without condemning those of the Latins VI. BUT it will be
demanded why then did they Dispute on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes I answer because these two Points first occasioned the Separation of the two Churches Photius adhered especially to the first of these and Cerularius to the latter The reason why the Greeks have so earnestly stuck to these two Particulars seems to be out of a Principle of Constancy They have followed the first and original Causes of their Quarrel with the Latins treading in the Steps of their Predecessors Had they found the Article of the substantial Conversion in their way they had without doubt stumbled at it but not meeting with it 't is no marvel if they took no notice thereof no more than of other Doctrines But why was not this point at first comprehended amongst those that caused the Separation of the two Churches The Answer is easy because Transubstantiation was not then established in the Roman Church Photius began the Separation towards the end of the ninth Century Cerularius renewed it about the middle of the eleventh and the first that determin'd the substantial Conversion was Gregory the VII in the Year 1079 so that 't is no marvel if they disputed not about it VII NEITHER do I understand the Greeks could have just Cause to dispute this Point against the Body of the Latin Church in general before the Council of Constance that is to say before the fifteenth Century For altho Gregory the VII made his Determination in the Year 1079 as I already said and Innocent the III had done the same in the Council of Latran in the Year 1215 yet there were several People that did not esteem these kind of Decisions as legitimate and authentick Declarations of the Church Every body knows that Rupert who lived in the twelveth Century publickly Rupert in Joan lib. 6. in Exod. l. 2. c. 10. taught that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist and becomes the Body of Christ by an hypostatical Union with the Word Anselm wrote against him and Algerus disputed against his Opinion but he was never Condemned for an Heretick We know likewise what Durand of St. Porcien taught who lived in the beginning of the fourteenth Century to wit that the Substance of Bread remains and that losing its first form of Bread it receives the form of the Body of Christ in the same manner the Food we take receives the form of our Body * Bell. de Sacr. Euch. l. 3 c. 13. Thom. Waldens tom 2. de Sacr. cap. 65. cod Ms. qui asservatur in Biblioth S. Victor Paris cuititul Determinatio fratris Joan. de Pariscis praedieatoris de modo existendi corporis Christi in Sacr. Altare c. Intendo dicere vâ—ram existentiam realem corporis Christs in Sacramento Altaris quod non est ibi solum in signo licet teneam approbem illâ—rum solemnem opinionem quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substanciae panis in ipsum quod ipsi maneant accidentia sine subjecto non tamen audeo dicere quod boc cadet sub fide mea sed potest aliter salvari vera realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per Sacrum canonem aut per Ecclesiam aut per Concilium generale aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto statim paratus sum revocare quod si non fit determinatus contingat tamen determinari statim paratus sum assentire In 4. Sent. Quaest 6. Art 4. Bellarmin acknowledges that this Opinion may be called a Transformation but not a Transubstantiation Yet was not Durand Prosecuted nor Condemned as an Heretick nor his Doctrine Censured We moreover know what was taught by John of Paris of the Order of Fryar Preachers and Divinity Professor at Paris who lived towards the end of the thirteenth Century That altho he approved of the common Opinion touching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ yet he durst not affirm this to be an Article of Faith necessarily to be believed as determin'd by the Church and that there was another more popular Opinion and perhaps more rational and conformable to the true Doctrine of the Sacrament namely the Assumption of the Substance of Bread by the person of the Word We know in fine what Peter Dailly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray wrote who lived about the beginning of the fifteenth Century namely that it does not follow in his Opinion from the Churches Determination that the Substance of Bread ceases BUT to the end it may not be said these are the Opinions of particular Titulus Judicium facultatis Theologiae in presentia Collegij magisirâ—rum in Theologia dictum est utrumque â—â—cdum ponendi corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro opinione prohabilâ— approbat utrumque per hic est lacuna per dicta Sanctorum dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesian idco nullum cadere sub fide Et si aliter dixisset minus benc dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus benc dicunt qui determinate asseveret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canâ—nis Anathcmatis Persons who might be mistaken I will here produce the Judgment of the Divines at Paris in the beginning of the fourteenth Century that is to say about the Year 1304 touching John of Paris and concerning the Assumption of the Substance of Bread as is contained in a Manuscript of the Library of St. Victor in these Words The Opinion of the Faculty in Theology in the Presence of the Masters of the Colledg touching both the Ways whereby the Body of Christ may be said to exist on the Altar to wit that of the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and that of the Assumption of this Substance by the Word both which Opinions it holds and approves by and by the Testimonies of the Fathers Yet it says that neither of these two ways has been determined by the Church and therefore never a one of them is an Article of Faith and if it said otherwise it would not have said so well and those that express themselves otherwise say not so well and he that positively asserts that either one or the other of these Modes is an Article of Faith incurs the Sentence of an Anathema I denote in the Margin the proper terms of the Manuscript according as they lye under this Title Judicium Facultatis Theologiae JOHN of Paris met with Opposition from William of Orillac Bishop of Paris and several other Bishops Yet did they not condemn his Sentiment nor contradict what the Faculty of Theology said but silenced him and forbad him the Chair Whereat he made his Appeal to Rome where he came himself and had a Committy appointed to hear
Supremacy c Neither the Greeks nor the Latins say's Mr. Arnaud supposed there were any other Differences between them in Points of Faith than that touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost Yet did they not agree in their Opinions about Purgatory nor the Pope's Supremacy and yet according to Mr. Arnaud the Latins of those times reckoned not these Doctrines amongst the Articles of their Faith Sure I am there are People of his own Communion who will not justify him in this Assertion 'T IS the same in reference to the Council of Lateran He is willing to make use of it because he finds it amongst his Collections but it will be a hard matter for him to shew what past therein touching the Greeks for all that he can know of it is contained in the Letters of George Bishop of Corcyra to the Abbot Nectairus and from the Abbot's Letters again to George Baron ad ann 1179. mentioned by Baronius and which relate not a Word to the purpose TO refute what he tells us concerning the Council of Constantinople under Emanuel Comnenus I need only mention what he himself relates That the Latins require no more of the Greeks than that they should mention the Lib. 2. c. 11. p. 210. Pope's Name in their publick Offices acknowledg his Supremacy and right of Appeals Which is as much as to say that all the rest signified nothing provided the Pope be satisfied AT Nice were only examined the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Azymes other Differences were laid aside And as to what passed under Michael Paleologus touching the Reunion of the two Churches Mr. Arnaud forgets to put us in mind of that Violence Deceit and Tyranny which that Emperor used to accomplish his Design as we already observed which was mannaged by Cruelty Imprisonments Punishments and Banishments and which drew on Michael such a deadly Hatred from the Greeks that they refused him Burial after his Death an Affair wherein after all he cheated the Greeks in making them believe that each Church should keep its Doctrines and Ceremonies and that it signified nothing to amuse the Pope with granting him his Supremacy right of Appeals and commemoration of him in their Liturgy AS to what concern'd the Council of Florence the Author of the Perpetuity having already made use of it I believ'd 't was sufficient to answer him that whatsoever passed in it was a meere politick Intrigue as well in respect of the Latins as the Greeks that Pope Eugenius and his Court acted therein with Violence and the Greek Emperor mannaged his Business after a very timerous and interessed manner and the Greek Bishops bewrayed Answ to the 2d Treatise 2. p. c. 8. a most pittiful Ignorance and Weakness several of 'em being won by the Latins the rest signing the Act of Reunion without any Consultation held first together whence I conclude there must not be advantage taken hence as if the Greeks and Latins were agreed in the Point of the substantial Conversion under pretence it was not debated in that Council and that the rather because the Greeks upon their return into their own Country openly renounced this pretended Reunion BE my Answers never so reasonable yet do they not relish well with Mr. Arnaud wherefore it must not be expected he was satisfied with this Much less inquire whether 't was with or without a Preface that he offered his new Objections For 't would be a kind of Miracle if he who reproaches me with my Prefaces should so much as once enter upon Examination of a thing without preparing the Readers by long Discourses Mr. Claude say's he here Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 333. who can speak when he pleases Court Language in his Books of Divinity pleasantly reproaches in the Preface of his Book the Author of the Perpetuity that he decides Questions like a Soldier I examine not at present whether he had Reason for his application of this Expression I reserve this for the Discourse wherein I design to treat of his personal Differences with this Author But seeing he has introduced this term in a serious Dispute I think I may borrow it of him whereby to express after what sort he gets clear of some considerable Difficulties and touching which we may say with great reason that never Man fought his way thro them more Soldier like than he did And a little further I cannot produce a better Instance of Mr. Claude's Soldier like Humour than the manner in which he treats of whatsoever passed in the Council of Florence IT sufficiently appears Mr. Arnaud design'd to censure the use I made of the Term of Soldier-like and the Author of the Perpetuity likewise Criticiz'd on another of my Expressions viz. Fly in a mans Face But if I may speak my Thoughts of these Censures It seems to me these kind of dealings become not Persons that profess a more profound Literature and consequently should mind things more than Words not to say these Remarks are far Remote from the Subject we handle and contribute little to the clearing up of our Question Moreover what have we to do with the Court and its Language in our Dispute I pretend not to speak the Language of the Court my Condition and Profession keeps me at such a Distance from it that I know not what Language is spoke there I do not question but they express themselves politely and rationally but passing my Life as I do out of the Palaces of great Personages and far from the Honour of their Commerce their ways of Expressing themselves are unknown to me I am not perhaps sufficiently in Love with the Age I live in to leave my common Expressions to accommodate my self to that of the Court. In short I pretend not to speak so neatly as to suppose my Style is without Fault I leave to others the Clory of becoming Masters of Language to discredit received Expressions and introduce new ones whether justly or not I refer my self to others to judg that understand them In the mean time methinks Mr. Arnaud should not so greatly find fault with this Term of Soldier-like considering the use I made of it I believed said I I ought much less to make use of this new Method which that Author has found out whereby to refute Mr. Aubertin ' s Book and in effect this is to do like Alexander who cut the knot he could not untye and to Dispute Soldier like This Term thus used in a Preface seemed supportable Yet I am sorry it has offended Mr. Arnaud if it be because we made his Friend a common Soldier let him consider likewise we represented him also as an Alexander BUT howsoever let 's see whether my Answer concerning the Council of Florence is so Soldier like as he pretends Policy say's he has its Bounds it has not a part in every Affair nor effects all things Who doubts it All that I attribute to the Effects of that Policy which
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
own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular But to go on with our Proofs THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin That he received them in the name of the Roman Church That the Pope thereupon congratulated them and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha We have receiv'd says Pope John great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine which remain the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death and of the Blood and Water which gushed out from his side 'T is evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles because the Armenians held neither of them and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit the two Natures of our Saviour Christ Purgatory Confirmation and several others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water The thing declares it self MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs makes one of this The Pope says he so little distrusted the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation that altho he proposes it to them expresly yet he Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469. does it only occasionally and by way of principle to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation he would without doubt have set about proving it and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him 't is not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he ipsos instruxit says he ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore et sanguine commutaretur et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion a truth attested by an Historian that faithfully relates the matter without the least regard to our dispute Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup What Relation is there between these two things it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine These are two distinct points which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual dependence and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less beseeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner The Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated therefore you must put Water into the Chalice Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion this would be Ridiculous but a Doctrine and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar and thus Raynaldus understood it who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imagins but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significations of this mixture which required some Discourse and which Raynaldus has well observed whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter Transubstantiation the Mixture of Water and the mystical significations Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis vini integris speciebus cum Christi corpore sanguine commutaretur vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit that is to say he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the mixture of Water and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians not at Rome as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me but at Avignon where he kept his seat and whence his Bull is dated The 67 Article Raynauld ad Ann. 1341. is exprest in these Terms The Armenians do not say that after the words
Eucharist which contained That after Consecration it was the same Numerical Body of Jesus Christ which was born of a Virgin and suffered on the Cross He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected sixteen of them amongst which was that of the Eucharist and in the Answers he made to the Popes instructions he would never admit of Transubstantiation but barely says he believed and held that the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven after the words of the Consecration of the Bread which are this is my Body is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and resemblance of Bread sub specie similitudine panis Now 't is on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himself concealing all the rest of this History and producing only these last words and drawing from them his Conclusion after his usual Manner in these terms I see no Lib. 5 C. 9. pag. 488. reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch considering this his declaration that is to say it plainly appeared hence that he believed Transubstantiation and the Substantial presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Consequences For I. he ought not to have dissembled that in all this affair the question is not whether the Armenians held or did not hold the things contain'd in the information of Benedict but whether they sincerely renounced them and whether the act of their renunciation sent to the Pope was feigned or real II. He ought not to have dissembled likewise that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this respect but a mere cheat invented only to remedy the disorders of their State and procure assistance from the Western Princes That the Pope laid hold on this Occasion to make them receive the Roman Religion and they on their side endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they desired in eluding his pursuits Which is justified by the Letter sent by Clement himself to the Catholick of Armenia Moreover says he we have bin several times informed by divers Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17. Persons worthy of credit and even by Armenians that you and your Predecessors the Catholicks of Armenia and the Armenians under your jurisdiction do not in any manner observe what you promised us and our Predecessors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith And that which is yet worse and more deplorable is that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholesome Instructions of our Apostolical Legats sent you in regard to your Souls but have after a Damnable manner despised the Faith of the Roman Church out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation The same thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia in which having exhorted him earnestly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine sincerely and purely Raynald ibid. Numb 18. without duplicity of heart to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the Latin Church he adds that by this means the mouths of several Catholicks and Armenians too will be stopt who stick not to affirm That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulness and simplicity but with dissimulation and that which is yet worse and more deplorable they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into derision and contempt the saving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia who would save himself by ambiguous Answers rejected the Article of the Eucharist which contain'd that it was the same Numerical Body which Raynald ibid. Numb 15. was Born of the Virgin and crucified and that he neither would admit of the Article of Transubstantiation because both one and the other so manifestly contradicted his faith and left no room for his Equivocations In fine he ought not to have concluded so briskly as he has done from the terms of his Answer that after this declaration there could be no Reason to doubt whether this Patriarch had the same faith as the Church of Rome For notwithstanding this declaration Clement VI. still doubted of it as also the Cardinals Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors with whom the Pope consulted about it Observe here the Contents of Raynaldus ibid. Numb 2. Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia We have kindly receiv'd your answers and those of the Church of Armenia minor reduced to certain heads and having deliberately considered them together with my Reverend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church some Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Prelates we could not nor cannot now gather from these answers till such time as you give us a more clear Discovery what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and sincerely hold and believe He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article and desired plain and direct answers In effect he proposes 'em to him and coming to the Article of the Eucharist having set down the first answer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited he adds upon this we demand ibid. Numcr 11. first of all whether you believe the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ Then coming to speak of a certain Letter which the Patriarch wrote wherein he rejected sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were offered him and amongst the sixteen this Quod Corpus Christi post ibid. Num. 15. verba Consecrationis sit idem numero quod Corpus natum de virgine immolatum in cruce he says to him the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Bishop and Bishops are confused and obscure as also the particular answers you returned by Writing Therefore we desire to know of you plainly and truely whether you have rejected these sixteen Articles because you do not believe 'em to be true and sound or for what other reason you have retrenched them from the rest But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Cardinals Prelates and Doctors and better instructed in the intentions of the Armenian Patriarch than all the People then in the World comes and confidently tells us that he sees no reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch and thinks Mr. Claude himself will acknowledge as much And suppressing all these matters of fact related by the very Historian he makes use of he proclaims his Victories and confidently affirms the Armenians have ever believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion for having related the whole story of what passed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information he adds That we may thence plainly see into how many filthy Errors thy
distinction it must be attended by these following observations 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity have more or less force according as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural and is confirmed moreover by experience it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 't is only a consequence of congruity which has not an absolute necessity We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger and which cannot be confuted by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences how natural soever they may appear to be or oppose against them a contrary experience or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them 3. That the Argument becomes very strong when 't is drawn from a great number of these consequences it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of ' em 4. That when the natural consequences of a Doctrine do not appear at certain times or in certain places there must therein at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing I I say that 't is a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds and produce Disputes and Controversies amongst them experience confirms it since the 11th Century to this present We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine in that she remained in peace concerning this subject till Paschasius's time altho there were otherwise Controversies touching almost all the Articles of the Creed 'T is not sufficient for the relating of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that this is only a consequence of congruity and that 't is natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into docility towards this mystery I will answer him that 't is not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that 't is on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all and that that which he calls the custom of Faith does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till after several contradictions and repugnancies as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation that were never controverted or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natural one yet has had no place during eight hundred years 'T IS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation that 't is endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present We may then very well argue in this manner and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th Century 't is most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world And 't is not sufficient for the confuting of this Argument to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary for altho this be true yet that is a consequence natural enough being grounded on experience IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the participation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Centuries and it appearing in the latter we may make hence a probable conjecture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Doctrine For 't is not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary and resolved at length to remedy them To say hereupon that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood is as much as amounts to nothing for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it seeing she has none of these customs For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Adoration yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em or at least others equivalent to 'em that are as significant to testifie openly the acts of Adoration This then is no satisfactory answer but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity The second Reflection AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from consequences it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion We make use of these proofs on the question Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation to shew she did not believe it or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither nor adore the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud has shunned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th Book wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th Century to this present Whereas we say for instance That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine Mr. Arnaud perverts this order and says That our Arguments drawn from these consequences are invalid because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one but by how much the greater art there is in it by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner The seventh Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's seventh Consequence is That the Doctrine of the Chap. 8. Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the discoursing of Philosophical Consequences nor upon explaining the
will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time wherein this change has most advanced it self It was not in Hilaries nor Athanasius's times nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin but in the 10th and 11th Centuries that is to say in the most dark Ages c. 'T is no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not And this distinction methinks does sufficiently limit my Principle To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense Now my whole sense does not consist only in a general Principle which I lay down nor in the general application I make of it but in the exception and limitation I give them But neither has Mr. Arnaud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus choosing rather to run after their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth MOREOVER Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say when he sets himself on reproaching me that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation 't is not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book which might be easily found in turning over some leafs If I passed over 'em 't was because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite which contain the whole substance of my discourse and which are no less significant than the others But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time altho there 's no such Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577. thing in my Book Mr. Arnaud's answer is that the Author of the Perpetuity represents my sense and not my words and because that this proposition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms Mr. Arnaud says that 't is the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter I will believe it because he says so but yet my sense ought to be faithfully related and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my express declarations contained in several passages of my first and second Answer rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot represent in this condition but half of that which I would say Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense Father Maimbourg the Jesuite who wrote since Mr. Arnaud ingenuously perceived and related it as it is in truth Mr. Claude says he asserts A Peaceable Method by Father Mainbourg ch 3. page 108. there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pastors Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence or absence because they studied not the point This is in effect my meaning and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ THE first of these three Remarks I now made considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question and determines it to the Real Presence alone excluding Transubstantiation The second considers it in respect of the persons and determines it to the Christians only excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries and the third considers it in respect of the time and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Darkness that is to say to those wherein according to us the change was introduced which are the 9th and 10th and part of the 11th For altho according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Berenger yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute we shall neither complain of him nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em for on this depends the question Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible BUT before we enter upon this enquiry 't is necessary to make two farther Observations The first is that the question is not whether the Christians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort when the Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them that it agreed not with the Principles of nature but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine they had knowledg enough to discover 't was an innovation contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it it is not enough to shew that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason I confess that if men did always what they ought to do this alone were sufficient to put them upon rejecting this Real Presence as we have elsewhere proved it But people are liable to be deceived and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery they hearken no longer to sense nor reason We should then proceed and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty which the Church never held and which consequently was not a true mystery of Faith THE other observation which we must make is that we ought to distinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question from the belief of the corporeal Absence To believe the corporeal absence is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a humane body such as is that of our Saviour's and to reject it as false and extravagant But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence such as the Roman Church conceives and rejects as an error A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place and yet not reject it either generally under every notion be it what it will nor in particular under the notion of an invisible existence after the manner of a Spirit as appears from the example of the Roman Church which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence but yet
great Prince whose memory will never die but how great soever he deservedly was yet is he consider'd only as a man whose body lies interred at S. Dennis in the same manner as others do Jesus Christ is the Son of God whose Body is living and glorious and hypostatically united to the Divinity Should any man then imagin that the Statue of Henry IV. is really Henry IV. I doubt not but people would look upon him as a mad man because 't would be considered according to the light of nature as a thing touching which there can be nothing that 's extraordinary and miraculous conceived which is exposed to the knowledg of all the world and wherein there 's nothing at all that 's Divine Neither do I doubt but such a dotage would be rejected as a novelty unknown to our Fore-fathers because 't would be supposed that our Fore-fathers had their sences made as ours and that in respect of natural and sensible things their judgments have been the same as ours nature ever remaining in a uniform state But neither this example nor th 'others which are like it do signifie any thing in respect of the Eucharist which is a mystery of Faith wherein all Christians agree that there 's something supernatural altho they agree not in the manner A mystery concerning which every man does not think he can safely judg much less from the principles of Sense and Reason in fine a mystery of the Son of God the knowledg of which depends on a light which is not always equal It is then manifest that neither this example nor the rest of the same rank proposed by Mr. Arnaud are pertinent NEITHER is it less clear from what I now represented that of these three manners of believing the Real Absence which Mr. Arnaud proposes there 's only the second which can be admitted into this Dispute to regulate the state of the question because the first as I have shew'd is impossible and the last can yield no advantage to the Author of the Perpeuitty's design Mr. ARNAVD may here again call to mind the solidity of the distinction which I made touching the two expressions which are very like one another as to terms but very different in sense not to believe or not to know that a thing is and to believe or know that a thing is not The first denotes a bare negation of Knowledg and the second a positive act of Knowledg and Faith which formally denies the existence of a thing Not to believe the Real Presence barely signifies that this presence is not held for an Article of Faith but to believe that the Real Presence is not signifies something more which is that a man reckons it among the Articles which he rejects The Author of the Perpetuity having said that there 's no medium The first Treatise of the Perpetuity between having a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence and having a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence I had reason to tell him that to make in this matter an immediate opposition he must make it contradictory and not contrary that is to say he ought to bring in an affirmation or the negation of the same thing and not the affirmation or positive rejection that he must say the Christians have had a distinct belief of the Real Absence or that they have not had it and not say they have had a distinct belief of the Presence or Real Absence Mr. ARNAVD calls this School-boys Philosophy But this School-boys Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag. 5. Philosophy seeing he pleases to give it this name is grounded on common sense For common sense shews us that to make an immediate opposition we must set the negative on one side and the affirmative on the other We grant says he to Mr. Claude that to speak logically we ought to oppose believing the Real Presence and not believing the Real Presence and not believing the Real Absence But I affirm that to speak rationally we may well oppose believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence which is to say that not to believe the Real Absence and to believe the Real Absence may and ought to pass for the same thing in the point in question because these two dispositions of mind have all the same effects I HAVE been ignorant till now of the distinction between speaking logically and speaking rationally for I always thought that true Logick which tends only to cultivate our reason and which explains it self clearly and intelligibly had not any other language than what was rational But not to stray from our subject if in the matter in question these two expressions not to believe the Real Presence and to believe the Real Absence must pass for one and the same thing it follows they are both of 'em equally rational at bottom Seeing then they are both of 'em equally intelligible and equally popular why did not the Author of the Perpetuity make use of the first rather than the second For the first being as it is rational intelligible and popular as well as the other it has moreover this advantage that Logick approves of it whereas she rejects the other The first expression does of it self explain justly and naturally what a man would say neither more nor less whereas the other according to Mr. Arnaud's own acknowledgment is equivocal and does not explain what 's meant but only because of the matter in question The first is liable to no contest The second is disputable Wherefore then has not Mr. Arnaud knowing them to be equivalent left the second to make use of the first He had lost nothing if it be true they both signifie one and the same thing and he had spared the pains of a new dispute For I maintain against him that neither rationally speaking nor logically these two expressions ought to pass for the same thing The first cannot produce the effect which the second produces seeing the second will make men oppose the Real Presence as an innovation which Faith rejecteth whereof the first cannot of it self work such en effect A man that is persuaded the Real Presence is a Doctrin which he ought to reject will oppose himself against it as soon as ever it shall be offer'd him A person that never heard it mention'd will easily suffer himself to be surprized when told this has been ever the Faith of the Church WHEREIN consists then you 'l say the point of our difference and what is the state of this question It may be easily gather'd from what I have now said which is to know whether the people of the 9th 10th and 11th Ages in supposing the Real Presence which was taught them that is to say the invisible substantial Presence such as the Church of Rome holds at this day for 't is on that we dispute was a novelty which yet was taught them as the ancient Faith of the Church I say the question is whether these people had notions and
and risen for them Whence I concluded there were several persons who contented themselves with doing that to which these words excited them without proceeding any farther their minds being sufficiently taken up with that And this is that which Mr. Arnaud calls extravagant and fantastical and wherein he meets with such ridiculous Hypothesises sensless suppositions and absurdities 'T is impossible says he for a discourse to be more faulty than this altho it be the foundation of the first order of this system First 't will not serve the end whereunto 't is design'd Secondly 't is laid on a false foundation Thirdly it concludes nothing this false foundation being supposed These three remarks are essential and need only proving AS to the first he says That supposing this ridiculous Hypothesis were granted me yet there must be made several others to draw thence the conclusion which I draw First It must be supposed that the Pastors who instructed the Communicants when they first received the Eucharist taught 'em only to make a Mental Prayer over the Body of Jesus Christ without mentioning to 'em a word of the essence of the mystery and sense of the words which express it and satisfying the doubts which might spring up in their minds about it And yet the form of these instructions appearing in the Writings of S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Ambrose Gaudencius and Eucherus are very apt to imprint on their minds the distinct idea of the Faith of the Mystery according to the Doctrin of the Catholicks Secondly We must suppose that when these people met with this expression either in Sermons or particular Discourses or Books that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ they caution'd themselves against admitting into their minds any idea of these words but were immediately ravish'd with abstracted Meditations Thirdly 'T is to be supposed that this lasted'em all their lives Fourthly We must suppose they used the same caution against these expressions The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread we are nourish'd with the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that it is our strength and our life I ANSWER that supposing the Proposition I stated touching the things and usual expressions were fruitless in respect of the instructions given to the Catechumenists and those other expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud yet does it not hence follow but 't would be useful in respect of these terms Corpus Christi which were spoken before to the Communicants at the time wherein the Eucharist is deliver'd to ' em Now 't is precisely upon this account I made use of it that is to say to answer the Argument which the Author of the Perpetuity rais'd from these words Corpus Christi which he said represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar I shew'd then that these words were not only words of instruction but likewise of use the drift of which were to represent to the Communicants the Body of Christ dead and risen for us Mr. Arnaud ought to consider my proposition in reference to the particular end for which I used it and not take it loose as he has done from the sequel of my discourse But 't is his custom when he proposes any thing which I mention to represent it indirectly and 't is on such kind of proceedings as these whereon are grounded the greatest part of his objections TO confirm the truth of my Proposition 't is not necessary to change any thing in the Catechisms of the Fathers there needs only one thing be supposed which is not hard to believe which is that neither the Catechisms of S. Cyril nor those attributed to S. Ambrose and S. Eucherus were used as forms of instructions which were given to persons the first time they Communicated seeing the greatest part amongst 'em received their first Communion immediately after they were Baptized in their tender years yea sometimes whilst at their Mothers Breasts I confess indeed they were not then taught to make Mental Prayers as Mr. Arnaud speaks and 't is also likely they had neither the Catechisms of S. Ambrose nor S. Cyril expounded to 'em as he pleasantly supposes And thus Mr. Arnaud's first Observation is absurd AS to the Books they read 't is not necessary to say they caution'd themselves against the words which they met in 'em we need only suppose one thing which is not unlikely That there were at that time and are at this day in the Church several people who could not read and that amongst such as could there were some that read little in the Treatises of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist Books not being then so common as they have been since Printing has been invented and in fine that amongst those who did there might be some who applied not themselves attentively enough to form in their minds the question how the Sacrament is our Saviour's Body AS to private Discourses if Mr. Arnaud by revelation knows any thing of 'em we 'l hear him willingly in the mean time he 'l let us suppose that there have been always people in the Church who never set themselves to treat of abstruse questions of Theology in familiar Colloquies AND as to Sermons seeing Mr. Arnaud pretends they must inspire all persons with curiosity that hear them 't would be just he should tell us first whether he believes the Preachers handled always the Eucharist in difficult terms sufficient to excite the curiosity of their hearers touching the question how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ Whether they explain'd not themselves in terms clear and easie which gave no occasion for this question Secondly 'T would be just for him to tell us whether when they made these difficult discourses they caused all the Faithful in general to come to 'em and charged 'em not to fail of forming in their minds the question How the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ Thirdly In short it might be expected he should tell us whether he believes that all the Auditors were of equal capacities to make reflections on the difficult expressions of the Fathers For if he does not suppose these three things there 's little likelihood these expressions he mentions must have produc'd the effect in mens minds which he pretends Perhaps persons of mean capacities who yet may be good men altho they have but little knowledg in hearing their Preachers would have turn'd their minds sooner on the side of easie terms than that of difficult ones Perhaps also some of 'em did let these difficult ways of speaking pass without considering 'em with much attention and troubling themselves with questions beyond their reach and thus may I suppose the expressions of the Fathers seldom made any deep impression on them Mr. CLAVDE says Mr. Arnaud who thinks that the putting of an extravagancy into mood and figure is sufficient to make it conclusive and decisive proposes us this
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
virtue of it and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ lest we be esteem'd unworthy if we do not discern it enough not understanding what is the dignity and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Saviour And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery yet without supposing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frudegard wherein speaking of the success his Book met with I am informed says he that I have moved several to understand this mystery which shews Epist ad Frud that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment and that he had actually brought over several persons from an obscure to a clear knowledg of this Mystery But without going any further we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd for it expresly justifies what I say Paschasus says he has wrote these things and several others to learn us Book 9. ch 6. page 913. the reverence we owe to this mystery and make us know the majesty of it and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book they will find such great things in it as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples who lived in the 10th Century I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication He wrote says he to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery and to make us know the majesty of it He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion to wit as an illustration of the common Faith an explication of what was known before but obscurely and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction as we are wont to do against profest enemies but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication and even this to wit whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not was in part the subject of the contradiction IT is not possible says Mr. Arnaud that a Doctrin should be approv'd of Book 9. ch 5. page 900. immediately by all those to whom it was proposed There must certainly be some who reject it and warn others against it I grant it but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed that my pretension is impossible is what I deny and that with reason for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith and defend it afterwards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it and respect it as a novelty IN fine adds Mr. Arnaud this means will not serve the end for which Ibidem Mr. Claude designs it which is to hinder men from rising up against this Doctrin and make the change insensible to those which suffered it We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions but in effect the contrary to wit that several did rise up against Paschasus but we pretend likewise 't was easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty under the title of an explication and that in their respect they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church and what those learned persons could conceive of it mention'd by Odon who by reading Paschasus his Book acknowledg'd they had hitherto but small knowledg of this mystery All the effect which this could produce was to excite them against their former ignorance and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise BUT says moreover Mr. Arnaud others must be surpriz'd in a contrary Page 901. manner they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church They must be mightily offended at their being accused of ignorance and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Paschasus his time who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion Pascasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense he endeavours to answer some of their objections seems to intimate he was accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Revelation And in effect John Scot Raban and Bertram wrote against his novelties and opposed them But this does not hinder its being true that he proposed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith and that this way might procure him many followers And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution Mr. Arnaud immediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be established by the noise of Disputes and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th Century wherein I pretend this was effected I think Book 9. ch 6. page 902. says he we had best leave him to his choice and that by choosing one of these chimerical means he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable we would not stick to grant it notwithstanding the sharpness of his expressions But 't is unjust and unwarrantable for 't is certain that the change in question has hapned and that with and without Disputes There was a contest in the 9th Century during the time wherein Paschasus lived as I now said We do not find there was any in the 10th but in the 11th 't was very hot So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases Which I hope he will grant me when he considers First That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dispute and th' Authority of the Court of Rome must be referred to the 11th
and dispers'd it in the minds of several without resistance and thus this Doctrin has made in the space of these hundred years insensible progresses establishing it self by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th as an innovation this Doctrin found it self the strongest and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin What difficulty can be rais'd against this Hypothesis which may not be casily solved If it be said that Paschasus did not propose any thing but what all the faithful already distinctly knew and believed Paschasus himself will answer for me that he has moved several persons to the understanding of this Mystery which supposes that before his time 't was not sufficiently known and that he discovered things of which the people were ignorant Odon will answer for me that the most learned had but little knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist if they had not read Paschasus his Book If it be said his Doctrin met with no contradiction Paschasus himself will tell you that some blamed him for attributing more to the word of Christ than the truth it self has promised us and 't is hereon he disputes against his Adversaries Should a man deny that the two Doctrins that of Paschasus and that of his Adversaries were both taught in the 10th Century he will I think be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given and in effect there 's no great likelihood that the Doctrin of John Scot and Bertram who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France and that of Raban three persons of great note in the Church should be thus extinct in so short a time without any Councils condemning it without the Court of Romes concerning her self with it without the interposition of temporal Princes and that there should I say remain no trace of it in the 10th Century He that shall think it strange that the people of the 10th Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation need only call to mind the ignorance wherein the people lived for when a man does not know what the Church believes 't is no hard matter for him to be deceived and to take that which she does not believe for what she does That man that questions this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have given of it Should any man alledg it to be strange such men as an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny should be deceived 't is easie to shew the weakness of this objection by th' example of several that are men of better parts than those now in question who now take for the Doctrin of the Church what is not so The Disciples of Paschasus found in his Book such specious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em and 't is a thing ordinary enough to be surprized by false colours Should it be said to be impossible but that the Disciples of Paschasus knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in several places have openly condemned it and disputed against those that held it First I answer I do not know whether we may absolutely say there was no dispute about it for there may be disputes and we not know of 'em but supposing there were not I answer that seeing 't is no Miracle that disputation should cease sometimes in an enlightned Age amongst learned and zealous men without any Conversions on either side 't is much less one in a dark and troublesom Age wherein persons thought of nothing less than disputing The Disciples of Paschasus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paschasus his Book to all persons and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles If it be likewise said that those that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to dispute against those that follow'd that of Paschasus I must say so too but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do because they have not always that zeal knowledg or industry which they ought to have How should they dispute one against another who left for the most part their Flocks without Pasture without Instruction without Preaching Howsoever this is as I said a thing certain that there were persons in this Century who held the Doctrin of Paschasus and others that of Bertram Whether they disputed or no it concerns me not to know 't is sufficient for me that this Age held both these Doctrins which I think cannot be denied When two opposite Doctrins are taught and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance to speak after the manner of men and according to the terms of our Dispute 't is equally impossible either of them should get the upper hand because they want that understanding which is requisite to to make aright judgment and moreover if the one be asserted by persons of Authority and great Reputation it is almost impossible but this will carry it away from the other Whence it follows the progress of the Real Presence in the 10th Century has been not only possible but easie and even unavoidable To which if we add another matter of fact which is that we do not find there were Disputes in this Century on this subject whence we will conclude that these progresses we speak of have been made in an insensible manner at least in our respect which is to say that if there were any noise or contests the knowledg of 'em never came to us which suffices to decide the question between us two AND this is what I had to say touching the state of the 10th Century in respect of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence I take no notice of those violent accusations which Mr. Arnaud brings against our Morals under pretence we do not reckon Piety to consist in affected Penances and outward Mortifications which for the most part have more shew than substance We praise and recommend as earnestly as we can the practice of Fasting but believe it better to abstain from Vice than Meats the use of which God has given us with sobriety We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him to make good use of his Estate and endure Poverty without envy murmurings and repinings to live holily in Caelibacy and chastly in Marriage to carry our selves justly to our Inferiors and obediently to Superiors But we do not approve of mens withdrawing themselves out of that rank and order wherein providence has placed them nor making of particular rules and binding men to th' observance of 'em by Vows nor that the Rich should ransom their sins by great offerings to Ecclesiastical persons who have no need of 'em â—or of Voluntary Poverty much less that men should imagin to satisfie the Almighty for their sins and merit any thing of him by these kind of observances 'T is not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity
consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people this very thing should shew that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation wherein there 's no deceit to be feared the best which one can do is to keep to the Word of God THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin Now says he Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change and the benefit of it depends on circumstances which are mutable but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature that which is true at one time being so always Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change So adds he to introduce a new Discipline 't is not necessary to deceive the world nor shew 't is ancient but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de disguised which is oftentimes impossible In fine the belief of a Doctrin necessarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion whereas one may embrace a Discipline different from another yet without condemning that which one leaves THERE are several things to be said to this discourse For first It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual immutable and necessary at least as to necessity of precept and such is the Communion of both kinds Secondly There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice and Doctrins The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin because of two parts whereof a Religion consists to wit the Doctrins and Practices these last are most popular Thirdly There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins and are in such a manner the dependances and consequences of 'em that 't is impossible to change them without also changing the Doctrins and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds for it was anciently grounded on this belief that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People as appears by Paschasus his own testimony Drink ye all of it says he to wit as well the Ministers as other Lib. de Corp. Sang. Domin c. 15. c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon Comperimus de cons dist 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989. Believers and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practise It is not well done says the same Paschasus to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood This Mystery says Pope Gelasius cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege It is a mere abusing the world says Mr. Arnaud to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings recited by Gratien and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius himself who was at the head of the Church of Rome who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the producing of a Testimony of a Pope It is Gratien says he that relates it Is it the less authentick for that Gratien did not invent it to serve us we did not inspire him with it and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it This passage adds he may receive several rational explications I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications but we should know whether these explications be just Mr. Arnaud should propose 'em and then we might examin ' em This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer to what 's alledg'd touching that subject THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appendant to a Doctrin for the ancient Church had this custom because she believ'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants S. Austin says so in express terms Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum Aug. de Peccat rear remiss lib. 1. c 24. participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church To the end says he its authority may be with plausible pretences trampled Page 990. under foot and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud did before me Missam facio says he Augustini Innocentii Maldon in Joan. 6. Binn not in Epist Innoc. primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistam etiam infantibus necessariam What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé It appears says he that Innocent ' s opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years and which was followed by S Austin was that the Eucharist is necessary to little Children But seeing the command to receive the Eucharist does not oblige those that cannot receive it and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it the Church instructed by the use of several Ages and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd not only that the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to Children but that it ought not to be given ' em I know adds Mr. Arnaud that there are on this subject some passages of Page 990. S. Austin and Innocent the First which are difficult But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them To the passages of S. Austin and Innocent Mr. Arnaud might add others which will admit of no explication as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles of the Author of the Hypognosticks of Gregory the Second of the second Council of Toul and some others And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
Disciple Placidus in it to whom he dedicates his Book and the rest of his Scholars This appears from the reading of his Preface and second Chapter Placuit says he in his Preface ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis corporis tibi exigis necessaria quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstringere ut coeteri vitoe pabulum salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore And in the second Chapter Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est disciplina Christi fides erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this mystery which he had obtain'd believing 't was not sufficiently known His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others it excited the curiosity of several as he himself tells us in his Letter to Frudegard Ad intelligentiam says he hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery 'T is likely several became of his mind and 't is certain others condemned his opinion Audivi says he quosdam me reprehendere and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty Quoeris says he to Frudegard de re ex qua multi dubitant and lower Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew where he urges the words of Christ This is my Body and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure in a Sacrament and in Virtue In fine Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book De Doctrina Christiana wherein this Father says that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution which seems to command a sin but which signifies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin pressing again the words of Jesus Christ and relating some passages of the Fathers and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side And this is all that can be said historically touching Paschasus his fact in which I think there 's nothing that hinders us from believing he was an Innovator that is to say that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact and not from imaginary suppositions PASCHASVS says he proposes immediately his Doctrin without Book 8. ch 8. p. 848. any Preface or insinuating address without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases His Doctrin then was not new This consequence is too quick He does not mention that horrid blindness wherein he must suppose the world Altho he does not speak of it what can be thence concluded those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown that is to say that men knew not yet his Doctrin as I have already shew'd and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknowledges that several were ignorant of it Quamvis says he plurimi ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta He does not trouble himself adds Mr. Arnaud to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error What follows hence He proves it as well as he can that is to say ill yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church and he names S. Cyprian Ambrose Hilary Augustin Chrysostom Jerom Gregory Isidor Isychius and Bede Now here are I think great names enough Mr. Claude adds further Mr. Arnaud would persuade us that a young Religions Page 850. having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and reason and having taught it without proofs living in a great communalty having commerce with a great number of Religious Abbots and Bishops was yet advertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin so that he only learn'd from other peoples report and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it They wrote against the Real Presence who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church who punish'd 'em for it what Popes what Councils condemn'd ' em who setting aside Paschasus stood up against those that affirm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sacramentally figuratively and virtually and not really Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem virtutem Sanguinis non Sanguinem Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin what can be rationally inferred hence but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise or because perhaps that it was despised seeing that in effect there was little in it to the purpose But says Mr. Arnaud at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him Had they done it they had done no more than they ought But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent as appears by the terms of Paschasus himself for thus does he bespeak him Dilectissimo filio vice Christi proesidenti Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe alternis successibus veritatis discipulo Again who told Mr.
Arnaud that no body for thirty years reprehended Paschasus to his face how knows he this that he can be so confident of it Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it No. But 't is because Paschasus says Audivi quosdam me reprehendere I am inform'd that some blame me Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence and that an Author may speak thus altho he was told of his fault to his face In fine who inform'd Mr. Arnaud that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew which were publish'd not till thirty years after A frivolous reason as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em and endeavours to defend himself It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud NOT only adds he he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors Page 850 851. Friends and Brethren but he still believed the whole Church was on his side For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his unknown adversaries of whom he had notice by the Authority of the whole Church and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradicting the Faith of it Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Ecclesiam He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur In short he accuses those as highly criminal who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue contrary to the consent of the whole Earth Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes universaliter verum esse fatentur I answered the Author of the Perpetuity That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all question the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief and from the Churches saying in her Canon Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi to which the people answered Amen That there 's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin but which are not so greatly favorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin HERE says Mr. Arnaud is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude ' s invention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less and to distinguish by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot distinguish Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church either this proposition that 't is the common Doctrin of the Church is so clear and evident that the Adversaries themselves must grant it or it is not so clear nor evident but that 't is questionable As to the first case a man need not trouble himself to prove it for it s taken for a Principle and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting For instance When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect but also for all men in general that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just according to the present condition of their ability that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of the Communion it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church that there needs no proving 'em and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles there 's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles and he would have only hence consequences drawn against him As to the second case that is to say when 't is not clear that this is the Faith of the Church and that this point is in dispute both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses one which regards precisely the present Church which is to say the Church in the time of the contest the other which respects the Church in the preceding times which is to say before the controversie it may also receive two sorts of proofs some which refer to the present time others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us When a man proves for the time present he alledges testimonies of the modern Church when he proves for the past time he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good or bad conclusive or not conclusive TO apply this to the matter in hand I say That Paschasus never advanc'd for an undeniable Principle that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or common belief of the Church in his time on the contrary he has formally acknowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ Audivi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromittit and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sangainis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin multi dubitant says he several times And in fine others that erred thro ignorance which is to say that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed Quamvis plurimi says he dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta And a little lower Quamvis ex
hoc quidam de ignorantia errent He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age. I say in the second place that whatsoever design Paschasus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time nor ever said the Bishops which then governed the Churches the Abbots Priests Religious and all learned men held the same language as he did and all of 'em unanimously confess'd that the substance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Masters that taught it Paschasus was far from asserting this HE keeps to three things to some passages of the Fathers to the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to a clause of the Liturgy which says Vt fiat Corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi And as to the passages of the Fathers having proposed 'em he concludes That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthusiastical rashness nor a young man's vision but that he offered these things to those who were desirous of 'em from the authority of the Word of God and the Writings of the Holy Fathers Now seeing adds he it appears that all men have not Faith yet if they cannot understand let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there 's nothing impossible with God and acquiesce in the Divine words without the least doubt of ' em For we never as yet read any have erred in this point unless those that have erred touching the person of Jesus Christ himself altho several have doubted or been ignorant of the Sacraments of so great a mystery Is this the language of a man that loudly glories in the consent of the whole Church Were he assur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief what need he justifie himself from the suspicion of Enthusiasm and pretences to Visions Are we wont to suspect people in this sort who say only what the whole world says and believes And designing to justifie himself why must he rather betake himself to some passages of the Fathers whose sense and terms he may justly be said to have corrupted than to the testimony of persons in his own time and to say if he was an Enthusiast or Visionary all the Bishops Abbots Priests Religious Doctors and Christians in general were so too seeing they all believ'd and spake as he did But instead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly received Nunc autem says he exinde quia claruit quod non omnium est fides He exhorts those who reprehended him to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impossible with God and to acquiesce in the words of Jesus Christ Discant quoeso cum talibus credere si adhuc nequeunt intelligere quod Deo nihil est impossibile discant verbis divinis acquiescere in nullo de his dubitare WHEN then he adds that hitherto 't was not heard that any person erred on this subject unless 't were those who had erred touching Jesus Christ himself Quia usque ad proesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt He would say that till then no body had contradicted the Doctrin of the Fathers leaving it to be understood that then 't was contradicted because they contradicted his which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers So far we do not find him boasting of the consent of the Church in his time for we see on the contrary several things which sufficiently denote that he was far from doing it AS to the passages of the Liturgy and words of Christ he says that the Priest prays in the Canon in these terms Vt fiat Corpus Jesus Christi that all the People cry Amen and so the whole Church in every Nation and Language confesses that 't is this she desires in her Prayer Whence he draws this consequence Vnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Christi Ecclesiam Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes nniversaliter verum esse fatentur Let those then that had rather contradict this than believe it consider what they do against the Lord himself and his whole Church It is then a great fault to pray with all people and not to believe what the truth it self attests and what all do universally and every where confess to be true His Argument is a Sophism which amounts to this Our Saviour Christ says 't is his Body and the whole Church confesses the same But they that at this day deny that 't is his Body in propriety of nature deny that 't is his Body Therefore they contradict Jesus Christ and his Church Who sees not but there is a great difference between reasoning in this manner and positively assuring that the whole Church believes 't is his Body in propriety of nature I will have this says Mr. Arnaud Page 852. to be only a consequence Are not Authors persuaded of the truth of the consequences which they draw and do they not offer them for true as positively as their principles Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange The question is not whether Paschasus was persuaded of the solidity of his consequence or not but whether we ought to be persuaded of it our selves and take it for a testimony touching the publick belief of his time Mr. Arnaud should know that when a man testifies of a matter of fact and afterwards draws thence by way of argument and consequence another fact he is no farther credible in respect of this latter but only as his argument or consequence appears just to us If I say for example that Mr. Arnaud confesses in the first edition of his Book That 't is possible the faithful knew not always so expresly Book 6. ch 1. and universally whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament and I from hence draw by way of argument and consequence this proposition That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Transubstantiation was not anciently an Article of Faith in the Church My testimony in respect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my consequence will be good 'T is the same here Paschasus assures us that the whole Church in his time called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui So far he acts as a witness we must believe him Whence he draws this consequence That those that do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
I hope will not take it ill if I design this whole Chapter to answer them This Book consists either of passionate invectives against me or defences against some of my Complaints or accusations against me As to the passionate expressions I concern not my self with 'em I leave 'em to the publick judgment and Mr. Arnaud's private conscience It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his stile according to the lovely idea which he himself has given us of the true Eloquence which is says he discreet modest Book 11. ch 8. page 1128. judicious sincere true which serves to disentangle things and not to confound 'em which clears truth and offers it in such a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart which inspires motions that are just reasonable proportionable to the things which we handle which has no other lustre but what serves to discover truth no strength but what is borrowed from her He will examin I hope at his leisure whether he has observed all these grave characters and whether his eagerness to overcome has not transported him sometimes into such strange convulsions as are wholly contrary to all morality and decency AS to his defences I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be just and warrantable but to the end it may not be said I desire to be believed on my own bare word let a man judg of 'em by these examples The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion alledged this reason that Trithemus praised this Author To this I answered that he praised him because in effect he deserved it and that this only increased his authority My sense is plainly that he prais'd him because he knew his reputation was great in the 9th Century that his Book was therein well entertain'd and his memory honored in the following Ages For this is what must be understood by being in effect praise-worthy and this is likewise what the terms of my answer insinuate having added that this only increased his authority which is to say that this testimony of Trithemus shewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time Whereupon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true sense of my words imputes to me another which is that I said Trithemus who believed the Real Presence praised Bertram for opposing it which is a ridiculous sense and infinitely distant from mine This is the subject of my complaint and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud What is says he the sense of these words Book 11. ch 3. p. 1105 1106. Trithemus praised Bertram because he was indeed praise-worthy Do they signifie that he praised him from his own knowledg or from the opinion of others It is clear they have only the first sense and not the second All is clear which Mr. Arnaud speaks but let us see how he proves it To commend any one from the testimony of another is not to commend him because he is in effect praise-worthy seeing there are several people which we do not in effect judg to be praise-worthy altho thought worthy of praise by others To commend a man because he is in effect worthy of commendations is proceeding on a just and true ground and on the reality of things and not on reports and popular opinions This is a pitiful defence for 't is certain there are people who are not judged to be praise-worthy altho they be praised by others but I say that there are others which are deemed praise-worthy in effect only because we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived and in the following ones without being blamed by any body Do not most people thus believe S. Cyprian S. Hierom and S. Augustin praise-worthy not for having read their Books nor examin'd their Doctrins but as knowing they were esteem'd by their own and following Ages and that their memory was never withered in the Church Now this is what I say that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book to wit that he had the esteem of his Age and that his memory was respected in the following ones IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say that I ought not to suppose without proving it that such an Author as Trithemus who writes a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and gives particular praises to an Author does it barely from the relation of others and that the presumption is on the contrary that he has read his Book and speaks of it from his own proper knowledg This I say is to no purpose for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues and would draw a conclusion from the praises of Trithemus to establish well his Principle to prove that Trithemus has praised Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini and not to me who answer to prove that he has praised him because he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th Century Were a man to judg hereof by presumptions they would be rather for my supposition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity for we know very well that those who make Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention The Commendations of Ratram whom we affirm to be Bertram could not be unknown to Trithemus and we have right to suppose that Trithemus has not distinguish'd Bertram and Ratram as two different persons till the Author of the Perpetuity has shewed us the contrary THE second complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity respects Mr. Blondel whom this Author impertinently accuses to have fallen into contradiction in that he supposes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calvinist and on the other that the Synod of Cressy which condemned Amalarius was of the same mind which according to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifest contradiction Observe here his words Usher an English Protestant supposes that Amalarius held Perpetuity of the Faith sect 2 p. 80. the Doctrin of the Catholicks and therefore would have it thought that 't was the Doctrin of the Real Presence which was condemned in Amalarius by the Synod of Cressy and by Florus Deacon of Lyons And a little lower Blondel suffering himself to be deceived by the desire which he had to raise up adversaries against Paschasus fell on this subject into one of the most palpable contradictions imaginable For finding on one hand advantage from Usher ' s Page 82. opinion who makes the whole Synod of Cressy who condemned Amalarius to consist of Calvinists he takes this part and supposes with him that the Council of Cressy held the Calvinists Doctrin and were contrary to Paschasus But finding elsewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuscript of the Book of Divine Offices of William of Malmsbury that Amalarius Raban and Heribald wrote against Paschasus not considering that
in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ with the subsistence of accidents without a subject and uses the very term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party I have already declared to him and again tell him that I have not disputed against him We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries let him peaceably enjoy 'em we mean only the true Greeks who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church And as to those we are certain of two things the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins which I believe I have clearly proved and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent and possessed the Patriarchates Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries thro the Neglect and Ignorance of the Prelates Monks and People whether by instructing their Children or gaining the Bishops or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples I answer that to decide this question we need only examin which of these two Parties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are Doctrins and Expressions of which the Greeks of former Ages have had no knowledg whence it follows that the Party which admits these Doctrins and Expressions are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church Let Mr. Arnaud and those who read this Dispute always remember that the first Proposition of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation that this is the time which he chose and term'd his fix'd point to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first establishment of Religion and consequently perpetual in the Church Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion which may be offered us by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value 't will neither hence follow that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation and what I say touching the Greeks I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks AS to what remains let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refutation of his Book in general I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings and especially in the refutation of his first sixth and tenth Book I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit Elegancy and polite Language and attribute to the defect of his subject whatsoever I have noted to be amiss either in his Proofs or Answers but 't is very true the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness in a work of this nature and all that I could do was to use great condescentions in following him every where to set him strait I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification AMEN AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of BERTRAM AND OF THE Authority of John Scot or Erigenus LONDON Printed by M. C. for Richard Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent Majesty 1683. Advertisement THOSE that shall cast their eyes on this Answer will be at first apt to think these Critical Questions belong only to Scholars Whereas we have here several important matters of fact which are in a manner necessary to the full understanding of the Controversie of the Eucharist The Church of Rome pretends we have forsaken the Ancient Faith and that Berenger was one of the first who taught our Doctrin in the beginning of the 11th Century We on the contrary maintain 't is the Roman Church that has departed from the Ancient Belief and that 't was Paschasus Ratbert who in the beginning of the 9th Century taught the Real Presence and the Substantial Conversion And to this in short may he reduced the whole Controversie which was between Mr. Claude and Mr. Arnaud Mr. Claude has strenuously and clearly shewed that as many Authors as were of any Repute im the 9th Century have opposed the Doctrin of Paschasus and that consequently Paschasus must be respected as a real Innovator Now amongst these Writers Mr. Claude produces John Scot or Erigenus and Bertram or Ratram a Religious of Corby two of the greatest Personages of that Age and shews they wrote both of 'em against the Novelties which Paschasus had broach'd that one of 'em Dedicated his Book to Charles the Bald King of France and the other likewise wrote his by the same King's Order That the first having lived some time in this Prince's Court died at last in England in great reputation for his holiness of Life that the other was always esteem'd and reverenced as the Defender of the Church which seems to be decisive in our favour Mr. Arnaud on his side finding himself toucht to the quick by the consequence of these Proofs has used his last and greatest Endeavours to overthrow or weaken ' em And for this purpose has publish'd at the end of his Book two Dissertations the one under his own name and the other under the name of a Religious of St. Genevieve whose name is not mention'd In the first which is under the name of the Religious he does two things for first he endeavours to persuade that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is not in effect Ratram ' s but
till he hath proved them and those which may be justly supposed without being proved IF this man reply to me he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself but by shewing if he can the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just May I not then justly retort upon him that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself but to shew if he be able that these Proofs are invalid Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so reasonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious difference on my side seeing as already mentioned I am Respondent in this Dispute whereas this Person would be the Aggressor But you will ask me who this man is that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims Even Mr. Arnaud himself who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book to shew us that the Learned and Unlearned the Simple and Obstinate and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity he thereupon makes this Conclusion 'T is true saith he that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity suppose the Proofs are clear and solid and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude who would have them rejected without examining them on this general Reason That they are Argumentative Proofs Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing if he can the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound We shall see by what follows whether he had reason to make this Supposition I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example that every man may make Suppositions provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess as he says that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity hath appeared so strange and irregular to me that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact and by gathering them into an Abridgment to give a general view of them Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method provided saith he that I maintained Equity and Truth It may be I think then supposed I have so far done nothing contrary to Rule it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections I shall not insist long upon the first of these because Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The first Observation justified nothing against it appearing undenyable in it self It is grounded on this That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touching the Eucharist the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided not by the word of God but the Churches Consent in all Ages and Depositions of the Fathers and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers but by Arguments Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course it being a Principle of common Sense that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact and that again naturally the Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Deposition Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact which is that holy Scripture wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures so likewise we who have the same Faith with them ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Religion but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest than an Example for us to Imitate and an Example too submitted to the same Rule which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion he must ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties for if his Positions are such as may be questioned he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them before he can suppose them For if he take not this Course he will quickly be at a loss and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith 'T is true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers and that we should do if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship But this reaches not our Question for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith neither in the matter of our present Debate nor in any
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
prejudices in their minds which must of necessity make them reject this Doctrin as a novelty contrary to the ancient Faith even so far as to oblige 'em plainly and openly to oppose it And because these prejudices can be no other than this distinct belief That the Body of Jesus Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist neither in a visible nor invisible manner it concerns us to know whether one may rationally say in the terms of our supposition that they had this distinct belief It lies upon Mr. Arnaud to prove the affirmative and I the negative This is the true state of this question as appears from what we have seen in this Chapter But because Mr. Arnaud has so openly and plainly renounced this manner of believing the Real Absence by a formal reflection on the several kinds of presence whether visible or invisible it may be reasonably said this is no longer a matter of contest between us I grant him if he will that people have positively rejected the corporeal and visible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and that in this sense they have believed a Real Absence I grant likewise if he will that these same people were in a capacity to know that the light of nature opposes the Doctrin of the substantial and invisible Presence He grants me for his part that it does not appear they were for positively rejecting and by a formal reflection this incorporeal and invisible Presence Wherein then do we disagree 'T is clear that that which I grant him is not a sufficient disposition whence to conclude that the people would have opposed the Doctrin of the invisible Presence as a novelty unknown to the Church For for to believe that Jesus Christ is not visibly and corporally present in the Eucharist this does not hinder but that a man may embrace the opinion of the incorporeal Presence and so likewise to know that the light of nature does not well agree with this invisible Presence this does not hinder men from being deceived by imagining 'tis a mystery of Faith which the Church has always believed and touching which a man must not consult his sense or reason It is no less clear that what Mr. Arnaud grants me is sufficient to conclude that the people here mention'd had no distinct knowledg of the Real Presence in the sense in which the Roman Church believes it neither to admit it nor reject it and consequently they had no necessary disposition to oppose it when 't was first taught them For as to this general rejection we have shew'd it to be chimerical and impossible The question is then decided but in my favour seeing the result of all these illustrations is that the change which we suppose has been possible Yet if Mr. Arnaud will obstinately maintain this general manner of believing the Real Absence which denies every kind of substantial Presence without particularising any one of them altho we have shew'd him 't is fantastical and contrary to nature yet I say we will consent that the question be this Whether the people before-mentioned ought according to our supposition formally and generally to deny all the several sorts of substantial presences of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whatsoever they be without specifying any one of them But this is what he has still to prove CHAP. II. Mr. Arnaud's Proceedings Consider'd His unjust Reproaches also Examin'd SAINT Austin describing the humor and carriage of some persons in his time with whom he was concern'd observes they were very copious and eloquentin censuring the sentiments of others but flat and dull in establishing their own opinions Ipsos says he animadvertebam plus Aug. de Utilit Cred. c. 1. in refellendis aliis disertos copiosos esse quam in suis probandis certos firmos manere Methinks the same may be said of Mr Arnaud For he troubles not himself with proving either the propositions he advances nor those of the Author of the Perpetuity and is never more busied than in censuring the opinions of others So greatly is he in love with this kind of proceeding that he scruples not many times to quit his principal subject and fall upon any accidental one provided 't will but furnish him with a pretence to make objections nay sometimes he shall start fancies of his own on purpose to give himself this divertisement Yet we must needs confess he has some reason to do thus having a peculiar tallent of ridiculing the most solid mattters for sometimes he tells me of having private Dictionaries to my self other times of Keys and Machines rhetorical Enthusiasms and a thousand other pretty fancies which take with his Readers and give him together with the benefit of some slight objections and declamations thereupon the liberty of breaking loose through the strongest Arguments AN example whereof may be seen in this Dispute of the distinct knowledg of the Real Presence or Real Absence For after the illustrations which we have given in the preceding Chapter 't is easie to find that Mr. Arnaud ought to establish this Proposition that if the people of the 9th and 10th Centuries had not found themselves imbued with the distinct belief of the Real invisible Presence they would have distinctly believed the Real invisible Absence at least in a general manner that is to say they would have formally rejected every kind of substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist yet without specifying ever a one of them in particular He himself acknowledges that the Author of the Perpetuity would be understood to speak of this general manner of believing distinctly the Real Absence so that it cannot be but the Readers must be in expectation of what he alledges for the confirming this Hypothesis But they will find themselves much mistaken for instead of applying himself to strengthen it by new Arguments or to maintain the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity in restraining them to the time in question he has rather chosen to employ the rest of his sixth Book in examining the state of the people of the first six Centuries not that 't was necessary to enter upon this examination seeing these Ages are out of the bounds of our Dispute touching the change But seeing he would only refute the five ranks of persons whom I supposed to be in the Church before the opinion of the Real Presence appeared refute them I say in reference to the eight first Centuries to have thence occasion to multiply his objections I may with good reason be dispensed withal from following him for to speak properly 't is mere running into fruitless debates Yet to omit nothing I will still patiently hearken to what he has to say on this subject Before I enter upon the discussion of his particular objections against my five ranks of persons 't will not be amiss to examin some of his general ones for we must endeavour to satisfie him in all