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
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
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
of moral Impossibilities heaped up one upon another without any examination of the Grounds or Proofs of our Belief nor of the Answers which may be made concerning these Impossibilities and without any Supposition of another Work For to tell us as Mr. Arnaud doth that he sends us back to all the Catholick Books this methinks seems to be a kind of shifting and evading and is not sufficient to protect the Treatise of the Perpetuity from that just Title I have given it of a Heap of Difficulties Now if this Author meaneth all the Books written by Catholicks when shall I be able to judge of them This will be perhaps when I have run thro above two hundred Volums And if I should say on the other side that my Abridgment after the same manner supposeth all the Protestant Books and I send all Persons to them Our Readers without Question would be very well informed and edifyed BUT saies Mr. Arnaud People do not use to call Matters which are perfectly handled a Heap of Difficulties but those things which are hard to be Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 31. judged of whereas the Author of the Perpetuity hath handled whatsoever relates to his Design in an orderly length I answer first that this Author very imperfectly handles what respects his Design in General which is to make us forsake our Belief concerning the Church of Rome's changing the Primitive Doctrine And secondly that he yet more imperfectly handles what respects his Design in particular which is to shew the Impossibility of a Change for he does not consider of any Answer which may be given his Arguments so that to speak truly it is nothing else but a Heap of Difficulties It can bear no other Title until such time as shall be published the two Volums in Folio which Mr. Arnaud mentions to us We will receive them whensoever he will please to give 'em us but we shall not be in haste to make that Confession to which the Author of the Perpetuity hath promised to oblige us till we have seen them and in the mean time because Mr. Arnaud will have it so we will have once more the Pleasure or rather the Pain of examining altho it be needless the Author of the Perpetuity's Proofs I say because Mr. Arnaud would have it so and not because the reason of the thing requires it for what he alleageth concerning the Passages of my Book that they contain but an indirect Answer to the Author of the Perpetuity ' s Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 24. Argument and therefore it is necessary immediately to examine what I have answered directly This I say is not a sufficient Cause we ought to see rather which of us two is first found in the Possession of this Argument that is to say which of us has bin first answered indirectly and it will appear without doubt that it hath bin my self seeing the Author of the Perpetuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book and that he hath assaulted it indirectly Whence it follows that he ought at least to have begun by the Examination of our Proofs CHAP. V. The pretended Advantages of Mr. Arnaud attributeth to the Treatise of the Perpetuity Examined ALTHO the Conclsion which I have drawn from Mr. Arnaud's Confession in the preceding Chapter is clearly enough established yet do I not think he will be satisfied till I have examined what he saith in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book He will tell us without doubt that it doth not hence follow we should defer the rendring our selves up to the Arguments in the Perpetuity altho I have still the liberty of opposing against them our Proofs of Fact and that this he hath clearly shewed in these two Chapters I last mentioned Let us then see what he saies in them and judge of them without Partiality Mr. Arnaud imediately meets with a Difficulty For I much marvel saith he Mr. Claude has not observed when a point of Doctrine as this in Question Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 32. is established on one side by considerable Proofs and on the other by Proofs which are believed to be valid that we must if we intend to judge aright compare these contrary Proofs together and prefer the strongest before the other from whence we may conclude that it will always be necessary to come to that which the Author of the Perpetuity will not yield to which is to examine our Proofs of Fact For to solve this Difficulty he supposeth first that they who read the Treatise of the Perpetuity have their Sentiments already wholly formed on the Proofs of Fact produced by Mr Aubertin and other Ministers but that these Sentiments are not Uniform because some judge of them from what they are in themselves others by what they have heard of them and by external Circumstances which give them to understand what they ought to believe concerning them That some do esteem them others on the contrary slight them and others again are in a Disposition of Indifferency He afterwards represents us with a Calvinist or Religionary for so is he pleased to call us who being dissatisfied with the Scripture and Fathers by reason of the uncertainty wherein he findes himself by harkning to different Voices which call to him from all sides and moreover less satisfied with the Divines of either Party who cannot content him in the Solutions which they give to the Passages of their Adversaries he thereupon turneth himself towards the Treatise of the Perpetuity which shews him that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real Presence have bin received by the Greek and Latin Churches and in all other Societies which are equally Enemies both to the Latins and Greeks together with the Impossibilities which are in this insensible Change which the Ministers have invented whereupon this Calvinist determines in forsaking all these Doubts to believe the same which is believed thro out all the Earth seeing the whole World would never believe it if it had not derived this Faith from the Channel of Tradition And for as much as this Contrivance could not be well ended unless I were brought in as a Party he therefore introduces me with my Aubertin in my hand opposing this Resolution But my Mouth is imediately stopt being told that these Proofs are Unsatisfactory and thus am I sent away with my Rhetorick and Enthusiasmes BUT this being no more than a Supposition it must be established And for this Effect Mr. Arnaud calls to his Assistance several learned Divines from Germany Switzerland France and Holland by whose Suffrage he concludes that the Fathers are rather against us than for us in what concerns the Eucharist or that at least the Proofs taken from Passages out of their Writings are very uncertain And so here is already the understanding People among us convinced and as for others that are not able to make a Judgment themselves they must have recourse to Persons of greater Knowledg by which means both the
one and the other are obliged to render themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Perpetuity because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them but as unevident and uncertain and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Capacities and grounded on the Light of common Sence it may be understood by all in general This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter IN the sixth Chapter he extends his Pretention a great way farther for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side he will not suffer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53. being necessary for this saith he to enter into an Examination of all those Passages without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People observe after what sort he declares his meaning He saith then that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other these two contrary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments and hinder us from determining and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity which leading us hither Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect and pass over to the Catholick Religion first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal Original Successive and Catholick Society from which we must never make aschisme Secondly because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors before we separate from it and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that Society we are of to keep in it Thirdly because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry of the ordinary Vocation and Authority and that the Ministers who have not been above a hundred years standing have none of these things Fourthly because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity and consequently to return to the Church of Rome they ought to serve for Examples to the Judicious it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong Lastly he confesseth that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid and so by consequence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author of the Perpetuity and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not we are so different in our Apprehensions that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project I have found nothing at all therein of Reason nor coherence of Parts neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest FIRST methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World in proposing as it were from us a Difficulty which weakens our Cause altho it do's not concern us For I do not pretend that one of our Communion into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity and who is able to read it is absolutely obliged before he forms his Judgment thereupon to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs with those of that Treatise I maintain that he may reject these last by the general Consideration alone which he may make without entring into the Examination of each Particular because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity which are grounded on common Sence Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted and that if we take the trouble to examine them 't is out of Condescension not Necessity IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the several ranks of Men who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity For the greatest part of them in our Communion judging this Perusal needless will not mind it for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26. heard the Owners Experience of it would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation by Arguments offered only on one side in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions The least which ought to be done by them who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion is to hear both Parties and weigh their Reasons I answer that these Persons I mentioned will act very Justly and Reasonably in doing what I said For there being two Questions the one touching what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other touching what has bin believed by the Primitive Church The first Question being once dispatched we need not trouble our selves about the second Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith This is it which judgeth us all and had the Author of the Perpetuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him but instead of this he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages and perswades himself that henceforward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to when they say in general that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages may be decided three ways First by the Rules of Christian Charity Secondly by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises and cares of his Providence Thirdly by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People is needless It is enough to a well meaning Person that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe touching the Eucharist and thereupon charitably presumes that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Errors It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church that he would never forsake it have had their
arrived through several Ages to that Degree wherein we now see it Thus were the antient Ceremonies in the administration of Baptism abrogated and other new ones adopted in their places Thus has the Opinion of the absolute necessity of the Eucharist to the Salvation of little Children bin abolished and we have passed over into a contrary Opinion Null us saith St. Austin Qui se meminit Catholicae Epist 106. fidei Christianum negat aut dubitat parvulos non accepta gratia regenerationis in Christo sine cibo carnis ejus sanguinis potu non habere in se vitam ac per hoc poenae sempiternae obnoxios There is no Christian who holds the Catholick Faith that either denys or doubts but that little Children who have not received the Grace of Regeneration in Jesus Christ nor participated of the Nourishment of his Flesh and Blood are deprived of everlasting Life and consequently lyable to eternal Damnation LET Mr. Arnaud inform us how this publick Belief came to be changed St. Austin tells us that 't is an Article of the Catholick Faith he assures us there is no Christian who doubts of it that is it was a popular Opinion And yet at this day the contrary is held in the Church of Rome how comes this Change We might produce several other Instances if they were necessary but at present one Example is sufficient to overthrow this false Principle of Mr. Arnaud's and to establish that which appears to him to be so Unreasonable YET to speak a word on each of these Points he has handled does he think that on the Subject of Episcopacy his Discourses will carry it away from St. Jerom who tells us That before there were partialities in Religion Hier. Com. in Epist ad Tit. C. 1. and that the People cryed out I am of Paul and I of Cephas the Church was governed by a Common-Council of Priests but since every one esteeming them whom he had baptized belonged to him and not to Christ it was ordained throughout the whole World that one alone chosen from amongst the Priests should be set up above the rest and have the Charge of the Church committed to him to take away thereby all Occasions of Schisme DOES he think that in the Point of Praying for the Dead we will abandon the Doctrine of St. Paul who tells us in his second Epistle to the Cor. Chap. 5. That if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens These Words do not suffer us to doubt but that they who dye in the Faith of Jesus Christ do enjoy his glorious Presence in Heaven whence it follows they have no need of our Prayers That if the Antients have mentioned the deceased in their Prayers it is certain they never designed thereby to deliver them from the Pains of Purgatory which they undergo to satisfy for their Sins which is the end the Church of Rome doth at this day propose in its Prayers We Celebrate saith an antient Author in his Commentaries Com. in Job L. 3. on Job which are thought to be Origens Not the Day of our Birth but that of our Death for the day of our Birth is an Entrance into Sorrows and Temptations but that of Death is on the contrary the end of Sorrows and a Freedom from all Temptations We commemorate then the Day of Death because they who seem to dye do not so And for this reason we celebrate the memory of the Saints and devoutly commemorate our Fathers or Friends who have departed in the Faith as well to refresh our selves by the remembrance of the Felicity which they enjoy as also to desire of God that we may continue in the same Faith DOES Mr. Arnaud expect in that Article of the Church of Rome's touching the Invocation of Saints that we should believe him rather than Origen who speaks in the Name of all the Christians in his time in his Dispute against Celsus who would have them to worship the Sun Moon and Stars seeing they are Celestial Angels We believe saith he we ought not Origen Cont. Col. L. 5. to pray unto Creatures who do themselves pray unto God especially considering they had rather we should offer up our Petitions to him whom they likewise serve than to them not being willing we should after any sort share our Devotions AND as to the abstaining from certain kind of Meats Tertullian who was a Montanist will shew us better than Mr. Arnaud can the Judgment Tertul. de jejun C. 1. of the Catholicks in his time Arguunt nos saith he quod jejunia propria custodiamus quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus quod etiam Xerophagias observemus siccantes cibum ab omni carne omni jurulentia uvidioribus quibusque pomis ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus They censure us because we observe particular Fasts that we make them last till the Evening that we observe Xerophagies using dry Meats without Flesh and Juice and in that we abstain from Fruits which have over much Juice in them to the end we may not eat or drink any thing which hath the quality of Wine And a little farther as to Xerophagies they say that 't is the new Name of C. â—â— an affected Devotion and which comes near the Heathenish Superstitions such as the Mortifications of Isis Apis and the Mother of the Gods which purify by abstinence from certain Meats And this is in few Words what I had to say on those four Particulars WOULD we keep to the exact Rules of Controversy we need not proceed to any farther Examination of the rest of Mr. Arnaud's great Volumn which may be said without breach of Charity equally to offend both in its quantity and quality For having shewed as I have done that the Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith ought to be rejected upon the only consideration of its Method it is hence evident I am not obliged to follow Mr. Arnaud in his Voyages to Greece Muscovia Persia Syria Egypt Aethiopia and the Indias Seeing we will never part with our Proofs of Fact what need has he of travelling thro all these Countries Neither the Greeks nor other Christian Nations considered from the eleventh Century or from the seventh will decide the Question touching what has bin believed in the antient Church to the Prejudice of the Fathers and their Testimony Yet shall I make him an exact Answer not out of any Necessity but only out of Condescension and upon condition he will remember that I have proved in this first Book these following Particulars I. That his Censure touching what I said concerning Mr. Aubertin's Book is grounded on an extravagant Fancy That it cannot bear a rational Interpretation nor is made with any kind of Sincerity that it supposeth a great Mistake that we may conclude thence a Prevarication against the Church
his Innocency and Admirers of his Virtues It is the Fate of great men to be persecuted and those that are acquainted with the Eastern Affairs must acknowledge there is no place more dangerous and exposed to more Revolutions and Tempests than the Patriarchate of Constantinople Besides the Traverses which Envy and particular Interests stirred up against Cyrillus he had the whole Party of the Latins and false Greeks against him who looked upon him as an Obstacle that withstood their old Design to bring over that Church to Roman See He Ibid. was assay'd both by Promises and Threatnings as Allatius himself acknowledges but they found him unmovable and this is the real cause of their after hatred IT is certain Cyrillus had a great aversion to the Romish Religion and his Inclination led him rather to the Protestants side Neither do I doubt but he disapproved several Superstitions in vogue amongst the Greeks and laboured with all his power to reform them according to the directions of his Conscience and Authority of his Charge But to make him pass under pretence of this for a half Calvinist that was false to his own Principles this is very disingenuously done It is true he relates himself that in a conference he held with Fuxius a Transylvanian Doctour touching the Invocation of Hottinger in Appendic◠dissert 8. Saints He acknowledged the difference betwixt having the Word of God for ones Rule and following the Fancies and Opinions of men the difference between building a man's Faith on the Foundation of Christ and on Hay or Stubble BUT besides that Hottinger from whom Mr. Arnaud has borrowed this particular sets not down the time in which Cyrillus had this Conference with Fuxius and that we must not suppose without good Proof this hap'ned before his promotion to the Patriarchate of Alexandria besides this I say it cannot be hence concluded he wholly renounced in his heart the Invocation of Saints nor that he respected it as an Impiety Hottinger indeed calls this Worship Superstition but from himself and not from Cyrillus so that it is not fairly done to confound one man's Opinion with another Cyrillus perhaps may have acknowledged in this Conference that this Invocation aster the manner some teach and practise it is a meer Fancy and humane Invention that 't is this Word Hay and Stubble Saint Paul speaks of and yet not absolutely rejected this Doctrine in the main Metrophanus Critopulus Confess Ec◠Orient cap. 17. whom I already mentioned expresly distinguishes between an Invocation directed to Saints as Mediatours and that which respects them as Embassadours whom the Church has near Almighty God to beseech him in behalf of their Brethren He rejects the first upon this Reason that there is but one only Mediatour who is Christ Jesus but he receives the second and Cyrillus himself in the eighth Article of his Confession insinuates this distinction saying that our Saviour alone performs the Office of Chief Priest and Mediatour It concerns me not now to examine whether the distinction be good or not it is sufficient to say that a man which holds it may condemn the Invocation of Saints in one respect and retain it in another and remain in the Greek Church which practises it without acting against his Conscience and being a damnable Hypocrite as Mr. Arnaud calls Cyrillus WE may judge of the Sincerity of this Patriarch by his Confession in which and some Answers which accompany it he clearly declared his Belief It contains things which does not well agree with Calvin's Doctrine as for Cyril Conf. fi◠dei art 1. art 16. instance That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son and that Baptism is absolutely necessary for our Communion with Christ which plainly shews Mr. Arnaud has been mistaken in affirming he was a Calvinist We do not find he opposes any where Christ's Descent into Hell nor the Hierarchical Order nor regulated Fasts Lents Arbitrary use of Confession Religious Orders Monastick Vows Celebration of Feasts nor the use of the Greek Liturgy nor any of those things commonly believed and practised in that Church altho Calvin has for the most part disapproved of them He admits the use of the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints it 's true he detests the giving them the Adoration of Latria or any Religious Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Resp ad In◠terr 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and insinuates he was willing to correct the Superstition of the Greeks in this particular he teaches likewise the Doctrine of Predestination and Justification according to the Word of God more clearly than the Eastern People knew it But it must not therefore be concluded he was a Person that betrayed his Trust in performing the Functions of the Patriarchate nor that he was obliged to leave the external Communion of his Church nor as speaks Mr. Arnaud That Piety could not subsist with so damnable Hypocrisie OUR Saviour and his Apostle taught us not to judge so rashly of the Consciences of men Judge not say's our Lord that ye be not judged for Matt. 7. with what Judgment you judge ye shall be judged and with what measure you meet it shall be measured to you again And the Apostle cries out to us Who Rom. 14. art thou that judgest another man's servant Certainly a man cannot be guilty of greater rashness than to condemn People from the Dictates of their own Conscience when having never seen nor heard them it is impossible to have any other than a confused and general knowledge of them such as is Mr. Arnaud's touching Cyrillus For besides that a man may be easily mistaken in imagining that such and such a sentiment obliges a man in conscience to the doing of this or th' other thing if a man proceeds not to a particular consideration of Circumstances besides this I say it may be that this Obligation which appears to us so cogent and inviolable has not so appeared to the Person concerned which suffices to acquit him of the Crime of acting against his Conscience Mr. Arnaud's censure cannot be justifiable unless he could prove Cyrillus has really practised or approved the practice of things which he believed in his heart to be not only indifferent or unprofitable but absolutely evil and that he has practised them in the same time when he judged them to be so Now this Mr. Arnaud has not proved nor never will he may make it appear that Cyrillus believed we must not ground the hopes of our Salvation on humane Traditions but the word of God that we must invoke only Jesus Christ in the quality of Mediatour and render no kind of Religious Worship to Images He may prove that Cyrillus has found out the Errours in the Religion of the Latins and Superstitions amongst the Greeks and detested both He may shew that Cyrillus has approved conformably to his Confession divers Points of the Doctrine of Calvin but he cannot prove
is to say the Sacrament of his Body and Blood The multitude of Corn and Wine says he in another place is the multitude which Jesus Christ gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with Beda Expos alleg in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos alleg in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil S. Jo. Bapt. her says 'T is because she has the Mysteries of his Flesh and Blood in the Wine and Bread elsewhere applying to the Church what Solomon says of the virtuous woman that she eats not her bread in idleness She eats not says he her bread in idleness because receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body she carefully imitates in her actions what she celebrates in his Ministry taking care lest she eat our Lords Bread and drink of his Cup unworthily The ancients says he moreover celebrated our Lords Passion by which both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and flesh of Sacrifices and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine Elsewhere he assures us That our Saviour has established under the New Testament the same kind of Sacrifice idem sacrificii genus as that of Melchisedeck to be the Mystery of his Body and Blood In his Homily on the Epiphany he says that our Saviour Idem hom de sanctis in Epiphan having abolished the Paschal Lamb has changed the Mystery of his Passion into the creatures of Bread and Wine In his Commentary on the 33d Psalm he applies what is said of David that he changed his countenance Idem Comm. in Psal 33. and he expresses himself in this sort He changed his countenance before the Jews because he converted the Sacrifices of the Law which were according to the Order of Aaron into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine according to the Order of Melchisedeck In the same place he says That our Saviour carried himself in some sort in his own hands at his last Supper when he gave to his Disciples the Bread which he blessed and which his mouth recommended to them In his Commentary on S. Luke explaining the words of Idem Comm. in Luc. 22. our Saviour This is my Body this my Blood Instead of the flesh and blood of the Lamb says he he has substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE And to shew wherein consists this mystical figuration he adds That our Saviour did himself break the Bread to signifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body And a little further The Bread strengthens the Flesh and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies and therefore the Bread mystically alludes to the Body and the Wine to the Blood WE find in truth says Mr. Arnaud the language of sense in the Authors Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5. of these Ages as well as in those of the following They could not exempt themselves from using it whatsoever their opinion was otherwise But to judg of that which they had in effect we must consider what they tell us of the Eucharist when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and essence when they do not design it but teach what it is when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has chosen but tell us what God does in this matter when they do not speak of it according to the impressions of sense but according to the sentiments of Faith To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition between the language of sense and that of Faith it ought to be made appear that according to them these two languages justle one another that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main and that that of sense is deceitful and illusory if taken according to the letter But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonstrate We know our senses tell us that 't is bread we know their deposition is literal for 't is literally and without a figure that our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th and 8th Centuries speaking according to sense reason will guide us to the understanding of their language according to the letter unless we are shew'd that according to these same Fathers our Faith must correct this language that she declares it to be false being taken according to the letter and does not allow of it unless under the favour of an interpretation and a figure Were this shew'd us I confess then we ought to lay aside this language of sense as being very improper for the discovering to us the true opinion of Authors But till then we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the senses themselves which is to declare to us that the Eucharist is real Bread and Wine For unless it be shew'd us that those who have used it had an intention contrary to that of their senses we ought to suppose they have had even no other than that for we must ever suppose in favour of nature and the general rule That if afterwards there be met with in the expressions of Faith something that seems contrary to those of sense 't is more reasonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it than to that of sense which naturally cannot suffer it So that comparing these two kinds of expressions Bread and Wine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ one with the other we must ever take the first in a literal sense and the second in a figurative one unless as I said we are shew'd the contrary by some express declaration TO make likewise an exact opposition between the matter of the Eucharist and its essence or nature it must first be shew'd that this matter does no longer subsist but ceases to be in the very moment wherein the Eucharist is made For if it subsists it makes one part of the essence or nature of the Sacrament to wit the material part and we shall always have right to use for our advantage the passages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine altho they design the marter of it seeing this matter subsists Now of these two suppositions either that the matter subsists or does not subsist that which affirms it subsits is natural in favour of which by consequence we must always prejudicate till such time as the contrary is establisht by good proofs I say that the supposition that the matter subsists is the natural one First Because that in all the changes which happen in the world there is ever a common subject which subsists it being never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into another where the whole substance of this first thing has absolutely ceased to be Philosophy can give us no instance of this and even miracles wrought
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things