things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
Saviour did not scruple to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body that he made Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body that we must distinguish between the Bread of our Lord and the Bread which is the Lord himself that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body altho the nature of Bread remains that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who knew that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when on the Earth and left the Earth when it ascended up into Heaven that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him that this locution is figurative and must not be taken according to the letter signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us 'T IS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour What likelihood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is made the Body of Jesus Christ changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us that we are refresh'd with his Blood and nourish'd with his Flesh and other expressions of this nature what likelihood is there they should hesitate at 'em or see any other sense in 'em than the Sacramental or figurative one Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others and a mind better fitted to understand the stile and ordinary expressions of the Church Let the same instructions the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them let neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject nor the real existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in several places nor his double Presence that is to say his visible and invisible one nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone and in a word let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost let the same instructions and expositions I say be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them and then let 'em be told as long as you will that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ for I am persuaded and believe every reasonable man will be so too that the people will never conceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation but understand 'em without difficulty in a Sacramental sense Where Where 's then this great noise which the Real Presence made knocking as the Author of the Perpetuity words it millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful Is not this clatter a mere dream and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears BUT 't will perhaps be question'd whether persons of mean capacity whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Presence I answer we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not understand them You have commanded us to believe said they in S. Austin Serm. ad inf explain to us then how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to the end we may understand it They did not understand it then before the explication In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense Philosophy must give 'em one for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ according to a literal sense or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ seeing we behold it still to be Bread I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to offer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence but not of the real invisible and incorporeal Presence touching which we contend but on the contrary the idea of a corporeal Presence for a mans mind especially that of an ignorant man does not imagin th' existence of a human invisible insensible and impalpable Body I moreover say that this idea of the corporeal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant from the testimony of their own senses which they could not but consult supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one But supposing they did not 't is likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread such as they saw in the Eucharist and this is what S. Austin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ AS to the passages of S. Hilary and Gregory of Nysse which Mr. Arnaud alledges as offering the idea of the Real Presence I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence seeing it has these words that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature and not by a simple consent of will and then again that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mollifies or explains this term naturally Naturally says he that is to say really But this that is to say really ought not to be written in Italick as if 't were S. Hilary's own explication and if the fault be the Printer's and not Mr. Arnaud's he should at least have set it in the Errata because it causes two illusions at a time on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us in proper terms seeing he says that he remains in us naturally that is
from Arguments then when they are made use of to establish Matters argued with Proofs of matters of Fact which are intended for a confirmation of the same matters of Fact For I am far from denying but there may be at some times Proofs drawn from Arguments which are as conclusive in their kind and bring along with them as much certainty of Evidence as Proofs of Fact do in theirs The Debate concerns the comparing these two sorts of Proofs in respect of a matter of Fact for the Principal Question betwixt us is whether the Doctrine of the antient Church is the same with that of the Church of Rome at present now this is a matter of Fact which on one side is demonstrated by Proofs of Fact and which the Author pretends on the other side to demonstrate by Proofs drawn from Arguments which two sorts of Proofs form contrary Conclusions on the same subject IT is farther to be considered the Question lies not in supposing our Proofs are frivolous or uncertain for then they might be opposed by Proofs drawn from Arguments by pretending that the Fact would be more plainly demonstrated by this means than by the other Had the Author of the Perpetuity made this Supposition and well grounded it we could not any longer keep to our Proofs of Fact of whose weakness and insufficieney he had already convinced us we must then have hearkned to his Arguments But we are not in this case for he leaves our Proofs of Fact untouched in their whole strength and we are perswaded of the truth and solidity of them It being then thus with us it remains to enquire whether his Proofs drawn from Arguments can be sufficient to make us alter our Judgments The Author of the Perpetuity pretends they are and I deny them to be so so that to decide clearly this Point we must compare these two ways of Proving one with another I affirm then first of all our Proofs of Fact are regular and natural as I made apparent in my second Chapter whereas those of the Author of the Perpetuity are unjust and preposterous Now to compare these two Methods one with another that which is natural is least suspicious for there can be nothing said against it common Sense leads us to it but the other is ever lyable to Exception by reason of its contrariety and obliquity The latter of these leads a mans Mind by several Turnings and Windings and the other makes it go straight MOREOVER our Proofs of Fact demonstrate the matter immediately in it self but Proofs drawn from Reason cannot do this but by a Prospect thro other things and by means of Connexions and Consequences Now it cannot be denyed but of these two ways of knowing things the one being immediate and the other mediate the one near and the other distant but that the first of these is the most distinct and certain for not to say that the Ideas of things grow weak when they are discovered by a Medium and that the Mind is more attentive and so by consequence more distracted and less able when it is forced to apply it self at the same time to three different Objects viz. on the Conclusion Principle and Dependance which the Conclusion hath on its Principle than when it hath but one only Object to consider besides this I say the orderly Connexion of things being less known to us than the things themselves it is easier to take for a Consequence what is not one than to take one thing for another It is easier to deceive us by affirming if an Alteration hath hap'ned there must such and such Accidents have followed it than it is by only telling us Loe here the Alteration and certainly a man is in less danger of being deceived this way than the other WHEN two Methods are offered as proper to demonstrate a Question in Debate it seems to me that a mans Reason will incline him to choose that way which brings him to the consideration of the Point debated in all its several Relations and Circumstances rather than that which shews it him but in one The Mind must be permitted to make several Reflections because divers Reflections strengthen one another and uniting together they form a more extended and perfect Knowledg even as several Rayes united give the greater Light Now it cannot be denyed but our Proofs of Fact have this Advantage over them of the Perpetuity For the latter of these respects no farther than the only impossibility of an Alteration and concludes from thence that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath bin the same with that of the Church of Rome at present But our Proofs examine the Belief of the Antient Church in all the ways it can be examined in it self by its necessary Consequences by its Consequences of Congruity by way of Negation and Affirmation by Circumstances of Time Places Persons and Occasions and in a word after all manners imaginable whereby the Mind may form a more solid and certain Judgment What likelyhood is there then that being already perswaded by a considerable number of Proofs which this Method draws from all these Particulars we should receive a contrary Impression by the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments A greater humane Certainty than that of Sence cannot be found now that of Reasoning falls commonly under this Degree especially when we apply it to matters of Fact BUT when Proofs drawn from Arguments shall be extended to the same Degree of Conviction as those of the Eye-sight and common Sence they can never ascend higher or proceed so far as to convince us and make us renounce their Evidence It seldom happens that these two Lights justle one another but when this falls out a mans Mind never fails of taking one part or the other it may remain for some time interdicted and astonished but unless some vain Philosophy as that of the Academicks or Pyrrhoniens has corrupted it and made it wander it will soon rally it self on the side of common Sence I will produee an Example drawn from Physicks Our Eyes and Sences shew us that a grain of Sand is not only finite but far less than a Mountain or the whole Globe of the Earth yet there are People who endeavour to demonstrate by the force of their Arguments that this little grain of Sand comprehends an infinite number of Parts actually existent because it may be divided ad infinitum and it is not say they well conceivable how a thing can be so divided if there be not in it actually an Infinity of Parts seeing each Division supposeth the actual Existence of its Parts from whence it seems that this grain of Sand is as bigg as a Mountain and the whole World besides it being impossible say they moreover there should be a greater and larger heap than that which actually contains an Infinity of Parts I doubt not but a mans Mind would be soon entangled in this Labyrinth but he would extricate himself thence not by
elsewhere expressed her self touching the change of the Substance and had no Council defined it nor were it to be found in the Confessions of Faith Catechisms and other Publick Books and taught by the Roman Doctours it is evident we should be unreasonable in giving these general expressions any other than a general sence and this generality it self would be an invincible Argument that she never descended so far as the distinct determination of Transubstantiation and consequently this would not be an Article of her Belief Now 't is after this manner we ought to judge of the Greek Church all its expressions are general there appearing nothing elsewhere which determins this generality or which engages us to attribute to her the particular and distinct sence of the Church of Rome and whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has alledged in the behalf of this is of no weight It then necessarily follows that we ought to attribute to her no other than a general sence and in no wise that of Transubstantiation which is evidently particular and determinate And even this consideration that they of the Church of Rome are obliged to use Arguments to explain the common expressions of this Church into a sence of Transubstantiation is an infallible mark that she does not believe it NOW seeing this Proof is decisive and that it not only establisheth my Sentiment but likewise overthrows Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute it will not be therefore amiss to illustrate it and consider well its Foundations to the end it may be manifested whether the conclusion I draw from hence is just and true First then we must know that Transubstantiation is the precise and distinct determination of the manner in which the Bread is made the Body of Christ to wit by a real conversion of the substance of this Bread into the substance of this Body so that 't is impossible to believe it without forming a distinct Idea after this manner seeing it is even this precise and determin'd Idea it self It is then absurd and contradictory to look for it in a general and confused Idea which determines nothing for this is to seek for a determination in a thing undetermined and a distinct sence in a generality that is to say light in darkness And from hence appears what must be the expressions of a Church which believes Transubstantiation and teaches it for it is necessary she teach it in plain terms which answer the distinct Idea she has of it and which may immediately form the like in the minds of those that hear her Now this cannot be done but by express and formal Terms or by Terms so equivalent that they cannot be turned into a contrary sence What I say is verifi'd by the example of the Roman Church whose expressions are plain and clear and which immediately shew her meaning MOREOVER we should consider that the Notion of Transubstantiation is not one of those which are called Speculative but Practical Notions which engages them that have it to several duties and performances and especially to the soverain adoration of this same substance which before was the substance of bread but now the same proper numerical substance of the natural body of Jesus Christ as speaks the Church of Rome whence it necessarily follows that a Church which thus believes it teacheth it in such a manner that the act of adoration follows freely and naturally of it self .. IT is likewise to be observed that the matter here in hand concerns the Greek Church from the Eleventh Century which is to say that since the contests with Berengarius the Roman Church has expresly determined the substantial conversion which drove the Greeks into a greater necessity of speaking clearly on this point either to shew their conformity of belief with the Latins or to avoid the falling into the same inconveniencies which the Latins endeavour'd to avoid by this formal declaration And this observation is the more considerable against Mr. Arnaud in that he grants the Greeks not to have been ignorant of this circumstance touching Berengarius TO know then certainly whether the Greek Church believes Transubstantiation or not we need but see after what manner she explains her self concerning the Eucharist for if her expressions bear not a substantial conversion either expresly or equivalently in such a sort that they may easily and immediately form the notion thereof if they be I say general and determine nothing of themselves it is a certain proof she does not believe it for that Church which believes it and would have its Children do the like cannot but explain it self clearly and fully on that subject If we examine Mr. Arnaud's dispute on this Principle which I esteem as the light of common sence we shall immediately deprive him of all his negative Arguments taken from the silence of the Greeks and that of the Latins for altho these kind of Arguments are very good in other occasions yet it is apparent that to end a question such a one as this is which is Whether the Eastern Church believes and teaches Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud should have taken a course more decisive than that of considering what the Greeks have done in relation to the Transubstantiation of the Latins or what the Latins have done in respect of the belief of the Greeks It were better for us directly to consider after what manner they themselves do positively explain their belief touching the Eucharist If we find Transubstantiation plainly declared in it these Arguments of silence are no longer necessary and if we don't find it clearly expressed there will follow a Conclusion so greatly to my advantage that all Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments will not be able to subsist before it for there is a thousand times more solidity in reasoning after this sort A Church doth not clearly teach Transubstantiation therefore she holds it not than to argue thus A Church does not oppose Transubstantiation held by the Latins therefore she believes it Besides that the first Argument concludes directly and immediately what the other does not there is a greater coherence between believing Transubstantiation and clearly teaching it than there is repugnance between not believing it and yet not opposing it in persons who do believe it There is no reason can hinder the Greeks from distinctly teaching Transubstantiation supposing they believed it but there may be several reasons which may oblige them from making this Point a matter of dispute with the Latins altho they do not believe it NEITHER must the Profession of Faith which the Emperour Michael Paleologus sent as from the Greeks to Pope John the XXI to finish the work of the Re-union of the two Churches be made use of against us for besides that this was an act extorted by force which is not of any account amongst the Greeks we do not find that the Latin expressions which bear that the Bread is really transubstantiated do exactly answer the Greek expressions of the same act which according to all likelyhood
Dispute and consider things without passion I am perswaded he would soon acknowledge that the sence he imputes to the Greeks has no resemblance with the Terms of their Liturgies nor other usual expressions As for example we would know how we must understand this Clause of their Liturgies Make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by the virtue of thy Holy Spirit Mr. Arnaud understands them as mentioning a change of Substance I say on the contrary these are general Terms to which we cannot give at farthest any more than a general sence and that if they must have a particular and determinate one we must understand them in the sence of a Mystical change and a change of Sanctification which consists in that the Bread is to us in the stead of the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it makes deep impressions of him in our Souls that it spiritually communicates him to us and that 't is accompani'd with a quickning grace which sanctifies it and makes it to be in some sence one and the same thing with the Body of Jesus Christ and yet does not this hinder but that the Natural Substance of Bread remains Let us examine the Liturgies themselves to see which of these two sences are most agreeable thereunto WE shall find in that which goes under the name of St. Chrysostom and which is the most in use amongst the Greeks that immediately after the Priest has said Make this Bread to become the precious Body of thy Christ and that Euchar. Graecorum Jacobi Goar Bibl. patr Graecor Lat. Tom. 2. which is in the Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ changing them by thy Holy Spirit he adds to the end they may purifie the Souls of those that receive them that is to say be made a proper means to purifie the Soul by the remission of its sins and communication of the Holy Spirit c. These words do sufficiently explain what kind of change we must understand by them namely a change of Sanctification and virtue for did they mean a change of Substance it should have been said changing them by thy Holy Spirit to the end they may be made the proper Substance of this Body and Blood or some such like expressions In the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. James we find almost the same thing Send say's it thy Holy Spirit upon us and these Holy Gifts lying Bibliot Patr. Graeco Lat. Tom. 2. here before thee to the end that he coming may sanctifie them by his holy good and glorious presence and make this Bread to become the Holy Body of thy Christ and this Chalice the precious Blood of thy Christ to the end it may have this effect to all them which shall receive it namely purifie their Souls from all manner of sin and make them abound in good works and obtain everlasting life And this methinks does sufficiently determine how the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in being sanctifi'd by the presence of his Spirit and procuring the remission of our sins and our Sanctification The Liturgy which bears the name of St. Marc has almost the same expressions Send on us and on these Loaves and Chalices thy Holy Spirit that he Ibid. may sanctifie and consecrate them even as God Almighty and make the Bread the Body and the Cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ our Sovereign King to the end they may become to all those who shall participate of them a means of obtaining Faith Sobriety Health Temperance a regeneration of Soul and Body the participation of Felicity Eternal Life to the glory of thy great name A Person whose mind is not wholly prepossessed with prejudice cannot but perceive that this Clause to the end they may become c. is the explication of the foregoing words change them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that it determines them to a change not of Substance but of Sanctification and Virtue This Truth is so evident that Arcudius has not scrupled to acknowledge that if this Clause be taken make this Bread the Body of thy Christ in an absolute sence Arcud lib. 3. cap. 33. that is to say that it be made the Body of Christ not in respect of us but simply in it self it will have no agreement nor coherence with these other words that follow to the end they may be made c. And he makes of this a Principle for the concluding that the Consecration is not performed by this Prayer but that 't is already perfected by the words this is my Body directly contrary to the Sentiment of the Greeks who affirm 't is made by the Prayer So that if we apply Arcudius's Observation to the true Opinion of the Greek Church to wit that the Consecration is performed by this Prayer we shall plainly perceive that their sence is That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ in respect of us inasmuch as it sanctifies us and effects the remission of our sins AND with this agrees the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Sanctifie which the Greeks commonly make use of to express the Act of Consecration and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sanctifications by which they express their Mysteries as appears by the Liturgies and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Gifts the sanctified Gifts the holy Mysteries the quickning Mysteries the holy Bread which are common expressions amongst them All which favours the change of Sanctification ON the other hand we shall find in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom that the name of Bread is given three times to the Sacrament after Consecration in the Pontificia four times and in the declaration of the presanctifi'd Bread it is so called seven times In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Priest makes this Prayer immediately after the Consecration Lord remember me Archi. Habert Apud Goar in Euchol a sinner and as to us who participate all of us of the same Bread and Cup grant we may live in Union and in the Communion of the same Holy Spirit Likewise what the Latins call Ciborium the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as much as to say a Bread Saver and 't is in it wherein they put that which they call the presanctifi'd Bread being the Communion for the sick I know what is wont to be said in reference to this namely that the Eucharist is called Bread upon the account of its Species that is to say of its Accidents which remain sustain'd by the Almighty Power of God without a Subject but the Greeks themselves should give us this explication for till then we may presume upon the favour of the natural signification of the Term which we not finding attended with the Gloss of the Latins it must therefore be granted not
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
Body it self that they made not use of this Principle the Figure is not the Original to shew the Eucharist was the Original and not the Figure That they did not make this ridiculous Argument The Eucharist contains the Virtue of Christ's Body It is not then the Figure of it I answer we Cited not Paschasius his Adversaries for that purpose We instanced them to shew that it is no new or extraordinary Matter to understand by the Body of Christ his Body in Virtue seeing several in the ninth Century understood it in this manner But say's he they said not the Eucharist was properly and Ibid. truly the Body of Christ It does not in effect appear to us they did say it nor denyed it was a Figure nor reasoned like the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes and from thence we may well conclude they admitted not the intire Hypothesis of the Greeks which is that this Body of Christ in Virtue is an Augmentation of the natural Body to infer from thence that it is properly his Body and not the Figure of it But this does not hinder but that by the Term of Body they understood the Virtue of the Body Had their Error say's Mr. Ibid. Arnaud led them to understand by the Word Body the Figure and Virtue common Sence would have forced 'em to explain themselves in proper Terms to make themselves understood But I say the Greeks do explain themselves in proper Terms Ely de Crete who assisted at the Council of Nice does not he Com. in Greg. Naz. plainly say That the Bread is changed into the Efficacy of Christ's Body Did not Cyrillus of Alexandria and Eutychius say the same thing Did not Theophylact Express himself in the same manner Has not Damascen said That it is Bread united to the Divinity a Growth of the Body of Christ Does not Nicolaus Methoniensis tell us That Christ Joyns his Divinity to these Things which are familiar to our Natures And how many more such like Expositions are to be met with in the Passages I already produced Let Mr. Arnaud say as long as he pleases This Language is so Unnatural and Strange that to make this pretended C. 5. p. 669. Sence of it Intelligible it ought to be proclaimed with sound of Trumpet throughout all the East and Notice given to all People that these Words were to be understood in this unheard of Sence Otherwise all these Authors ought to be esteemed as Cheats and Impostors The Greeks will answer him that all his Rhetorick is void of Reason in whatsoever Humour it comes from him They have sufficiently Explained themselves to those that have Ears They are not Deceivers for they never so much as once said the Eucharist was the natural Body of Christ in Propriety of Substance but often the contrary namely his Body in Virtue IT were better in my Mind to reserve these Proclamations he speaks of to publish to the World there ought no more of those Passages of the Fathers to be alledged seeing they are so troublesom to Mr. Arnaud For seeing I have incurred his Indignation for quoting a Passage out of Facundus it is fitting the World should henceforward know how to avoid offending him This Passage say's he of Facundus must be brought in every where right or wrong The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Jesus Christ may C. 6. p. 684. be taken for the Virtue and Efficacy of this Body in which Point Facundus is silent The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Christ can be taken in another Sence than for the Substance of Christ's natural Body and of this Facundus speaks To contain the Mystery of Christ's Body and to contain the Virtue of it are two Expressions which signify at bottom the same thing in Facundus his Sence and it is upon good Grounds we have alledged him But when a Passage perplexes Mr. Arnaud it must be laid aside because it disturbs his Brain Omitting then Facundus for this time in compliance to Mr. Arnaud pass we on to the Council of Constantinople termed Iconoclastes THIS Council say's first That our Saviour has commanded us to offer an Image Apud Concil Nicen. art 6. a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread It is clear their Sence is that that which is offered in the Eucharist and which is an Image is the Substance of Bread To say thereupon their Sence is not that it is in Effect a Substance of Bread but only a Matter which keeps the Figure and Resemblance of it is in my Mind as frivolous a Shift and Evasion as ever was used for what may not a Man elude if he may expound these Terms The Substance of Bread by these Not the Substance of Bread but the Figure and Resemblance Besides this Mr. Arnaud tells me That I may not so much as humbly C. 7. p. 689. propose my Doubts and must be known to be a Person extream modest otherwise all People will wonder so easy a matter should startle me that I consult not common Sence touching what I ought to say and that my Head is so full of Calvinistical Subtilities that I cannot speak after the rate of other Men. He afterwards Ibid. c. 7. falls upon a Discourse which takes up six great Pages which amount to this That when the Judgment of Reason or Faith is contrary to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence there is form'd two sorts of Languages which subsist together the one Conformable to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence and the other to Faith and Reason To establish this Principle he say's That Faith changes the Judgment of Sence and Concupiscence and shews us that what we call Good is a real Evil that our Evils are reall Goods that those who are called Happy are really Miserable the Rich Poor the Poor Rich the Wise Foolls the Prudent Imprudent and the Knowing Ignorant He adds That Philosophy oft overthrows the common Notions of things That the Thomists affirm Matter has no Existence that a dead Body has nothing in common with a living one that some Philosophers of this Age teach that Animals are only Machins and Automates and sensible Qualities are not in the things themselves but are the Impressions of our Sences That several of the most profound Astrologers believe with Copernicus that the Sun and Stars are unmovable and that 't is the Earth which by its various Motions makes Day and Night and Variety of Seasons He tells us afterwards That there is in all these things a two-fold Language the one according to Appearance and the other according to Truth That 't is the same in respect of the Eucharist Faith correcting in it the Ideas of Sence and from thence comes this twofold Language the one by which we call the Eucharist Bread Substance of Bread Matter of Bread and the other by which we call it the Body of Christ NOT to proceed without profiting by Mr. Arnaud's
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which our Eyes likewise shew us means 't is real Bread and Wine in Substance for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense which bears 't is Bread and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense as if we need call its truth in question but in the Body of Jesus Christ which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin which suffered the Death of the Cross and was exalted up into Heaven that Bread should be say'd to be this Body This thought may arise say's St. Augustin and Bede after him in the mind of some Persons we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was suckled in his Infancy educated grew up in years suffered the Persecution of the Jews was nayl'd to the Cross put to Death Buried rose the third Day and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood They do not say how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so or because 't was Bread before its Consecration But from the Nature of the Sacraments wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true the one of our Senses and the other of our Understanding My Brethren say they these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing and understand another That which we see has a Corporeal Species that which we understand has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd as to what concerns our Eye-sight 't is really Bread and Wine but in respect of our Understanding 't is the Body of Jesus Christ So that if there must be any thing figurative in either of the two Propositions it must be in the Language of Faith and not in that of Sense which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition ALL that we can expect from them say's Mr. Arnaud that is to say from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century is that when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth they should explain themselves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739. according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it and which imprint the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread whether it has bin disputed on or no is that they declare it in precise and formal Terms Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason that the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that it gives them a particular Sense and forms of it self a distinct and precise Idea whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it and a man has directly this Intention he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms which answer the Idea he has of it and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers It cannot be denyed but this Conversion and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish ' um How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um or designs to Preach 'um to its People do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um and no Person had ever declared against 'um yet Nature itself which is common to all men do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church he speaks of to defend them from their Attacks and fortify them against their Oppositions But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements BUT say's Mr. Arnaud we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations they had that also of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742. Words and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake I know several People of a contrary Humour and yet are men as appears by other Humours they have But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination He offers it without any Proof and I may reject it without farther examining it Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion Men are not wont to use these half Sentences unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times to express themselves only in half Sentences when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist This Custom lasted a great while seeing it was so for near two hundred years and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers or in fine that none of these Customs were lost Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous For to speak soberly to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner
naturally arises in the minds of all men May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects and yet have been used for different ends and on different occasions 'T is not good reasoning to conclude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough and sufficiently subject to change either in regard of divers People or Ages and the occasions the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccountable too SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a general reason why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation I mean in the Eucharist for so the Fathers have called it Is it not sufficient 't was a general interest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound respect the words of Jesus Christ who has said of the Bread This is my Body and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them These two interests are general belong to all times and all Nations and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was BUT in fine supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly I say 't is sufficient 't was a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons and not necessarily in those of all men For there have been weak Christians at all times and in all places the Church having never been without 'um and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucharist that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ that it procures us the remission of our Sins the Grace of Sanctification the hope of Everlasting life that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour this doubt I say easily arises in the minds of weak persons who as I have already said are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sacrament wherein there only appears Bread and Wine Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ were only used to prevent this doubt to strengthen the weak in this regard and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church WERE there any body now says he tempted with this doubt and Page 783. needed to be strengthened against it does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucharist and whether he fills it with his efficacy He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ nor of rejecting it in these here I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters whom he introduces without any occasion or reason would not consult common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms supposing they doubted of Transubstantiation or the substantial presence Why should they not say We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or we doubt whether the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite expressions Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms by saying We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous stated according to my sense in Palladius How are the gifts said a Religious Pallad Hist Laus cap. 75. person able to sanctifie me I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented as appears by Cyril of Alexandria God says he changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Apud Vict. Ant. Miss AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE and by Elias of Crete God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Elias Cret in Greg. AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ in reference to the question of the Conversion and the substantial Presence and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue For Walafridus Strabo an Author of the 9th Century having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book De Virtute Sacramentorum says afterwards in the Text of the same Chapter Valafridus Strabo de rec Eccles cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10. by way of confirmation That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert altho he lived in the 12th Century that is to say in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church yet said That the Bread is rightly called and is TRVLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ Crucified Dead and Buried Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reason to be so positive in affirming
receive his Body and Blood therein without searching after greater satisfaction THE fourth is of those who having been disgusted at the inconsistency of these terms the Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ found at length the real knot of the question I mean that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the Sacred Body of our Redeemer THE fifth in fine is of those who at the hearing of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ went immediately to their true and natural sense without perplexity or difficulty and without so much as thinking on the inconsistency of the terms well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be a Sacrament which represents and communicates to us the Lords Body and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth and a greater disposition to understand the stile and usual expressions of the Church HERE' 's says Mr. Arnaud what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. Church and the time of the distinct knowledg And yet of these five ranks there are three who knew not what the Eucharist was and understood not the sense of the expressions which form this Doctrin The fourth sought and happily found it says he after a long search and the fifth found it without searching it I ACKNOWLEDG that what has been said of these five ranks may be understood of all the time which preceded the change but yet we may divide this time into two and distinguish that wherein the Pastors took a more particular care to instruct the people and that of ignorance wherein the mysteries of the Gospel were neglected and the people ill instructed For as ignorance was never so great nor universal but that there were ever some persons knowing enough to understand distinctly that the Bread is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ because 't is the Sacrament of it so knowledg never so generally overspread the Church but there were always some weak and ignorant persons in it When we distinguish a time of knowledg from a time of ignorance we do not mean there were no ignorant people during the time of knowledg nor enlightned persons during the time of ignorance We do not thus understand it But we take the denomination from the party that most prevail'd and call a time of light and knowledg that wherein we see appear more learning and clearness a time of darkness and ignorance that wherein we find on the contrary appear much more thickness and stupidity When then I said that I reckon'd these five ranks of persons in the Church I understood that this was true in both the two times that is to say both in that which I called the Churches happy days the time of a distinct knowledg and in that of ignorance and confusion but I likewise meant that this was true in these two times diversly according to the difference which distinguishes them so that when the sense of my proposition is distributed reason requires that the proportion of each time be kept We must not doubt but that in the first six Centuries there were persons to be found of these three first ranks which I denoted but far fewer than in the following Ages AFTER this first remark Mr. Arnaud makes another which is that I do not prove what I offer touching these five orders This is says he an Lib. 6. ch 6. pag. 563. History no where extant These are news which he alone knows and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon But this is Mr. Arnaud's usual course when he cannot answer an Argument he requires proofs for it and so when he cannot invalidate an Answer he bethinks himself of saying prove it The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impossible I affirm 't is possible and to shew that it is so I suppose by way of explication and illustration five ranks of persons in the Church during the time which preceded the change If I suppose a thing impossible or absurd it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to shew the impossibility or absurdity thereof and not to require proofs of me I suppose nothing but what lies within the terms of probability and is conformable to the manner of mens thoughts which appears by their every days actions in like occasions as this altho not recorded in History Howsoever if Mr. Arnaud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force he should solidly attack my Answer and lay aside those fooleries of worlds in the Moon which do not well agree with the importance of our subject AND this he seems to be sensible of for he does not much insist on this demand of proofs but comes to a particular examination of these diverse ranks and to make it the more pleasant he gives each of 'em a nick-name and title the first he calls the rank of Contemplative Ignoramus's the next that of Lazy Ignoramus's the third that of Catholicks the fourth of Considerate Calvinists the fifth that of Inconsiderate ones In discoursing on the first rank he gives us a touch about Mental Prayer of being snatcht up immediately into Heaven concerning our meditation on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto and standing upon our guard against the terms which express the essence of the Mystery and he uses the same pleasant method about the rest which shews he can be frolicksome sometimes and has his hours of creation as well as other folks BUT laying aside these fine words let us come to things The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence offer'd the formulary of Communion Refutat part 2. chap. 2. Corpus Christi which was used in the ancient Church saying that these terms represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar and thence he concluded they had a distinct belief that it was thereon if they follow'd the sense of these words or if they rejected them they had a distinct belief of the Real Absence TO this I answer'd that the first impression which things make on our minds and words design'd to any use is that of their use that 't is thus every morning that we conceive of the light not as being under the notion Answer to the second Treat part 2. ch 2. of a body or accident or motion of air but under the notion of a thing which is useful to us and serves to lead us to our labors which I farther illustrated by several other examples Then applying this remark to my subject I said that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use design'd according to the intention of the Church to raise up the minds of Communicants to the meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ dead
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
an inconsistent sense but on the contrary a sense that appears consistent and reasonable to abused persons altho at bottom it be otherwise Whilst a man judges of it according to the false lights of these persons he calls it a sense because his mind acquiesces therein as seeing nothing therein impossible but as soon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconsistency of the terms 't is no longer a sence 't is a mere contradiction that has no sense and which is unintelligible I confess that as mens minds are subject to fearful capricio's it sometimes happens that they advance propositions wherein contradictions are so evident that they must needs have seen 'em themselves such as is that of this Philsosopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud who affirmed That if God pleas'd two and two should not be four but in this case 't is requisite to say that these persons impose on the world and understand not themselves what they say For for to say that a man can make to himself a sense of a contradiction when it appears to him to be a contradiction that he can unite two ideas by affirming one of the other at the same time wherein he sees they cannot be accorded that is to say that he can persuade himself that a thing is possible ev'n then when it seems to him to be impossible If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy he must Philosophise by himself for me 'T IS then clear I had reason to say that this second rank of persons which I supposed in the ancient Church who found inconsistency in the terms of this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ conceiv'd properly no sense at all in it For as to their parts they could not find any in it seeing the proposition to them seem'd inconsistent Neither could their Pastors help 'em seeing 't is laid down for a maxim that they knew not in what sense the Fathers understood it But says Mr. Arnaud not knowing Page 580. any other way to make the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ they must make an entire separation of the Bread and Body and absolutely deny the presence and existence of Jesus Christ in the Bread which is rejecting the Real Presence I answer that this is not a good conclusion the persons of which we speak found no sense in the proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconsistent they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body I grant but seeing 't was a proposition of their Pastors whom they would not charge with falsity and being taught it as from the authority of Jesus Christ himself 't is not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it must have a good sense altho they knew not which was this good sense and therefore I said in my answer to the Perpetuity that their minds stopt at the only difficulty without undertaking to resolve it 'T is fruitless to enquire whether they rejected by a positive judgment the unity of these two substances Bread and Body or whether their minds hung in suspense notwithstanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconsistency of the terms I have not attributed to them this rejection as Mr. Arnaud says I have in impertinently transferring what I said of them who went as far as the Sacramental sense to those of this second rank who proceeded not so far But whether they formally rejected this unity of two substances or only suspended their judgments it is clear they neither rejected Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation for neither one nor the other of these two opinions establishes th' unity of these two substances Bread and Body in the sense we understand it here that is to say by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ They may have deny'd the Real Presence in this last sense that is to say judged that the Bread remaining Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ but as to other ways since found out to make the Bread to be the Body having no knowledg of 'em they could not reject them They rejected if you will the unity of the two substances they conceived no sense in this expression the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ yet they acknowledg'd it must have a good and a true one altho they knew not in particular which that was they carry'd off their minds from this difficulty but in all this they conceiv'd no distinct notice either of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to persuade us That the natural Page 583. idea of these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in explaining them in the usual manner was that appearing Bread 't was not so but the very Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is a renouncing all the lights of reason to pretend that this so common true and authoriz'd sense by custom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years All this signifies nothing seeing his pretended sense is contrary to nature the question concerning Bread which a man seeth and which all the notices of sense and reason assure to be Bread these same notices do not inform us that 't is not Bread or that 't is only an appearance of it The question likewise concerning a Body which we know is in Heaven and which is like unto that which we have the notices of reason urge not a man to understand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread So that should we suppose that during eight hundred years this sense entred not into any bodies thoughts we shall suppose nothing but what 's very natural and reasonable But says Mr. Page 582. Arnaud when Raphael led young Toby if any one that knew who he was should say this Man whom you see is an Angel Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too but easily conceive he meant only that appearing Man he was really an Angel But does not Mr. Arnaud consider that this example is quite different from our case When the Angels appear'd under the form of men there was always some sensible character that distinguish'd them and easily shew'd there was something more than natural in ' em There 's nothing like this in the Bread th' apparition of Angels in a humane shape was very frequent under the old Testament and Toby was instructed in his infancy in the belief of this This apparition of the Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church We know that an Angel leaves Heaven when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane shape whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Jesus Christ is so in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the last Judgment We know an Angel is of a spiritual nature and a man consults not his eyes to know whether he is
present or not but we know that the Body of Jesus Christ is of a sensible nature th' object of our sight and feeling Had then any one said to Toby This man whom you see is an Angel perhaps Toby had taken this proposition in Mr. Arnaud's sense because he would have been led to it by what I now come from representing touching th' appearance of Angels But suppose as we ought to suppose in this place of our dispute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Transubstantiation nor that of Consubstantiation that knows not the Principles of it that never heard of it nor of an appearance of Bread without its substance nor of a humane Body impalpable invisible and existent in several places at a time and moreover knows that the Body of Jesus Christ is in Heaven Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ 't is certain that the light of reason will never lead him to this violent explication That that which appears Bread and is not is the very Body of Jesus Christ in substance As to the rest Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuse several passages of Calvin Beza and Zuinglius disputing against those called Lutherans Their sense is that if these words this is my Body may be literally understood we must rather admit the sense of the Roman Church than that of the Lutherans But it does not hence follow that the sense of the Roman Church is the most natural one nor that the people must find it of themselves this consequence does not any ways follow SO that here are two of the ranks of persons which I asserted delivered from the unjust pursuits of Mr. Arnaud The third says he is less troublesome Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586. than the others Why Because adds he it consists only of persons that believed the Real Presence and had a distinct Faith of it This rank is of those who going as far as the question How the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded also to the solution of it but their minds stopt at general terms as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without searching a greater light 'T is certain says Mr. Arnaud there might be in effect faithful persons in the ancient Church that penetrated no farther into this Mystery than barely to believe that Jesus Christ is therein present and that we receive therein his Body and Blood God be praised that we have at length once said something which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict And to return him the same kindness do tell him that what he grants here does not at all displease me For this plainly shews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Transubstantiation but conceiv'd only a Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion how general soever it might be was distinctly the Real Presence Which is what I deny and must examin The question is then only whether these persons believ'd distinctly the Real Presence he pretends it and I deny it THEY knew says Mr. Arnaud neither the key of Figure nor the key of Page 587. Virtue according to the Hypothesis it self So that neither the presence of Virtue nor the presence of figure came into their thoughts I grant it What presence then could they conceive but the Real Presence but the Real Reception And why must they have given to these words another sense than that which they naturally have This is ill concluded They would have conceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Presence without descending to a particular and precise distinction I confess 't is very hard for persons that have their sight and never so little of common sense not to acknowledg that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in this ordinary and corporeal manner by which a body is naturally in one place and I am sufficiently persuaded that those persons in question could not come so far as to enquire how the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without conceiving the idea of his visible and sensible Presence to reject it but we shall suppose nothing that is unreasonable in saying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Existence they conceiv'd it present under a very confused notion for 't is a usual thing with persons that are unlearned to consider things in a confused manner and therefore we commonly see they cannot express themselves otherwise than in certain obscure and general terms which do never well shew what they have in their minds It cannot be deny'd but this kind of confused ideas are usual among people But Mr. Arnaud must not imagin that these persons of whom we speak believed the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament for rejecting the idea of the corporal Presence as 't is likely they did by the very instinct of nature to maintain they believ'd a substantial Presence we must suppose either that they had the idea of another manner of substantial presence of a body than the corporeal one or at least that they knew there was some other which was not less a substantial Presence than the corporeal one altho they knew it not Now of these two suppositions the first is acknowledged to be false by Mr. Arnaud himself and the second is wholly contrary to reason for who should inform them there was another manner of a substantial presence of a body than a corporeal one Nature shews us no other the expressions of their Pastors mention'd no other whence then must they have it It must then be said they had a confused idea of another manner of presence than the substantial one they beheld it in the expressions of their Pastors felt it in the motions of their Consciences but to denote precisely what that was was what they could not otherwise do than by general terms of presence reception and such like Now this was in effect to believe not a substantial Presence but a Presence of union a Presence of salutary efficacy in reference to the Soul altho they comprehended it not in its full distinction THE fourth rank is of those who after they had been puzled with the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found the real knot of this difficulty to wit that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer They found it says Mr. Arnaud because it pleases Mr. Claude to suppose so but 't was after a long search My supposition contains nothing but what we see happens every day in the world 'T is certain there are persons who be full of doubts this is no wonder and we find 'em not so easily freed from them they esteem themselves happy when after a long search they get them resolved
with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressions endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpetuity and which is not necessary to repeat here Mr. Arnaud answers That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is that these Sacramental Page 866. expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence But if they do agree 't is by constraint and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms When Paschasus says for example In pane vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi potestate divina peragitur What violence must not be offered these terms to accommodate them to the change of the substance of Bread For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour is an expression which naturally includes this sense that the substance remains with its colour What violence must not be offered these other terms Caro Sanguis per Spiritum Sanctum consecratur alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est sed judicium quod percipio quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation For naturally these terms signifie that 't is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions altho that in effect they were contrary to him whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the other assures us that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church in such a manner that he has opened the way to others The first idea which these words present us with is that Paschasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly and in plain and precise terms for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond And 't will signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does that these passages mean only that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in Book 8 ch 10. page 867. several of the Fathers Writings according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Vnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers so he has been follow'd by all that came after him This answer is an illusion for 't is far from completely answering Sirmond's words Genuinum says he Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus explicuit Invita pasch ut viam coeteris aperuit qui de eodem argumento multa postea scripsere He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers but that he first explain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church Before him according to Sirmond this true sentiment which is to say the Doctrin of the Real Presence for this is what he means was a confused and hidden matter Paschasus was the first who brought it to light and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him Till his time this way lay hid he found it first entred into it and by his example moved others to do the same Now this is the honestest confession imaginable that Paschasus was the first Author of this Doctrin for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church and this way are nothing else but the Real Presence and he was the first discoverer of it There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity nor of S. Cyril in respect of the Incarnation nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks but it can never be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church for it was explain'd and distinctly known before them The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead acknowledged two Natures and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time and S. Austin's and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me and which he has endeavoured to answer But besides these there are also some others which he has past over in silence and of which 't will not be amiss to put him in mind I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger which makes Paschasus precisely as we do the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine Sententia says he imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi Apud Lanfranc lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini The opinion or rather folly of the Vulgar of Paschasus and Lanfranc that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Consecration Lanfrac who cites these words says a little after that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome 't was known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Richard injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem injustissime nihilo minus assertum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi And his Letter to Ascelin You are Tom. 2. Spic in not advitam Lanfran ad Luc. D' Actery says he of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature contrary to the Gospel contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle if you are of Paschasus his opinion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in
which is to say that 't is to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it 'T is in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield And David in the 119. Psalm That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs And in the 41. Psalm according to the vulgar Translation Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins as appears by these examples of Virgil Erit ista mihi genetrix eris mihi magnus Apollo erit ille mihi semper Deus Mens sua cuique Deus Dextra mihi Deus And so far concerning Florus WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre to whom as Mr. Arnaud Book 8. ch 7. page 824. says is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name but also the Commentary of S. Paul which others refer to Haymus Bishop of Alberstat They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud but in the passages themselves wherein 't is found explain'd will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ and that by means of this union or conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ and is made one and the same Body with him Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Flesh says he which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Virgin Comment in 1 Cor. 10. in unity of person and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church are the same Body of Christ For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ and these are not two Bodies but one Body For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body fills likewise this Bread and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world and makes it one only Body of Christ He does not say as Paschasus that 't is entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin dead and risen nor that 't is the same Flesh because it pullules or multiplies But he makes of this Flesh and Bread the same Body by an unity of union because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh fills likewise this Bread And elsewhere Altho this Bread be broken in pieces and Consecrated all over the world yet Ibid. in c. 11. the Divinity which fills all things fills it also and makes it become one only Body of Christ It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the same Bread and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ there was nothing more easie than to say on the hypothesis of Transubstantiation that 't was one and the same numerical substance existing wholly entire under the species in each part and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd But instead of this he falls upon enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars and all the parts of a Loaf Again in another place As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one so altho In Exposit Can. this Body be Consecrated in several places and at infinitely different times yet is not this several Bodies nor several Bloods but one only Body and one only Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and which he gave to the Apostles For the Divinity fills it and JOYNS it to it self AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST and is one only Body of Christ in truth To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ because 't is joyn'd with it and that 't is joyn'd with it because one and the same Divinity fills them this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself seeing Remus says it in so many words He teaches the same thing a little further in another place As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples and to all the Elect and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it is the true Body of Jesus Christ and this Flesh which he has taken and this Bread are not two Bodies but make but one only Body of Christ We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews This Host says he speaking of the Eucharist is one and not many as were the ancient ones But how is it one and not many seeing 't is offered both by several persons and in several places and at several times A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind would not have stuck to say that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance the same Body which pullutes or multiplies it self as Paschasus speaks Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word either of this unity of substance or this pullulation We must says he carefully remark that 't is the Divinity of the Word which being one filling all things and being every where causes these to be not several Sacrifices but one altho it be offered by many and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin and not several Bodies IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction and by means of the Divinity which fills the one and the other got some footing in the Latin Church even since Damascen's time We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus so that it seems that one of these Authors only copied out from the other As the Divinity of the Word says this supposed Alcuinus is one who fills the whole world so altho this Body be Consecrated Cap. 40. in several places and at an infinite number of times yet are not these several Bodies of Christ nor several Cups but one only Body of Christ and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin and which he gave to his Apostles For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where which is to say that which is Consecrated in several places and makes that as it
his Disciples Here then adds he we have people who said in the time of Charles the Bald and who must say according to their Principles That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our senses and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and the Sacrament So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons TO solve this difficulty it must first be supposed as a thing already proved that those who have been since called by way of reproach Stercoranists cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks who according to him believing the Real Presence yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius that 't is from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores applying to it these words Omne quod in os intrat in ventrem vadit insecessum emittitur We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis that these Stercoranists were Panites which is to say that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament and said all of 'em that the Sacrament was natural Bread We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion that the Sacrament passes into our nourishment that it is digested that one part of it is changed into our flesh and another part into Excrements SECONDLY we must observe that supposing 't were true the Stercoranists believ'd as Mr. Arnaud would have it that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist there could be nothing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author as by that of Waldensis that he was himself a Stercoranist The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban which I have already related Whereunto I shall add another taken out of his Penitential Touching what you have demanded of me whether the Eucharist Cap. 33. when it has been consum'd and pass'd into Excrements like other meats returns again to its first nature which it had before 't was Consecrated on the Altar This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Clement This Period which I have included in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban and my conjecture is that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin and which has been afterwards forced out of the Margin into the Text. and several other Holy Fathers who say that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats Such a question is superfluous seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things but operates invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul What reason is there to say that what is digested in the stomach and passes into Excrements returns again to its first state seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist As to Bertram the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment What can be more unreasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud that Raban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists which is to say that they have fought against themselves and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely and therefore we see that great Wits who believe ' emselves able to overthrow every thing do oft-times overthrow themselves and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out IN the third place how little soever we consider this opinion mention'd by Mr. Arnaud and the manner in which he conceives it we shall find 't is impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were excessively extravagant Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own proper accidents and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine I shall only say that unless a man doats extremely he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread must have all its parts in ordine ad se as the Schools speak made as the parts of real Bread to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the human body of Jesus Christ to wit his head his arms and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread as little crums Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy a human Body really divisible really palpable really sensible of a divisibility a palpability and a sensibility which is proper to it and yet is not natural to it but borrowed of another subject This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul living with their life and united to them personally What did they then believe did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ was at the same time animated with two souls and living with two lives or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls and an hundred thousand lives to wit that of Jesus Christ and of those of all the Communicants of the world personally