substituted some others equivalent to them which were to the Greeks the same as those we speak of are to the Latins But Mr. Arnaud takes no notice of this He thinks it sufficient to tell me I am fal'n into a condition void of reason and common sence that I make extravagant and ridiculous Conclusions and that he is both ashamed and sorry for me that he laughs at my Arguments being such little Sophistries as are not fit to be offered by a judicious Person and that my audaciousness is beyond example in denying the Greeks adore the Eucharist These are his usual Civilities which yet shall not make me change my humour I hope he will be one day of a better mind and to that end I shall deal with him not only in a calm and gentle manner as it becomes a man of my Profession but offer up my Prayers unto Almighty God for him BUT before I finish this Chapter I am obliged to tell him he could not do his Cause a greater Injury than to cite as he has done on this Subject of the Adoration of the Eucharist a passage taken from Stephen Stylite who told the Emperour Copronymus That the Christians adore and kiss the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Either he has not examined this Passage or his prejudice has hind'red him from observing what is as clear as the day to wit that Stephen attributes no more to the Eucharist than an inferiour and relative Adoration such as is given to Images the Cross and consecrated Vessels whose matter is not adored And this appears throughout the whole sequel of his Discourse The Emperor accused him for being an Idolater in that he adored Images He answers that his Adoration related not to the matter of the Image but to the Original which the Image represented And to shew that this kind of Adoration is not Idolatry altho addressed to a thing made with hands and senseless he alledges the example of the Cross holy Garments and Vessels which are likewise adored and in fine that of the Eucharist Loe here his words which justifie what I say What crime do we commit when we represent by an Image the humane Vita S Stephani junioris apud Damascen Biblii shape of Jesus Christ who has been seen and whom we worship Is this to adore a Creature or do you think it may be truly said that we adore the Matter when we adore a Cross be it made of what stuff it will We adore the Holy Vestments and Sacred Vessels without incurring any censure for we are perswaded that by Prayer they are changed into Holy Things Will you banish likewise from the Church the Anti-Types of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Image and true Figure of this Body and Blood We worship and kiss them and by partaking of them obtain Sanctification Either Mr. Arnaud's Friends have deceived him if he has quoted this Author only from their Relation or he has deceiv'd himself or which is worse he has design'd to deceive others when he produc'd this passage for 't is certain that hence arises a clear Demonstration that the Greeks do not adore the Eucharist with that supreme and absolute Adoration now in question and which terminates it self in that Substance we receive There needs little strength of reasoning to make this Conclusion and as little Meditation to comprehend it We need only observe that this man endeavours to defend from the imputation of Idolatry the Adoration given to Images by the example of the Adoration of the Eucharist and ranks in the same order the Adoration given to the Cross to the sacred Vestments to the Vessels of the Church to Images with that given to the Eucharist We need only take notice that he calls for this effect the Eucharist the Anti-Type Image and true Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whence it follows he places the Adoration of the Eucharist in the rank of those which terminate not themselves in the Object which we have before us but which refer to the Original they represent wherein the Matter or that which is visible is not adored but where by means of a material Symbol a man raises up his mind to the Object whose Symbol he beholds In fine it needs only be observ'd that if the Greeks adored the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria terminating it self in the Sacrament never man was more impertinent than he in endeavouring to excuse a relative Adoration by an absolute one never man betrayed more his Cause for besides the Extravagancy of his reasonings for which he may be justly reproach'd he may be likewise told he falls into a new Heresie and horrible Impiety making the Adoration of the Eucharist to be like that of the Cross and consecrated Vessels or that of Images whose visible Subject or Matter men do not adore Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us he speaks only of the Adoration of the Accidents for Stephen expresly ranks this Adoration in the number of those amongst which the visible Matter is not worshipped and consequently means there is in the Eucharist a Substance which is not adored He say's they worship these Anti-Types and kiss them Now in the intention of the Communicants these acts of Adoration and kissing are not barely directed to the Accidents but to the whole Subject called the Eucharist He say's in short that in partaking of these Anti-Types we obtain Sanctification which appertains to the whole Eucharist and not the bare Accidents DAMASCENE who lived much about the same time as Stephen and stifly maintain'd the same Cause thus argues I worship not say's he the Orat. 1. d. Imag Matter but the Author of the Matter who has himself become Matter for my sake and exists in it to the end he may give me Salvation by it and as to the Matter by which Salvation is procured me I will ever worship it not as the Divinity God forbid for how can that be God which has been taken out of nothing altho it be true that the Body of God is God by means of the Union of the two Natures in Unity of Person for the Body is made without Conversion that which it hath been anointed and remains what it was by Nature to wit Living Flesh indued with a reasonable Soul and Understanding which has had a beginning and bin created AS TO THE OTHER MATTER by which Salvation has been obtain'd for us I honour and worship it as being full of the Divine Grace The blessed wood of the Cross is it not Matter The Holy and Venerable Mount Calvary is it not Matter The Rock of Life wherein was the Sepulcher of Jesus Christ and which was the Spring of our Resurrection was it not Matter Those black letters wherewith the Holy Gospels were written are they not Matter This Holy Table from whence we receive the Bread of Life is it not Matter In fine the Body and Blood of our
a spectrum Sometimes likewise they affirm the Flesh of the Word was converted into the Nature of the Divinity and became consubstantial with it They do for the most part deny the Word assumed a humane Body of the Virgin and say that having been changed without a Change and made Flesh he has only passed through the Virgin and fastned his Divinity to the Cross and altho it be neither finite nor circumscribed yet he has deposited it in the Sepulchre They deny the Birth of Christ according to the Flesh affirming it hapned in appearance only In the Celebration of the Eucharist they use the Azyme and not Bread They put no Water in the Chalice designing to represent thereby that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ whereas we by the mixture of Water with Wine represent the Union of the two Natures It cannot be more clearly affirmed that the Armenians are real Eutychiens seeing he not only attributes to them the believing that the humane Nature was converted into the Nature of the Divinity but made consubstantial with it But he is too a terrible Calumniator if we believe Mr. Arnaud Howsoever let us proceed GUY Carmus who lived about the year 1340. and has exactly reckoned up the Errors of the Armenians in his Book of Heresies expresly tell us Guido Carmel summam de haeres de haer Arm. C. 22. they follow the Opinions of Dioscorus denying with him the two Natures of Jesus Christ to wit the Divine and Humane in the Unity of Person That they admit only one Nature in Jesus Christ that is the Divine one Will and one Operation And in the twelfth Error he remarks They held that after the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine so that as there is but one Person in Jesus Christ so there is but one Nature in him to wit the Divine and that they cruelly persecute those that hold there are two Natures in Jesus Christ the Divine and Humane IN the year 1341 the then Pope caused this Information to be drawn up touching the Errors of the Armenians which we have already mentioned and shall have farther occasion to discourse of hereafter The second Article has these words That there was held heretofore a Council in Armenia wherein assisted the Catholick that is to say the Patriarch of the Armenians with their Bishops Doctors and the Patriarch of the Suriens Raynald ad an 1341. That in this Council was rejected the Council of Chalcedon especially because it had determined we must believe there are two Natures in Jesus Christ to wit the Humane and the Divine and one only Person subsisting in two Natures That the Council of the Armenians had on their side determined that as in our Saviour Christ there is but one only Person so likewise is there in him but one Nature to wit the Divine one only Will and one Operation that they anathematised those that affirmed the contrary and persecuted them not only by imprisonments and loading them with Chains but even to the putting them to death That in this Council they had condemned Pope Leo and his Letters to the Fathers of Chalcedon and Flavian the Patriarch of Constantinople because he asserted therein two Natures and one Person two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ That in fine they Canonized Dioscorus whom the Council of Chalcedon had condemned and the Armenians celebrated his Festival three times in a year as a Saint and cursed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon which had condemned Dioscorus The twentieth Article bears That the Armenians believe and hold that the Eternal Son of God begotten of the Substance of the Father has united to himself the Humane Nature and was made man yet in such a manner that in the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature and as there was after the Union but one Person in Jesus Christ so is there but one Nature in it to wit the Divine and not the Humane That they curse all those who say the contrary so greatly detesting those that hold the two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union to wit the Divine and humane that if any Baptised Armenian amongst them sayd this they would not communicate with him but esteem him as a Heathen and upon his Return to the faith of the Armenians rebaptise him neither more nor less then if he came from Paganism and after this second Baptism lay twenty years Pennance on him And in the twenty first Article The Armenians believe and hold that because after the Union of Natures in Jesus Christ the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine in such a manner that from that very moment there was only the Divine Nature in him the Divinity has been passible and impassible mortal and immortal according as our Saviour himself pleased and that thus he has suffered and is dead in the Divine Nature because he would having no humane Nature when he suffered and dyed Do's Mr. Arnaud imagine we shall rest contented when he shall tell us that all these things are meer impostures EUGENUS IV. instructing the Armenians in Council of Florence Ad Calcem Concil Florent sufficiently shews he takes them for real and perfect Eutychiens for he chiefly apply's himself to shew them the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and teach them that our Saviour Christ is consubstantial with us and having took on him a real humane Nature this Nature has subsisted and do's still subsist in the hypostatical Union without confusion or conversion We need but read this Discourse to find that it's drift is to oppose against the Errors of the Armenians the contrary Doctrines which must be held to be conformable with the Church of Rome and that one of the principal points he designed to insist on was that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ against the Heresie of Eutyches And this is the opinion of Spondan annal Eccles Tom. 2. ad Ann. 1434. Mr. Sponde Bishop of Pamiez He do's not give them say's he in his Decretals all the Articles of the Christian Faith but contents himself as I take it with those wherein they erred or of which they doubted And first he gave them the Symbol of the Councel of Constantinople with the Addition of the Filioque to have it sung in Churches then the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon touching the two Natures of Jesus Christ in Unity of Person Thirdly the Definition of the sixth Council touching the two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ Fourthly because the Armenians had acknowledged hitherto only the three first Councils that of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus rejecting those that were held afterwards he shews them that the Council of Chalcedon which they believed favoured the Nestorian Heresie did as well condemn Nestorius as Eutyches and that they must receive it PRATEOLUS who made a Catalogue of all the Sects say's Prateol Elench Haeret. de Armen that 't is
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â—26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeâ—â—s tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
Methods of Prescription But this would be to undertake to shew a thing impossible for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili as the Schools term them could not surmount the strength of our Proofs of Fact which depend on the sight of our Eyes and common Sense a great part of which propose the thing imediately in it self BUT how then may we never establish our Sentiments by a Method of Prescription We do not say so We only mean thus much that when the Sentiments of Persons are opposed which are grounded on Proofs of Fact and which they believe to be as I have already said as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senses it is then I say an unreasonable thing to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Method of Prescription grounded on moral Impossibilities This is the Knot of the Question If a man hath to do only with People prepossessed in favour of his Opinion he may then use his Method of Prescription to confirm them in the thoughts they have already entertained There could nothing be alledged against his manner of Proceeding the strength of his Proofs are in that Case only to be considered If he has to do with indifferent Persons that is to say with such who have not yet taken any side and desire to be instructed he might then likewise use a Method of Prescription provided his Principles be well grounded and his Conclusions more decisive than any thing which can be alledged against them There need then be nothing to be replied unless there were something indirect in his Method but this could do no more at farthest but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles and that of its Consequences and not make them reject them for indirect Arguments conclude sometimes with as great Evidence as direct ones Nay I will not fear to say that when he should have to do with Persons prepossessed with Opinions contrary to what he would perswade them he might then lawfully use a Method of Prescription for it would not be sufficient to say that a man is prepossessed by another Method nor object that that of Prescription proceedeth indirectly or follows not the Order of Nature these kind of Objections may cause Suspicion but they ought not to proceed so far as to make men absolutely reject Arguments which perhaps are attended with a greater Perspicuity and Certitude than those which have occasioned the Prejudice But as to what concerns us against whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written we are in none of these Circumstances being not only led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypothesis and by Proofs which propose us the Point in Question immediately in it self but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction and yet he would have us change our Minds by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones and which at farthest can amount to no more but meer Probabilities being applied to the Subject in hand We have then Reason to say that these are mear Chimeras in our respect and that without considering them any otherwise than in their own kind and in the matter on which they treat they cannot make such a strong Impression on us as to deface that which we have already received for 't is not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities than with solid Proofs which are grounded on common Sense MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Comparisons of the Methods of Protestants with them of the Church of Rome It may be made apparent that we have surer and shorter ones than those which it proposeth But this is not our Question and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions His Words cost him nothing and People are disposed to receive them be they what they will as Oracles But 't is not the same with me for should I wander from my Subject as often as he does there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our Debate I shall only tell him he is mistaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controversies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read or hear them read publickly Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Salvation and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister under whom they live is able and willing to shew them the way of Life and whether our Society be the true Church For in this Case we need but examine two things The first whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God and secondly if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of these things for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to satisfy our Consciences and to live in the fear of God and to ascertain our selves in our Saviours Promises and moreover if nothing be taught or practised which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity For if nothing doth offend the Conscience we ought to be perswaded we are in the true Church it being needless for us to enter into a Discussion of all the Errors which have troubled or still perplex the Christian Religion After the same manner as 't is not necessary to Salvation for a man to know all the particular Heresies which have troubled the Peace of the Church nor to make a formal and positive Renunciation of them for it is sufficient that we are not tainted with any of them and firmly to believe the fundamental Truths of Religion neither is it likewise necessary to assure our selves we are in the true Church that we inform our selves of the several Opinions of men It may suffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members teacheth what it ought concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification and maintains nothing which doth not answer these Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church for if he compare his Ministers Doctrine with the Word of God he will be satisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein he shall perceive likewise that we mix no Doctrines of men with it which overthrow its Foundation This way of Examination is short easy and proportionable to the Capacity of all People and thereupon there may be made a Judgment as certain as if every single Controversy had bin examined apart THE most simple then among us may live in perfect Peace But it is not so in the Church of Rome for these Methods of Prescription mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are not built but upon one of these two Principles either that the Church which is to say the Body of the People cannot err nor cease to be the true Church in ceasing to believe
this is an especial means to make all these people in a short time to become insensibly Roman Catholicks BUT we must likewise take notice that these Gentlemen who leave no means untryed do wholly betake themselves to these two last ways namely that of gaining the Prelates and that of instructing Youth For when they have won any Bishop to their Party they oblige him to set them upon the educating of their Children making use of his Authority that they may manage their business with greater success and security Which the same Author of the Holy Land shews us Father Queriot say's he was a fit person to offer his service to the Greek Metropolitain who was a good Catholick Holy Syria part 1. Treat 1. c. 4. and a man of a strict Life he means the Metropolitain of Aleppo he has oblig'd him to trust us with the Education of the Grecian Children of that Country and to slight the discourses of the Enemies of the Roman Religion And a little farther it is to be moreover observed say's he that the Patriarch of Constantinople reprehending him for employing a Religious Frank in the teaching of the Greeks even in his Episcopal House this great man who is ever like himself does notwithstanding permit the Father to proceed on still in his undertaking SPEAKING of the Mission of Damascus this Mission say's he is the work of Father Jerom Queriot who was sent from Aleppo to Damascus in the beginning of the year 1643 by the Greek Patriarch Euthymius who was of the Isle of Chios and of the Romish Religion for the instruction of Youth and especially of his Nephew and for the composition of his circular Letters and Greek and Arabian Patents Yet he tells us this Father was forc'd to leave the place the Greeks growing jealous of him in as much as that he being a Religious Frank was employed in the chief affairs of the Patriarchate I cannot forbear mentioning what the said Author relates on the same Subject namely the instruction of the Greek Youth We must betake our selves to this Course say's he for the converting the Greek Schismaticks We are too old said Jerasimus an Archbishop and Vicar of the Patriarchate to receive new Impressions but instruct our Youth who by your care will be capable of trying good things and prove a Seminary of perfect Christians words say's he which he uttered in the hearing of the Youth on purpose to encourage them to make use of the advantage offered them It is certainly a great satisfaction to us when we see young Greeks who are naturally eloquent to instruct so handsomely their Servants and I had almost said even their very Parents who become as it were their Disciples in Religion Is there any thing more great and glorious than the building of new Churches with the Apostles and converting the World For new Churches are planted by the settlement of these Missions and the old ones repaired at the same time by means of the Instruction of Children who teach their Parents This Jesuit lays open the matter plainly and sincerely whereas Mr. Arnaud does not so for he would have these new Churches pass for old ones THE same Author relates that having observ'd John Damascen was esteem'd in this Country as an infallible Doctor and that his Testimony against Heresies was of great weight with them One of our Fathers say's he undertook to teach this Saints Logick and Divinity touching the controverted Points He say's this invention took and inspired the Schollars with great Zeal But say's he this their forwardness was taken notice of by some envious Persons who informed the Vicar of the Patriarchate of the matter and so far incensed him that he caus'd the young Students to be brought before him and having reprehended their Boldness condemned their Opinions and charged them to desist from such Discourses adding therewithal that if they obeyed not his Commands he would ruine them and their Families These Arguments say's he could not prevail with the Schollars to change their Opinions or break off their Assemblies and forsake their Masters but they were more cautious afterwards and did forbear publishing any thing in the Circles as they had heretofore done IT is is an easie matter to comprehend the Advantage the Church of Rome makes of the labours of these Emissaries and to be more particularly informed thereof we need but read what the Sieur Poulet has written concerning Poulet's Voyages 2. part C. 20. the Jesuits and their manner of proceedings in the East They rightly understood say's he how difficult it is to work on the mind of a Person grown old in his Errors and that the first impressions being strengthened by a long custom become a new Nature in us wherefore our instructions must be bestowed on them whose minds are not yet corrupted by Maxims of Schism and Heresie They have therefore very advisedly set up Schools whereunto the Children of Schismaticks and sometimes of Turks too do resort The desire of having some Images or Agnusses draws them to our Congregations where hearing our Doctrine they become effectually Catholicks without perceiving themselves to be so as for the other Schismaticks they hear our Sermons and pretend to be Catholicks only in hope of some Advantage they expect by this their Dissimulation WE need likewise but read what Besson the Jesuit has written touching Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 11. the proceedings of the Society at Aleppo The Religious Orders say's he even the most regular amongst them have received from the Society at Aleppo not a few Advantages and the Eastern Church has had such Prelates from them as are at this day the greatest lights of the Syrian Clergy Whereupon he tells us in another place that the Greeks and Syrians admit Apostolical Men into Part. 1. Tr. 1. C. 2. their Houses They likewise permit them the use of their Churches and the Curats accept of our help the Bishops entreat us to prune their Vines and this Church in the East being now weary of its miseries and blinded with its tears expects from the West the most pure lights of the Gospel I confess these Gentlemen have been very dext'rous and fortunate in performing what has been given them in charge and that the Church of Rome in general is very much obliged to them but I â—ind Mr. Arnaud to be more fortunate than they for it seems as if these persons had foreseen long before by a Prophetical Spirit the book Mr. Arnaud was to make and therefore would prepare him Materials and furnish him with this fine Collection of Attestations and Testimonies Who would ever have thought that these Gentlemen the Jesuits should pass over the Seas and run to the farthest parts of the World to do Mr. Arnaud honour Yet is it true that they have been his Messengers and a man would be apt to think they went only into these Countrys upon his account NEITHER must we pass over in silence the Seminaries establish'd in Rome
preserve the Substance of the Sacrament The Sixteenth from a Passage of Oecumenius WE know very well that the Greeks consecrate the Eucharist with leaven'd Bread and that there is touching this Point between them and the Latins so stiff a Controversie that the Greeks believe their Altars are polluted when the Latins have perform'd their Service thereon and therefore when ever this happens they wash them with exceeding great care before they use them I shall not trouble my self or Reader with mentioning here any thing touching the beginning or progress of this Dispute all that I aim at here being only to give farther light to the question I handle It seems to me then no hard matter in reading their Books concerning this Point to know what their real belief is touching Transubstantiation for we find them continually arguing from this Principle that the Eucharist is still Bread after Consecration AND this appears by the Letters of Michael Cerularius and Leo Bishop of Acrida to John Bishop of Tranis in the Kingdom of Naples for giving an account of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament they add observe how our Saviour has called under the New Testament the Bread his Body This expression Bibliot Paâ—â— Tom. 4. â—dâ—t 4. let Mr. Arnaud say what he will does not well agree with the belief of Transubstantiation for according to this Doctrine it may be affirm'd that our Saviour has made Bread his Body and changed it into his Body but it cannot be said with good sence that he calls the Bread his Body seeing this latter expression signifies he attributes to the Bread the name of his Body which supposes the Bread remains and receives the name of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet do we meet with these kind of expressions not only in Michael Cerularius but in the Triode of the Greeks which is one of their Ecclesiastical Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they having likewise related the words of the Institution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat de lib. Eccles Graec. diss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe that he calls the Bread his Body and not an Azyme let them then be ashamed that offer in the Sacrifice unleaven'd Bread It appears by the Dispute which bears the name of Gennadius that this Passage Gennad pâ—o Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 7. Book 10. is frequently used by the Greeks And Mr Arnaud has observ'd that Jeremias and Photius Patriarchs of Constantinople express themselves in this same manner Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body the Wine his Blood He assures us that Jeremias believed Transubstantiation but whether he did or not we shall see hereafter He likewise tell us that Photius joyns this expression with that which naturally denotes Transubstantiation to wit that the common Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this is meer mockery to desire us to believe that a Term so general as is that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does naturally signifie a Conversion of Substance IN the second place the Greeks are wont in this Controversie to reproach Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Edit 4. the Latins with their eating the Jewish Azyme and that they eat it as a Figure of the Flesh of Christ You offer to God in Sacrifice say's Nicetas Pectoratus the Azyme and dead Bread of the Jews and eat it as a Figure of the true and living Flesh of Jesus Christ and a little further he that makes the Azyme and eats it altho he has not taken this Custom from the Jews yet does he in this imitate them and his Knowledge is no greater than that of a Jew They apply to this occasion the Eleventh Canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo which forbids the eating of the Azyme of the Jews and this is near upon the same Language of all the rest of the Greeks But these expressions would be extravagant did they not suppose that which we eat in the Eucharist to be real Bread for to eat the Body of Jesus Christ under the Accidents of an Azyme is not to eat the Azyme of the Jews and in effect those amongst the Latins that have refuted them touching this Article have not fail'd to tell them that after the Conversion 't is no longer Bread neither leaven'd nor unleaven'd but the Body of Jesus Christ and that in supposing this Conversion the Question concerning the Azyme's is superfluous as appears in an Anonymous Treatise in the Bibliotheca Patrum and in a Letter of Pope Gregory the 9th which Mr. Arnaud mentions in the Tenth Chapter of his Third Book IT appears likewise by a Treatise attributed to Gennadius the Patriarch of Constantinople that at the Council of Florence wherein 't was ordain'd the Priests shall consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with leavened Bread and with the Azyme every one according to the Custom of his own Church the Greeks that rejected the Union thus loudly expressed themselves saying Gennad pro Concil Flor. cap. 2 sect 1. That the Council had divided the Mystery of the New Testament into two Parts and made two Bodies of Jesus Christ the one of unleavened and th' other of leavened Bread Which Language would be very improper in the mouths of Persons who believe Transubstantiation for besides that this would not be two Bodies but one alone under the different Species it should at least have been said they had set up two Bodies one made of leaven'd th' other of unleaven'd Bread WE find that the Greeks in this same Controversie to shew unleavened Bread ought not to be used in this Mystery affirm that Leaven is the same thing to Bread as the Soul is to the Body because Bread receives elevation by means of the Leaven so that they call leavened Bread living Bread as being that which has Spirits and on the contrary the Azyme dead Bread a dead Lump unfit to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and thereupon they ground this Accusation that the Latins eat a dead Lump inanimate Bread and not the Body of Jesus Christ which is of the same Substance as ours and is not void of Soul as taught the Heretick Apollinarius We may find this kind of arguing in Cerularius his Letter in that of Nicetas Pectoratus and in the Answers of Cardinal Humbert and likewise describ'd at large in the Anonymous Author I mention'd The Christians Easter say's he Bibl Patr. Tom 4 Edit 4. was celebrated not with unleaven'd Bread but on the contrary with that which is leaven'd to set forth the Perfection of Jesus Christ For our Lord has united to himself two Natures in one Person and as the Divine Nature is most simple so the humane Nature is composed of Soul and Body or Flesh There being then in Jesus Christ the Divinity the Soul and the Body so likewise in the Mystery of the Sacrament which we celebrate with compleat Bread that is to say with leavened Bread there are three things namely Flower
remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but mentions not a Word of Confession Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiastical History their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place where their common Devotion brings them do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession nor that of Confirmation as appears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject he I say that believes these latter are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sacraments THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites and purging their Books from some Thom. a Jesu lib. 7. part 2. c. 7. Errors which were common to them say's he as well as to other Eastern Nations that is to say other Christians in that Country they found they misunderstood some Passages of Scripture and especially that touching the Institution of the Sacrament this is my Body They affirm say's he that we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins 't is the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption or such an Interpretation of the Words of Christ seeing 't is only on the literal Sence of these Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded I shall prove in its place as clearly as 't is possible to prove a thing of this nature that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation nor the substantial Presence This Truth will be plainly manifest and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion or made thereof a Point of Controversy Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it because they do not make thereof a Controversy AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument and discover the weakness of his Consequence But we must proceed farther for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable to wit that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation altho they never disputed against it I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity but even no Probability I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century till this present For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre James de Vitry Belon Cottovic Anthony Caucus Francis Richard Allatius du Loir Thevenot and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter I moreover produced the Testimonies of Bozius and Thomas a Jesu All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century There are Barlaam Epist 1. Bibl. patr Tom. 2. Edit 4. say's he few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it to which they willingly apply themselves All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Salvation So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith there are Millions ignorant of it Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book writes I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People for I know their Ignorance Epist ad Wittemborg in Epist Virro erudi and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith whom they Combat not with Arms but Patience and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops and therefore I continually upbraid them with it but to no purpose The Jesuits making their advantage thereof have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth and are like Foxes amongst Geese It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading written since Photius's time excepting some few Histories and Collections of the antient Canons the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy and some pittiful Treatises wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word without any Art or Sence almost II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present for there can be nothing imagined more dreadful and miserable Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate continually accompanied with Misfortunes or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers by means whereof Greece became divided into Factions and horrible Confusions In the Year 1034 Romanus Argirus Peteau Rat. tempor ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid. the Emperor having lost Syria was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit He lost Sicily and Bulgaria and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopted one Michael Calaphatus and made him Emperor but four or five Months Ibid. after she caused his Eyes to be bored out and gave the Empire to Constantin Monomaque whom she espoused He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054 and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him who Reigned but one Ibid. Year After her came one named Michael Stratiotique who Reigned also but one Year Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place wherein he remained Ibid orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull Ibid. and mean Spirited Prince who suffered the Barbarians
is the Image of our Body nor our Body by Institution but that it becomes our Proper Body not another but the same we had before THIS Point being thus cleared up it is easy to perceive why these Persons deny'd the Eucharist to be an Image For it was not because they believed the Substance of Bread did not remain or imagined it 't was absolutely and by a numerical Identity as the Church of Rome speaks the same substance of the Natural Body but because they believed that the Bread keeping its proper Substance became the proper Body of our Lord by this way of Growth or Augmentation in receiving the Impression of his Supernatural Virtue so that in this Respect it was the same thing with them whether the Bread was Virtually the Body of Christ or properly They found then that the simple Notion of Image was inconsistent with that of Propriety and thereupon denyed the Eucharist to be an Image or Representation THEY Argued from the same Principle when they said 't is not possible these Gifts could be both The Body and the Image of the Body and being the Body they could not be the Image of them For they believed the Term of Image excluded this propriety of Virtue which they established and that to call them Image was to regard them in no other manner than that wherein they were before their Consecration IT is easy to perceive that their Arguing on the Discourse of the Fathers of Constantinople is but a mere Sophism For besides that these Fathers termed not the Eucharist the proper Body of Christ and consequently could not be charged with Contradiction nor told Si imago est non potest esse hoc Divinum besides this I say all their Subtilty lyes in a mere Quible about Words They will not receive the Term of Imago and yet admit those of Representation a Remembrance and Symbol as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges We do not call say's Theodorus Graptus an Author of the ninth Century Origin rerumque Constantinopl variis autor manipulus a Francis Combefix ubi supra the sacred Mysteries of Christ the Images of his Body altho they become Symbols thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicephorus say's the same thing We do not call these Gifts either Images or Figures of this Body altho they be Representations thereof Which shews they regarded more the manner of expressing the Thing than the Thing it self BUT let us see what Advantage Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw hence P. 664. 665. First he endeavours to prove that these Authors who wrote against the Iconoclastes did not believe 't was contrary to the notion of an Image to contain the Virtue of the Original nor established this Principle The Image is not the thing it represents in this Sence here The Image is not virtually the thing it represents For say's he In the same place wherein they establish this Principle the Image is not the thing it self which it represents they bring Instances of Images which contain really the Virtue of their Original and even its Essence Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who Refutes the Iconoclastes by the same Argument by which the second Council of Nice say's That that which is the Image of a thing cannot be its Body for every Image is another thing than what it represents It is True adds he That the Scripture calls the Son the Image of the Father but he is likewise distinguished from him by an Hypostasis and Person I Answer Nicephorus his Sence is that to exclude the Notion of Image we must say it is the thing it self And on the contrary to establish it there must be no means left to say it is the thing it self Now altho the Son hath the same Nature and Essence as the Father yet we cannot say he is the Father for they are different Persons So the Son may be well called the Image of the Father But altho the Eucharist be not in Substance the Body of Christ and contains only its Virtue yet we may very well say it is this very Body because an Augmentation does not make another Body than that which was before but is the same and thus the Eucharist cannot be called an Image BUT say's Mr. Arnaud The Son contains the Virtue of the Father Nicephorus understands not then his own Principle That the Image is not the thing Ibid. which it represents in Mr. Claude's fantastical Sence that it is not virtually the thing whose Image it is For it would necessarily follow hence that the Son of God is not an Image seeing he contains not only the Virtue but the very Essence of his Father This must necessarily follow according to Mr. Arnaud but not according to right Reason For it is true the Son contains the Essential Virtue of the Father as being not the Image of his Essence but he does not contain the personal Virtue of it for he has not the Virtue of begetting another Son nor according to the Greeks that of the Emanation of the Holy Spirit and consequently he may well be called the Image of the Father's Person Had Nicephorus understood his Principle in this Sence no Image is in Substance the thing it represents as Mr. Arnaud supposes he did and as in Effect he must understand it to add But the Eucharist is in Substance the Body of Christ it is not then the Image of it It would sooner and more naturally follow that the Son of God would be in no wise an Image for he most really contains the Nature Essence and Substance of his Father Nicephorus adds Mr. Arnaud Supposes the Eucharist is not really distinguished from the Body of Christ and thereby proves that it is not the Figure Ibid. of it Si igitur Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur imago Christi est aliud dicitur esse praeter corpus Christi That is to say if the Eucharist were an Image it would be really a distinct thing from the Body of Christ But it is not distinct from it Therefore it is not an Image Nicephorus will suppose the Eucharist is not a real distinct thing from the Body of Christ when we admit Mr. Arnaud's that is to say but he will not suppose it when we shall consider that the Proposition he rejects is this Sanctum corpus in communione quod sumitur est aliud praeter corpus Christ The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is something else besides the Body of Christ and that the contrary Proposition which he establishes is Sanctum corpus quod in communione sumitur non est aliud praeter corpus Christi The Holy Body we receive in the Communion is nothing elce but the Body of Christ That is to say in a Word that they are not two Bodies but one because the Growth of a Body does not make another Body But this is not to say but that there is a true and real Difference between the Substance which encreases a
Sanctification It is certain the Latin Interpreter could not better Translate than he has done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Image is Holy why is it Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being made Divine by a certain Sanctification by Grace It is Grace which Sanctifies it in making it Divine which cannot be better Expressed in Latin than by these Words Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae deificata And in English As being made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace It appears that this is the Sence of this Council by the Words which immediately follow after For this is what our Lord design'd to do that as by Virtue of the Union he has made Divine the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so he would have the Eucharistical Bread as being the true Image of his Flesh be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest Transferred from a common Estate to a State of Holyness And therefore as the natural Flesh of Christ indued with a rational Soul was anointed by the Holy Spirit being united to the Divinity so his Image to wit the Divine Bread is replenished with the Holy Spirit It is clear that they oppose the Sanctification which the natural Flesh of Christ has received by Virtue of the Hypostatical Union to the Sanctification which his Image receives by the coming of the Holy Spirit There say they the natural Flesh was Anointed with the Holy Spirit Here his Image to wit the Bread is filled with the Holy Spirit The Question then is concerning a Sanctification which the Bread receives in quality of the Image of our Lord 's natural Flesh and this Sanctification is the Grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the Bread is filled The Sanctification which the natural Flesh has received is not a Consecration which has changed the Substance of it into another but an inherent Sanctification which letting the Humane Nature subsist has made it become a Source of Grace the Sanctification likewise which the Bread receives is not a Consecration which changes its Substance into that of another but an inherent Sanctification in the Bread which letting the Bread subsist makes it full of the Holy Spirit We could not then better Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than by these Words being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace It will be to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to wrangle about these Words The Oblation being Transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they were to be Rendred from a common State to a State of Consecration for here the Matter is touching a Sanctification which is the Image of that which the natural Flesh has received We must then Translate to a Holy State or to a State of Holiness And the Latin Interpreter of the Council who had not those particular Interests to maintain as Mr. Arnaud has has faithfully turn'd it Oblationem de communi separans ad Sanctificationem pertingere facit I am sorry I have been forced to entertain the Reader with these grammatical Niceties which I suppose cannot be very pleasing but besides that Mr. Arnaud having charged me with a Falsification I was obliged to justify myself There will redound hence this Advantage to wit that the Sence of this Council will more plainly appear and the solid Advantages we draw thence They make two Bodies of Christ the one his natural Body th' other his Body by Institution the one is his natural Flesh th' other is the Image of his natural Flesh the one a humane Substance th' other a chosen Matter namely the Substance of Bread the one is Holy by a Sanctification which is naturally peculiar unto it the other is raised from a common State to a State of Holyness the one is the natural Flesh of Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit the other is Bread indued with the Holy Spirit There is not any thing in all this that can agree with Mr. Arnaud's Conceptions NO more then is there in the Fathers calling the Eucharist not a deceitful Image of Christ's Flesh in opposition to the Images which they called Deceitful C. 7. p. 698. To understand rightly their Sence we must suppose with Mr. Arnaud that they said the Images of their Adversaries were deceitful either because they represented the Humanity separated from the Divinity and subsisting by it self if it were said they were only Images of the Humanity they leaned to the Error of the Nestorians or because they represented the Divinity Confused and indistinct from the Humanity if it were said they expressed our Saviour intire thus they led to the Error of the Eutychiens who confounded the two Natures So far Mr. Arnaud is not mistaken but he has not been so happy in Discovering how they understood the Eucharist was not a deceitful Image For it is certain that in respect of the Error of Nestorius their Sence is that as the humane Substance in our Saviour had no personal Subsistance so likewise his Image to wit the Substance of Bread has not the Form and humane Figure of it altho it seems that an Image should have them So that by this it represented the humane Nature not as a Person but as a Nature bereav'd of its Personality and thus it differed from the Error of the Nestorians Which is what they Express in these Terms As our Lord took on him the Matter only or humane Substance without the personal Subsistance so he has commanded us to offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread not having the Form or humane Figure And in respect of the Error of the Eutychiens they would have that as the Body of Christ was not Abolished nor Confounded with the Divinity but Sanctified and made Divine by means of the hypostatical Union so the Bread is Sanctified and Deified by the Holy Spirit Which is what they expressed by these Terms As by Virtue of the Union our Saviour deified the Flesh he took by a Sanctification which is naturally proper to him so likewise he would have the Bread in the Eucharist as being not the deceitful Image of his natural Flesh to be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Spirit the Oblation being by means of the Priest transferred from a common State to a State of Holyness Now this does necessarily suppose that the Substance of Bread Subsists to represent against Eutychus the Substance of the humane Nature in the hypostatical Union Moreover this is not one of my metaphysical Speculations as Mr. Arnaud P. 669. is pleased to express himself it is the Doctrine of the Fathers and especially of those who disputed against Eutychus and I expresly observed it having for this effect cited Justin Martyr Theodoret Gelasius and Ephraim of Antioch But Mr. Arnaud has thought good in relating my Words to cut off this Clause for fear the Readers
suppose without proof It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties Gelas Episc Rom. advers Eutych Nest ibid. If the humane Substance say's Gelasius has ceased to be the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine it follows that the humane form having no longer it 's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise And in another place of the same Treatise If they do not deny say's he that Jesus Christ was real man it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance for otherwise he would not be real man Vigil Lib. 5. contra Eutych When you say say's Vigilius that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ And a little farther If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion there would be two Persons one of the Word and the other of the Flesh who would have one and the same common Nature Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity and he concludes his Argument taken Theodoret Dial. 2. from the Eucharist in these words The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form Figure Circumscription and in a word it has the Substance of a Body Euthym. Parop Tit. 20. Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. Mâ—ximus which expresly asserts that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures but denyed they differed Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12. in Essence introducing a confusion of Natures Even Cardinal Perron himself altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation acknowledged this truth that the Eutychiens held the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained because the Form Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties And it must be moreover acknowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little But to speak better It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations for when he has need of them he can well dispence with them how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455. of Anastasius Sinaite that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which represented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity than to say they meant his very Substance For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens rather than to give the lye to these Authors and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second It consists in maintaining Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456. that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens that is to say they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures that they condemned Eutyches and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures asserting our Saviour had but one THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons seeing he is pleased to except against them and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference Here are others then which are not to be contemned whether we regard their number or quality The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a St. Nicon Epist ad Euchistium Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit 4. Treatise of his under the Title De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation and amongst others mentions this that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ in the Union Itidem say's he in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered and altho they durst not openly explain themselves yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do for they take three Crosses and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity Now here is according to Mr. Arnaud a third Impostor that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures He must be excluded as well as Eutychus and Isaac but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian amongst the Greeks who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites and adds sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body uncreated heavenly impassible subtile which is not of the same Substance with ours yet has all the Accidents of Flesh in appearance and after Nicephor Cal. hist Eccles Lib. 18. C. 53. the manner of
Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature They deny say's he that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Joann Lazicius de Rel. Armeni the Elements lose their Nature They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction and affinity between the Divine and Humane Nature that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction And when I demanded of them how this could be seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration they answered me This was effected by the Divine virtue to which we ought to give credit And these are Lasicius his words according to the Original but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence But as to my pretention I think 't is well grounded and beyond all Question seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Nature HE has had his informations say's Mr. Arnaud only from some Ignorant Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449. Persons in Leopolis If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testimony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point and knowing ones for the other perhaps say's he he did not comprehend that by the word Nature they meant only the Mass of external Accidents But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable Where will Ibid. he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which he himself tells us in another place the Greeks the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no mention Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the Lib. 10. C. 8. word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em or of which at least they make no mention Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles according as his occasions require Diruit aedificat mutat quadrata rotundis Which shews his Answers mere Evasions and in effect there 's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms of which he has not comprehended the sence For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Virgin Mary Now we have already seen that according to them Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature which had only a Body in appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not really Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be that the Divinity being every where it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist And with this agrees what they add that after the Incarnation there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Natures distinct for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divinity as we have already seen they commonly held So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament is no other than the presence of the Divinity which is every where but more especially in the Eucharist 'T is very probable 't was under this Equivocation the Patriarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter The Body of Jesus Christ say's he Born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread The Body Born of the Virgin and Dead on the Cross which was to say according to them the Divinity which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross But when he was urged to acknowledge 't was the same Numerical Body he would not grant it because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies and consequently made it a real Body Mr. Arnaud will reply this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so 's But he has no other Grounds for his may be 's than his own Imagination whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothesis of the Armenians having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I describe it WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood in his Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24. Treatise of Religions For he say's expresly That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes but this shews he takes it for an unquestionable truth MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us that the Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form View of Religions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666. of Bread and Wine MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages in which are found these words The Armenians administer the Sacrament Herberts Voyages Lib. 2. q. 244 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine and deny the
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
admits the invisible one It would have been well if the Author of the Perpetuity had not used in this Dispute these equivocal terms of the Real Presence and real Absence which give way to sophisms as will appear in what follows but seeing he has used them it is at least necessary to distinguish them as I have now done LET us see then upon these illustrations what are the pretensions on either side The Author of the Perpetuity maintains that these Christians must have a distinct knowledg either of the Presence or Real Absence that is to say they must have known distinctly whether that which they receiv'd in the Communion was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in substance for thus he understands it there being no medium says he I affirm on the contrary that they had not for the most part of 'em any distinct knowledg either of the invisible Real Presence or the Real invisible Absence and that they were not come as then to this distinct question Whether the Body of Jesus Christ was invisibly present by its proper substance and after the manner of a Spirit in the Eucharist or not SO far it seems that the method and state of this Dispute is clear for 't is likely by the Real Presence the Author of the Perpetuity means not the visible Presence of which we do not dispute and which the Church of Rome it self rejects but the invisible Presence of which we dispute and which the Roman Church holds so that we need only propose the proofs of both parties for the Readers edification But Mr. Arnaud who can make clouds when he has occasion for 'em has so greatly obscured this matter by distinctions and crafty pretences that we must still spend more time to clear the difficulties he has cast in our way TO believe says he the Real Absence is to believe that the Eucharist is not Lib. 6. cap. 2. the Body of Jesus Christ or that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really present in the Eucharist Now a man may distinctly believe or know that one thing is not another or that 't is not in another in three different manners The first by an express and formal reflection but general when a man generally denies one thing to be another or affirms that 't is absent but without specifying any particular manner Thus in denying the King to be at Paris we say he is not there in any real manner altho we specifie not any one The second by a distinct reflection on all the different manners of being a thing or being really present in a place Which is as if a man should say that the King is not at Paris neither visibly nor invisibly and 't is in this manner the Sacramentaries deny the presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist And the third without any reflection and by a simple view of the nature of things which does so comprehend the exclusion of whatsoever belongeth not to their being that the mind knows as well what they are not as if it had made an hundred positive judgments on ' em Applying afterwards this distinction he assures us first That the Author of the Perpetuity never pretended to prove that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence in the second manner which is to say that they positively excluded by a formal reflection all the several kinds of presence 2. That the greatest part of his Arguments conclude that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they would have rejected it in the first manner and by a general reflection which denies the thing without considering the different species 3. That altho a man may draw this consequence from several of his Arguments yet 't is sufficient for his design to shew that these Faithful would have rejected the Real Presence in the third manner that is to say without reflection and by a distinct knowledg of certain verities which include it according to the ordinary manner of conceiving things WE must then examin these three manners and see in what sense the Author of the Perpetuity is obliged to maintain that if the Christians of whom we speak believed not the Real Presence they then believed the Real Absence THE first is chimerical and impossible For 't is not possible for a man naturally to consider the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to reject it without conceiving at the same time in particular some kind or manner of presence Either these persons to whom Mr. Arnaud attributes his first manner of believing the Real Absence knew the invisible Presence or did not know it Supposing they knew it what necessity was there of making them reject it in general without specifying it in particular Why not say they rejected it in making a formal reflection on it If they knew it not as it seems Mr. Arnaud supposes it is not at least possible but they had formally in their minds the particular idea of the corporeal and visible Presence For as soon as ever we conceive a humane Body to be substantially present in a place the first notion that offers it self naturally to the mind is that of the ordinary and corporeal Presence It is possible we may conceive a humane body without thinking of the place wherein it is we every day make such kind of abstractions as these yet 't is not possible according to nature for a man to conceive it to be present by its proper substance in a place without conceiving at the same time the idea of its corporeal Presence Nature furnishing us with no other idea of the substantial Presence than that it cannot be but this idea will shew it self to the mind as soon as ever we imagin a body in a place To be present in a place and that corporeally are naturally one and the same idea in respect of a humane body The Philosophy of later Ages has made two ideas of this whether with reason or not I do not now dispute but howsoever nature makes but one of it and whilst we do not distinguish them nor know the secret of making two ideas of them the one general and th' other particular we shall never make this abstraction for nature puts not men upon making it Now we speak here of persons that think according to nature and suppose they never heard the least mention of invisible and incorporeal Presence it is not then possible but they must immediately form the idea of the visible or corporeal Presence in the same manner as 't is not possible for a man naturally to conceive the Sun to be present over our Hemisphere but he must conceive the idea of his visible and ordinary Presence It is then certain that a man considered in the state of nature void of the fancies of this new Philosophy cannot believe the Real Absence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament without thinking on the corporeal Presence In this
and by those they every day gave to the people concerning this mystery 'T is true they might be freed from it by a thousand expressions of the Fathers which denoted the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by an exchange of names which is made between the signs and the things signifi'd But we are not wont to do every thing immediately which we can do and 't is not to be deny'd but several were freed from it by this means but this does not hinder but that we may reasonably conceive a rank of persons who had not of ' emselves sufficient knowledg to clear this difficulty Mr. ARNAVD earnestly demands of us Why these people did not Page 577 578. understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in a sense of Transubstantiation or in a sense of Consubstantiation rather than to take them in this sense that the Bread remaining Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ seeing the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians since six hundred years and that of Consubstantiation has been embraced by the Lutherans whereas the last sense has been follow'd by no body and as yet never entred into any mans thoughts I answer in two words 't was because neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation were then found out and that these persons we speak of had not Philosophy enough to invent 'em themselves They follow'd nature which will not suffer us to take otherwise this proposition if we understand it literally than by conceiving the ordinary idea of real Bread and the common notion of a real Body that is to say two inconsistent ideas Moreover not to insist upon what Mr. Arnaud says that the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians for this six hundred years after what has been seen hitherto we may judg what truth there is in this proposition Neither do I at present mind what he says that the last sense has been follow'd by no body this is as little ture as the rest Rupert held the assumption of the Bread John of Paris has openly asserted it not to mention here that the true opinion of the Greek Church since Damascen is that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Divinity and by way of augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ But when there 's occasion to deny or affirm things Mr. Arnaud is always at his liberty I SAID that these persons of the second rank of whom we now speak finding great inconsistency in these terms Bread and Body of Jesus Christ found no sense in this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and that it appear'd to them unintelligible Mr. Arnaud says hereupon That when two inconsistent notions are affirmed one of another we learn three things 1 These two notions affirm'd that is to say the notion of each one of the terms 2. The affirmation which is made of ' em 3. The falsity and impossibility of this affirmation and that if this proposition is of a person to whom we cannot attribute a falsity we have a fourth knowledg which is that this impossible affirmation is not the sense which the Author of the proposition had in his mind I grant this But I grant not the consequence he would draw hence that one knows an inconsistent sense for that which he calls an inconsistent sense is not a sense We know an inconsistency a mutual repugnancy of terms which cannot be reconcil'd but we do not conceive a sense Mr. Arnaud says That this Philosophy surpasses his understanding and seems to him to contain a manifest falsity We must then endeavour to explain it to him and make him acknowledg the truth of it And for this effect it must be supposed that we speak here of an affirmative proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that we speak of persons who respected the three terms of which this proposition consists according to their literal signification conceiving the common idea of Bread the common idea of a human Body and taking the term est in a sense of being real This being supposed I say that in respect of an affirmative proposition a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and in which a mans mind may acquiesce either in deceiving or not deceiving it self if it be not deceiv'd 't is a real sense if it be 't is a false sense The knowledg of an inconsistency is on the contrary a notion that so separates two ideas that it makes them oppose and overthrow one another and declares them irreconcilable Now 't is not to be imagin'd that a man can reconcile in his mind two ideas which his understanding judges to be absolutely repugnant To conceive a sense is to conceive a thing possible to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is therein an impossibility to conceive a sense is to conceive a state wherein the mind or understanding may subsist whereas to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is not there a state wherein the mind can subsist It is then certain as I said that an inconsistency is not a sense and that 't is to speak abusively to say an inconsistent sense for this is as much as to say a sense which is not a sense a sense is a notion which unites two ideas and an inconsistency disunites them All Mr. Claudes subtilty Page 580. or rather deceit says Mr. Arnaud lies in that he does not distinguish between a conceiv'd and an expressed sense and a sense believ'd and approv'd of 'T is certain that those who find a proposition includes an inconsistency according to the letter and see no other sense therein do approve no other but 't is not true that they conceive no other sense therein for they conceive an inconsistent sense which is to say that they conceive only inconsistent terms are therein affirmed and therefore disapprove of 'em and conclude from the inconsistency of this sense that this is not the sense of the proposition of the Scripture and the Church BUT Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy has given here a false stroke for fot to say that a man conceives an inconsistent sense is to speak absurdly We must distinguish between those that offer an inconsistent proposition and these that judg it inconsistent Those that offer it do not always see the inconsistency of the terms either because they conceive them under respects wherein th' inconsistency does not discover it self or because they conceive them confusedly and in such a manner wherein they hide from themselves the contradiction and then those that judg of their proposition enter into their thoughts and conceive the sense which the others have imagin'd to be possible altho in effect it be not They suspend a while their own judgments to put themselves in the place of others and by this means conceive this apparent possibility which has deceiv'd them But this is not to conceive
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
manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ to wit in Figure aed Virtue In the mean time the doubt against which the Fathers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure or Virtue Whence it follows that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations that is to say the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ but to explain in what sense this is true Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without any elucidation and they prove it by these words Hoc est corpus meum or by these Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est or by the divers examples of the Power of God the Creation of the world the Miracles of the Prophets and by that of the Incarnation I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse 't will be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the impertinency of it First The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insufficient for the subject we are upon for he should again subdivide into two the second kind of doubt and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing yet do nevertheless acknowledg the truth of the thing it self and hold it for certain altho they know not how it is Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux or reflux of the Sea he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters this hinders 'em not from believing he knows them and when they doubt concerning the manner in which the three persons exist in one and the same essence this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist But sometimes the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ doubted of this truth that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person and not only doubted of it but deny'd it Thus Pelagius because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ignorance and the second a doubt of incredulity Secondly Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these terms Bread and Body so far prevail'd in the minds of some as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words How can this be said they seeing we see Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood Who will doubt Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. says Cyril of Jerusalem and say 't is not his Blood You will tell me perhaps says the Author of the Book De Initiatis I see quite another thing how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th Century in Theophylact Quomodo inquit caro non videtur and in the 12th in Nicolas Methoniensis for he entitles his Book Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Perhaps says he you doubt and do not believe because you see not Flesh and Blood but Bread and Wine Thirdly Mr. Arnaud takes notice that when we have to do with these kind of doubters who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self because they are ignorant of the manner of it we usually take several ways to persuade them sometimes we confirm the thing it self without expounding to 'em the manner altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits How can he give us his flesh to eat did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told ' em Verily verly says he if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood you will have no life in you c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus How can a man be born when he is old can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born Verily verily says our Saviour I say unto you unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God These words do at the same time both confirm and explain But when we have to do with doubters that are only ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing because this alone is sufficient to instruct them and 't is thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin How said she can this be for I know not a man The Holy Spirit says he shall come upon thee and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God TO apply these things to the present occasion I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters the one who were only ignorant of the manner how the Bread is or is made the Body of Jesus Christ but yet who held the proposition to be true altho they knew not the sense of it and they are those that make up the third second and fourth ranks in my Answer to the Perpetuity others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it As to these last supposing the Fathers contented themselves with sometimes confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ who is Truth it self it must not be thought strange the nature of the doubt led 'em to this yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing the explication of the manner as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters then they contented themselves with explaining the manner without pressing the truth of the words Thus does S. Austin after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd How is the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood make this answer My Brethren these things are called Sacraments because that which we
that I said in some places of my answer That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere That supposing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstantiation or a Real Presence such as the Roman Church teaches unless they were propossessed with it by some other means That there 's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence and that certainly no place but the solitary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fancy Let a man upon this judg says Mr. Arnaud what kind of blade this Book 8. ch 8. p. 839. Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world into the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable Certainly this is beyond the reach of man I ANSWER that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense and whose meditations are not strong enough of ' emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 't is impossible that Paschasus has invented this opinion or been able to persuade others to embrace it This consequence is absurd for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of nature and faln into remote imaginations which no body ever had before 'em and which the people were certainly never capable of I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention because they are irregularities it being likewise astonishing to see men capable of so many disorders but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human or that 't is impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves to follow it when 't is well contrived and coloured We see this happens every day and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin for if they did we are to blame in charging him with an innovation but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his we cannot doubt but he innovated And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken for he offers not the history of the change of which he makes Paschasus the first Author till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him whence it follows of necessity that he was an Innovator It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity had they design'd to deal sincerely to take this course and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him This would have been an easie and direct method supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude That no body publickly declared himself Book 8. ch 8. p. 841. against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived That no body wrote against him That no Bishop no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths and said not in writing but in particular discourses that he had gone too far and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain as Mr. Arnaud has made it what advantage will he pretend hence Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life All that can be concluded hence is that his Book was but little known at first and afterwards but of small esteem with great men and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin 't was only because they saw several follow'd it whom 't was necessary to undeceive For to imagin that John Scot Bertram and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were who had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus 'T is also a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church which they dared not oppose For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Paschasus during his life why did it not do the same after his death seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave BUT at bottom there 's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud For as to John Scot there 's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald and consequently whilst he was in France whether this was before or after the year 852 't will be in my opinion hard to determin As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad who died in the year 822 or another Egilon Abbot of Prom who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd which is that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter is very weak It 's true it terms him Raban of Mayence but upon another occasion to wit when the Author accuses him to have taught that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus he calls him only Raban and hence can be nothing certain gather'd As to Bertram Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this That there 's little Book 8. ch 8. p. 842. likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdictiction and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd without a crime must have complain'd of this attempt But is Mr. Arnaud ignorant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram that he was not only a very
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
is one it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ and that it be but one only Body in truth WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices which Rupert lib. 2. de Divin Off. cap. 2. some attribute to Rupert and others to Walramus This Body which is taken from the Altar and that which is taken from the Virgin are not said to be nor indeed are two Bodies because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh and here below in the Bread IT is likewise very likely that in the 11th Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger there were several adversaries of Berenger who followed this Opinion Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ Lanfran de Corp. Sang. Dom. either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth to the end that the Bread may be changed into it Now neither of these is done This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction or as speaks Damascen by way of addition as the food is changed into our body On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say that either the Body which is above must come down here below or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise But they could not have the least reason or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it For if the substance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven the distance or proximity of this Bread and of this Body make not this conversion either more easie or more difficult Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other For the conversion of one substance into another speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion as is that of ascending or descending It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians opposed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus one of Berenger's adversaries for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself Neque vero mirari vel diffidere In notis d' Acheri in vitam Lanfr debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti ministerio Sacerdotis uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine redemptor noster assumpsit quippe utrumque substantia corporea utrumque visibile si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea incorporea ex mortali immortali substantia esse compactos si denique firmiter credimus divinam humanamque naturam convenisse personam 'T is neither a matter of admiration nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit and ministry of the Priest to be VNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin Both one and the other being a corporeal substance both one and the other visible if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal of a mortal substance and of another that is incorporeal and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures the Divine and Humane are joyn'd together in unity of person IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the same Divinity which fills them is a chimera of the Ministers invention It appears on the contrary that 't is a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church not to mention here that 't is the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence but from hence also follow several other most important matters For first by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time as some would persuade us seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions are at bottom and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin Secondly Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation neither in the 11th nor 12th Century seeing considerable Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first substance In the third place from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud who suppose it as a thing certain that in the time when Berenger was first condemned that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing the contrary may be justifi'd as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians as by the passage of Ascelinus In fine it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th Century Transubstantiation because they did not take Berengarius his part nor disputed on this Article against the Latins For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by means of the Divinity as appears from the example of Ascelinus Berenger's great Adversary what reason could the Greeks have to dispute and make oppositions IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the sentiments of these Authors whom I last mention'd and to say that if the habitation Book 8. ch 7. p. 828. of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven and in the Bread remaining on Earth and conserving its nature and the application of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ the
anno quo Lanfrandus ab errore Berengarii se purgavit unde sicut dicit Lanfrandus ipse in fide desipuit Tandem ivit in Angliam ad Regem Elfredum apud Monasterium Malmsburiense à pueris quos docebat à graphiis suis ut fertur perforatus martyr oestimatus est Secondly That of Petrus Crinitus De honesta Discipl 14. c 11. Genev. p. 30. who speaks of him in almost the same terms Thirdly That of Naucler Alfred says he had enriched the College of Oxford especially with John Scot as with a Divine Star which he drew over into England from France where he was in favour with Charles the Bald. If there needs any thing more to confirm the reputation of our Author we shall scarcely find any one to whom there can be given any authority IT is true that his Book of the Eucharist was condemned by the Roman Church in the 11th Century but it is remarkable that neither this Book nor its Author were condemned in the 9th Century wherein he lived and that his adversaries who were greatly enraged against him as appears by the Letter of the Church of Lyons and the terms of the Council of Valence and which consequently was not in a condition to pardon him a Heresie on the subject of the holy Sacrament yet did not accuse him on this Article Cellot the Jesuit being not willing to agree concerning the true reason why in that time they did not reproach John Scot about the Doctrin of the Eucharist turns the business into admiration and offers a pitiful reason of this silence I cannot sufficiently wonder says he that leaving Append. ad Hist Gothesc p. 583. the error which John Scot was said to hold touching the Eucharist these droans for thus does he call those of Lyons should only apply themselves to the subject of Predestination This shews adds he that they did not matter so much the defending of the Faith as the ruining the Party of those of Reims which is to say of Hincmar and his friends who had condemned Gotthescalc But both his astonishment and reason too would equally vanish if he would have taken notice of what every one sees that the true cause why John Scot was not condemned in the 9th Century but in the 11th was that his belief was conformable to that of the Church of the 9th Age and became not otherwise till afterwards when the followers of Paschasus prevail'd THE Author of the Dissertation has taken another course to fully the Artic. 1. of his Dissert o◠John Scot. same of John Scot's name and gives a reason why his Book touching the Eucharist was not condemned in the 9th Century He says there is in the Library of S. Germains des prés two Manuscripts of a Dialogue entituled Of Natures the Author of which is this same John Scot and that this Book is full of Errors He discourses on these Errors with the greatest art and care and draws from 'em these two consequences 1. That John Scot was a man very likely to invent Heresies contrary to the Doctrin of the Church of his time 2. We must not be astonish'd that Heresies having been only tanght by a particular person who had no followers that the Book wherein he taught them should not be publickly condemned And this is what he believes the Dialogue of Natures doth invincibly shew because that on one hand it is full of Errors and on the other we do not find it was condemned AS to the first I freely acknowledg this Book is John Scot's and that there are Errors in it but the Author of the Dissertation ought not to conceal that John Scot did not offer 'em of his own head but herein only follow'd the opinions of several famous Fathers amongst the Greeks and Latins as S. Basil S. Gregory of Nysse and S. Ambrose the pretended Denis the Areopagite and S. Maximus which does not hinder but these Fathers have been always in great veneration in the Church John Scot cites them on each of these opinions he sets down their passages which made William of Malmsbury to say That his Book may profitably serve to resolve difficult questions provided he be excused in some things in which he has wandred from the way of the Latins by reason of his following too much the Greeks AS to the second consequence there is a great deal of difference between the Book of John Scot of Natures and that of the Eucharist of the same Author First The Book of Natures perhaps has not been known but to few persons because 't was wrote at the entreaty of a particular person to wit of Wolfadus Canon of Rheims whereas that which he wrote on the Eucharist must needs have been publick seeing he wrote by order of Charles the Bald and in a time wherein the novelties of Paschasus had excited much clamour in the Church Secondly Altho the Book of Natures had been known the errors which are therein contain'd being of the Fathers whose names are venerable in the Church we must not think it strange that they were spared out of respect to the Fathers for whom the world has ever had so great a veneration and condescention altho they have not approved all their sentiments But supposing the Church ever believed Transubstantiation and Real Presence the error broach'd and maintain'd by John Scot in the Book of the Eucharist contrary to these two Articles would have been his only and not the Fathers and consequently nothing would have hindred the world from exercising the greatest severity against John Scot's Book and openly condemning it Thirdly The errors which are in the Book of Natures are speculative errors in matters out of the common road and reach of sense whereas that of the Book of the Eucharist would have been a particular error on a Sacrament which is continually before the eyes of Christians for supposing as I said the Church of that time had believ'd Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as the Roman Church believes them at this day and adored the Sacrament as the proper Son of God Incarnate the error of John Scot would have overthrown the Faith and Rites of all Christians and would have had as many adversaries as there are persons in the Church The King himself by whose order he wrote would have been interess'd to have condemn'd so pernicious a Book to avoid the being suspected that he himself sowed Heresies by the borrow'd hand of John Scot. It is then evident that the two consequences of the Author of the Dissertation are insufficient to diminish or eface the reputation and authority of John Scot's name and thus when the Book which bears the name of Bertram should be in effect of John Scot this Book would not cease to be of great weight and great authority CHAP. VII An Examination of what the Author of the Dissertation alledges against the Employs of John Scot. THE Author of the Dissertation finding himself disturb'd with