or three great Persons in Authority to whom all Businesses are referred We have seen that the face of things in the Church of Rome hath bin changed not long ago and which hath bin surprizing to several Persons Mr. Arnaud himself has bin interessed in some of these Changes and I suppose he would be sorry if the Infallibility of Perseverance in the same State should have bin as firm and unmoveable as the Account which the Gazetier gave us of the Death of Pope Alexander But after all this does not hinder but that the Author of the Perpetuity has opposed the Infallibility the Church of Rome ordinarily pretends to AND this is what I would have told Mr. Arnaud had he done me the Honour he mentions which is to have conferred with me about my Objection and perhaps my Answers would have satisfied him I would have added two Observations which would have made him better comprehend that his pretended popular Infallibility does not well accord with that which he termeth of Grace or Priviledge The first of these Observations is that popular Mysteries being only necessary to Salvation if sufficiently preserved by natural means that is to say by the inviolable Inclinations of the People there is no great need of the Infallibility of Grace which will be at farthest only necessary to the Doctrines which are not popular that is to the Questions of the Schools which the Church may well be without and which are but as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity Theological Consequences The second is that the Reason wherefore he saith the Author of the Perpetuity chose rather the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Grace supposeth that this latter is absolutely less evident and harder to be proved than the first This Infallibility of the Church saies he being denied by the Hereticks cannot be made use Lib. 1. C. 7. of as a Principle against them unless we establish it by separate Proofs For the Calvinists without doubt would not take themselves to be sufficiently refuted upon the Subject of the Eucharist if we only contented our selves with bringing these Arguments against them All Doctrines which are condemned by an Infallible Church are false But the Belief of the Calvinists on the Sacrament is condemned by the Catholick Church which is Infallible Therefore it is false Not but this Reasoning is good but the minor Proposition which saith that the Catholick Church is Infallible being a controverted Point it is thence plain that before it can be made use of it must be proved that is to say there ought to be made an intire Treatise touching the Churches Infallibility before this Point could be used For this Infallibility is not a thing clear in it selfs seeing it wholly depends on the Will of God reavealed in Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible 't is then by the Principles of Faith or by a long Train of Arguments that it must be proved she is supernaturally so Now to make this Argument good we must suppose that this Infallibility of Grace cannot be proved but with a great deal of Difficulty whatsoever Course is taken whether by Scripture or Reason for if it could be clearly and briefly proved from Scripture Mr. Arnaud's Excuse would be vain for he would be demanded wherefore the Author of the Perpetuity has not done it seeing we require not Arguments where the Scripture plainly expresses it self His reasoning then to be conclusive must suppose 't is impossible for the Author of the Perpetuity to prove the Infallibility of Grace without engaging himself in Prolixities and Difficulties Whence it plainly appears that this is not a proper Principle for the Unlearned who are not able to go thro with a long and difficult Discussion It is of no use to them according to Mr. Arnaud and that so much the rather that he himself hath told us that short and easy ways are needful to such whereby they may discern the true Church Ways saith he which Lib. 1. C. 3. P. 17. free men from those painful Dicussions which Ignorance dulness of Apprehension and the Exigences of Life do make so many Persons uncapable of So that this Principle of the Churches Infallibility being not to be proved without a great deal of Difficulty will be only serviceable to the Learned and of which in effect they have no great need seeing they can of themselves attain the Knowledg of particular Doctrines without the help of Authority And to this is reduced thro Mr. Arnaud's means this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledge which has made such a noise in the Romish Communion THE remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Book treats as I already said on several other Alterations which we pretend have insensible crept into the Church But seeing these are Points which do not at all belong to the Eucharist and cannot be well examined without writing a great Volum on each of them Mr. Arnaud therefore may take the Liberty of saying what he pleases concerning them for I think my self no ways bound to answer him When he shall assault the Books of Mr. Saumaise Blondel or Daillé after the manner he ought he will not perhaps want an Answer It is an easy matter to joyn three or four Passages together on any Controversy and thereupon make Declamations For this is the common course of the World People usually begin where they will and end when they please but were one of these Books I mentioned examined to the Bottom and every particular undertaken I am sure this would not be such an easy Task THE supposition of insensible Alterations is a Principle the Holy Scripture establishes which right Reason alloweth and Experience confirmeth St. Paul tells us of a Mystery of Iniquity which began to appear in his time and which would in the end produce this great effect he calls a Revolt or Apostasy which has all the Characters of an insensible Change seeing that the Foundations of it were laid in his time and at length these mysterious Projects should come to their Perfection Our Reason likewise tells us that important Alterations which happen in Societies are never introduced all of 'em at one time but are brought in gradually and that it is easier to joyn succesfully together several particular Innovations each one of which apart seems inconsiderable and to make thereby a great Alteration than if this should be undertaken all at once This is a Maxim amongst all Politicians and Persons who are capable of prosecuting any Enterprize but this many times happens of it self without any Design Experience it self confirms this by sundry Examples for 't is after this manner several Arts and Sciences arrive at Perfection Languages and Customs of Countries are altered 'T is after this manneer the Power of Princes and other States are encreased or diminished and not to seek for Instances of this kind any farther than in the Church and Christian Religion by this means hath the Authority of the Romish Prelacy
what it believes or in beginning to believe that which it did not believe or that the representative Church that is to say the Councils or the Pope cannot err The first of these two Principles is natural the second is of a Supernatural Order I handle not at present this Point whether they are false or true at the Bottom it sufficeth me to say that they are in their own Nature so difficult and require so much time that to expect ordinary Apprehensions to examine them is plainly to deride them I shall speak of the first of these in the sixth Chapter where I shall make it appear that 't is impossible for a man to extricate himself out of those Perplexities wherein the Author of the Perpetuity engages him or to rest secure on the Grounds on which it 's built It suffices me to say that People are not commonly so regular in things which they believe by a distinct Faith but that they are willing likewise to receive new Doctrines and enlarge by this means the number of popular Mysteries The Author of the Perpetuity tells us that the Truths of Divine Grace were never popular in all the Consequences drawn from Theology and yet we know that all imaginable care has bin taken to make these Consequences popular There has bin made on this Subject I know not how many Books adapted to Womens Capacity there have bin Catechisms compiled intit'led Catechisms of Grace Which evidently shew it has bin believed that it was not impossible to make the People recieve by way of Illustration or Addition Articles which they knew not before whence it follows it has bin supposed they are capable of Change for else to what purpose serve these Catechisms if the People cannot of themselves either diminish or augment the number of Mysteries which they hold by a distinct Faith This Principle is not then so certain but that it may be doubted of nor so clear or evident in it self that the most simple may be ascertained in it having before their Eyes a Matter which appeareth so contrary to it AS to the second it is evident that the Question of the Infallibility of Councils or Popes is not so easie that the most simple People may master it All Societies separate from the Church of Rome oppose it If this Church hath this she hath it by a particular Priviledg which must be examined before it be received For it cannot be entertained on the bare word of this Church without falling into an extravagancy and ridiculous Circle which is that we believe the Church of Rome to be Infallible because she saies so and we believe what she saies in this matter to be true because she is infallible Before that the most simple People can acquiesce in its Authority this Authority must also appear to them to be undeniable by things independent on the Church of Rome and which may be judged of distinctly by themselves Otherwise this would be to begin an Argument by its Conclusion For this would be near the matter such a kind of reasoning as this is That the Church of Rome is Infallible in what she saith now she affirmeth she is infallible from whence it follows that she is so A person in whom we suppose there is the least Dram of Sense will never be convinced by this Argument The Church of Rome then must first make out its priviledge of Infallibility to the most simple man living before it can be supposed that such a one or any other will receive its Doctrine founded on this Principle Now I affirm that this Disquisition is beyond the reach of mean Capacities for if it be proved by way of Scripture it is not so plainly described therein but that the Places on which it is grounded may be capable of another Sense They are controverted Places and a man must read whole Volums to prevent his being rash or passionate in his Judgment Now if a man be able to make such a Disquisition and a Judgment accordingly he will then be able to enter upon the Examination of particular Doctrines and to discern the Conformity which each of 'em hath with the Scripture in relation to what is produced on either side NOW if this Doctrine be attempted to be proved by Arguments he that endeavours to do this engageth himself yet farther into tedious Prolixities and Difficulties which surpass ordinary Apprehensions In a word Mr. Arnaud doth himself decide the Question This Infallibility saith he Lib. 1. C. 7. P. 66. is not a thing clear in it self seeing it dependeth only on the Will of God which he hath made known unto us by the Scripture The Church not being naturally Infallible we must prove that it is supernaturally so either by the Principles of Faith or by a long Series of Arguments Ordinary Capacities are not able to examine this long sequel of Arguments nor sufficiently to discuss the Principles of Faith to discern if this pretended Infallibility may be drawn thence And 't is for this Reason that the Author of the Perpetuity hath chosen rather to take the popular Infallibility for his Principle than that of Priviledge Mr. Arnaud testifies as much for speaking of the Impossibility of the Churches altering its Belief on the Articles which are not popular that is to say of this Infallibility of Priviledg now in Question Reason saith he doth not clearly shew us this Impossibility So that this Author meaning the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to ground his Arguments on Lib. 1. C. 7. Pag. 68. a Principle of Reason and humane Evidence and not on a Principle of Iradition and Authority or on abstracted and remote Arguings he must then necessarily contain himself within the reach of things in which the Impossibility of a Change appeareth plainly by Reason There are particular ways of proving that the Church never fell into an Error on any Point which it proposeth But it 's evident to Sense that the whole Church cannot fall into Errors relating to matters of Faith seeing they are distinctly known and understood by all the Faithful The Infallibility then of Priviledge is not a thing which is immediately apparent to Sense there needs more abstracted and remote Arguments to prove it whence it appears that Persons of ordinary Capacities are not able to do this Much less are they fit for this should this Point be undertaken to be proved by the way of Tradition for it would be to send them far enough in obliging them to read the Fathers and Councils to be informed in this matter besides that the Fathers and Councils are themselves the representative Church and whose Authority is now in Question and so consequently their Testimony upon this account would signify nothing IT is then manifest that common Apprehensions not being able to ascertain themselves in the Infallibility of Priviledge as I come now from proving nor in the Point of popular Infallibility as I have already hinted and which I shall do
more fully in the end they cannot remain in the Church of Rome with a safe Conscience there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands such as are Birth Education Interest Custom and the Example of others which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation They are then obliged to range themselves on the side of the Reformists from whom they receive for a Rule things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry and moreover where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace If it be replied that we must first satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures I answer first that this Principle doth not fall under Debate seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World but only to the particular Opinions of Christians for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly I answer that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures than other Churches seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible she must evidence her self to be a Church which she cannot do if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her and she will not take the Pains to prove it besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture and consequently they suppose its Divinity But in fine I say the Characters of Divinity which shine in all parts of these Writings are so lively and so many in Number that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them if they apply themselves to the Consideration of them with a pure Heart and unspotted Conscience Now this is it to which the meanest Capacity is obliged as well as the greatest and if they do it not their Damnation is just and their Impiety without Excuse AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly But to return to the principal Subject of our Dispute we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud in that he takes it not ill I endeavour to prove by several Passages that the Alteration pretended to be impossible is real and true The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it and if he doth agree to it he must suffer me to draw this Consequence that I could have hindred the Effect he promised himself from his Method which is to make us confess if we are not extream Obstinate that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament is the same with that of all Antiquity This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us and the Production of some Passages of my Writings starteth a particular Debate which Mr. Arnaud approveth for he only complains I have not produced them in a right manner but mained and dislocated from their Consequences and that I have concealed all those which might be opposed and understood But this Complaint is Unjust and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment which is That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins whose Proofs I take upon me to defend If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio into a Preface neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer which contains no more than thirty Pages I never pretended that my Abridgment alone should absolutely determine his Thoughts I know this cannot be expected but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers I design'd to shew them of my Communion what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties the matters of Proof with which it is furnished their Nature and Force do contribute that Truth to it which an Abridgment ought to have and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the same with that of the Fathers and that there has bin made an Alteration for the Principles of this are marked out and their Consequence doth plainly appear that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist for we may easily conclude from what I said that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridgments which allways refer to another work in supposing that the Principles they mark out are clearly established in that Book to which they refer and from whence they draw their Conclusion And this is all that can be desired in this matter but yet this is a way of concluding and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist I confess that to determine his Judgment we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion we must go to the Spring and see whether what is supposed issues thence but it doth not thence follow that the Abridgment is in fault nor that it should be esteemed as a Heap of Difficulties and indeed it would not be an Abridgment if in effect it did not abridge some other work wherein the Matter is handled at large A Heap of Difficulties to speak properly is a Collection of several Objections which are formed against a Doctrine without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections and in short without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled It is certain that in a Controversy this manner of proceeding is confused and captious and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind for as to my part I find that it hath all the Characters of it For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
tell him my Answer will be no less good in the main when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin who expresly says touching this passage That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. Sacrament of the Eucharist as the mystery of the Incarnation for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh was because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh Mr. Arnaud will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellarmin THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a passage Answer to the Perpetuity p. 2. ch 2. of Justin which says That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink but that this meat being made the Eucharist with which our flesh and blood are nourished by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is celebrated in remembrance of his taking on him our nature it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words and 't is moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say That my sence is without proof and Authority contrary to the Letter and Experience Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34. and consequently not worth considering And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus Cyzique and Cyril of Jerusalem for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise and the second Part and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book I am certain will not like his proceedings finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express declaration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture and that they are not distinctly asserted therein He says every Book 10. ch 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38 39. body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the institution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope he could never resist the perspicuity of them That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Saviour and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them of whom he himself writes that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one which has says he all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression He adds That these words This is my Body do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ than that 't is the figure of it and this the consent of all Nations who have taken them in this sense shews us in a convincing manner He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John wherein there 's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood and what S. Paul says in the 11th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood Whence he concludes That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks that it appertains to them to say their Doctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture in the sixth Chapter of S. John ' s Gospel in the three Evangelists and in S. Paul ' s Epistles But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular Yet must I tell him I have reason to suppose without any other proof that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence nor are they distinctly asserted in them Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject let him communicate it to us But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them IT cannot be denied but these words This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dispute 't is sufficient the words will bear it to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident for besides that he found no evidence in them for Transubstantiation but only for the Real Presence with which he was much prepossessed One may oppose against Luther's prejudice the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no Cajetan in 3. Thoma quest 75. art 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem 1588. evidence in them neither for the one nor th' other of these Doctrines but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that