sense But to lay aside the Apostles and the first six Centuries to begin this enquiry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th and 8th following ones 'T is as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom But 't will be reply'd these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes I grant it But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek What likelihood is there of finding it pure according as we desire it in Greece since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas according to Mr. Arnaud but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we whether Damascen believed the assumption of the Bread or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks Armenians Jacobites Nestorians Egyptians since these people have fallen into ignorance gross Errors and Superstitions wherein they still remain A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th Century till this time without intermission may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the following ones and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time The third Reflection Mr. ARNAVD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words This is my Body But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it who have made I know not how many glosses and formed I know not how many opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it Let the Reader consider says he the labour and anguish which Ambros Catâ—â—r Tract de verb. quibus conficitur c. almost all Writers have undergone when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun This for they write such a multitude of things and those so contrary to one another that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers ' em The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Principles nor metaphysical notions If they argue either to establish their sense or shew that these words can suffer no other their arguings lie in observations which are clear and intelligible as for instance the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread and that the whole proposition must be taken as if our Saviour had said this Bread is my Body and to make this proposition intelligible we must necessarily give it a figurative sense for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body I grant we must not Philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em we understand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him as God made light at that very instant wherein he said Let there be light The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments but because never man said this is such a thing to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another humane language will not suffer it The fourth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men without study and reflection This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely unknown and undiscernable to us for two reasons the first that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them for we know very well that in matters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em and not what their first sense dictates to ' em The other reason is that whatsoever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years depends on the Writings which are come to our hands Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers who may have given us their Speculations and those of the same opinion with them what they have learn'd in the Schools or what they themselves have imagin'd rather than the simple and natural impression of people The fifth Reflection 'T IS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th Century be it what it will for I examine not at present what that is must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words in this Century and in the following ones The mysteries of his prescience and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suffers men to fall are unknown to us Neither is it permitted us to pry into them He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom He has permitted men in the 4th and 5th Centuries to understand commonly these words If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood ye will have no life in you of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved The ways of God are beyond our reach and we must never judg of the true sense of his word by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men Second Consequence Mr. ARNAVD's second Consequence is That the consent of all the Book 10. Ch. 2. Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages being proved determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd That 'T is against nature sense and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches and that in all the other ensuing Centuries they have been used in another sense without any bodies perceiving this equivocation That 't is contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opinion and all the Disciples to be of another and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters The first
and making 'em consider it in wrong circumstances 't was no hard matter for 'em to be deceiv'd and take that for a Real Presence which was far from being it But we must make another judgment of the eight first Centuries wherein the Pastors instructing their flocks gave them other ideas of this mystery which carried them off from that of the invisible and incorporeal Presence We may in a manner apply the same answer to Mr. Arnaud's third reason which is taken from the example of several Ministers who altho they pretend that the true sense of the passages of the Fathers produc'd by those of the Roman Church is the metaphorical one yet do conceive the literal sense For there is a great deal of difference between us and the people of the eight first Centuries They lived in those times wherein the idea of the Real Presence such as the Roman Church believes was not discovered whereas we live in those times wherein 't is continually represented before our eyes Both Rhetorick and Philosophy are set on work to shew it us in the Writings of the Fathers 'T is not possible then but entering into the sense of those that dispute incessantly against us and putting our selves in their places to comprehend what they think but we must conceive in the passages which they alledg to us the sense of the Real Presence altho we judg it to be false 'T is also true that they offer some to us under the name of the Fathers which as Mr. Daillé has well observ'd seem in no wise to admit the sense of the Protestants But these passages are of two kinds for either they are falsly attributed to the Fathers as is that denoted by Mr. Daillé That the Bread changes its nature and becomes by the Almighty Power of God the Flesh of the Word which he has consider'd as the words of S. Cyprian under whose name they have been usually cited whereas they are Arnaud of Bonneval's an Author of the 12th Century As to such as these I confess 't is not easie for Protestants to accommodate them to their sense but very easie on the contrary to conceive the idea of the Real Presence in 'em but this happens by their being regarded as the words of the Fathers whereas indeed they be not The others are really the sayings of the Fathers but contain a particular sentiment which is neither that of the Roman Church nor that of the Protestants so that it cannot seem strange if those that would accommodate them to the sense of the Protestants found themselves perplexed with 'em and such are several passages in Gregory of Nysse Anastasius Sinaite and Damascen which to speak properly are neither for the Church of Rome nor for us I mean do neither confirm our positive belief nor theirs altho they alledg them in their own favour AS to what Mr. Arnaud says touching the metaphors I grant they do naturally form this double idea of which he speaks but he is not ignorant there are as I said metaphorical terms which use has made proper so that they do not of themselves offer to the mind the natural idea which they signifie but only the metaphorical one unless a mans mind makes a particular reflection on them Thus the term of House in Astrology the term of Aristotle and Plato in a Library and I know not how many others of this nature do not present more to the mind than the idea of the things which they originally signifie Let Mr. Arnaud call them as long as he will equivocal terms dark metaphors which are abolish'd by use this does not hinder the truth of my remark nor th' application which I made of it to the terms of Corpus Corpus Domini Corpus Christi which use had made so proper to the Sacrament that they brought no other idea to the mind than that of the Sacrament according as our senses represent it without bringing in that of the natural Body of Jesus Christ It is true says Mr. Arnaud Page 602. that the custom of employing some terms in a metaphorical use does sometimes in such a manner obscure the double idea that the mind feels no more than the impression of the thing signifi'd and conceiv'd as true This is exactly what I would have I desire no more and it signifies nothing to alledg that this does not contradict the rule which the Author of the Perpetuity had proposed because he spake only of terms which were really metaphorical and not of equivocal terms such as those are wherein the double idea is not felt This I say signifies nothing for besides that the Author of the Perpetuity had proposed his Principle a little too generally my exception invalidates the use which he would make of it for it shews that in applying this Principle to the terms Corpus Corpus Domini Corpus Christi a man can draw no advantage thence nor say that they brought into the mind the idea of the Real Presence because that in effect these terms did not represent more than the idea of the Sacrament according as our senses offer it I confess we cannot apply this remark to several passages of the Fathers wherein the figure is more sensible and therefore we have only apply'd it to these terms precisely Corpus Corpus Domini Corpus Christi by which the Sacrament has been often design'd An answer is not the less good for being proper and particular to a subject And as to other passages which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed we have already maintain'd and do still that their natural sense was the Sacramental one and not that of the Real Presence excepting some which we will speak to hereafter And for the better understanding of this we must first distinguish the particular sense of each term from the sense of the whole proposition each term has its proper common and ordinary signification and being thus taken apart brings naturally into the mind the idea of that which it signifies But the first and natural sense of th' entire proposition must not always be taken from the natural signification of each term but oft-times from the force of the matter in question which guides nature to a certain sense without suffering her to imagin any other and this is oft the metaphorical sense which I illustrated by th' example of these propositions The Stone was Christ The King is the head of Gold The seven stalks are the seven years The particular terms Stone Christ was taken apart do naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they signifie The Stone offers the idea of a Rock Christ the idea of Jesus Christ was gives the idea of an affirmation but the simple and natural sense which results from these three terms gathered together is no other than the metaphorical one by reason of the matter in hand which suffers not naturally the mind to conceive another 'T is the same in reference to these propositions The Bread is the
till he hath proved them and those which may be justly supposed without being proved IF this man reply to me he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself but by shewing if he can the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just May I not then justly retort upon him that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself but to shew if he be able that these Proofs are invalid Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so reasonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious difference on my side seeing as already mentioned I am Respondent in this Dispute whereas this Person would be the Aggressor But you will ask me who this man is that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims Even Mr. Arnaud himself who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book to shew us that the Learned and Unlearned the Simple and Obstinate and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity he thereupon makes this Conclusion 'T is true saith he that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity suppose the Proofs are clear and solid and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude who would have them rejected without examining them on this general Reason That they are Argumentative Proofs Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing if he can the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound We shall see by what follows whether he had reason to make this Supposition I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example that every man may make Suppositions provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess as he says that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity hath appeared so strange and irregular to me that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact and by gathering them into an Abridgment to give a general view of them Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method provided saith he that I maintained Equity and Truth It may be I think then supposed I have so far done nothing contrary to Rule it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections I shall not insist long upon the first of these because Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The first Observation justified nothing against it appearing undenyable in it self It is grounded on this That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touching the Eucharist the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided not by the word of God but the Churches Consent in all Ages and Depositions of the Fathers and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers but by Arguments Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course it being a Principle of common Sense that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact and that again naturally the Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Deposition Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact which is that holy Scripture wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures so likewise we who have the same Faith with them ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Religion but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest than an Example for us to Imitate and an Example too submitted to the same Rule which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion he must ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties for if his Positions are such as may be questioned he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them before he can suppose them For if he take not this Course he will quickly be at a loss and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith 'T is true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers and that we should do if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship But this reaches not our Question for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith neither in the matter of our present Debate nor in any
before his time who thus deliver themselves So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessarily prepare the Reader for the third In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church for the six first Ages to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation and supposes it to be not only possible but that it hath actually hap'ned so that it only remains to know when by whom and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced and this is sufficiently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone without the greatest Injustice and Disingenuity for this is to strip it of all its Strength and to deal with it as the Philistims did with Samson cut off his Hair before they set upon him Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind or rather to speak better with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions Now this is not fair Dealing For to proceed orderly he ought to have begun with these first Preparations and made it appear if he could that they were fallacious and so discover the unjustice falsity or weakness of them and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us Had he taken this Course we should have had nothing to charge him with touching his Method but to stifle these Preparations and cut 'em off from the Dispute and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former As for Instance Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients in saying The Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ Now to refute directly this Historical Passage being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself But instead of this the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course for he demands how this can be That Perpetuity of the Faith P. 50. 51. c. Anastasius who could not be ignorant of the Churches Belief in his time should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed and this without acknowledging he proposed a contrary Opinion He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West and that Anastasius's real meaning and that of them who spake like him in this particular could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them And the same doth he in respect of Paschasius whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion and that he did not teach a new Doctrine he sets himself upon shewing that if Paschasius had bin an Innovator he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time that he would have bin opposed and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church as he has done I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments neither will I say they ought to be rejected for this Reason alone that they are indirect The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable and it must be granted it is not for the chief design of this his Account being only to demonstrate that Anastasius and Paschasius introduced Innovations Now to make it appear they were not Innovators there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who preceded them which should come near the same Expressions or at least amounted to the same Sence as that of theirs which the Author of the Perpetuity hath not done LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then if he pleases the Question and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths the one that Mr. Aubertin ' s Book was the first occasion of this Contest the other that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former it will not be amiss to answer his Objections and shew him first That I pretendnot to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination for provided he handles them in a regular manner he will thereby oblige the publick Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book and leaving the other provided this Part may be well refuted alone and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separation Thirdly Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetuity to account about his employing himself and require of him two Volums in Folio For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book AND as to what he tells us that we cannot reasonably require more from Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7. a Person who handleth any Subject than that he suppose nothing which is False or Obscure and draw not from thence ill Consequences seeing the truth and clearness of Principles and the justness of their Consequences are in themselves sufficient to assure us of the Truth and gives us a clear and perfect notion thereof To which I answer This is true when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject and do take this course to decide the principal Question of it for in this case only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined But if this be not consented to but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not nor Whether their Consequences are true or false for this follows afterwards The Method of handling the Subject is only considered without regard to the Principles or Conclusions That is to say Whether 't is direct or disorderly natural or against Nature sufficient to perswade and end the Controversie or not and on this account it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong one which is a Natural rather than that which is not so For such a one may well be told He spends his time to no purpose that takes not a right
the help of his Senses but his Reason he will turn it on every side and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense IT will be replied perhaps that unless we are extream Obstinate we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind which is to say that they have the certainty of our Senses for they are taken from the Testimony of the Fathers whose Faithfulness may be called in question by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis mentioned by Mr. Arnaud which is That all our Passages are false and invented by the Disciples of John Scot or else in saying that the Fathers are mistaken or some such like matter which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question and moreover that our Passages are not so plain but they may well be questioned seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides To which I answer in supposing two things which seem to me to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude as is that of our Senses MY first Supposition then shall be That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church He cannot disagree with me in this Point for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome they produce it themselves and we use it only out of Condescension to them not having need as to our own particular of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist And when this Point should be questionable yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it before he proposes to us his Arguments and not having done it we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle The other Supposition we must make is That we know very well what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucharist and that we rightly apprehend it so that there is no danger of our Mistake in this matter and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed against us In effect we neither say nor imagine any thing on this Subject more than what we find in Books and hear discoursed on every Day which is that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood there not remaining any thing more of the Bread and Wine but their meer Accidents which are not sustained by any Subject and further that the Substance of our Saviour's Body is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated that they which communicate eat and drink this Substance with the Mouths of their Bodies and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria This is undenyable I say then on these Grounds we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist our Eyes behold them and our Senses are Judges of them But there are not any of these Articles to be met with which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church neither in express Terms nor in equivalent ones We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles and in what they mean we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found in case the Antient Church had taught them We know likewise that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sense to seek them and judge whether they are there or no for when a Church believes and teaches them she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Principles or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense or wrapt up in Riddles from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study If they are in them they ought to be plain according to the measure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding Yet when we seek them we cannot find 'em if they were set down in express Terms our Eyes would have discovered them had they bin in Equivalent ones or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences common Sense would have discovered them But after an exact and thorow Search our Eyes and common Sense tell us they are not to be found in any manner This altho a Negative Proof yet is it of greatest Evidence and Certainty After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home we are agreed both touching the House and the Person that one might not be taken for the other and after an exact Search if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence Yet we are upon surer Terms for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House and steal away from the sight of those that seek him and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages as is pretended it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings they must near the matter have appeared in all of them whence it follows our Negative Proof is yet more certain by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles and these two Proofs joyned together do form one which appeareth to be so plain and intire that there needs nothing to be added to it And yet this is it which the Author of the Perpetuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will I believe he will find few Persons approve of them and who will not judge that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search the only means to disabuse us would be to desire us to return to the using of them again and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments they will do us no good we may be perhaps entangled with them if we know not how to answer them but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact WE are confirmed in this Belief when we consider the Nature of the Author
propounded it to their Hearers nor unfolded the Mysteries of it nor defended its Consequences as doth the Church of Rome as they had without question done had they believed it And this is what I say and Mr. Daillé dos not gainsay it but on the contrary a few lines after what Mr. Arnaud has recited he lays down this general Proposition That the silence of the Fathers on the controverted Points which they so much value is of some weight and amounts perhaps to a clear Proof but surely not in favour of them Ibid. who hold the Affirmative So far Mr. Daillé and I speak precisely the same language But I affirm likewise that besides the silence of the Fathers there is to be found several things in their Writings inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and I hold this Proof doth evidently conclude they did not believe these Doctrines Mr. Daillé speaking in general of this Order of Proofs saith he freely confesseth that every wise mans Faith is as a Body whose parts have a dependance on each other So that we Ibid. may know by the things he expresseth what he thinks of those which he expresseth not whether he doth believe them or not it being unlikely he would admit what doth evidently oppose his Opinions or reject their necessary Consequences to which he addeth that he does acknowledg that this way of handling the Writings of the Fathers would be most profitable and more proper to dive into their bottom than any other provided we suppose two things the one that the Belief of the antient Doctors is all of a Piece and does no way contradict it self and the other that he who would judge after this manner must have a piercing Wit a good Memory and a Judgment free from Prejudice AS to the first of these Suppositions he saith that it is not absolutely out of doubt and as to the other that all these Qualities do seldom meet in one man What he saies is true in this general Consideration But this does not hinder me from adding that in the particular case of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence the first supposition is out of doubt and the second is not absolutely necessary To make this apparent we need but consider on one hand the rank these Doctrines hold in a Church which believes them and on the other the number and nature of those things which oppose them in the Writings of the antient Fathers The Example of the Church of Rome shews us that they that believe them respect them as inviolable Mysteries which must not be called in question and such as are of greatest Importance in Religion and which must be defended against the Contradiction of Sense and Reason and for which we ought to be armed with the greatest Caution as being in short Mysteries which are daily represented us in their Celebration and Participation of them which should be distinctly known by all the Faithful and cleerly and plainly taught the People to the end every one may know that what he receiveth is the proper Substance of his Saviour and give him the Worship due to a Creator Whence it follows that if the antient Church believed these things it has believed them in this Degree and that 't is not possible but the Fathers in general would take such care as not to maintain things which overthrow them or reject others which are the necessary Consequences of them It is not possible I say that they should all of 'em be thus inconsiderate as to assert several things which may justly scandalize their Followers and that in so ticklish and well known a Point as is that of the Substance of Jesus Christ which they every day received On the other hand if we consider the Nature and Number of things to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation and the Real Presence we shall observe they are contrary to them by a primary immediate and evident contrariety for which there is no need of a sharp Wit nor great Memory but a sound understanding and disinteressed Judgment we shall find that these things are in great Number and as well prevail over a mans Mind by their Multitude as their Quality And this Mr. Daillé has not denyed so that as I do not thwart his Rule so he does not oppose my Exception therefore there is no Contradiction betwixt us BUT Mr. Arnaud will reply Mr. Daillé do's oppose our Exception for he applies his Rule to the Subject of the Eucharist acknowledging that as there are Passages in the Fathers Writings which seem to be inexplicable in C. 1. the Church of Romes Sence so there are likewise some which can in no wise admit the Sence of the Protestants as them which expresly import that the Bread changes its Nature that by the Almighty Power of God it becometh the Flesh of the Word and such like If Cardinal Perron saith he and other sublime Wits on both sides protest they find no Difficulty we must acknowledg they said it only out of a Bravadoe turning the best side outwards or else that the rest of the World are very dim sighted to perceive nothing but Darkness where these People behold nothing but Light And elsewhere taking notice of some Passages which seem to deny the Consubstantiality of the Son determined in the Council of Nice which are to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers who preceded that Council Let the Fathers addeth he affirm or deny that the Eucharist is really the Body of Christ they will not for all this contradict thy Opinion whosoever thou art whether Romanist or Protestant more strongly than the Fathers of Antioch did in appearance contradict them of Nice To which we may now add that as the Arians had no reason to draw to their Opinion and alleage as decisive parts of their Question such transient Discourses as were innocently meant by the antient Fathers without any Design of treating on this so likewise we have no cause neither thou I say nor I to alleage as Sentences pronounced in our case which has bin stated but of late the sayings of the Fathers which were written by them on other matters several Ages before our Controversies began concerning which they have expressed themselves very differently and obscurely and even sometimes in appearance contradictorily Having shewn afterwards that the Fathers designed to be obscure in their Discourses concerning the Eucharist to hide this Mystery from the Catecumenists SEEING then saith he that in this and other Matters they designed to conceal their Thoughts we must not therefore wonder if their Expressions have bin oftentimes obscure and that which commonly is an effect of Obscurity if they seem sometime to differ and contradict one another I answer that this being well understood doth not at all obstruct my Exception nor what I said in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Daillé speaks of the particular Judgment which we
Chapter which Mr. Arnaud has written touching the Equivocal Expressions of this Author In effect let him say as long as he pleases That the Point here concerns neither Figure nor Virtue that this effect Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 650. 651. which surpasses humane Conception is in Damascen ' s Sence this to wit That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that it is the Body really united to the Divinity the Body taken from the Virgin because the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God That Damascen speaks of it as if he designed to refute expresly all the Attempts and Shifts of the Ministers some of whom turn his Words into a change of Virtue and others to an Imaginary Union of the Holy Siprit with the Bread remaining Bread That the Fathers have expressed themselves after two different manners that is to say sometimes as Philosophers and otherwhiles as Divines All this signifies nothing considering the Explication which Damascen himself hath given us of his own Sence in his Letter to Zacharias Bishop of Doarus and Homily at the end of it These two Pieces published by the Abbot Billius and which were acknowledged for Authentick by Labbus the Jesuit the learned M. de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris and Leo Allatius himself Mr. Arnaud's great Author These two Pieces I say end the Difference and suffer us not any longer to dispute about Damascene I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has not done fairly in relating the Passages of the fourth Book of the Orthodox Faith to leave out this Homily and Letter as he has done CHAP. X. An Examination of the Advantages which Mr. Arnaud draws from the two Councils held in Greece in the eighth Century upon the Subject of Images the one at Constantinople and th' other at Nice IT cannot without doubt but trouble good People to see how Mr. Arnaud suffers his Pen to be guided by his Passion and fills up his Book with Injuries so ill becoming a Man of his Age and Profession making them continually the Subject of his Eloquence Yet in truth are we obliged to him for this way of proceeding not only for that thereby he gives us Occasion to exercise our Christian Patience but does also himself furnish us with an assured means of bringing his Chapters into a lesser Compass And to this end we shall pass by all his personal Reflections as Matters which concern not our Dispute Let us then consider those four terrible Chapters wherein he Treats of the two Councils which were held in the eighth Century the one at Constantinople against Images and the other at Nice for them MR. Arnaud begins with the Council of Nice that is to say with a Writing Lib. 7. c. 5. p. 661. which the Fathers of this Council caused to be read in the sixth Session from whence he forms these five Propositions 1st That the Eucharist was not called by the Name of Image or Figure by the Apostles and Fathers after Consecration 2dly That they have called it the Body it self and the Blood it self 3dly That the Gifts are properly Body and Blood 4ly That they are not Images but Body and Blood 5ly That it is impossible they should be both the Image and Body of Christ so that being the Body they are not the Image He moreover tells us that Anastasius made use of the same Reasoning to shew the Eucharist is not an Image That John Damascen likewise used it and Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople concludes after the same manner that the Eucharist is not the Image of Christ because it is his Body Whereupon Mr. Arnaud cries out These are the very things wherein Arguments are useless and wherein the Impression of Truth appears so plainly that those that deny it are P. 663. to be regarded as Persons no longer to be reasoned with But how clear soever his Motives may be we can assure him this comes from his Prejudice and not from the Truth The Understanding of all these Discourses of the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes depends only on the knowing in what Sence they meant the Eucharist is properly the Body and Blood of Christ For this Point being once dispatched we shall soon perceive why they denyed it was an Image and wherefore they thus reasoned that being an Image it could not be the Body We must observe all these Greeks have followed the Opinion of Damascen and speak as he does that they borrow all his Conceptions and Expressions as appears by the Writing which was read in the second Council of Nice by the Fragment of Theodorus Graptus and Mr. Arnaud's own Author Nicephorus NOW after the Notices Damascen has given us we can no longer doubt but their Sence is that the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ inasmuch as that receiving the Supernatural Virtue of this Body and Blood they are a Growth and Augmentation thereof and therefore are not two Bodies but one and the same Body the proper Body of Christ as the Food becomes our proper Body AND this will appear from the bare reading of a Passage in Nicephorus Allat de Eccles Occid Orient Perp. Consens Lib. 3. cap. 15. which Mr. Arnaud himself has related and taken from Allatius And if it be needful say's he to explain these things by what passes in our selves as the Bread Wine and Water are naturally changed into the Body and Blood of those that eat and drink them and become not another Body so these Gifts by the Prayer of him that Officiates and Descent of the Holy Spirit are changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ For this is the Contents of the Priest's Prayer and we do not understand they are two Bodies but we believe it be but one and the same Body And this is the Greeks Hypothesis the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ as the Meat we eat becomes our Body to wit inasmuch as it is united to it and receives its Form increases and augments it THE same will appear if we compare the Discourses of the Fathers of Constantinople with the Censure past on them in the Council of Nice The Fathers of Constantinople called the Eucharist a chosen Matter a Substance of Bread Those of Nice were not offended thereat Neither at the others calling the Eucharist Bread filled with the Holy Spirit an Oblation translated from a common State to a State of Holyness a Body made Divine by a Sanctification of Grace So far they agree But when the Fathers of Constantinople call the Bread an Image those of Nice could not suffer it neither could they bear with them in saying it is the Body by Institution Why do they make this Difference but because these first Expressions which are contrary to Transubstantiation and the substantial Presence yet do not contradict their Hypothefis of Augmentation by an Impression of Virtue whereas the others oppose it For they do not say the Food
only prove the relative Adoration of Images by the Example of that which is given the Eucharist but likewise by the Example of that which is given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and Vessels If Mr. Arnaud's Consequence be good we must say likewise that the Iconoclastes rendred to all these things a Worship which they acknowledged to be only due to God alone which is not easy to believe It must then be necessarily acknowledged either that the Iconoclastes rejected not absolutely the distinction of the two Adorations the one Absolute and the other Relative or that they acknowledged not the Honour given to the Cross Sacred Vestments and the Eucharist was a real Adoration and there is a greater likelyhood in the last than in the other So that Stephen proves well the relative Adoration of Images by the relative Adoration of the Eucharist and other sacred things but this is not by a Principle common to the Iconoclastes and their Adversaries but only by external Ceremonies which were common to them both and which were variously expounded by both Parties CHAP. XI Several Circumstances relating to the second Council of Nice Examined HAVING thus cleared the Sence of the Council of Nice it 's scarce worth our Enquiry whether this Council was called and held in a regular manner and whether its Conduct was so sincere that there could be no Fault found with it I grant it was assembled in the Year 787. ten Years after Stephen Stylytus's Death if we refer our selves to the anonymous Author who wrote the Life of this Stephen and do thereby acknowledg that according to the best Chronology it cannot be said That after Epiphanus had censured in the Council of Nice the Terms of Figure and Image Stephen Stylite notwithstanding said will you cast out of the Church the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ Altho Mr. Blondel whom every body knows was very skilful in these Matters of Chronology computed Stephen's Death to have hapned ten Years after this Council of Nice was held Howsoever Mr. Arnaud knows very well that the Bill Epiphanus read was not written before this Council was held that it could not be seen by Stephen and that the Clause therein touching the Rejection of the Term of Image in reference to the Eucharist was not taken out of Damascen's Writings who was Stephen's Contemporary and a Patron of Images as well as he Whence it follows that altho the Writing which was read in the Council condemned the Use of this Term yet Stephen who was engaged in the same Affair as the Author of this Writing made use of it which shews that this Doctrine that the Eucharist is not an Image or Figure was neither the Doctrine of the whole Greeks Chruch nor even that of the whole opposite Party to the Council of Constantinople Now this is the Substance of what I had to say and to which Mr. Arnaud was bound to make reply IN effect it has not been Stephen only who made use of the Term of Figure and believed it to be not Inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Greek Church in reference to the Eucharist Balsamon who lived in the twelfth Century did the same likewise The thirty second Canon say's he of the Council called in Trullo Injoyns the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with Water because the Bread is the Figure of Christ's Body and the Wine the Figure of his Blood Andrew of Créte as Goar Reports scrupled not to say That our Saviour is Immolated in the Symbols which are the Figures of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Nicetas Pectoratus writing against the Latins in the eleventh Century likewise said You eat the Azyme of the Jews as a Figure of our Lords true and living Flesh And again If as you say the Apostles received an Azyme from our Lord and delivered it to you as a Figure of our Lord's Body to be the Mystery of the new Testament c. BUT to return to the Council of Nice it is granted 't was Tarasus who before he accepted of the See of Constantinople obtained a Promise from the Empress Iréne that there should be a Council called but this does not hinder but it may be said That he was not setled in this See till he had obtained from Iréne the Convocation of this Synod But whether it was at his Request or not that Iréne did it it little matters for it is still certain they were agreed in it and this Condition on which he is said to accept of that See shews only that he was far engaged to maintain the Cause of Images and already became a Party Mr. Arnaud cannot deny that Tarasus had already declared himself in the Letter he wrote to Pope Adrian Neither can he any more deny the Pope answered him he would not consent to his Election to the Patriarchate unless he Re-established the Worship of Images All this is expresly contained in Adrian's Letters and thence may justly be concluded that this Person was not at his own Liberty when he presided in this Council and could at farthest be considered only as the Head of a Party which was at that time the strongest as being upheld by the Empress Iréne and her chief Minister Stauracius Now this by good right makes void whatsoever Tarasus did afterwards MR. Arnaud cannot deny but that the two Monks Thomas and John whom the Council ever called The Vicars or Representatives of the Apostolical Sees in the East were sent by some Hermit of Palestine and not by the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Jerusalem nor by the Consent of the Patriarchal or other Churches Whence it appears this Council could not rightly call it self Universal nor be preferred above that of Constantinople altho so esteemed by the Author of the Perpetuity who tells us as a considerable Matter that all the Patriarchs were there present IT was say's Mr. Arnaud a mere Favour of the Council towards them to Lib. 7. c. 3. p. 715. give them the Place of the Patriarchs If it were a mere Favour of the Council then the Presence of these Men ought not to be made a Ground for the calling this an oecumenical Council and by this means to give it the greater Authority The Author then of the Perpetuity had no reason so loudly to proclame that all the Patriarchs were present at it For it is Absurd to pretend the Patriarchs assisted at it under Pretence there was given by mere Favour the Place of Patriarchs to two Religious who had neither Order nor Mission from these Patriarchs Yet this Favour adds Mr. Arnaud was Ibid. granted on good Grounds seeing no Persons could better supply this Place than those that were competent Witnesses of their Sentiments and were the Bearers of their Synodical Letters But to keep in a Council the Rank of Patriarchs it is not sufficient for Persons to be Witnesses of their Sentiments nor Carryers of their Synodical Letters which the Patriarchs
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet 〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raâ—nald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â—4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
proved We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches whether we consider them since their separation or during their Reunion The Latins believed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and they added the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles as they did afterwards 'T is the same in reference to several other points and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair 't is likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these differences 'T is then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West and that of the Eastern in the East Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other And yet supposing the Consequence were good it cannot but be in my favour having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them and come we to the Latins themselves I will undertake Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag 736. say's Mr. Arnaud positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence and Transubstantiation I confess the undertaking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains but we must see how he acquits himself therein For this purpose he has a long Chapter of preparatives whose title is supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh eigth and ninth Century how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist according to Reason and Nature and the ordinary way of their expressing themselves This Chapter is full of long discourses whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transubstantiation there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense and that a too great care to avoid it would not at all agree with the state of those times Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts th' one visible and th' other invisible th' one sensible and th' other intelligible that is to say of the outward vail which is the Sacrament and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail it may be considered in three manners The first is to respect it directly and the Body of Jesus Christ indirectly The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament indirectly And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ the Figure of the Body and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery in the Sacrament under the Figure of Bread and Wine and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure That 't is Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other In fine that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations Customs Benefits and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 't was known of all the World AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book 'T is evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words to throw himself into a Labyrinth and draw insensibly his Readers after him For to what end is this heap of Suppositions Propositions Reflections Distinctions different Respects Ways of Expression c. with which this Chapter is crammed Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances would she not have clearly explain'd her self should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man before he judges of his Reasonings and the Expressions of Authors in question to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touching these Articles Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in themselves determine the Difference or which
of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament we must understand the Body it self in substance his reasons are First That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question that which was represented by these ancient figures Secondly That 't is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images Now according to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it but the truth in opposition to the image Thirdly That the reason why he will not have it to be an image is that our Saviour did not say This is the image of my Body but this is my Body Fourthly That 't is of the Eucharist we must understand what he says That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself BUT 't is no hard matter to answer these objections The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects either in opposition to the thing it self of which 't is the Sacrament or in conjunction with this same thing In the first respect 't is a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcuinus as we have already seen and Bede gives it several times this title But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body or reality of that which they represented whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross and represented by the ancient figures He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body and the reason which he alledges for it is that 't is not a bare representation of a thing to come as were those of the ancient Law 't is the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ of a Death I say that was really consummated and moreover 't is not a bare representation of this Death but a Mystery which communicates it to us This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude For for to consider the Sacrament in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament 't is not necessary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a mystical and moral manner Now 't is certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical yet is it real and true This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now not an image but the truth not a shadow but a body not a figure of things to come but the thing represented by the figures Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark That our Saviour did not say this is the image of my Body but this is my Body that is given for you Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration but his Body In fine this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense and with respect too to the Eucharist That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself in sacrifice because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross he offers and gives it us in the Eucharist In a word Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them I say this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel in Baptism as well as in the Eucharist CHAP. X. An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book seeing it consists only of Consequences which he draws from the consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th Century to this present For having overthrown as we have done his Principle we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences Yet that we may not neglect any thing I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book and that as briefly as I am able The first Consequence THE first Consequence bears That the consent of all Churches in the Book 10. ch 1. Faith of the Real Presence explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words To establish this Proposition he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words This is my Body to their sense by an infinite number of metaphysical Arguments which have only obscure and abstracted principles That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this the word is and the word Body That by this means that which yields no trouble when a man follows simply the course of nature and common sense becomes obscure and unintelligible That supposing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words Lazarus come forth it 's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately nor the Soul and Body together but a mere nothing Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people women and children persons ignorant of humane learning That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these persons receiv'd without so many reflections That to find this simple and natural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectually taken for the space of a thousand years by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes That our Saviours intention was rather
to express by these words the sense in which they have been effectually taken by all Christians in the world which was not unknown to him than that in which they have been understood in these latter days by a few Berengarian Calvinistical Philosophers That he has right to suppose as a thing certain that since the 7th Century all Christians throughout the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and that this consent of all people for a thousand years is sufficient to shew what the simple impression is and consequently the real sense of Christs words This is the summary of his first Chapter The first Reflection THE design of this whole discourse tends to cast men into horrible confusions I grant our Saviour intended not to speak so as to be understood only by Philosophers but on the contrary that his Religion should be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people women and children and persons uncapable of deep reasoning But if the sense of these words must be sought in the consent of all Churches these women and children and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it How few persons are there capable of themselves to make this inquisition for which they must have skill in Languages read two hundred Volumes or more attentively examine 'em distinguish the times places and occasions consider the circumstances of passages and drift of Authors compare the various interpretations and do in a word a thousand things necessary to prevent their taking one thing for another And as for those that shall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another how many cheats are they to beware of How shall they be certain that they shall have no false Authors imposed upon 'em for true ones forged Writings attributed to Authors or false Passages corrupt Translations and false Explications to give them another sense than the natural one that they shall not be imposed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Answers yet well coloured that they shall not be tired with fruitless discourses to wear out their patience and attention and by this means make 'em fall into the Net All this has been hitherto done and I do not find such as be guilty of this do amend whatsoever complaints have been made I grant one may find the true sense of our Saviour's words in the consent of all Churches But is it not a more short sure and easie way to seek it by considering the words themselves by comparing them with other Sacramental Expressions by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour instituted by the circumstances that accompanied it the design he proposed in it by his ordinary ways of expressing himself by the other words he added by the sense wherein according to all probability his Disciples understood him by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it and in short by the genius and universal Spirit of the Christian Religion Whether a man makes this inquisition by himself or under the direction of another 't is certain that the way which we offer is far less troublesome and dangerous easier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people than that of the consent of all Churches Mr. Arnaud supposes this consent from the 7th Century to this present because he believes he has proved it But were this supposition as certain and true in the main as 't is false and imaginary it can reside no where but in the imagination of those that have read his Book And how many are there in the rank of the simple people that never read it Of those amongst 'em that have read it how few have been capable to understand and Judg of it Are they able to discern whether his citations be true or no whether his Passages be faithfully translated his Arguments conclusive his Attestations allowable and whether he has not concealed several things which ought to be known on this subject for a man to be throughly informed in it After all reason requires 'em to suspend their judgments till such time as they have seen my Answer And supposing my Answer does not satisfie 'em how know they but that my weakness or ignorance has prejudiced the Cause I defend In the mean time what will become of the Faith of these simple persons if they will make it depend on the consent of all Churches touching the sense of our Saviours words Mr. Arnaud under pretence of searching short ways throws men into such labyrinths out of which 't is impossible to get out Second Reflection I grant that the true sense of our Saviours words must be the simple and natural one We dispute touching this simple and natural sense Mr. Arnaud will needs have it to be that of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence we affirm 't is the Sacramental or figurative one Supposing we could not on either side find out this simple and natural impression which these words do of themselves make in the minds of men by reason of our Dispute and that we must go search it amongst those that be free from these prejudices it is not reasonable we should stop at those that lived since the 7th Century till now to the prejudice of the first six ages We must on the contrary begin from the six first Tradition said one not long since In the Remarks on the request of M. D' Ambrun 9th Remark whose word ought to be regarded must begin from the Apostles and pass on till this present by an uninterrupted succession The first then that are to be consulted for the finding this simple impression must be the Apostles that heard immediately these words from our Lords own mouth We must search the History of the Gospel to see whether there be any thing that discovers they took 'em in the sense of Transubstantiation whether they have been surpriz'd by any astonishment or ravished with admiration or troubled with some doubt whether 't is likely they were imbued with principles on which this sense is established as that a body should be in several places at once and accidents subsist without their substance c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with some maxims very opposite to this sense as for instance that to drink Blood was a crime strictly forbidden by Moses's Law that the signs were called after the name of the things which they signifi'd and whether it appears from any of their words or actions that they adored the Eucharist And 't is here I think we ought to begin and afterwards come to S. Paul and examine whether in what he has said on this subject or any others there be any thing that shews he believed Transubstantiation We must afterwards discuss age after age what the Fathers of the six first Centuries have written on it consult the Commentaries which they have expresly made on these words and in short endeavour by an attentive meditation throughly to discover their
Ch. 4. That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine The equity says Mr. Arnaud of this Consequence is apparently visible For why must these terms subsisting in Authors that lived since the seventh Century with the persuasion of the Real Presence be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages And in fine what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages Reflection Mr. ARNAVD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made and which he himself has sometimes used concerning a natural language and one that is forced will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it and use it against his pretended Consequence There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence the former have done nothing like this The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions and such as are contrary to their natural sense as well knowing they may be used against themselves The first have used them indifferently in all occasions because they contained their real opinion but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use for dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said that the Bread loses not its nature or substance dared they say what Facundus said that the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ but is so called because it contains the mystery of it whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions 't is by constraint because they must endeavour to accommodate as much as in them lies their stile to the stile of the Ancients whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established There they explain the real Belief of the Church here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief which is expounded in another manner There they must be taken in their natural signification here in a forced and forein one THE natural sense of these words of Justin Ireneus Cyril of Jerusalem and some others that the Eucharist is not mere Bread common Bread is that it is in truth Bread but Bread that is Consecrated The strained sense of these words is that 't is only Bread in appearance and in respect of its accidents THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers that our Lord called the Bread his Body that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body That our Saviour made an exchange of names giving to the Bread the name of his Body and to his Body that of the Bread Their natural sense is I say that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread has assumed the name of Christ's Body the forced sense is that the Bread takes the name of it because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols signs figures images of our Lords Body and Blood is that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of being the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ without losing their own nature The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self or that the accidents that is to say the appearances of Bread and Wine are signs IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients To take from us the liberty of making use of them we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraordinary and distorted sense Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one CHAP. XI Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences The fifth Consequence HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining and which is contained in his fifth Consequence is less reasonable than the rest He proposes it in these terms That the Catholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident demonstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority and with which he has enriched his 5th and 6th Chapters The result of all which amounts only to this That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions that they take the Body of Jesus Christ for the Body of Jesus Christ and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them That in this contest 't is evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks The other thing is that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them and hinder our reason from acquiescing in them The first Reflection THE first of
these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pretension is invalid and the second resides only in his own imagination I say the first is invalid for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ and some few others that say the Bread is changed we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration Bread and Wine and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs the symbols the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ So far matters are equal and the prejudice cannot favour either side MOREOVER who told Mr. Arnaud we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms We oft prejudicate on the contrary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 't is likely they are used figuratively as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle or in reference to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms This is not enough to establish a prejudice nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther and shew that there 's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter into this discussion because of its difficulty and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile THE second reason has less strength than the first For first 't is not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say Now that things are cleared up in this respect every man may judg of 'em and I hope they will make a just judgment of them Secondly there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centuries and those of the later Ages who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice for had the Fathers meant by their general expressions the same thing which these last do they would have spoke like them but this they have not done 'T is not then likely they had the same sense and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form without the help of any contest the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and determinate sense where the term of substance enters There 's no need of a disputation for this Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last It does not appear to us they have done it It is not then reasonable to prejudicate they held this Doctrine THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pretensions who will suppose at any rate oppose we against him a contrary pretension which is that we have right to suppose without any other proof that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us must not be understood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative he is obliged to do it by evident demonstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication This here is our pretension it remains only now to be observed how we prove it and having seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his it will be easie to compare proof with proof and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable FIRST there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th Chapter of this Book touching the 7th and 8th Centuries that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense which regulate the judgments of men till the contrary does evidently appear Now the state of nature is not to believe the Doctrines we speak of and it must be granted me that common sense does not teach ' em We have then right to suppose without proof that the Fathers did not believe them and consequently that their expressions must not be taken in this sense And 't is Mr. Arnaud's part to shew so clearly the contrary that his proof may surmount the prejudication Which if he does not do reason obliges us to let the Fathers alone in the state of nature and common sense SECONDLY The matter in debate does of it self form our prejudice The point in hand is touching a Sacrament and in Sacramental expressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent as may be verified by numberless instances We then have right to suppose without any other proof that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise understood them IN the third place our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self about which we dispute For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense it answers to a very distinct question which is whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not it says that 't is a change of substance It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determination that is to say in applying their conceptions precisely to the substance and 't is not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opinion It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations not from general expressions but by expressions which are formal
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
an inconsistent sense but on the contrary a sense that appears consistent and reasonable to abused persons altho at bottom it be otherwise Whilst a man judges of it according to the false lights of these persons he calls it a sense because his mind acquiesces therein as seeing nothing therein impossible but as soon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconsistency of the terms 't is no longer a sence 't is a mere contradiction that has no sense and which is unintelligible I confess that as mens minds are subject to fearful capricio's it sometimes happens that they advance propositions wherein contradictions are so evident that they must needs have seen 'em themselves such as is that of this Philsosopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud who affirmed That if God pleas'd two and two should not be four but in this case 't is requisite to say that these persons impose on the world and understand not themselves what they say For for to say that a man can make to himself a sense of a contradiction when it appears to him to be a contradiction that he can unite two ideas by affirming one of the other at the same time wherein he sees they cannot be accorded that is to say that he can persuade himself that a thing is possible ev'n then when it seems to him to be impossible If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy he must Philosophise by himself for me 'T IS then clear I had reason to say that this second rank of persons which I supposed in the ancient Church who found inconsistency in the terms of this proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ conceiv'd properly no sense at all in it For as to their parts they could not find any in it seeing the proposition to them seem'd inconsistent Neither could their Pastors help 'em seeing 't is laid down for a maxim that they knew not in what sense the Fathers understood it But says Mr. Arnaud not knowing Page 580. any other way to make the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ they must make an entire separation of the Bread and Body and absolutely deny the presence and existence of Jesus Christ in the Bread which is rejecting the Real Presence I answer that this is not a good conclusion the persons of which we speak found no sense in the proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconsistent they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body I grant but seeing 't was a proposition of their Pastors whom they would not charge with falsity and being taught it as from the authority of Jesus Christ himself 't is not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it must have a good sense altho they knew not which was this good sense and therefore I said in my answer to the Perpetuity that their minds stopt at the only difficulty without undertaking to resolve it 'T is fruitless to enquire whether they rejected by a positive judgment the unity of these two substances Bread and Body or whether their minds hung in suspense notwithstanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconsistency of the terms I have not attributed to them this rejection as Mr. Arnaud says I have in impertinently transferring what I said of them who went as far as the Sacramental sense to those of this second rank who proceeded not so far But whether they formally rejected this unity of two substances or only suspended their judgments it is clear they neither rejected Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation for neither one nor the other of these two opinions establishes th' unity of these two substances Bread and Body in the sense we understand it here that is to say by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ They may have deny'd the Real Presence in this last sense that is to say judged that the Bread remaining Bread cannot be the Body of Jesus Christ but as to other ways since found out to make the Bread to be the Body having no knowledg of 'em they could not reject them They rejected if you will the unity of the two substances they conceived no sense in this expression the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ yet they acknowledg'd it must have a good and a true one altho they knew not in particular which that was they carry'd off their minds from this difficulty but in all this they conceiv'd no distinct notice either of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to persuade us That the natural Page 583. idea of these words The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in explaining them in the usual manner was that appearing Bread 't was not so but the very Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is a renouncing all the lights of reason to pretend that this so common true and authoriz'd sense by custom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years All this signifies nothing seeing his pretended sense is contrary to nature the question concerning Bread which a man seeth and which all the notices of sense and reason assure to be Bread these same notices do not inform us that 't is not Bread or that 't is only an appearance of it The question likewise concerning a Body which we know is in Heaven and which is like unto that which we have the notices of reason urge not a man to understand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread So that should we suppose that during eight hundred years this sense entred not into any bodies thoughts we shall suppose nothing but what 's very natural and reasonable But says Mr. Page 582. Arnaud when Raphael led young Toby if any one that knew who he was should say this Man whom you see is an Angel Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too but easily conceive he meant only that appearing Man he was really an Angel But does not Mr. Arnaud consider that this example is quite different from our case When the Angels appear'd under the form of men there was always some sensible character that distinguish'd them and easily shew'd there was something more than natural in ' em There 's nothing like this in the Bread th' apparition of Angels in a humane shape was very frequent under the old Testament and Toby was instructed in his infancy in the belief of this This apparition of the Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church We know that an Angel leaves Heaven when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane shape whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Jesus Christ is so in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the last Judgment We know an Angel is of a spiritual nature and a man consults not his eyes to know whether he is
Serm. ad inf see is one thing and that which we hear another what we see has corporeal species but what we hear has a spiritual fruit To this end do all the passages of the Fathers tend which declare how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ to wit or because 't is the Sacrament of it the sign and figure or because it stands for it or because it communicates it to us or because Christ changes it into the efficacy of his Flesh and those which term it the typical Body the symbolical Body the mystical Body and those that attribute to the words of Christ a Sacramental or figurative sense for these are as so many explications of the manner which serve to clear up the doubt in question Mr. ARNAVD's illusion then is a double one for on one hand what ought to be referred to one kind of doubt he refers to another what refers to the doubt of incredulity which respects the truth of the words he refers to the simple doubt of ignorance which consists only in not knowing the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and this illusion is grounded on the imperfect division which he has made of the doubts On the other hand he suppresses whatsoever the Fathers have said in order to th' explaining in what sense the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ and offers only what they have said to confirm that it is so As to the passages he proposes he shews but small sincerity in telling us the Fathers add no explication of figure or virtue for the greatest part of those he alledges speak either of the Type or Figure or Sacrament or spiritual Understanding or Virtue Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the type of Bread and of the type of Wine The Author of the Treatise De Initiatis concludes that 't is the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ Gaudencius says That the Bread is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Chrysostom says that God gives us in the Sacrament the intelligible or spiritual things by means of sensible And Hesychius recommends to our consideration the virtue of the Mystery and spiritual understanding of it CHAP. IV. Defence of the Fifth Rank against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud THE fifth rank of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church was of those that at the hearing of these propositions the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ proceeded immediately to their true and natural sense without perplexity or difficulty and without considering the inconsistency of the terms very well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be to us a Sacrament which imparts to us our Lords Body and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth and an apprehension better fitted to understand the style and common expressions of the Church Mr. ARNAVD spends all the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book to shew that these persons whom I suppose had necessarily before their eyes a distinct idea of the Real Presence Which is what he endeavours to prove First By the example of this infinite number of Christians which were found to hold in the beginning of the 11th Century the belief of the Real Presence and who had taken up this Faith from the same expressions of the Fathers which ever rung in the ears of the Faithful of the first eight Centuries whence it without doubt follows that these expressions which have persuaded the whole world into the belief of the Real Presence might well give the idea of it to those which preceded them Secondly He offers the double idea which the metaphorical terms offer to the mind for they offer says he to the mind that which one would have it understand and shew it at the same time the image by which one represents it Thus this expression of Scripture Vicit Leo de tribu Juda puts us upon thinking that Jesus Christ is compared to a Lion by reason of his strength so that the word Lion forms at the same instant in the mind two ideas that of the strength of Christ which is the natural idea of the thing conceiv'd as true and which the Scripture would signifie and the idea of a Lion which is the natural idea of the Word but which is only the resemblance of the truth which the Scripture would make us conceive It is easie says he moreover to conclude hence that when a man should take all the words of the Fathers which express the Real Presence for metaphorical ones when one shall give 'em all the senses which the Ministers give them and suppose that the Faithful of the fifth Rank were all of 'em born every whit as metaphorical as Aubertin was after he had corrupted his judgment by vain wranglings for thirty years space when we should grant they had all an infused knowledg of 'em and had 'em also as present as the first Principles they could not but see the Real Presence in the expressions of the Fathers either as the true idea which they would mark or as the image of this idea but an image so lively and sensible and denoted by such a great number of expressions that 't is impossible but their mind must have been touch'd with ' em Thirdly Mr. Arnaud uses for the same design the example of other Ministers Who conceiv'd says he a literal sense in the passages produc'd by the Catholicks In fine he uses for this end the very passages of the Fathers and especially one of S. Hilary and another of Gregory of Nysse We shall answer in order these four pretended reasons AS to the first which is taken from th' example of the people of the 11th Century it is evidently ineffectual by means of two essential differences there are between these people and those of the eight first Centuries The first is that the idea of the Real Presence I mean of that about which we dispute was offered to those of the 11th Century by the Disciples and followers of Paschasus who maintain'd and taught it and applied thereunto the passages of the Fathers dazling the eyes of the world by false colours and giving to these passages a sense which the people would never have discovered had they been led by the light of nature But there can be nothing said like this of the people of the eight first Centuries to whom the idea of this substantial and invisible Presence was not yet discovered They had not been taught it nor were they told 't was in this sense they must take the expressions of their Pastors Moreover the people of the 11th Century had not the clear and easie passages of the Fathers proposed to 'em which might give the true meaning of the Sacrament and at the same time serve for an explication to the obscure expressions and by this means shewing 'em only one side of the thing
has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment is this The question concerns not all those in the Answer to the second Treatise Part. 3. ch 6. West who profess themselves Christians but only one party that have grown prevalent and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church Whereupon he cries out Did ever any Book 9. ch 3. p. 890. body affirm that the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th Century and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th Century 'T is sufficient we tell him says the Author of the Perpetuity that Refut part 3. ch 6. this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century to wit of the 10th seeing 't is incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments and without this change 's having made any noise These are the very words I recited and on which having said that the question concerned not a change begun and finished in the 10th Century but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th Century and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th I added that our Debate was not about all those in the West that professed themselves Christians but only about one party that strengthned themselves and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th Century And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th Century held not the Real Presence and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery No Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people sententia vulgi and in maintaining the Church was perished It must be acknowledg'd there 's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing I will grant that the common people of the 11th Century held the opinion of the Real Presence thro the labours of Paschasus his Disciples but it does not follow 't was the same in the first fifty years of the 10th for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ 't is not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th Century for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th Century those that held the Real Presence only as a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to make ' emselves most considerable in the Church but 't is in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th Century seeing that in eighty or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed 'T IS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc Book 9. ch 3. pag. 890. who bragg'd that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin For supposing what Lanfranc says were true the sence he gave to these words the true Flesh and the true Blood of Jesus Christ understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false as we have sufficiently shew'd Has any body charged this testimony to be false says Mr. Arnaud No there 's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd and those that adher'd to him And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good DOES Reason adds he shew that in this point the Faith of the Pastors Ibid was not that of the People No it proves the quite contrary it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it whom they exhorted to receive the Communion to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds according as they were more or less prejudiced or zealous in the propagation of this belief and more or less qualifi'd to teach it and more or less again according to the circumstances of times occasions persons But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West but a party that strengthened themselves and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable IS this says Mr. Arnaud again a sufficient reason to shew that the people were not persuaded of the Real Presence because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the people did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th Century I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who follow'd Berenger follow'd him in leaving their first Belief and embracing a new Opinion or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before or that they adher'd to him because they were further instructed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg or little certainty So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin I shall say nothing but what 's very probable having shew'd as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th Century for it follows hence probably enough that this Doctrin
was not then wholly extinct that is to say in the beginning of the 11th Century when Berenger appear'd THESE are Mr. Arnaud's first objections which as is plainly seen are not over demonstrative that the change we suppose is impossible Those which follow are not much better as will appear from the reflections we shall make on ' em The second order of these pretended Machins which he attributes to me is what he calls Machins of Preparations and he draws these from two passages the one of my first answer and th' other from my second The first is contain'd in these terms In this dark Age that is to say in the 10th the distinct knowledg of the true Doctrin was lost not only in reference to the Sacrament but almost all other Points of the Christian Religion The second speaks of the Ages which followed the first eight in these terms The first light which was taken from the people to keep 'em in ignorance Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 3. was God's Word The second was the clear and solid Expositions of the Writings of the Holy Fathers in reference to the Sacrament The third the knowledg of other Mysteries of Christianity which might strengthen mens minds and encourage their zeal for the truth The fourth was suffering natural reason to decay and fall into a kind of languishment And as to their senses they had open War declar'd against ' em THOSE that shall take the pains to read the 4th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's Chap. 4. page 891. 9th Book which has for its title The Machins of Preparation Examin'd will find therein a prodigious profusion of words much heat and vehement declamations but very few things worth regarding wherefore passing by as I shall do whatsoever is useless and redundant the rest will not take up much time First he charges me with offering things without any foundation proof or reason I answer then Mr. Arnaud has forgot the proofs Page 892. we brought touching the disorders of the 10th Century and according to his reckoning the testimonies of Guitmond Verner Rollevink Marc Antony Sabellic John Stella Polydor Virgil Elfric Arch bishop of Canterbury Edgar King of England Genebrard Bellarmin Baronius Nicolas Vignier and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the defenders of the Doctrin of Divine Grace shall be esteem'd as nothing The one tells us That the truths of Religion were vanish'd away in this Age from men The other That therein was a total neglect of all ingenious Arts. The third That all persons in general so greatly indulged ' emselves in idleness that all kinds of Virtues seem'd to be laid asleep with ' em The fourth That the Monks and Priests minded only th' enriching ' emselves The fifth That the Bishops and Priests neglected the reading of the Holy Scriptures and instructing the people out of ' em The sixth That the Church-men spent their lives in Debauches Drunkenness and Vncleanness The seventh That 't was an unhappy Age an Age void of excelling men either in Wit or Learning The eighth That there were no famous Writers in it nor Councils nor Popes that took care of any thing The ninth That Barbarism and ignorance of Learning and Sciences either Divine or Human reigned more in it than in the former Ages The tenth That 't was an iron and leaden Age an obscure and dark Age. And the eleventh That 't was an Age of Darkness and Ignorance wherein excepting some few Historians there were no famous Writers on the Mysteries of Faith Mr. Arnaud knows all this and that we might increase the number of these Testimonies with several others were it necessary yet tells me with the greatest transport That I offer things without any ground proof or reason things which I know to be false and mere imaginations HE says adds he speaking of me that the distinct knowledg of almost all Chap. 4. page 829. the other Mysteries but that of the Eucharist was lost in the 10th Age. Now he knows the contrary of this and is persuaded of it seeing that as to the common Mysteries and such as are believed by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbol it cannot be said they of the 10th Age were ignorant of 'em and yet as to the points controverted between the Calvinists and the Roman Church excepting that of the Eucharist all the Ministers his Brethren do frankly acknowledg that long before the 9th and 10th Century the whole Church believed what the Roman Church does believe at present of ' em Let him tell us then what are these truths of Faith the distinct knowledg of which were lost in the 10th Century 'T IS no hard matter to satisfie Mr. Arnaud These truths the distinct knowledg of which was lost in the 10th Century are the same which are contained in the Symbols Does he imagin that if a man be not ignorant of the Symbols that therefore he must know distinctly the Mysteries therein contained and does he put no difference between being ignorant of a thing consusedly knowing it and distinctly knowing it Do all those that know the Creed distinctly understand the Mysteries contained therein Certainly a mans mind must be strangely benighted that reasons after this manner They were not ignorant of the Mysteries contain'd in the ancient Symbols they had then a distinct knowledg of ' em If this Argument holds good we may attribute the distinct knowledg of the principal Points of Christianity almost to all kinds of persons to Artificers Husbandmen Women yea Children for there are few in either Communion but have heard of them and know something in 'em and yet it must be granted there are few of these who can be properly said to know them distinctly I pretend not to treat here on the common place of the confused knowledg and the distinct knowless This is needless 'T is sufficient to observe that the term of distinct knowledg is equivocal for 't is sometimes taken for the formal and express knowledg of a thing in opposition to the ignorance of this same thing or to what the Schools call an implicit knowledg and sometimes 't is taken for a clear and full knowledg in opposition to a confused and perplex'd one When the Author of the Perpetuity said that all the Faithful ought always to have a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence he took the term distinct knowledg in the first sense for he did not mean that all the Faithful must know clearly and fully the Doctrin of the Real Presence in every respect but that they had a formal express and determinate thought of rejecting or admitting it But when I said that the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist and almost all the other Mysteries of Christian Religion was lost in the 10th Century I took this term in the second sense meaning not that there was no more formal knowledg of these Mysteries that is to say that they form'd
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
John Scot ' s And in the second place he endeavours to decry John Scot and deprive him of all Esteem and Authority In the other Dissertation Mr. Arnaud pretends that whosoever was the Author of this Book Mr. Claude has not rightly comprehended the sense of it and that this Book does not combat the Doctrin of Paschasus And thus Mr. Arnaud pretends to discharge himself of Mr. Claude ' s proof so that to take away from him this last subterfuge and re-establish this part of Mr. Claude ' s proof it is necessary to shew clearly that the little Book of our Lords Body and Blood is in effect Ratram ' s and that this Book is directly opposite to the Doctrin of Paschasus and that John Scot is an Author whose Testimony is of great weight and authority which is what I have undertaken to do in this Answer And I hope these kind of Elucidations will not be deemed unprofitable or unpleasant Moreover I did not think my self oblig'd to enter into a particular Examination of the second Dissertation touching Bertram ' s Book because the History which I make of this Book the judgment which those of the Church of Rome have made of it at several times with what Mr. Claude alledges concerning it in the 11th Chapter of his sixth Book are sufficient to shew clearly that this Author has directly combated the Doctrin of Paschasus without offering to tire the Readers with troublesom repetitions Moreover we hope to give the Publick in a short time a translation of Bertram ' s Book which being but a small Treatise requires only an hours reading in which every one may see with their own eyes what 's his true sense without a more tedious search after it in Mr. Arnaud ' s Arguments or mine AN ANSWER TO THE DISSERTATION Which is at the end of Mr. Arnaud's Book Touching the Treatise of Our Lords Body and Blood Publish'd under the name of Bertram and touching the Authority of John Scot or Erigenus THE FIRST PART Wherein is shew'd that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Publish'd under the name of Bertram is a work of Ratram a Monk of Corbie and not of John Scot. CHAP. I. An Account of the several Opinions which the Doctors of the Roman Church have offered touching this Book to hinder the advantage which we draw from it THE Book of Bertram of the Body and Blood of our Lord having been Printed at Cologn in the year 1532. the Doctors of the Roman Church have judg'd it so little favourable to 'em that they have thought themselves necessitated to deprive it of all its authority and to cry it down either as an Heretical Book or a forged piece or at least as a Book corrupted by the Protestants IN the year 1559. those that were employed by the Council of Trent Book 1. of Euch. c. 1. Indic Quirog Ind. Clem. VIII Indic Sandov An. 1612. Praefat. in Bibl. Sanct. for the examining of Books placed this in the rank of Heretical Authors of the first Classis the reading of which ought to be forbidden Their judgment was publish'd by Pius IV. and follow'd by Cardinal Bellarmin and Quiroga and by Pope Clement VIII and Cardinal Sandoval SIXTVS of Sienne treats this Book no better in 1566. he tells us 't is a pernicious piece wrote by Oecolampadus and publish'd by his Disciples under the name of Bertram an Orthodox Author to make it the better received Possevin the Jesuit and some others followed the opinion of Sixtus and carried on the same accusation against the Authors of Proleg in appar the impression of this Book BUT besides that the Bishop of Rochester cited it against Oecolampadus himself in the year 1526. which is to say six years before 't was Printed the several Manuscripts which have been since found in Libraries have Joan. Rosseus proleg in 4. lib. adv Oecolamp Artic. 2. shewed that this accusation was unjust and rash which has obliged the Author of the Dissertation which I examin to leave it and confess that this Impression was true IT was without doubt from the same reason that in 1571. the Divines of Indic Belgic voce Bertramus Doway took another course than that of the entire proscription of the Book Altho say they we do not much esteem this Book nor would be troubled were it wholly lost but seeing it has been several times Printed and many have read it and its name is become famous by the Prohibition which has been made of it the Hereticks knowing it has been prohibited by several Catalogues that moreover its Author was a Catholick Priest a Religious of the Convent of Corbie beloved and considered not by Charlemain but by Charles the Bald That this Writing serves for an History of all that time and that moreover we suffer in ancient Catholick Authors several Errors extenuating them excusing them yea often denying 'em by some tergiversation invented expresly or giving them a commodious sense when they are urged against us in Disputes which we have with our Adversaries we therefore see no reason why Bertram should not deserve the same kindness from us and why we should not review and correct him cur non eandem recognitionem mereatur Bertramnus lest the Hereticks should scoffingly tell us we smother Antiquity and prohibit enquiries into it when 't is on their side and therefore we ought not to be troubled that there seems to be some small matters which favor them seeing we Catholicks handle Antiquity with so little respect and destroy Books as soon as ever they appear contrary to us We ought likewise to fear lest the Prohibition which has been made of this Book should cause its being read with greater greediness not only by Hereticks but also by disobedient Catholicks that it be not alledged in a more odious fashion and in fine do more hurt by its being prohibited than if 't were permitted THUS do the Divines of Doway ingeniously declare their opinion how Books ought to be dealt with that do not favour their belief They would not have Bertram's Book prohibited but corrected GREGORY of Valence and Nicholas Romoeus follow the sentiment of Lib. 1. de Praes Chr. in Euch. c. 2. p. 10. the Doway Divines but this expedient is become wholly impossible since there have been several Manuscripts found in places unsuspected and that these Manuscripts appear wholly conformable to the Prints as we are inform'd In Calvini effig spect 3. Col. 21. Spect. 8. col 72. Book 2. of Euch. Auth. 39. p. 666. and Usher de success Eccl. c. 2. p. 41. by Cardinal Perron and several others after him Thus the Doctors of the Roman Communion finding ' emselves faln not only from their hopes of making the world believe this was a false piece but also of persuading 'em 't was corrupted have been forced to have recourse to fresh Councils to elude the advantage we make of it THE President Mauguin seeing then on
Ligaridius what kind of man 1. 266 Patriarch Greek of Jerusalem Excommunicates every year the Latin Church 1. 206 Poor are Jesus Christ himself 2. 74. seq Point fixt of the Author of the Perpetuity impossible c. 1. 45 Policy hindered the Greeks and the Latins in the Council of Florence to treat of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence and the Substantial Presence 1. 197 Paschasius proposes his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not well understood 2. 172 Paschasius acts by way of opposition and contradiction in respect of his Adversaries 2. 172 Paschasius taught the substantial Conversion and Real Presence 2. 198 Paschasius never vaunted that his Doctrin was that of the Church of his time 2. 225 Paschasius endeavours to justifie himself from the charge of Enthusiasm and rashness 2. 210 Paschasius was an Innovator 2. 214 Paschasius acknowledges that before him men were ignorant of his Doctrin 2. 214 Paschasius accused of being a Visionary Enthusiast c. 2. 219 Paschasius his Adversaries affirm that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in virtue 1. 314 Paschasius offers his Opinion as a Paradox 2. 224 Paschasius and Bertram contrary 2. 255 Paschasius submits his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard 2. 225 Paschasius Author of the Doctrin of the Real Presence according to Bellarmin and Sirmond 2. 226 Paschasius defamed by his Adversaries by reason of his Doctrin 2. 228 Preface to the Answer of Father Nouet justifi'd 2. 269 Proofs negative opposed against those of Mr. Arnaud 1. 272 Proofs of fact cannot be overthrown c. 1. 17 Proofs immediate stronger than mediate ones 1. 17 Proofs which consider a thing in all respects stronger than those which consider it only in one 1. 18 Proofs of ones eyes and senses more certain than those of ratiocination 1. 18 Proofs of fact stronger than those of argumentation applied on the same fact 1. 22 Prayers of good people according to the Greeks help the damned 1. 279 Proper Body the meaning of it apply'd to the Sacrament 2. 73 Proper and Properly are apply'd to Subjects wherein there is no propriety of substance 2. 75 Proper has several significations 2. 75 Q. QUestion 's of right how they ought to be decided 1. 9 Questions of fact how they ought to be decided 1. ibid. Questions of Faith ought to be decided by the Scripture 1. ibid. Questions on the Eucharist two the first touching what we ought to believe of it and the other touching what has been anciently held about it 1. 36 Question touching the Greeks is not whether they believe what we believe but whether they believe what the Roman Church believes 1. 110 Question of the possibility or impossibility of the change frivolous 2. 163 R. RAban and Bertram have not opposed the Stercoranists 2. 253 Reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity are at most but probabilities 1. 20 Recapitulation at the end of the Greek Liturgy wherein there is nothing said of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence 1. 142 Receive Jesus Christ and to be sanctifi'd according to the Greeks is one and the same thing 1. 149 Receiving Jesus Christ is caused say the Greeks only by the good dispositions of the Soul 1. 15 Revelation of Jesus Christ to S. Bridget 1. 79 Rupert's opinion in the 12th Century 1. 288 Russians ignorant 1. 70 Roman Church condemns not several Opinions which yet she does not approve 1. 278 S. SAcraments ought to be establish'd immediately on the Word of God Pref. Sacraments their number not regulated by the Greeks 1. 208 Sacrament and Mystery what those terms signifie in the Writings of the Fathers 2. 72 Sacrament may be considered either in opposition to the thing whereof it is a Sacrament or conjoyntly with it 2. 96 Sacrament in how many senses it may be said to be truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 79 Samonas a suspëcted and doubtful Author 1. 264 Scaliger's Colloquies 1. 38 Sanctification of the Bread compared to the Dye which Wool takes 1. 194 Seminaries for the Eastern People at Rome and elsewhere 1. 103 Seminaries the advantages which the Roman Church receive thence 1. 104 Sense its language not contrary to that of Faith on the subject of the Eucharist 2. 67 Sense its language literal and without a figure 2. 67 Sentiment real of the Greeks touching the change which happens in the Eucharist 1. 218 Sense metaphorical of a proposition to be oft received 2. 111 Sense first and natural of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ c. is the Sacramental one 2. 157 Sense natural of Propositions is determined by the matter in question 2. 158 Sense of our Saviours words perplexed by the Schoolmen and Casuists of the Roman Church 2. 101 Sense of our Saviour's words cannot be found out by the common people in the consent of all Churches 2. 99 Sense particular cannot be attributed to persons who explain themselves only in geoeral terms 2. 123 Signs take their names from the things which they signifie 2. 73 Synods of Cyril de Beroa and Parthenius against Cyril supposed pieces c. 1. 210 Silence of the Greeks from whence Mr. Arnaud takes his argument has neither evidence certainty nor necessity 1. 277 Silence of the Greeks concludes nothing 1. 278 Sociniens interessed against the Fathers 1. 39 Stercoranists who they were 2. 246 Stercoranists could not believe the Substantial Presence 2. 248 Supplement which Mr. Arnaud pretends one should make to the expressions of the Fathers is absurd 2. 68 Suppositions of what use in a dispute 1. 4 Supposition which Mr. Arnaud makes that the Real Presence was believ'd in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries is unreasonable and captious 2. 63 Suppose we ought that in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence was held 2. 64 T. TErms metaphorical which use has made proper 2. 11 Terms true and Truly are apply'd to several things 2. 76 Theophylact's passages explain'd 1. 309 Translator and a Paraphrasist their difference 1. 359 Treatise of the Perpetuity is a real mass of difficulties 1. 36 Transubstantiation and the Real Presence considered in a Church wherein they are held 1. 41 Transubstantiation is the precise determination of the manner of the change of the Bread 1. 120 Transubstantiation is not a speculative Doctrin 1. ibid. Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are not synonimous terms 1. 124 Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence were the points which first separated the Greeks 1. 245 Transubstantiation was not believ'd by several before the Council of Constance 1. 288 Treatise of the Perpetuity very proper for persons that are curious and lazy 1. 45 Treatise of the Perpetuity illusory in what it promises 1. ibid. Turks favour those who gave them most Money 1. 105 V. VIrtue Bread chang'd into the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 233 Version of the New Testament of Mons c 1. 145 Vicq Fort Translator of Herbert's Voyages 2 41 Voyagers do not say that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation W. WIttembogard one of the chief of the Arminian party 1. 39 Wicked in the sense of the Greeks receive not the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 146 Word of the Gospel is truly the Body of Jesus Christ 2. 78 Word of the Gospel more truly the Body of Jesus Christ than the Eucharist 2 78. Words of Jesus Christ carry not our minds to the Real Presence by a primary idea 2. 113 FINIS ERRATA PART I. PAge 7. read as already mention'd for as I already mention'd p. 9 l. 4. r. the for that p. 12. l. ult r. their for these p. 34. l. 1. r. of for which p. 38. l. 1. r person for persons p. 38. l. 45. r manners for manner p. 39. l. 13. r. Critick for a Critic p. 46. l. 23. r. an for any p. 57. l. 1. r. self for selfs p. 90. l. 5. r. than for but p. 95. l. 4. r. are no for yet no p. 97. l. 1. r. altho schismatical for altho the Schismatical p. 11◠l. 25. r. we shall see by for we shall by l. 30. r. and which for and that which p. 124. l. 40. r. Latins say for Latins says p. 158. l. ult r. his not inserting the Greek for forasmuch as he has not p. 165. l. 1. r. which is for which most 181. l. 26. r. rational for national p. 203. l. r. wood for word p. 210 l. 1. r. signs for sign p. 223. l. 29. r. pursue for puruse p. 225. l. 24. r. expression for expressions p. 243. l. 1. dele Preface p. 153 l. 10. r. those that held p. 365. l. 7. r. was not printed p. 274. l. 14. r. and yet taste p. 279. l. 17. r. silence on the rest for silence the rest p. 291. l. 23. r. became not angry for became angry p. 336. l. 35. r. only the Divinity p. 330. l. 22. r. colours really for colours are really PART II. Page 6. at bottom of the page r. and for where p. 27. l. 11. r. Romanists persecuted for that persecuted p. 47. l 31. r. the union for of the union The Printer to the Reader THE absence of the Translator and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser Escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of Pardon if his Escapes be not laid on the Translator and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary Understanding may amend and a little Charity may forgive R. Royston ADVERTISEMENT RItes of Funeral Ancient and Modern in use thro the known World Written Originally in French by the Ingenious Monsieur Muret. To which is added A Vindication of Christianity against Paganism All Translated into English by P. Lorrain London Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to his Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner 1683. The Contents of the said Book THE Funeral Rites of the Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Turks Chineses Americans Of some Islanders Of the Tartars Living Sepulchres Fiery Sepulchres Water-Burials Airy Obsequies Burials above Ground The Funeral Rites of the Ancient Jews Modern Jews Schismaticks Christians A Discourse concerning the Right of Burial and Laws on that behalf THE END