Body it self that they made not use of this Principle the Figure is not the Original to shew the Eucharist was the Original and not the Figure That they did not make this ridiculous Argument The Eucharist contains the Virtue of Christ's Body It is not then the Figure of it I answer we Cited not Paschasius his Adversaries for that purpose We instanced them to shew that it is no new or extraordinary Matter to understand by the Body of Christ his Body in Virtue seeing several in the ninth Century understood it in this manner But say's he they said not the Eucharist was properly and Ibid. truly the Body of Christ It does not in effect appear to us they did say it nor denyed it was a Figure nor reasoned like the Adversaries of the Iconoclastes and from thence we may well conclude they admitted not the intire Hypothesis of the Greeks which is that this Body of Christ in Virtue is an Augmentation of the natural Body to infer from thence that it is properly his Body and not the Figure of it But this does not hinder but that by the Term of Body they understood the Virtue of the Body Had their Error say's Mr. Ibid. Arnaud led them to understand by the Word Body the Figure and Virtue common Sence would have forced 'em to explain themselves in proper Terms to make themselves understood But I say the Greeks do explain themselves in proper Terms Ely de Crete who assisted at the Council of Nice does not he Com. in Greg. Naz. plainly say That the Bread is changed into the Efficacy of Christ's Body Did not Cyrillus of Alexandria and Eutychius say the same thing Did not Theophylact Express himself in the same manner Has not Damascen said That it is Bread united to the Divinity a Growth of the Body of Christ Does not Nicolaus Methoniensis tell us That Christ Joyns his Divinity to these Things which are familiar to our Natures And how many more such like Expositions are to be met with in the Passages I already produced Let Mr. Arnaud say as long as he pleases This Language is so Unnatural and Strange that to make this pretended C. 5. p. 669. Sence of it Intelligible it ought to be proclaimed with sound of Trumpet throughout all the East and Notice given to all People that these Words were to be understood in this unheard of Sence Otherwise all these Authors ought to be esteemed as Cheats and Impostors The Greeks will answer him that all his Rhetorick is void of Reason in whatsoever Humour it comes from him They have sufficiently Explained themselves to those that have Ears They are not Deceivers for they never so much as once said the Eucharist was the natural Body of Christ in Propriety of Substance but often the contrary namely his Body in Virtue IT were better in my Mind to reserve these Proclamations he speaks of to publish to the World there ought no more of those Passages of the Fathers to be alledged seeing they are so troublesom to Mr. Arnaud For seeing I have incurred his Indignation for quoting a Passage out of Facundus it is fitting the World should henceforward know how to avoid offending him This Passage say's he of Facundus must be brought in every where right or wrong The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Jesus Christ may C. 6. p. 684. be taken for the Virtue and Efficacy of this Body in which Point Facundus is silent The Question is whether the Term of the Body of Christ can be taken in another Sence than for the Substance of Christ's natural Body and of this Facundus speaks To contain the Mystery of Christ's Body and to contain the Virtue of it are two Expressions which signify at bottom the same thing in Facundus his Sence and it is upon good Grounds we have alledged him But when a Passage perplexes Mr. Arnaud it must be laid aside because it disturbs his Brain Omitting then Facundus for this time in compliance to Mr. Arnaud pass we on to the Council of Constantinople termed Iconoclastes THIS Council say's first That our Saviour has commanded us to offer an Image Apud Concil Nicen. art 6. a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread It is clear their Sence is that that which is offered in the Eucharist and which is an Image is the Substance of Bread To say thereupon their Sence is not that it is in Effect a Substance of Bread but only a Matter which keeps the Figure and Resemblance of it is in my Mind as frivolous a Shift and Evasion as ever was used for what may not a Man elude if he may expound these Terms The Substance of Bread by these Not the Substance of Bread but the Figure and Resemblance Besides this Mr. Arnaud tells me That I may not so much as humbly C. 7. p. 689. propose my Doubts and must be known to be a Person extream modest otherwise all People will wonder so easy a matter should startle me that I consult not common Sence touching what I ought to say and that my Head is so full of Calvinistical Subtilities that I cannot speak after the rate of other Men. He afterwards Ibid. c. 7. falls upon a Discourse which takes up six great Pages which amount to this That when the Judgment of Reason or Faith is contrary to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence there is form'd two sorts of Languages which subsist together the one Conformable to the Ideas of Sence and Concupiscence and the other to Faith and Reason To establish this Principle he say's That Faith changes the Judgment of Sence and Concupiscence and shews us that what we call Good is a real Evil that our Evils are reall Goods that those who are called Happy are really Miserable the Rich Poor the Poor Rich the Wise Foolls the Prudent Imprudent and the Knowing Ignorant He adds That Philosophy oft overthrows the common Notions of things That the Thomists affirm Matter has no Existence that a dead Body has nothing in common with a living one that some Philosophers of this Age teach that Animals are only Machins and Automates and sensible Qualities are not in the things themselves but are the Impressions of our Sences That several of the most profound Astrologers believe with Copernicus that the Sun and Stars are unmovable and that 't is the Earth which by its various Motions makes Day and Night and Variety of Seasons He tells us afterwards That there is in all these things a two-fold Language the one according to Appearance and the other according to Truth That 't is the same in respect of the Eucharist Faith correcting in it the Ideas of Sence and from thence comes this twofold Language the one by which we call the Eucharist Bread Substance of Bread Matter of Bread and the other by which we call it the Body of Christ NOT to proceed without profiting by Mr. Arnaud's
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. â— P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to
expresly to plant the Roman Religion and even to establish fixt Seminaries who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks This Artifice of his is not of small Importance for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars without which 't is impossible to make a true and right Judgment of this Controversie And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Arnaud's Ingenuity For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us if they are so publickly known that 't will be to no purpose to conceal them he then produces them but in so doing applyes them to other matters on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them and on the other hand if they are Passages less known and that he may well conceal them he then either not mentions them or but lightly touches on them to the end they may not be throughly considered He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them or if at all so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret and overthrowing himself what he has taken upon him to defend But seeing he has no reason to expect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity and that they must know no more but what he tells them so he must not take it ill if I relate what he would have concealed I say then that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire all Greece and other Eastern Nations have bin filled with Monks or Emissaries whose only design and employment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries Mr. Arnaud who commonly takes things in the worst Sence will be sure to tell me I am to blame in blaming this Design Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Religion it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith to do all they can to make Schismaticks and Heretical People to Embrace the same To which I answer I do not at all blame the Endeavours of the Roman Church to win these People Seeing she believes they are in an Error and therefore would undeceive them and so far is Christianly and Charitably done but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use which savour so much of worldy Policy they are in no wise to be commended I do not I say blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to propagate their Faith seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Communion YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud who knows full well what the Monks and Emissaries have done and do still in the East That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason That they are to be found established amongst these People For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind no means having bin left untried to effect this how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation this Doctrine hath bin received by them at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction Instruction Conversion or what else he please Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians for whose sake the Emissaries have taken such Pains do believe Transubstantiation it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches for this is a way of Arguing which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him that if these People believe Transubstantiation 't is because the Emissaries have taught it them unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them And this is the Contents of this Chapter The Consequence I pretend to draw hence is clear enough in it self and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks and Emissaries in the Levant FIRST then it is evident that after the Conquest of the Holy Land both Palestine and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry who tells us that multitudes of People resorted from all parts L. 1. C. 10. P. 194. of the World to the Holy Land being allured thither by the Odour of those Venerable and Holy Places where they repaired the decayed Churches Built new ones and founded Monasteries in several Places by the Liberality of Princes In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors who were present at the Councils held at Napolis a City of Samaria and at Antioch Guill Tyr. L 12. C. 1â— L. 15. C. 16. L. 12. C. 25. He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians and Patriarch of Jerusalem Mr. Arnaud himself saies there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks together with others of St. Norbet and St. Bennet in several Commodious Places NEITHER need we any more doubt but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof to which Mr. Arnaud consents and tells us That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors who had often performed this Office in France and Germany He farther saies that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks and examine their Doctrine which is not a difficult matter to believe IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius Pope Alexander the third sent Baron ad ann 1177. a certain Physitian called Phillip into Ethiopia to convert the Christians of that Country and Instruct them in the Romish Religion NOT long after Innocent the third obtained the Popedom and immediately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over Raynald ad ann 1193. num 55. to the Roman Church And sent for this Purpose John and Simon into Dioclia and Dalmatia and some others into Bulgaria Albertus and Albertinus to Constantinople and the Arch Bishop of Mayence into Armenia GREGORY the ninth his Successor continued the same Design Raynaldus Reports in his time all Asia was full of Religious who went up and Raynald ad ann 1233. down Preaching from place to place He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip which he wrote to the Pope in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of
as I relate it as plainly appears to him that reads his Writings his drift being only to shew that the Azyme having nothing in it representing the Life which is in Jesus Christ it cannot therefore be used for the Mystery of his Body He himself explains his own meaning in these Terms Saint Peter say's he tells us that we are Partakers of a Divine Nature and not of the Azyme of the Murtherers of God Now what man indued with Reason will call the dead Azyme or the unleavened Bread of the Jews a Divine Nature and yet you offer it to God in Sacrifice and eat it as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ How have you Communion with Jesus Christ who is the living God eating dead and unleavened Bread which appertains to the shadow of the Law and not the New Testament If we compare what he say's touching the Azyme to what he say's afterwards concerning the Leavened Bread we shall find his aim is only to shew that one is not proper to represent the living Body of Jesus Christ and to become the Figure and Representation of it th' other on the contrary to be most proper 1. Because 't is Bread which th' other is not 2. Because 't is in some sort living whereas th' other is dead 3. Because it respects Grace and the New Testament whereas the other respects the Jews and Shadow of the Law there is not one word in all this that savours Transubstantiation It appears on the contrary that he takes for one and the same thing to be a Partaker of the Divine Nature have Communion with Christ in the Eucharist and to eat the Bread as a Figure of the living Flesh of Jesus Christ BUT we have had enough of this Illusion let us then pass on to the nineteenth which consists in alledging the Testimony of Lanfranc whereby to prove to us the Greeks believe Transubstantiation What can say's he Mr. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 162. 163. Claude say to this Witness who so clearly affirms the Greeks were of the same Belief as the Church of Rome in the Mystery of the Eucharist I may truly say that Lanfranc looking upon Berengarius his Affair as a cause wherein his own credit was concerned and resolving therefore to vanquish at any rate he was interressed to suppose that all the World was on his side and that therefore his prejudice invalidates his Testimony I may also affirm Mr. Arnaud's word signifies nothing without Proof altho it may be as well taken as Lanfranc's I can shew that Lanfranc does not scruple to offer us a Fabulous History touching what passed in Cyrillus of Alexandria's time and Pope Celestin's and to make thereof a good Proof Whether through Ignorance or want of Sincerity I know not but sure I am we have little reason to trust that man's Testimony who has so grossly deceived us He was say's Mr. Ibid. pag. 162. Arnaud an Italian by Nation where there was a great many Greeks Italy certainly would be a very happy Country if it produced none but faithful Witnesses Had Lanfranc in effect taken care to inform himself by the Greeks which were there what was their Belief touching the Substantial Conversion he would have told us so himself and not left it to Mr. Arnaud's guesses It appears adds he by his way of writing that he was a Person worthy of Credit It appears by his Writings that he was a passionate man and extreamly carried away with vain glory which are not the best marks of Sincerity But after all this I can tell Mr. Arnaud he is deceived in Lanfranc's own Testimony For Lanfranc only say's that all Christians do glory in receiving in the Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Christ which he took of the Virgin That this is the Faith of the Greeks Armenians and all the rest of the Christian World Which is grounded only on this expression of the Greeks which bears that the Bread is our Saviour's real Body and that it must not be said he has two Bodies but one alone Now we have already shewed what they mean by this expression namely that the Bread becomes our Saviour's Body by way of Addition as the Food we eat becomes our Body which is very different from Transubstantiation BUT say's Mr. Arnaud the Silence of Berengarius and his Followers seems to me also very considerable I answer this is another of his wilful mistakes For first how can he assure us that Berengarius and those of his Opinion never asserted the Greeks did not believe the Conversion of Substances We have scarcely any of their Writings we have no more of their Arguments and Answers than what their Adversaries have been pleased to give us It is true that Lanfranc say's when they were offered several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures and Saint Austin's Works touching the State of the Church they answered the Church had erred and all its Members perished except themselves But it does not hence follow that they acknowledged the Greeks believed Transubstantiation They might say the Church had erred and was perished from the Face of the Earth meaning the Western Church They might say the same of the Eastern Church upon the account of other Errours besides Transubstantiation And then again who can assure us that Lanfranc gives a faithful account of what they said touching this Subject IN the second place I will grant that Berengarius and his Followers never mentioned the Greeks in their Disputes Can Mr. Arnaud find it strange that People who were every where persecuted and afflicted and had enough to do to preserve themselves should be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Greeks Berengarius say's he was thrice at Rome and had opportunity to Ibid. pag. 164. inform himself and we need not doubt but 't was one of his principal cares Why not doubt of it Because Mr Arnaud say's so Those that are not bound to believe him on his own bare word will still doubt of it For he is not infallible and I my self am one of those that doubt of it till he proves it The Interest Ibid. of his Cause adds he speaking of me is so prevalent in him that he may learn from the Experience of his own Sentiments what were those of his followers I confess the Interest of my Cause is a thousand times more dear to me than my life and Mr. Arnaud does me right here But yet 't is certain that had I not the Book of the Perpetuity to answer I should not much trouble my self about the Opinion of the Greeks for the discovery of Truth which ought to be the aim of us all does not depend on what the Greeks do or do not believe and I should esteem my self in a very miserable condition had my Faith and Conscience no better Grounds than such a pitiful Principle BERENGARIUS had the Word of God which was enough they need no other Weapons to defend themselves that have
in an insulting manner What likelihood says he is there people should proceed to reflections on this mystery t' inform themselves whether it be really Jesus Christ or not I answer the question here concerns the eight first Ages and what he alledges I said was meant of the time of the most gross ignorance as 't will appear to him that shall take the pains to see my words in the proper place whence he has taken them He has not done fairly in this matter For altho it be acknowledged that in the time wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flock there might be some persons who proceeded not to the question how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ yet would we not be understood to speak generally of the people of that time as if there were no difference between them and those that lived in the time when ignorance most prevail'd BVT says Mr. Arnaud further There 's nothing more wonderful than the alliance which Mr. Claude makes in this imaginary order of two qualities the most irreconcilable in the world Every body knows that an high Contemplation does ordinarily suppose a higher knowledg of Mysteries than is to be expected in the common sort of the Faithful Yet it seems the persons of which this rank consists were on one hand so stupid that they comprehended nothing in the most ordinary expressions amongst the Christians altho their ears were struck with 'em in a thousand manners and yet so spiritual on the other that at the sight of the Sacrament or upon the least mention of it they had immediately their whole hearts so fixt on the Body of their Saviour that they could not reflect on the words used in the celebration of the mystery or popular instructions EVERY body knows that to raise up one's devotion to our Saviour Christ who died and rose again for us 't is not necessary to have a very high knowledg of Mysteries As the Death of Jesus Christ and his Resurrection are the most necessary notions of Christianity so are they likewise the first and if a man be not spiritual enough to send up his Devotions to our Saviour 't is certain he is no Christian Neither need a man be very knowing to comprehend that the Sacrament is design'd for this use The whole action of the Eucharist leads the most simple to this and the sursum corda which they understood put them in mind of it But to make reflections on the expressions of the Fatherr when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ or said the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ this requires greater ability and curiosity As to the first which is the lifting up our hearts to our Saviour Christ dead and risen it needs only be supposed that the persons of this first rank now before us had learned their Creed that they were not ignorant our Saviour died and rose again for us and knew the Eucharist was intended to make us remember him Now there are few Christians but know this But as to the second which is to make reflections on the expressions of the Fathers 't is to be supposed they had retain'd the common expressions which their Pastors used in their Sermons or Books and because they were many and very different from one another some having no difficulty and others on the contrary being hard to be understood we may imagin they precisely applied themselves to the difficult ones without contenting ' emselves with the others 't is likewise to be supposed they had compared together these two ideas that of the Sacrament and that of the Body of Jesus Christ and remarkt the differences by a formal act of Meditation Now all this requires some application of mind without which 't is very possible that simple people may remain in the Christian profession Thus we see what 's become of Mr. Arnaud's first Remark and whether my supposition touching the persons of the first rank ought to be respected as an extravagant and sensless distinction Mr. ARNAVD's second Remark contains That 't is false the use of this expression Corpus Christi which was spoken to those who Communicated was according to the intention of the Church to make them meditate on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto that 't is certain on the contrary that this formulary Corpus Christi was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery and exact from 'em the confession of it so that 't was a formulary of Instruction and a profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action THIS discourse has all the characters of a person that finds himself intangled What means he by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto Is it meditating on his Death Resurrection and sitting on the right hand of the Father 'T is certain that this was the intention of these words according to the design of the Gospel as appears by the testimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom Primasus an African Bishop and S. Basil and this may be confirm'd by several other passages and by these words of S. Augustin We call Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4. Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by the mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of of our souls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has suffered for our sakes And by these of Tatianus Jesus Christ having taken the Bread and Tatian in Diacess Wine testified they were his Body and Blood and commanded his Disciples to eat and drink thereof in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death But for this purpose 't were better to read the words of S. Paul Every time ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye declare 1 Cor. 11. the Lords Death till he comes If by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto he means the meditating on it without conceiving it present on the Altar 't is not sufficient to say 't is false that this was the design of this formulary Corpus Christi according to the intention of the Church he must prove that the Church meant by these words to represent this Body present in its proper substance in the Eucharist which is what he must prove if he designs to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument and does not think it sufficient to say This is most false THIS formulary says he was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery Who doubts it It was a formulary of use and instruction both together as I plainly intimated in my answer to the Author of the Perpetuity It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the mystery in which it instructs men 'T was says he moreover a formulary and profession of Faith and not of Practice and Action And I say 't was both the one and the other I have proved 't
a man ought to approach to 'em the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book All this is contained under the word intelligence and he comprehends it therein himself in explaining afterwards what he means by this term and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence The question then is whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's illusions At the entrance of his second Chapter wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance and remedy the evils it caused he describes it in this manner Sacramentum Dominici Corporis Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur nemo sidelium ignorare debet nemo nescire quid ad fidem quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was Paschasus tells you immediately Nescire quid ad fidem Paschas de Corp. Sang. Dom. cap. 2. quidve ad scientiam pertineat Here are precisely the two parts of Mr Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection and nescire quid ad scientiam is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Arnaud calls particularly intelligence So that Paschasus and his Commentatator are not at all agreed Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith which is to say according to him the Real Presence and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things But let us hear Paschasus further Fides says he est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non satis discernimus illud nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute We must instruct our Faith lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not sufficiently discerning this Sacrament and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it Can any man explain himself more clearly The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which in his sense signifies not to know that 't is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin and th' intelligence on the contrary consists in knowing it But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity and knows not the circumstance of it and does not truly know that 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith Mr. Arnaud will not deny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth is to be it substantially and really Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this and by the reason of contraries the intelligence consists in knowing it according to Paschasus Mr. ARNAVD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter intended only to shew the necessity there is of instructing persons before they come to receive the Communion but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church and that on the contrary this necessity of instruction in the manner which he exaggerates denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communicants the Doctrin of the Real Presence But this evasion will not serve turn For besides that Paschasus says expresly That he receives the Sacrament ignorantly that knows not 't is the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard where it cannot be denied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church I say there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he understands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book For having immediately proposed as from the part of Frudegard the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin That the Sacrament is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi Sanguis esse dicatur which respects as Epist ad Frud every one sees the Article of the Real Presence and having endeavoured to satisfie it he passes over to another objection which respects the same Real Presence Multi says he ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet hoc Corpus Christi Sanguis esse possit Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood He answers this Objection as well as he can then immediately adds Here you have dear Brother what came into my thoughts at present and because you are one part of my self I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 't is necessary As to your self I desire you would read over again my Book touching this matter which you say you have heretofore read and if you find therein any thing reprehensible or doubtful refuse not the labor of reading it again For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence His whole preceding dispute was on this Article and these terms If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful can only relate to the same Article for there was no question of any thing else When then he adds That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery 't is clear that he has respect to the same thing and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil I need only represent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory the Council of Ephesus S. Jerom and some others he adds Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point What can be
said to this Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Presence on the same Article which was disputed him by his Adversaries on the same Article on which he produc'd the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body and the clause of the Liturgy Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi on the same Article whereon he had alledged several passages of the Fathers Quamvis says he ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent DOES any man desire another express and formal testimony of Paschasus I need only produce these words of his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew to satisfie him I have been more large on this subject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of 〈◊〉 Commentary permits because there are several that have another sentiment touching these mystical things and several are so blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing else but what we see with our eyes and tast with our mouths Here we have then actually persons that did not believe the Real Presence and those not inconsiderable for their number seeing he denotes them by the term of several and which he expresses so clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loss what to answer Mr. ARNAVD who well perceived he might be opposed on the first answer bethought himself of giving us another in which contrary to his usual manner he relaxes something of what he advanced Not but that says Book 8. ch 10. p. 852. he this word intelligence may likewise respect the Real Presence not as a new truth but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended and in a manner which penetrates more lively the heart for there are several degrees of growing in the knowledg of a mystery which one believes already by Faith He would say there might be people who knew less strongly and livelily the Real Presence and that in this respect they might acquire the intelligence of it but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it or to whom Paschasus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth But Paschasus himself refutes this gloss Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent This is an ignorance which according to him extends so far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Presence To err in an Article thro ignorance is it not a not believing of it at all as having never heard it mentioned Is not this a knowing nothing of it a having no knowledg and consequently no Faith in it Now such were Paschasus his ignorant persons who were far different from those of Mr. Arnaud In a word they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing else in respect of their substance than what they appear to our eyes and tast as Paschasus now spake THIS Principle being well establish'd as I believe it is at present 't will be no hard matter to see the consequence of it The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence of the Presence if it were taught in the Church of the Absence if the Presence were not therein taught Whereupon I raise this Argument There cannot be any person in a Church wherein the Real Presence is commonly taught but knows distinctly the Real Presence Now in the Church of the 9th Century at which time Paschasus lived there were people that were ignorant of the Real Presence and erred in this Article thro ignorance Therefore in the Church of the 9th Century the Real Presence was not commonly taught The first proposition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud without distinction or restriction the second is of Paschasus himself the conclusion of it I think then is inevitable 'T WILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of those called ad hominem which does indeed press an adversary by his own proper Principles but which are not always absolutely conclusive because it may happen that the Principles of an Adversary on which they are grounded be false and imprudently offered This Argument then may be convictive against the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be false and consequently the conclusion I draw thence TO solve this difficulty besides that 't is a great advantage for the cause which I defend that as able Doctors as these Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles 'T is to be observ'd that theirs being alternative must be distinguish'd into two propositions one of which is All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence if the Church of their time taught it And the other All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Presence In respect of this second proposition the Principle is false as I have shew'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity and in the beginning of his 6th Book in I think an unanswerable manner But in respect of the first the Principle is true and must be granted for in effect it is not conceivable that a Church should believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and yet let persons of age Communicate without instructing them in it That she should believe and teach a man must adore this Sacrament which we receive publickly practise this supreme Adoration and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it and in this respect err thro ignorance It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of those term'd ad hominem seeing 't is not grounded on the second proposition of these Gentlemens Principle which is in contest but on the first in which both sides are agreed so that my conclusion has all the strength and truth that can be desired in every respect NEVERTHELESS we must answer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections Paschasus says That he dedicated his Book to young People 'T is Book 8. ch 10. p. 859. then says he unlikely that Paschasus design'd to instruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant I answer 't was not indeed likely that he had immediately so vast a design 'T is more likely he proposed his Doctrin as he himself says petentibus to hir Scholars who pray'd him to shew them his sentiment in this matter but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new He says says Mr. Arnaud again That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains Now no man who discovers a mystery of this importance uses such humble expressions which suppose he says nothing but what 's vulgarly known Mr. Arnaud deceives himself for besides what I intimated in
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Sentiments nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks and forsake the Patriarchal Functions His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 't was his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge and of which he was to render an Account All which he did to the last breath He held not the truth in unrighteousness nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience He published his Confession and put it in the hands of all the Greeks and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs so that 't was only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud That he was a damnable Hypocrite and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest 'T IS the same Passion caus'd him to say That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion That the Spirit which animates us is rather a Spirit of Faction and a Cabal against the Catholick Church than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it Our Interests are in his hands and as we pray him to defend them so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us We appear extream odious in his sight but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments he will judge wholly otherwise In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles and of our Saviour himself who were accused say's Saint Chrysostom to be seditious Persons and Innovators that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment without forgetting our Duty is to bless them that curse us and pray for them that despitefully use us ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie were there occasion the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus without my interposing And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do so that 't is very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity when they found him at Constantinople But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion They helpt him to Books and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it who need be troubled thereat Strangers at Constantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Protestants believe to be of great Importance and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power and what is there unlawful in all this Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures or govern himself according to their Directions Had they said Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective Had they said they had in fine obliged him But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm seeing 't is the real truth As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm he knows we have no such power 'T is certain as I already mentioned his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ as I shall make appear hereafter but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs on the same Maxims on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged and the Ambassadors of England and Holland For not to go farther how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome which were wholly their Creatures sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thursday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem where their Sacrifice is abhorred and this Sentence read every Year in their Churches confounded be all they that In Triod offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice wherein Purgatory is rejected and 't is held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held carved Images condemned and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins How in Conscience can these said Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates elected and consecrated by Schismatical Metropolitains and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome and live in Communion with that of Jerusalem in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated What I say is grounded on matter of Fact which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny for should he do it he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu who expresly tells us That it has been ever thought fitting to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders when in Greece from the hands of Schismatical Bishops it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation to the end the Patriarchs may not
scruple to promote them to Bishopricks and likewise that they being Bishops may provide the Churches in their Diocesses with Catholick Curats Let Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases how they could in conscience advance Cyrillus of Béroë to the Patriarchate of Constantinople being a Disciple of the Jesuits whom Allatius calls vir probus Catholicus Allat de Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 11. and who after his death was like to be canoniz'd say's Allatius The same Question may be put to him touching others namely Timotheus Anthimus Gregory Athenasius Patelar who being all of 'em Latins in their hearts yet for all that exercised the Patriarchal Functions in a Schismatical Church wherein as I said the Pope and all the Latins are every year excommunicated Moreover this Excommunication is not to be called in Question forasmuch as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it The Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem say's he excommunicates once a year on Holy Thursday all other Lib. 2. cap. 3. Sects not excepting the Roman Church HAVING satisfi'd the unjust Accusations of Mr. Arnaud against Cyrillus it now remains to see what advantage may accrue to us by this Patriarch's Confession and whether the rejection he makes in express Terms of Transubstantiation may be esteemed as that of the Body of the whole Greek Church Mr. Arnaud tells us three things on the discussion of which depends Lib. 3. cap. 6 7. the Solution of this Question The first is that the Greeks continually endeavoured to deliver themselves from the Tyranny of Cyrillus and that in effect he was four or five times expelled the Church The second that this Confession is wholly contrary in its principal Articles to the Doctrine of the Greeks And the third that it has been condemned by two Councils held by Cyrillus his Successours Which is what we are now to examine AS to the first of these particulars I confess this Patriarch has endured several cruel Traverses during his life which never ended till they had procured his death but I deny 't was his Church occasioned him all these evils It was the Latine Party and false Greeks which followed him with incessant Persecutions How dexterous soever Allatius has been in disguising the Allat de Perp. Cons lib. 3. cap. 11. Truth yet could he not refrain here from discovering it He tells us then that the Greeks whom he calls pii homines zealous and pious People not being able to defend their Faith themselves nor carry on the necessary expences for this addressed themselves to other Christians and especially to the Roman Prelate by whose means they avoid the like Tempests and secure their Church He adds there were Persons deputed towards Cyrillus with an express charge to oblige Ibid. him either by Promises or Threatnings to send to Rome his Confession of Faith in which he was to admit the Council of Florence and condemn the Errors of the Calvinists and in so doing he might assure himself of the assistance and favour of the Apostolical See That Cyrillus answered he liked well their offers and was ready to accept their conditions provided he might have money and be upheld in his Patriarchate But that at length finding he kept a correspondence both with Calvinists and Catholicks too these last being troubled thereat proceeded to threatnings saying they would never suffer that Chair to be defiled with the Blasphemies of the Calvinists What he say's touching this Deputation is true for the Congregation de fide propoganda sent two Jesuits to Constantinople with one named Canachio Rossi charged with Instructions to gain Cyrillus by Promises or Threatnings being required only to receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council But what he adds concerning Cyrillus his Answer is a meer Calumny for Cyrillus remained immoveable notwithstanding all these Sollicitations Neither have we any reason to believe any thing upon Allatius's bare word Mr. Arnaud may judge as he pleases yet cannot he deny but Cyrillus his Enemies were the Latins and Latinised Greeks and that the Tempests and Storms he suffered and which at length overwhelmed him came from that side seeing that Allatius himself his own Witness and great Author affirms it Cyrillus was ever beloved and honoured by his own true Church as appears from the care and charge she was at to support him and to say as Mr. Arnaud does that the Dutch lent him money upon use and that he extorted it afterwards from the Churches which were made to obey him by the Turks is a Story for which he brings no proof Neither is there any likelihood particular Persons who put their money out to use should choose a man in his Circumstances that is to say one that was bereaved of his Dignities and stript of all he had were he as it is supposed thâ— Object of his Peoples hatred The Dutch Mercâ—â—nts at Constantinople are not wont to part with their money upon such Security Hottinger Hottinger in Append Dissert 8. tells us from the Testimony of the deceased Mr. Leger Minister of Geneva who was at Constantinople and had a particular Knowledge of this History That one Isaac Metropolitain of Chalcedon a Disciple of the Jesuits having bought of the Turks Cyrillus his Seat and the report of it being spread throughout Constantinople there was such an Universal Lamentation amongst all the Greeks that it came to the Grand Senior's Ears who broke off this Intrigue and would not suffer 'em to obey any longer this Usurper He likewise Which Letter may be seen in its Original produces a Letter from Cyrillus his Proto-Syncellus that is to say from one of the Chief Officers in his Chamber named Nathanael Conopius dated from Constantinople the Fourth of July 1638 Immediately after the death of Cyrillus Wherein he takes particular notice that the Executioners which strangled him having parted his Garments among them and afterwards carried them into one of the Markets of Constantinople to sell them as being the Clothes of the late Patriarch the People were universally seized with Grief and uttered a thousand imprecations against Cyrillus of Berea calling him Villain and Murtherer who had dishonoured God's Church and not only usurped the Throne of the Holy and Lawful Patriarch but likewise put him to death He adds that some of 'em entred the House of the Usurper calling him Pilate and bidding him give them the Body that they might bury it and how they afterwards went to the Caimacans and offered him a great deal of money to obtain of him the Body of their true Patriarch but the wicked Usurper who caused him to be put to death understanding it sent to the Caimaican to tell him that if he gave these People Cyrillus his Body the City would certainly be in an uproar which hindered him from granting them their request In fine he says this Usurper sent Slaves to take his Body and cast it into the Sea but that some Christians having taken it thence carried it into a Monastery called
our Sence he must say if it be so that the Bread contains the Virtue of Christ's Body why does it not appear Flesh to us For this Doubt does not arise from the Bread's being Flesh in Virtue on the contrary 't is that which dissipates the Doubt and makes it vanish It comes either from the general Proposition that the Bread is Flesh and not the Figure of Flesh or from this other Proposition that it is Flesh even as the Bread which Jesus Christ eat was changed into his Flesh but the Doubt resolves it self by this last Proposition that it is changed into the Virtue of Flesh and Blood SECONDLY It appears likewise from thence that Theophylact had not Transubstantiation in his Thoughts For if he had it in his Thoughts he must have solved the Difficulty in another manner He must have said that the appearance of Bread remains but that its Substance is changed into the Flesh of Christ and for this Reason does not appear Flesh but Bread But yet notwithstanding the Doubts would not have ceased as they do now for it might be demanded how this appearance of Bread subsisted alone without its natural Substance how our Sences could be deceived by an appearance of Bread which was not Bread and by a real substance of Flesh which appears not Flesh how this same Substance of the Flesh of Christ can be in Heaven and on Earth at the same time and several other such like Questions which are not to be found in Theophylact's Text. 3dly It appears likewise that Theophylact believed that if the Bread was Flesh otherwise than by an Impression of Virtue it must needs appear Flesh For in saying that 't is in Condescention to our Weakness that God changes it into the Virtue of his Flesh he leaves it to be concluded that otherwise our Infirmities would not be succoured and we must unavoidably behold Flesh in its natural Form MR. Arnaud not liking this change of Virtue which is found thus described in proper terms in Theophylact's Discourse endeavours to give three different Explications of them and leaves us at liberty to choose either of them First that by the virtue of Flesh we must understand the Reality the internal Essence of this Flesh The second that this is a way of speaking which is usual with the Greeks to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Force or Power of Flesh to signify Flesh full of Efficacy The third that when two things are joyned together in Truth and in the Mind of those to whom we speak it often happens These 2. that in expressing them we denote but one without excluding the other and with a design to make the other understood which we do not express by that which we do Which he afterwards explains in these Terms It is certain that the Consecrated Bread is changed into the Body of Christ It is certain likewise that it becomes full of its Virtue and Efficacy These two Truths are joyned and are the Consequences of each other And therefore it oft happens that Authors do joyntly express them as does Euthymius who tells us in express Terms That as Jesus Christ deified the Flesh he took by a supernatural Operation so he changes the Bread and Wine after an ineffable manner into his proper Body which is the Fountain of Life and into his proper Blood and into the Virtue of both one and the other But as these two changes are still joyned in Effect and the Fathers supposing they were joyned in the Spirit of the Faithful It sufficed them to express the one to make the other understood And thus they tell us a hundred times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ without expressing it is filled with its Virtue because one follows the other and Theophylact having told us several times that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ tells us once that 't is changed into its Strength as the sequel of a Mystery which makes it conceived wholy entire because the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the virtue of Christs Body from the Body it self nor his Body from its Virtue it never having entred into their Minds that Christ's Body was in Heaven and that we have only in the Eucharist its Strength and Virtue whereas they believe that we have only this Strength and Virtue upon the account of its being really and truly present in our Mysteries And 't is by these Engines Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw Transubstantiation from the Passage of Theophylact. BUT in general all these three Explications appear to us to be forced and neither of 'em to be chosen There needs not this great stir to find Theophylact's real Meaning He means no more than what his Expressions plainly intimate to wit That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Christ and he means nothing else Had he believed a change of Substance he would have said so as well as a Change of Virtue and so much the rather as I observed that the Difficulty which he proposed to resolve obliged him to explain himself clearly about it Why does not the Bread being Flesh appear to be so Because its Substance is only changed and its Accidents remain A Man that believed Transubstantiation must needs say thus THE first Explication especially can have no grounds because that when we speak of the Virtue of a thing to signify its Truth Reality and inward Essence It is only when the Question concerns this Truth or this Reality in respect of its Operation or Effects and Mr. Arnaud's Instances confirm what I say For when St. Paul said speaking of Hypocrites that they have a Form or Appearance of Godlyness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they denied the Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means they have only a false Appearance of it a vain Shadow but not the Reality of it which is seen by its Effects So when Hesychius say's that it is to receive the Communion ignorantly not to know the Virtue and Dignity of it and to be ignorant that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ according to Truth That this is to receive the Mystery and not know the Virtue of them he did not mean that the Mysteries were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Substance but according to the spiritual Understanding which is what he calls the Truth of the Mystery it is the Body and Blood of Christ because what offers it self to our sight is only the Shadow and Vale of the Mystery but that the Divine Object represented by these sensible things is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Which is what he calls the Virtue of the Mystery because its whole Operation and Effects depend only on them As to what he alledges of Paschasius besides that he is an Author who affects Obscurity as is usual with Innovators and that there is a great deal of Injustice in
more impertinent than Anastasius his Argument if what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him be true He concludes that the Body of Christ was corruptible before his Resurrection that is to say whilst he was in the World because it is corruptible in the Eucharist Now to the end his State in the Eucharist may be of Consequence to that wherein he was before his Resurrection It follows that when he was in the World he was in it under the Sensible Accidents of Bread intirely such as he is in the Eucharist Which is to say that when he Talked Walked and Conversed he did all these things under the form of Bread For unless this be so there can be no Consequence drawn from one to the other Anastasius could not have denyed that the incorruptible Body of Christ could not take on it a corruptible Form seeing he knew that this Body is now incorruptible in Heaven and that yet according to the Hypothesis which Mr. Arnaud attributes to him it becomes every Day corruptible in the Eucharist which cannot be but by changing its Form It must needs be then that Anastasius supposed the Body of Christ was in the World in the same Form 't is now in the Sacrament for supposing it changes its Form I understand not the Conclusion The Heretick Gaynite might still alledg that as it does not follow this Body is corruptible in Heaven altho it be so in the Eucharist neither does it follow that it was corruptible during the time he was on Earth and that 't is the Form he takes upon him in the Sacrament that renders him corruptible And thus Anastasius his Argument concludes nothing unless we suppose Christ's Body had absolutely the same Form when he was conversant on Earth that it has now in the Sacrament Now this Supposition being the greatest Degree of Folly there being no Man of Sence that will own it we may easily then perceive what Judgment to make of Anastasius as Mr. Arnaud handles him BUT 't is certain by what I now said that Anastasius believed neither Transubstantiation nor the real Presence for had he believed it he would never have reasoned as he does nor supposed as he has done a Principle altogether inconsistent with the Romane Doctrine BUT what is then this Author's Sence I answer that when he say's the Eucharist is not common Bread such as is sold in the Market His meaning is manifest to wit that it is consecrated Bread when he adds That it is not a Figure as that of the He-goat which the Jews offered It is clear he does not absolutely reject the Figure but in the Sence of a legal Figure which represented Christ only obscurely and imperfectly whereas the Eucharist is a Mystery which clearly and perfectly represents the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation and Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges That altho the Greeks deny the Eucharist to be the Figure of Christ's Body yet do they affirm it Ibid. p. 630. is a Representation of the Mysteries of his Life and that the same Authors which teach the one teach the other So that so far there is nothing in Anastasius's Discourse but what is easy When he adds That it is the real Body of Jesus Christ He means that it is the Mystery of his Natural Body which not only is so perfect a Representation of it that one may say it is the true Body and not a Figure but which even has received the supernatural Form thereof or if you will the Character of it which is its Virtue in the same Sence that we say of Wax which has received the Impression of the King's Seal that it is his real Seal If we find any roughness in this Expression we must remember Mr. Arnaud finds the same in the Sequel of his Discourse and that we have shewed that what he calls Roughness is meer Absurdity Whence it follows that it is more reasonable to suffer that which is only a bare Roughness and Offensiveness in the Terms and which moreover does well agree with Anastasius his Reasoning than that wherein common Sence is not to be found We must likewise remember the Exposition which the Greeks themselves do give to these kind of Expressions that the Eucharist is the true Body the Body it self the proper Body of Christ to wit inasmuch as it is an Augmentation thereof which makes not another Body but is the same as we have already shewed in the foregoing Book We must know in fine that the Eutychiens against whom Anastasius Disputes were wont to attribute to Christ in their Discourses when urged no other than a phantastical and imaginary Body and not a real humane Body which obliged Anastasius to say that the Eucharist is the real Body of Christ that is to say the Mystery not of a chimerical but real Body THIS being thus cleared up the Sence of Anastasius his Argument lyes open before us He means that seeing the Bread is a Mystery in which is expressed the whole Oeconomy of Christ's Incarnation being as it is corruptible it must necessarily be concluded that the Body of Christ was in like manner corruptible before his Resurrection because the Bread was the Mystery of the Body before its Resurrection and that the same Oeconomy which was observed touching the natural Body whil'st it was in the World is observed in the Bread Let but Anastasius his Discourse be compared with that of Zonaras which I related in the ninth Chapter of the foregoing Book and Damascen's in the short Homily which I likewise mentioned in the Chapter touching the Belief of the Greeks and with what I said in the eighth Chapter of this Book for the explaining Cabasilas his Sence and there will appear no difficulty in it AS to that other Passage of Anastasius which Mr. Arnaud proposed wherein this Author disputes against an Heretick called Timotheus who affirmed Ibid. p. 634. the Nature of Christ after the Incarnation to be the only Divinity We must make the same Judgment of it as the former For as to what he say's That the Divinity cannot be Detained Chewed Divided Changed Cut c. as is the Eucharist and that we must according to this Hereticks Doctrine deny the Eucharist to be in truth Christ's visible terrestial and created Body and Blood He means that the Accidents which happen to the Eucharist being in no wise agreeable to the Divinity of Christ who is not subject to Change and Alteration but only to his Body we must therefore say the Bread does not pass through the same Oeconomy under which our Saviour passed whence it follows that it could not be said as it is that the Bread was in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being said to be so only upon the account of the Unity and Identity of this Oeconomy Had he believed Transubstantiation how could he miss telling his Adversary 't is not to be imagined the Substance of Bread is really changed into the very Substance of the Divinity and
Advertisement lest he should accuse me of Dulness I shall venture again humbly to offer the Doubts wherewith common Sence furnishes me after Consultation with it against his pretended Solution 1st It seems to me to contain all the Characters of a Mind perplext and tormented with Study how to extricate it self out of a Difficulty through which it can find no natural Passage What relation has the Ideas of Concupiscence the Philosophy of the Thomists Cartesians Coperniciens with the Discourse of these good Greek Bishops who lived in the eighth Century and who without doubt had none of this Philosophy in their Heads Who can Imagine that their Expressions which are plain and simple should be grounded on the Model of these twofold Languages that is to say on an Observation which scarcely ever any Person before thought of so remote are these twofold Languages from the Sight and common Use of the World In truth I could never imagine the Ideas of Concupiscence the dead Bodies of the Thomists nor the Impressions or Automates of the Carthesians and Copernicus his Systems should ever be brought into our Dispute to decide the Question whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not II. WHAT likelyhood is there that Bishops assembled in Council whose Words were to regulate the Peoples Faith and whom it behooved moreover to speak discreetly having Adversaries at their Backs should lay aside the Style of Religion if we believe Mr. Arnaud to take up that of Sence which Religion condemns That they should call the Eucharist without any Necessity a Matter and Substance of Bread considering it even after Consecration without adding to it either any Exposition or Mollification and expose themselves so imprudently to the Reproaches of their Enemies from whom they could expect no Favour nor Support and who waited for an Occasion to render them Odious to the People III. BUT how came it to pass their Adversaries who that they might censure them touching the Term of Image dared assert contrary to the Truth that none of the Fathers gave the Term of Image to the Eucharist after Consecration were so mild and favourable as to pardon them of Substance of Bread were their Faith in effect that of the Church of Rome that it is no longer the Substance of Bread Did they do this upon the account of the Thomists dead Bodies the Cartesians Automates or Corpernicus his System IV. IF we examine these Instances of a twofold Language which Mr. Arnaud proposes we shall find they are all Defective either in respect of themselves or in the Application he makes of them It is not true Religion absolutely teaches that what we call Goods are real Evils and that our Evils are real Goods nor that it turns Felicity into Misery Riches into Poverty Poverty into Riches Wisdom into Folly Prudence into Imprudence and Knowledg into Ignorance Religion teaches that these things are in Effect and in themselves what we term them because they are either Blessings and God's temporal Favours or Chastisements and Afflictions which come from his Hand and so far its Language agrees very well with the usual Speech of Men. But it also shews us that these things change their Name and Nature by the good or bad Use which is made of them that Riches become real Poverty Happiness Misery Wisdom Folly Prudence Imprudence and Science Ignorance to the Vicious who corrupt these Gifts of God and change their natural Destination that Afflictions likewise become Benefits Poverty Riches Misery Felicity to a Virtuous Person and one that fears God If Concupiscence would oppose it self against this Language and speak otherwise Religion will not let her So that the double Language that there is in respect of these things is grounded not on the Ideas of Concupiscence but on Truth it self When we call Riches Goods and Afflictions Evils we consider what they are in their own Nature and when we call them otherwise we consider 'em in relation to what they are by Accident These two Languages agree very well and they are both proper and true the Ideas of Concupiscence having no part therein Besides Religion moreover considers temporal Goods and Evils either absolutely in themselves or by Comparison with Spiritual Goods and Evils In the first respect it tells us that these are Goods and Evils as they are in effect In the second she can hardly give them that Name because they are not considerable in comparison of eternal Goods or Evils If Concupiscence opposes it self against this Language and speaks otherwise Religion restrains Her It is then certain that the double Language is grounded on various Respects and is ever true But it is not the same with the Point in hand For supposing Transubstantiation we cannot in any respect call the consecrated Eucharist a Substance of Bread nor say that we Offer the Substance of Bread and that the Substance of Bread is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ But Religion will Condemn these Expressions as False in every Sence and contrary to that Faith which injoyns us to believe the Substance of Bread does no longer remain To say that by the Substance of Bread is meant the bare Figure and Resemblance thereof as the Author of the Perpetuity does This cannot be for the Substance and the simple Appearance are two Terms directly opposite in the Language of Men and to say the Substance of Bread is as much as to say Real and not barely Bread in Appearance Moreover the Fathers of Constantinople compare this Substance of Bread with the Humane Substance which Christ assumed As our Lord say they took on him the Matter only or Humane Substance without the Personal Subsistence so he commanded us to Offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread which shews they took the Term of Substance in a proper Sence and not for a simple Appearance In fine they say that as the Humane Substance which Christ assumed has not the Personal Subsistence so this Substance has not the Form or Humane Figure which clearly shews that as by the Humane Substance they meant a Subject capable of having personal Subsistence so they likewise understood by the Substance used in the Eucharist a real Subject which may have a Form or humane Figure and consequently a real Substance capable of Representing an external Form and Figure TO say likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that this is the Language of Sence which is contrary to the Judgment of Faith is as much as if he had said nothing For if Faith rectified the Language of Sence it would not suffer its Expressions to be Regulated by the Falsity of their Testimony and much less in a Decree of Council whose Expressions according to Mr. Arnaud's Maxims or the Church he is of must serve for a Law to Posterity not only for well Speaking but likewise for well Believing We ought then keep to the Language of Faith not that of Sence against which we must on the contrary
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
Church or dissembled these Errors in hopes as I already say'd that in establishing their Authority in Armenia they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict The Catholick of Armenia minor say's this Article Consecrating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act in which they solemnly promise to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess or Province Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks and obey the Roman Church He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church and calls himself Pope acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry and Brocard's Ibid. p. 46â— 466. silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstantiation we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in competition with the Testimony of so many Authors who expresly affirm they deny it Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject altho the Armenians say's he promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate Jacob a Vitriuco histor Orient cap. 79. and Roman Church when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Emperour Henry and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Ceremonies or Customs And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church 'T IS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton who marvellously favoured the Latins and perhaps 't was he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis But be it as it will this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia but in vain Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side and that the Armenians were in an Error and therefore ever since the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this and after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat and against the Roman Church in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy He says that Pharaoh ' s Embassadour meaning the Legat returned home with shame c. 'T is to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church yet was receiv'd in Armenia as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles WHICH considered I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissions which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII by a Bishop who in the name of the King and his Kingdom made such a profession of faith as they desired To make this a proof as Mr. Arnaud do's is either to be ignorant or dissemble the Genius of this Nation The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons that promised him whatsoever he desired but as soon as ever the danger was over and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired they made a mock at their promises as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King and Catholick of Armenia as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa The Religion say's he The Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicqfort p. 193. of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha who are Armenians by birth is the Christian together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence or acknowledge the Pope almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe moved thereunto by their extream poverty their expences in travelling and intollerable persecutions of the Turks during the continual Wars between them and the Persians have often offered to obey the Roman Church yet when this was to be concluded they have still fallen off and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touching a certain Person named Gerlac who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople about an hundred years since This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople and amongst other things he tells us They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession In caena Domini verum Substantiale Corpus Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare But upon the reading of this Letter it will soon appear that this Patriarch with whom he discoursed gave him his own private sentiments and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion For he tells him that he believed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son contrary to what the Greeks hold Yet do's it appear from the constant testimony of Authors who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins So say's Guy Carmes the information of Benedict XII Prateolus Breerewood and several others and therefore the first thing Eugenius
IV. did in the Council of Florence when he gave his instructions to the Armenians was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity that is to say of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ wheresoever the Divinity is which is not the real belief of the Armenians as we have already sufficiently proved Gerlac adds That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church which is not true as appears as well by the information of Benedict as by the Testimony of several other Authors 'T is moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doctrine of the Ubiquity which grants this Body to be every where and by Consequence in the Sacrament And as to Transubstantiation he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em but say's they seem to admit of it videntur say's he Transubstantiationem probare Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful It appears is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour but which is not absolutely out of doubt of a thing which we may think to be true but of which we have no certainty 'T is likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change which the Armenian Patriarch made use of but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstantiation and 't was only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words I was informed say's he by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media that the Armenians held Transubstantiation Now believing Transubstantiation that is to say the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence His Authority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say as it was in respect of the Moscovites If you deny his explanation his Testimony signifies nothing AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam we know very well there 's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest and never fail to Answer as you would have them The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd and if I may not be believed let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence the Armenians reunited themselves and the greatest part of the Greek Church Anthony de Goureau's Relation Book 3. Ch. 3. likewise yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction nor any thing which this Council decreed nor Obedience thereunto recommended There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad for this many Ages But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um and that they may not fail therein do very often speak contrary to truth which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him but at their return home they soon forget their engagements Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are and whether the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm CHAP. VI. Of the Nestorians Maronites Jacobites Copticks and Aethiopians That they hold not Transubstantiation WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491. pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist He say's in fine that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits that they do only chiefly observe those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman descending not so far as to particularize all other matters which these Churches do or do not hold THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians without mentioning the new Doctrines which they have taught 'um and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute being a Point against which the Nestorians were prejudic'd but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion and which they ought now to receive to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves who have sent the Emissaries for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â—26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeâ—â—s tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 't is impossible and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret never disputed against them on this point nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Transubstantiation about which there may be great Volumes written Mr. Arnaud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People Authors Travellers Emissaries Popes Greeks c. ought to inform us of the reason why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judgment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's that all the Levantine Christians who are Hereticks and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church yet hold as an Article of Faith the real Presence of Jesus Christ and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Arnaud in his 12 Book to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ and that the Divine one and yet the Substance of Bread to be really changed into the Substance of Christ's Body BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Consequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and said to be truely this Body and this Blood For besides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation as I have often proved and shall farther prove in what follows 't is to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces there may be observed a Remarkable difference The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Deus noster hoc verè Corpus tuum est We believe it We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God this is really thy Body but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words Amen Amen Amen credimus confidimus laudamus te Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518. O Domine Deus noster hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua We believe thee we trust in thee we praise thee O our God this we believe is thy Flesh in truth In one place the People are made to say they believe that 't is truely the Body of Jesus Christ and here that they believe 't is the Body of Jesus Christ in truth Now there is a difference between these two Propositions for in one the Adverb truely refers to the Body and in th' other to the Faith of the People This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is Answer to the Perp. part 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516. a mere Forgery and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament and th' other declares they do not expose it 'T is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia that they elevate the Sacrament in some places and not in others that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in comparing it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all that is they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen as is usual amongst the Latins 'T is plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves and distinguished the Places or the manner of the Elevation whereas they speak absolutely Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts who describing the Mass of the Copticks who as every Body knows are of the same Religion and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins say's expresly that they use no Elevation IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece and therefore 't is inserted in it without any mention whence 't was taken or who Translated it as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration commemorating say's he thy Death and Resurrection we offer thee this Bread and Missa sive Canon univers Aethiop Bibl. patr tom 6. Cup and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death and Resurrection and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit 'T is not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood those that believe the Roman reality do not
the Sacrament of the Eucharist several Passages of the Old Testament which might be easily made to point at it and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species for Accidents without a Subject of Spiritually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ of Corporeal Presence for a Presence after the manner of a Body by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism the Church the Poor the Gospel at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions Observations or Questions which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made without being obliged thereunto by Disputes Nor in a word the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another and against which I say 't is not Rational to prejudicate 'T IS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things but on the contrary predetermine in their favour seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages and this Pejudice joyning it self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more TO all which we may add that there is to speak morally a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein nor so much as questioned But 't is very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years without any Contest touching this Article supposing she held it There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God How comes it to pass there has bin none on this There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation which could not be without some Contest on this Subject Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians Marcionites Manichees Millenaries Encratites Arians Originists Eutychiens Ascodrupites and of I know not how many others which must unavoidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity It being then certain as it is that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries 't is a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice and confirms ours MR. Arnaud will say without doubt we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger But besides that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as may be justified by several Inductions there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger Transubstantiation was established seeing 't was established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament as we have already observed 't is an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject and that even this makes the principal Point of ouâ— Difference to wit whether there has hapned any change therein Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth the Question concerning the Change must be first decided for whilst we be in this Contest there can be no Consequence drawn hence It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation and at the same time to prejudicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries because 't was believed in the eleventh which is to say to draw the Principle from the Conclusion and then the Conclusion from the Principle in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Century because 't was believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth and on the other that 't was believed in the seventh and in the eighth because 't was believed in the Eleventh LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith 't is a thing we have already confuted Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine or mere Bread and Wine our Faith would not bear this Language This is not the Language of the Church But when our Senses only tell us 't is Bread and Wine this Language is in truth different from that of Faith which tells us 't is the Body of Jesus Christ but 't is not contrary to it for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it which is to say 't is real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence and without a figure That which you have seen on the Altar say's St. Augustin and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and Augus serm ad Infunt Wine and this your Eyes tell you but the instruction which your Faith requires is that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood So that here we have
the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which our Eyes likewise shew us means 't is real Bread and Wine in Substance for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense which bears 't is Bread and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense as if we need call its truth in question but in the Body of Jesus Christ which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin which suffered the Death of the Cross and was exalted up into Heaven that Bread should be say'd to be this Body This thought may arise say's St. Augustin and Bede after him in the mind of some Persons we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was suckled in his Infancy educated grew up in years suffered the Persecution of the Jews was nayl'd to the Cross put to Death Buried rose the third Day and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood They do not say how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so or because 't was Bread before its Consecration But from the Nature of the Sacraments wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true the one of our Senses and the other of our Understanding My Brethren say they these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing and understand another That which we see has a Corporeal Species that which we understand has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd as to what concerns our Eye-sight 't is really Bread and Wine but in respect of our Understanding 't is the Body of Jesus Christ So that if there must be any thing figurative in either of the two Propositions it must be in the Language of Faith and not in that of Sense which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition ALL that we can expect from them say's Mr. Arnaud that is to say from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century is that when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth they should explain themselves Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739. according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it and which imprint the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread whether it has bin disputed on or no is that they declare it in precise and formal Terms Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason that the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that it gives them a particular Sense and forms of it self a distinct and precise Idea whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it and a man has directly this Intention he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms which answer the Idea he has of it and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers It cannot be denyed but this Conversion and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish ' um How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um or designs to Preach 'um to its People do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um and no Person had ever declared against 'um yet Nature itself which is common to all men do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church he speaks of to defend them from their Attacks and fortify them against their Oppositions But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements BUT say's Mr. Arnaud we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations they had that also of abridging their Ch. 2. p. 742. Words and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake I know several People of a contrary Humour and yet are men as appears by other Humours they have But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination He offers it without any Proof and I may reject it without farther examining it Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion Men are not wont to use these half Sentences unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times to express themselves only in half Sentences when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist This Custom lasted a great while seeing it was so for near two hundred years and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers or in fine that none of these Customs were lost Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous For to speak soberly to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner
the end it may procure them the remission of their sins He says not to the end it may change the substance of it and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ which yet must have been said or something equivalent thereunto were this the formal effect of the Consecration Having recited our Lords words This is my Body this is my Blood he adds This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world And a little further Esay touched a live coal his lips were not burnt with it but his iniquity pardon'd Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self and this fire preserves their bodies and consumes only their sins 'T is easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is Approach we all of us says he with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour and with a pure heart and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection and let us clearly comprehend them For for our sakes the only Son of God has assumed a mortal Body a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth and at the end of his Oeconomy offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature he is risen from the Dead ascended up into Heaven and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist and having said that he is ascended up into Heaven does it not seem that instead of adding he has left us his Holy Sacraments he should have said he yet presents himself on the Altars in the substance of his Body Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him AS to the ancient Liturgy of France which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body signifie only his Body and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus Juvencus Gaudencius and of S. Chrysostom who likewise use the same term of proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprium corpus signifies suum corpus his Body not that of another but his own for this is often the sense of this term as we have already shew'd S. Hilary says There 's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 't is communicated to us in the Sacrament but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion and that Hilary's sense is we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man when he says that we eat the Lamb himself entire WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique Hesychius and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew GELAZIVS of Cizique says very well That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood but likewise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion is the only true one HESTCHIVS says That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist secundum veritatem according to truth because that in effect the mystical object represented and communicated to our Souls in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery as we have already observed elsewhere The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew makes this Saint say not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him That he Sacrific'd every See E the and Beatus who relate this passage Bibl. patr tom 4. day to God the immaculate Lamb but that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words on the Altar of the Cross to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross to wit in meditating on this Cross and preaching it to the people He adds That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb and drink his Blood and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive and altho he be truly sacrific'd and his Flesh truly eaten and drank yet he remains whole and alive This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews which was first sacrific'd and afterwards eaten by the people which was a figure of our Saviour the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross and whose Flesh was eaten and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in him by Faith The Lamb being divided and not rising again after he was slain our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten without suffering any division But whether we consider this manducation absolutely in it self or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb it is true For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews THE passage of S. Leo which says We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table as not to doubt in any wise of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is very impertinently alledged Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens who denied our Saviour had a real Body and his sense to be that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself in his proper person a real Body and Blood and is real man 'T IS now plainly seen that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages is but a meer illusion and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th and 8th Centuries now in debate He had so little to say concerning these Centuries that he thought it necessary to take the field and circuit about to amuse his Readers and fill up his Chapters But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns
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
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
it there must be made this contradictory opposition Men are not always lyars men are sometimes lyars or men are always lyars men are not always lyars they are sometimes true That man will justly render himself ridiculous who having offer'd this proposition That during a thousand years men always spake the truth and attempting to maintain it shall afterwards give an exchange and say the question is Whether men could remain a thousand years without speaking any truth He may be well told this is impertinently stated and that this is not the point in hand but only to know whether they always said the truth during a thousand years without ceasing ever to speak it or whether they have been sometimes lyars This instance alone exactly discovers the Author of the Perpetuity's illusion who having offer'd this proposition That the faithful ever had a distinct knowledg whether the Eucharist was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for 't is thus he understands it has afterwards proposed the state of the question in these terms It concerns us to know whether the faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notionâ— whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ We have just cause to tell him that this is not the point but whether they always were in a condition to form this distinct notion or whether sometimes they were not Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to excuse the Author of the Perpetuity that he only established this state of the question on the very terms of my answer For supposing it were true that the terms of my Answer furnished him with an occasion or pretence for this yet must he not thus establish it to the prejudice of the publick interests which require a man to proceed right on in a Dispute to find the truth and not to amuse ones self in deceitful and fruitless contests and prove things which will signifie nothing Now this is what the Author of the Perpetuity has done and Mr. Arnaud likewise by means of this false state of the question as will appear if we consider that when they have proved most strongly and solidly and in the most convincing manner imaginable That the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ which is a proposition contradictorily opposite to that which they express in their state of the question they will do nothing in order to the clearing up of our difference We dispute whether the change which the Protestants suppose be possible or not Now to prove that 't is impossible by the Argument of the distinct knowledge it signifies nothing to shew that the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming this distinct notion now in question For they might remain only a hundred years in it fifty years thirty years without forming it this is sufficient to invalidate their proof and give way to the change which we pretend To shew it is impossible that a man has entred into a house it is not enough to prove that the door of this house could not remain open for ten years together it must be shew'd that it was always kept shut For if it has been left open only one day the proof concludes nothing It is then evident that these Gentlemen beat the air and that whatsoever they built on their state of the question is only an amusement to deceive silly people Whence it follows that persons of sense may justly complain of them in that they have made my words be they what they will a pretence whereby to entertain the world with fruitless discourses BUT moreover 't is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity has perverted my words and sense 'T is true that in the fifth Observation of my first Answer I established this general Principle That error and truth have equally two degrees the one of a confused knowledg and th' other of a distinct one and that 't is hard to discover any difference betwixt them whilst they are in this first degree of confused knowledg unless a man comes to the other termed a distinct knowledg that the ideas are so like one another that a man cannot easily discern them It is true that from this Principle I generally concluded That before an Error becomes famous by its being opposed the greatest part of the Church content themselves with holding the truth in this indistinct degree I now mention'd and so it is easie for a new Error to insinuate and settle it self in mens minds under the title of an illustration of the ancient truth It is moreover true that in applying this Principle I added these terms To apply this to the matter which we treat of I say that before Transubstantiation came into the world every one believed our Saviour to be present in the Sacrament and that his Body and Blood are really therein received by the faithful Communicant and that the Bread and Wine are the signs and memorials of his Death and Passion on the Cross this was the Faith of the whole Earth but I shall not be mistaken when I say there were few that extended their thoughts so far as to observe exactly the difference of the two Opinions which do at this day separate the Reformists and Romanists there were also some who knew the truth only in general When then error came in thereupon and building ill on a foundation declared we must understand our Saviour is present in the Eucharist stubstantially and locally that his Body and Blood are received in it by the mouth of our bodies and that the sign of his Body is his Body it self this was without doubt in effect an extraordinary novelty and of which there was never heard any mention but yet I do not find it strange that several people were deceived by it and took this not for a novelty but as an illustration of the common Faith So far extends my fifth Observation BUT he ought not to stop here to raise a state of a question he ought to see likewise what I add immediately after in the sixth Observation Had the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud consulted it they would have acknowledged that I gave therein a formal explication and as it were a limitation to this general Principle which I laid down that this does not wholly take place in enlightned Ages wherein there are eminent Pastors for knowledg that take care to instruct clearly their Flocks in the truths of Faith For then their good instructions hinder the growth of Error and render people capable of knowing and rejecting it But it is wholly applicable to the Ages of darkness wherein Ignorance and Superstition have corrupted the Church Which I express in these words Which
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
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
find therein the consolation of our Souls this without doubt is popular It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 't is Bread and yet to hear that 't is the Body of Christ the Sacrament of the Body of Christ its pledg its memorial It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages and the confused one which I attribute to the 10th are but one and the same thing IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's First It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg are the same with those of the popular knowledg Among the first is found That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because they are the Sacraments of 'em which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg How will he have this to be then one and the same thing There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 't is real Bread and Wine but the second goes farther for it shews this very thing which the senses depose to be the true belief of the Church Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense The second does dispose 'em to it for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses Now the first is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg and the second belongs to the distinct knowledg What reason is there then in having these two knowledges to be the same Thirdly Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it this was not my business in that place But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were sufficient to make known the sense of these Propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers which I produc'd in my first part as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature but an addition of Grace to Nature that Jesus Christ as to his human Body or human Nature is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and mystical that we must not understand it literally it being a figurative expression that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things and several others which are not necessary to be related Supposing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg which is evidently false yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg nor exclude them which I now denoted which are no wise popular In fine Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles whether popular or not popular a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them according as they are respected with more or less application according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding natural or acquired so that supposing we attributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Articles which I specifi'd supposing these Articles were the same as those I attribute to the popular knowledg which is not true supposing again there were no difference in 'em as there is in respect of some of these Articles between the knowing of 'em popularly that is to say either by the help of the Senses or by the natural motion of the Conscience and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors as a thing which the Church believes and from which a man must not vary it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down the same thing the object of these two knowledges would be the same but the knowledges would be distinct And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties CHAP. VI. Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollification and the Machins of Execution Examin'd The state of the Twelfth Century MR. ARNAVD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. chap. 7. Author of the Perpetuity That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition or a formal contradiction of the truth but by way of addition explication and confirmation and that it endeavours to ally it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification which he pretends to overthrow in his fifth Chapter The inventions says he of Mr. Claude are Book 9. ch 5. page 899. usually attended with very considerable defects To which I have no more to say but this that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high but generally very ill grounded well offer'd but ill defended 'T IS false says he that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail pretending not to understand what he does very well We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion This is not the point in question The question is Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church which was not sufficiently understood and which he therefore more clearly explain'd Now Paschasus himself decides this difference as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design he says That all the Faithful ought to understand the Lib. De Corpore Sang. Dom. cap. 2. Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood which is every day celebrated in the Church and what they ought to believe and know of it That we must seek the
united to the Son of God and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul and dis-united hypostatically from the Word Believe me a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind to be guilty of these kind of fooleries But if these persons of the 9th Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote believed in effect all these matters how happens it there 's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages nor the following ones and that to establish this fact to wit that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which is in Heaven is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conjectures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius BUT you will say how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Paschasus and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions Bertram declares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure nor under any vail but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest He makes to himself the questions Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful be made as a mystery or as a truth which is to say Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense And in the second place Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered and died Paschasus on the other hand declares That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly and teaches that one is the figure of the other Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas nulla adumbratio quod interius percipitur ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense Bertram takes it in another Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself For having proposed two questions in the terms which we have seen he adds Let us examin the first of these questions and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure and what by truth to the end that having something that is certain before our eyes we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow The figure is a kind of shadow which by means of some vails shews us what it proposes to shew us As for example when we would signifie the Word we call it Bread as in the Lords Prayer where we ask our daily bread or as our Saviour says in the Gospel I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven Thus does he call himself a Vine and his Disciples the Branches I am says he the true Vine and you are the Branches In all which there is one thing said and another signified The truth on the contrary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow image or vail it being discovered by simple and natural expressions there being nothing to be understood but what is contained in the terms 'T is not the same in these other examples for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread or Vine nor the Apostles Branches Here then we have a figure but in the last examples the truth is uttered in plain and open terms Now to apply this to the things in question to wit the Body and Blood of Christ Were this mystery celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery for one cannot call that a mystery wherein there is nothing secret nothing remote from the corporal senses nor hid under any vail Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest shews another thing outwardly to the senses and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful Outwardly one discovers the form of Bread its colour and savour such as it was before But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly a divine and heavenly thing to wit the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented and 't is not by the corporal senses but by the spiritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered taken and eaten He says the same of the Vine and concludes seeing no body can deny but this is so 't is manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 't is a figurative locution like in some sort to these others in the Gospel where our Lord is called Bread a Vine and his Apostles Branches Now 't is precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a figure When our Saviour says he brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples Câ—mment in Mat. 26. he does not say that this or there is in this mystery a certain virtue or a figure of my Body but he says plainly This is my Body And a little lower I marvail at some peoples saying 't is a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the Body And in his Letter to Frudegard Sacramentum Corporis Christi Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas quod ipsa veritas repromisit which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions to wit of the Birth Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour These things says he which our Saviour did as God and Man be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith and yet are they nothing but the truth altho they be called Sacraments And he afterstards makes this objection These things being mysteries cannot to wit in this quality be either seen or toucht and consequently this is not a Body and if it be not a Body they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety
I hope will not take it ill if I design this whole Chapter to answer them This Book consists either of passionate invectives against me or defences against some of my Complaints or accusations against me As to the passionate expressions I concern not my self with 'em I leave 'em to the publick judgment and Mr. Arnaud's private conscience It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his stile according to the lovely idea which he himself has given us of the true Eloquence which is says he discreet modest Book 11. ch 8. page 1128. judicious sincere true which serves to disentangle things and not to confound 'em which clears truth and offers it in such a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart which inspires motions that are just reasonable proportionable to the things which we handle which has no other lustre but what serves to discover truth no strength but what is borrowed from her He will examin I hope at his leisure whether he has observed all these grave characters and whether his eagerness to overcome has not transported him sometimes into such strange convulsions as are wholly contrary to all morality and decency AS to his defences I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be just and warrantable but to the end it may not be said I desire to be believed on my own bare word let a man judg of 'em by these examples The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion alledged this reason that Trithemus praised this Author To this I answered that he praised him because in effect he deserved it and that this only increased his authority My sense is plainly that he prais'd him because he knew his reputation was great in the 9th Century that his Book was therein well entertain'd and his memory honored in the following Ages For this is what must be understood by being in effect praise-worthy and this is likewise what the terms of my answer insinuate having added that this only increased his authority which is to say that this testimony of Trithemus shewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time Whereupon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true sense of my words imputes to me another which is that I said Trithemus who believed the Real Presence praised Bertram for opposing it which is a ridiculous sense and infinitely distant from mine This is the subject of my complaint and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud What is says he the sense of these words Book 11. ch 3. p. 1105 1106. Trithemus praised Bertram because he was indeed praise-worthy Do they signifie that he praised him from his own knowledg or from the opinion of others It is clear they have only the first sense and not the second All is clear which Mr. Arnaud speaks but let us see how he proves it To commend any one from the testimony of another is not to commend him because he is in effect praise-worthy seeing there are several people which we do not in effect judg to be praise-worthy altho thought worthy of praise by others To commend a man because he is in effect worthy of commendations is proceeding on a just and true ground and on the reality of things and not on reports and popular opinions This is a pitiful defence for 't is certain there are people who are not judged to be praise-worthy altho they be praised by others but I say that there are others which are deemed praise-worthy in effect only because we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived and in the following ones without being blamed by any body Do not most people thus believe S. Cyprian S. Hierom and S. Augustin praise-worthy not for having read their Books nor examin'd their Doctrins but as knowing they were esteem'd by their own and following Ages and that their memory was never withered in the Church Now this is what I say that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book to wit that he had the esteem of his Age and that his memory was respected in the following ones IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say that I ought not to suppose without proving it that such an Author as Trithemus who writes a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers and gives particular praises to an Author does it barely from the relation of others and that the presumption is on the contrary that he has read his Book and speaks of it from his own proper knowledg This I say is to no purpose for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues and would draw a conclusion from the praises of Trithemus to establish well his Principle to prove that Trithemus has praised Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini and not to me who answer to prove that he has praised him because he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th Century Were a man to judg hereof by presumptions they would be rather for my supposition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity for we know very well that those who make Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention The Commendations of Ratram whom we affirm to be Bertram could not be unknown to Trithemus and we have right to suppose that Trithemus has not distinguish'd Bertram and Ratram as two different persons till the Author of the Perpetuity has shewed us the contrary THE second complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity respects Mr. Blondel whom this Author impertinently accuses to have fallen into contradiction in that he supposes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calvinist and on the other that the Synod of Cressy which condemned Amalarius was of the same mind which according to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifest contradiction Observe here his words Usher an English Protestant supposes that Amalarius held Perpetuity of the Faith sect 2 p. 80. the Doctrin of the Catholicks and therefore would have it thought that 't was the Doctrin of the Real Presence which was condemned in Amalarius by the Synod of Cressy and by Florus Deacon of Lyons And a little lower Blondel suffering himself to be deceived by the desire which he had to raise up adversaries against Paschasus fell on this subject into one of the most palpable contradictions imaginable For finding on one hand advantage from Usher ' s Page 82. opinion who makes the whole Synod of Cressy who condemned Amalarius to consist of Calvinists he takes this part and supposes with him that the Council of Cressy held the Calvinists Doctrin and were contrary to Paschasus But finding elsewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuscript of the Book of Divine Offices of William of Malmsbury that Amalarius Raban and Heribald wrote against Paschasus not considering that
1. 7 Mr. Arnaud leaves the method of the Author of the Perpetuity and his pretension 1. 26 Mr. Arnaud produces nothing that is formal on the Greeks part of Transubstantiation 1. 118 Mr. Arnaud cites the testimony of Latinis'd Greeks 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud quotes doubtful Authors 1. 263 Mr. Arnaud produces the testimonies of false Greeks Scholars of the Seminary at Rome 1. 265 Mr. Arnaud is oblig'd to prove his Thesis touching the Greeks by positive Arguments whereas we may prove ours by negative ones 1. 277 Mr. Arnaud contradicts himself 1. 315 Mr. Arnaud opposes himself and treats himself as ridiculous 1. 317 Mr. Arnaud overthrows the argument which those of the Church of Rome draw from these words My Flesh is meat indeed 2. 77 Mr. Arnaud does himself overthrow with one blow the greatest part of his Book 2 ibid. Mr. Arnaud's discourse favours the Sociniens 2. 114 Mr. Arnaud's Defences weak against my complaints 2. 260 Mr. Arnaud's personal complaints and accusations unjust 2. 264 Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity's expressions disadvantagious to Christian Religion in general 2. 268 Mr. Arnaud and his friends suspected to be of intelligence with us 2. ibid. Mr. Arnaud's negative Arguments taken single overthrow one another 1. 293 Articles whereon the Greeks and Latins disagree and yet do not dispute thereon 1. 279 Mr. Aubertin's Book the first occasion of this dispute 1. 10 Mr. Aubertin's Book whereof it consists 1. 12 Mr. Aubertin's Book has been indirectly assaulted 1. 13 B. BRead of the Eucharist considered by the Greeks in two times or on the Prothesis or on the Altar 1. 216 Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ according to the Greeks 1. 216 Bread in what manner chang'd God only knows say the Greeks 1. ibid. Bread change thereof into the Body of Jesus Christ may be understood in two manners 1. 217 Bread and Wine are joyn'd to the Divinity according to the Greeks 1. 220 Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of augmentation according to the Greeks 1. 227 C. CAsaubon a man of an unsettled mind and of no great judgment 1. 93 Centuriators of Magdebourg are not witnesses to be alledged in this Controversie 1. 38 Centuries all of 'em must be traced in beginning from the Apostles in a search of Tradition 2. 100 Century 10. mixt with two Doctrins to wit that of Paschasus and that of Bertram 2. 175 Century 10. very ignorant 2. 178 Century 10. very confused 2. 180 Change hapned touching the point of the Adoration of Images 2. 192 Changes insensible hapned either amongst the Greeks or amongst the Latins 2. 195 Christians of the East very ignorant 1. 67 Christians of S. John very ignorant 1. ibid. Church is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ the Real Body c. 2. 74 Commerce frequent between the Greeks and the Latins since the 11th Century 1. 27 Council of Constantinople taught the Eucharist was a substance of Bread 1. 347 Council of Nice II. unjustly arrogated the Title of Vniversal 1. 356 Council of Nice II. in what sense denied the Bread was an Image 1. 340 Council of Nice II. in what sense meant the Bread was properly the Body of Jesus Christ 1. 339 Council of Constantinople why it called the Eucharist an Image that was not deceitful 1. 352 Council of Constantinople in what sense it said our Saviour Christ chose in the Eucharist a matter which had not any tracts of humane likeness lest Idolatry should be introduced c 1. 353 Council of Rome under Nicolas II. did not formally establish Transubstantiation 1. 245 Council of Florence held on politick respects by both sides 1. 297 Council of Florence in which the Greeks would no more dispute 1. 300 Council of Florence in which the Greeks assist against their wills 1. ibid. Council of Florence in which the re-union was made in general terms 1. 127 Concomitance not taught by the Greeks 1. 186 Conjunction of Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ taught by some in the 9th Century 2. 233 Constantin Monomaq Greek Emperor favours the Pope against Cerularius 1. 180 Coptics extreme ignorant 1. 68 Coptics superstitious 1. 71 Coptics do not hold Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Custom of Communicating under both kinds that of giving the Communion to little Children and that of Fasting till the Evening have been changed 2. 190 Croisado's for the Holy Land in the 11th and 12th Centuries 1. 74 Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople had the Latins and the false Greeks for his enemies 1. 206 Cyril ever beloved by his Church 1. 207 Cyril's Confession not contrary to the Faith of the Greek Church 1. 208 D. DEceased according to the Greeks receive the same as the Living in the Eucharist 1. 151 Decisions of Councils prescribe not against truth Preface Decisions of Councils are considerable when conformable to Scripture ibid. Deoduin Bishop of Liege imputes to Berenger 1. 245 Differences and Agreement between the Latins and the Greeks on the point of the Eucharist 1. 233 Differences and Agreements between the Greeks and us on the same point 1. 236 Difference between the difficulties in the common mysteries of Christianity and those in Transubstantiation 1. 188 Difficulties of Transubstantiation fall naturally in the mind 1. 189 Difference between not believing the Real Presence and believing the Real Absence 2. 128 Difference between the example of an Angel appearing under the form of a Man and the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the form of Bread 2. 148 Doctrin of the Latin Church in the eighth Century 2. 89 E. EMissaries of the Romish Seminary sent into Greece to receive Orders there from Schismatick Bishops 1 205 Emissaries make use of Schools to insinuate the Roman Religion 1. 99 Emissaries o'respread the East since the 11th Century 1. 90 Emperors Greek have laboured to introduce the Latin Religion into Greece 1. 81 Enthusiasms made in favour of Mr. Arnaud's Book 1. 47. 61 Emissaries sent expresly to establish the honor of the Sacrament 1. 79 Eucharist necessary to little Children according to S. Austin and the whole ancient Church 1. 58 Eucharist breaks the Fast according to the Greeks 1. 253 Eucharist buried by the Greeks or thrown into Wells and thrown on the ground 1. 172 Emissaries prevail by Money 1. 98 Emissaries gain the Bishops 1. 97 Eutychiens say our Saviour was man only in appearance 2. 16 Et is oft explicative and taken for that is to say 1. 224 Ethiopians believe neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence 2. 54 Expressions general capable of several particular senses 1. 119 Expressions of the Greeks on other Subjects are like to those on the Eucharist 1. 129 Eucharist according to the Greeks consists of Bread and Holy Spirit 1. 218. F. FAther 's according to Father Nouet are a Forest Preface Fathers must not be the Rule of our Faith 1. 10 Fathers against Transubstantiation 1. 40 Fathers have wrote several things
are therefore left undecided altho they are held Let the Reader judge whether 't is likely a Church would only receive for a determination of Points of Faith the Decrees of Councils wherein there has passed not a word concerning Transubstantiation and reject others wherein Transubstantiation has been established and yet believe this Doctrine as firmly as the Latins and not dare to explain her self in clear and proper terms which would have eased Mr. Arnaud of that great pains he has taken to fill three or four large Books with his long Syllogisms the greatest part of which are besides the purpose What mean these Greeks by their general expressions which are good for nothing but to puzzle people For according to Mr. Arnaud they distinctly believe the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of our Saviour's Body and teach as they believe it being their interest to do so to the end this Doctrin may prevail with the people to adore this substance when changed They are not ignorant of the manner after which the Church of Rome explains it self touching this Doctrine And yet are they obliged not to receive any Doctrine as an Article of Faith but what has been already determined by the seven first Councils in which there 's no mention of this Change of Substance and to reject all those Councils which expressly decreed it and nevertheless they express themselves in general terms which signifie nothing And must Mr. Arnaud to whose immortal praise the Greeks are still in the World and to whom they are obliged for their preservation under the Turkish Empire tire himself his Friends and his Readers exhaust his store of Consequences that is to say his stock of Delusions and be continually imploying his invention to find some appearance or shadow of Transubstantiation in the usual expressions of this People To speak impartially he has reason to be angry with these Greeks who are so obstinate or at least so lazy that they will not be at the pains to express plainly and without ambiguity a Notion so clearly and distinctly imprinted in their minds And moreover not only these Greeks have not explained themselves but even when moved by temporal interests and the politick intrigues of their Emperours they consented to these patched re-unions with the Church of Rome they have changed the Latin expressions and whereas in the Acts of these last it is expressly mention'd that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ they have barely inserted that it is changed that 't is consecrated and in a word they have ever substituted their general expressions to the formal and precise expressions of the Latins What can Mr. Arnaud alledge when on one hand he sees in Raynaldus this Confession of Faith about which he has made such a noise and which was offer'd to the Greeks by Clement IV. by Gregory X. by John XXI and by Urbain V. as distinctly and clearly containing the Belief of the Roman Church and that he sees it I say expressed in these Latins words Sacramentum Eucharistae ex azymo conficit eadem Romana Ecclesia tenens docens Raynald ad ann 1267. num 77. quod in ipso Sacramento Panis veré Transubstantiatur in Corpus Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and when on the other hand he finds this same Article in the Greek Copy produced by Allatius in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allat perp cons lib. 2. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of Rome celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread holding and teaching that in this Sacrament the Bread is really changed into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Latins say's veré Transubstantiatur it is really Transubstantiated and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is really changed Mr. Arnaud who loves not to complain when his complaints will do him Liv. 3. cap. 7. pag. 298. no good passes lightly over this difference as if it were a trifle not worth his notice for having told us that Raynaldus observes some read in Latin Transmutatur and others Transubstantiatur he adds Allatius who has given us the Original it self makes it appear that these words Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are mere Synonimous Terms seeing they have been substituted by Interpreters to these Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is what is soon dispatched by the Rule of Synonimy Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are both the same because Interpreters substitute both one and the other of these words to the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But who are these Interpreters who thus render Transubstantiatur are they not such who find Transubstantiation every where and will have it brought into the Greek Church by force If Transmutare and Transubstantiare are Synonimous Terms Mr. Arnaud may when he pleases render Gregor Naz. Ora. 40. those words of Gregory Nazianzen Christo indutus sum in Christo Transubstantiatus sum for there is Transmutatus and when he shall find in a Homily attributed to Origen Sanctus Theologus in Deum Transmutatus he may read Hâ—m 2. in divers Iren. ad Haeres lib. 5. cap. 12. in Deum Transubstantiatus and when he reads in St. Iréneus Oleaster Transmutatur in bonam olivam he may render this Transubstantiatur in bonam olivam If we may as well substitute to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these two Latin ones Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur Mr. Arnaud may read in the Version of St. Macairus omnes in naturam Divinam Transubstantiantur for the Interpreter has set down Transmutantur and the Greek imports 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he shall find in the same Author that Jesus Christ came to change the nature he may understand it that he came to Transubstantiate the nature forasmuch as the Latin bears Transmutare and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is certain that a man who reads good Authors upon Mr. Arnaud's credit and follows his Synonima's will make abundance of extravagant Transubstantiations and I do not believe Mr. Arnaud will be willing to warrant them all He will say these words are Synonimy's when they concern the Eucharist for the Bread's being Changed or Transubstantiated is the same thing It is so indeed with them that believe Transubstantiation but not with them who do not believe it But the Greeks believe it say's Mr. Arnaud which he is obliged to prove before he affirms it Mr. Arnaud's Arguments are really admirable for they are very conclusive provided we suppose the truth of what they conclude If it be demanded of him wherefore he makes such a noise with this
Form of Faith he will answer 't is because the Term of Transubstantiatur is in it Tell him that in the Greek there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and not Transubstantiatur he will answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmutatur and Transubstantiatur are the same thing But let this be examined it will be found to be indeed the same thing to them that believe Transubstantiation but as to others who do not there is a great difference so that to speak truly to make Mr Arnaud's Argument good it must first be supposed the Greeks believe the Substantial Conversion as well as the Latins HE may adjust these matters when he pleases but let me tell him in the mean time that the Greeks used the same expressions in the Council of Florence The Latins having demanded wherefore after the words of our Saviour Concil Florent Sess 25. Jesus Christ take eat this is my Body which has been broken for you for the Remission of your Sins c. they added this Prayer and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ and that which is in this Cap the precious bloud of thy Christ in changing them by virtue of thy Holy Spirit they answered they did acknowledge that the Consecrated Bread was made the Body of Christ by these words The Latin Decree has this expression fateri nos diximus per haec verba Transubstantiari Sacrum Panem fieri Corpus Christi but the Greek expressions are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin say's 't is Transubstantiated the Greek that 't is Consecrated MR. Arnaud has recourse here likewise to his Synonimy's for he tells us that the Latins to whom this answer was made having taken it in the sence Lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 345. of an acknowledgement of Transubstantiation it is ridiculous to pretend there was such a great equivocation between them and the Greeks the one understanding a change of Substance and the others a change of Virtue He adds That if the Greeks had not taken these words in the sence of the Latins Syropulus and Marc of Ephesus would have observed that the Latins were derided by this equivocation and would have accused them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit In fine he say's that Andrew de S. Cruce who deserves as much to be credited as any of the other Historians who wrote on this Council because he was there present relates this acknowledgment of Transubstantiation which Bessarion made in the name of all the Greeks in a manner more precise distinct and with greater circumstances and that he attributes to him these words we have learnt that these are the words of our Lord which Change and Transubstantiate the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood and that these divine words have the full force of Transubstantiation I answer the more I study the Character of Mr. Arnaud the more clearly I perceive that these things are no otherwise ridiculous and affrightful but only as they agree not with his designs For it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Transubstantiari are two different Terms which signifie not the same thing the first is applicable in general to all Mysteries and signifies only to be conjecrated or perfectly consecrated the second signifies a Change of one Substance into another It is moreover certain that when the Latins wrote Transubstantiari the Greeks have only set down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why then will he have it that the Greeks took not this Term in its natural signification and in the usual sence given to it amongst them Because say's he that the Latins took this answer for an acknowledgment of Transubstantiation But who told him that the Latins did not do ill in taking it after this manner Who told him the Greeks intended the Latins should take it in this sence The Greeks have kept to their general expressions and the Latins have drawn them as far as they could to their advantage If there has been any equivocation in them the Latins have voluntarily made it and 't is very likely could they have made the Greeks say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they would gladly have done it but not being able to effect it they have made what advantage they could of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in interpreting it by the word Transubstantiation And this is the whole Secret which is neither ridiculous nor affrightful in any other than Mr. Arnaud's imagination And as to what he say's concerning Syropulus and Mark of Ephesus namely that they would have observed the Latins were deluded by an Equivocation and accuse them who thus answered in behalf of the Greeks of prevarication and deceit I see no reason they had to do this for when the Greeks sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they spoke their usual Language and derided no body If the Latins understood it otherwise than the force of the Term and common use permitted them 't is they that derided the Greeks rather than the Greeks them wherefore there is no reason in this respect to accuse them who made this answer of prevarication and deceit Andrew de S. Cruce his relating the words of Bessarion according to the intention of the Latins does but confirm what I say which is that the Roman Church has ever endeavoured to expound to its advantage the general expressions of the Greeks and I know not wherefore Mr. Arnaud tells us that he deserves no less credit than the other Historians who wrote of this Council Would he have it that Bessarion who speaks for all the rest of the Greeks did not use the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the very word in the Greek Text concerning that Council and Andrew de S. Cruce's Authority is not sufficient to correct a Publick Act neither can his Latin alter the Greek Would he have it that the Latins explain'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Bessarion by Transubstantiatur I grant it and the Decree of the Council shows it so that he needs not call Andrew de St. Cruce to his assistance Yet may we observe that Mr. Arnaud himself is not fully satisfi'd that the Greek and Latin expressions on this Subject do mean but one and the same thing altho he tells us he is for he calls that which Andrew de S. Cruce relates from Bessarion a more precise manner more distinct and circumstantial which is as much as to say after all that the Transubstantiari of the Latins is more precise distinct and plain than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks AND this the force of Truth has extorted from him and it were well if it could likewise so far prevail with him as to make him acknowledge that this proceeding of the Greeks is an evident mark they believed not Transubstantiation For had they believed it what likelyhood is there they should thus carefully keep themselves from using the expressions