way to obtain the end of what he designs Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity as will appear in the following Chapter We have reason to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions he I say who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusations against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method upon the Defects I found therein provided I establish Truth and Reason But this doth not well agree with what he saies here That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject but only this That he lay down good Principles and draw thence true Conclusions For the falsity of Principles or Consequences proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter or Form of an Argument in Particular than in a Method in General CHAP. III. THE third Observation justified viz. That the Author of the Perpetuity has bin to blame in pretending to overthrow the Proofs contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by Arguments which can amount to no more than mere Conjectures MR. Arnaud seems unwilling to grant That the Author of the Perpetuity has endeavoured to invalidate our Proofs of Matters of Fact contained in Mr. Aubertin's Book by his Arguments and thereupon has only proposed the Question in these Terms viz. Whether a man may not argue against matters of Fact And takes it for granted Lib. 1. Ch. 2. he may in some particular Cases It is then our part to shew he wanders from the Point and that the Author of the Perpetuity has not only designed to oppose but even overthrow by his arguings our Proofs of Fact so that the Question now is whether this Endeavour of his is just or unjust whether according to a regular Course or contrary to it AND for this purpose I shall only desire Mr. Arnaud to consider That the Design of the Method or advantage expected by it as it hath bin expresly declared in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise Is to bring any unprejudiced Person to acknowledge the Church of Rome ' s Belief touching the Eucharist to be the same with that of all Antiquity and this new Method is proposed to remedy an Inconveniency usually attending that ordinary Method called Discussion wherein it frequently happens that men seldom sufficiently comprehend the strength of Proofs because they are not considered in their right order which ever so placeth them as that they mutually assist and fortifie each other I need but entreat him likewise to remember the first Title of the Treatise before it was printed when it was put into my Hands to be answered which was as follows A Treatise containing an easie Means to convince Hereticks by shewing them there has no alteration bin made in the Churches Belief touching the Eucharist as I already observed in the Preface before my Answer Lastly I have no more to request of him but only to remember the new Title under which the first Treatise and them which followed were published which is The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church touching the Eucharist For what else can be expected from a man that promises to make us confess the Church of Romes Belief is the same with that of all Antiquity and hopes to convince us of the Truth of this but that he should invalidate all our Proofs of matters of Fact by which we think we have established the reality of an Innovation Would Mr. Arnaud grant me the favour to suppose a while that I am not obstinate and I will likewise on the other hand suppose I was mistaken in Mr. Aubertin's Book and that the Perswasion I had of the truth of his Proofs concerning an Innovation hath bin false Now should the Author of the Perpetuity pretend that his Method is able to undeceive me and dissipate all the false Impressions which Mr. Aubertin's Proofs have wrought in my Mind should he I say pretend to this he has imagined as I have already mentioned that he is able by his Arguments to invalidate our Proofs and again on the other hand if he pretends not to do this he hath bin certainly to blame in saying He would convince Hereticks and make them acknowledge if they are not Invincibly Obstinate the Perpetuity of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence We shall see by what follows whether or no Mr. Arnaud has upheld the honour of so great a Design or whether he has not abated something of it I shall content my self at present with only shewing the pretension of the Author of the Method IT cannot be alleadged in his behalf he had not these aforementioned Proofs in his Mind but only offered his own which he judged conclusive for besides that when a man lays down a Method as sufficient to produce an effect he ought consider whatsoever may hinder the producing of this or the contrary Effect We may farther observe he assaults Mr. Aubertin's Book in this Treatise wherein are contained these Proofs concerning which he could not pretend Ignorance seeing they make up the greatest part of that Book It ought moreover to be considered that he refuteth as I already said in the foregoing Chapter an Account whose whole strength is grounded on these Proofs of matters of Fact an Account which taketh them for its Foundation and borroweth from them whatsoever it would perswade and refutes it not in opposing other Proofs after the same manner but by Arguments Whence it follows he imagins his Arguments are sufficient to overthrow these Proofs it being impossible if they stand firm but that the account of the Change or Innovation should do so too Mr. Arnaud's way of shifting the Question that he might draw on the Reader to another matter is so plainly evident that I need not give him the least hint of it For there is certainly a great Difference betwixt barely Opposing Arguments against our Proofs and pretending to invalidate them by Arguments The first of these may be done without thinking on the second these Arguments may be examined and compared with our Proofs without any other Pretence than the keeping the Mind in Suspence and hindering it from determining on either side Had the Author of the Perpetuity kept himself within these Bounds we should have answered him after another sort but he hath extended his design so far as to bring us to a final Acknowledgment The Question then is not so much about his bare Opposition altho that shall be shewed him at length to be useless and that he cannot expect any advantage from it for the Debate at present consists either in the Justice or Injustice of his Design when he imagined this Opposition was sufficient to convince us notwithstanding our Prejudices against it occasioned by Mr. Aubertin's and other Ministers Proofs BUT to state the Question clearly it ought to be farther supposed that we compare not here the Proofs drawn
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
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
that the doubt was rejected in these terms I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges and that of proper in others and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them but he must not under this pretence form this proposition That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ for there 's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate which offer themselves in divers passages and in divers Authors and these same terms joyned together by way of exageration I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages nor all Nations we have already shew'd that he speaks only thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he says AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait of Damascen of the second Council of Nice of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th Century and that of the Horologium of the Greeks for they have been all of 'em already sufficiently answer'd 't is only needful to remember what I have already established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians seeing we have already answered them We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians or to speak better the Armenians themselves have answer'd it IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians who formally declare as we have already seen that they mean nothing else by these terms than a true mystery of this Body and Blood and in effect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation that the Priest says in Communicating I eat by Faith O Lord Jesus Apud Cassand iâ— Liturgicis Christ thy holy living and saving Body I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians mention'd by Strozza is impertinently alledg'd for two reasons First That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome who in embracing its Religion wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church Secondly That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God but of God Incarnate that we drink truly the Blood of a Man but of a Man that is God relates not to our question nor is not said in this respect but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man and not the true Body of God Incarnate What 's this to the question to wit Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words In veritate saying Hoc est in veritate corpus hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubtful 'T is not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate had he in truth found them in it Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop say this addition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500. man can comprehend nothing The Deacon says he sings still in their Mass Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia But what consequence can be drawn from these words 'T is certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Nestorians who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians There remains still in this Liturgy as correct as 't is several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church as what the Priest says Jesus Missae Christ apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion Death Burial and Resurrection receive this Sacrifice from our hands Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance there 's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself Having read the passage of S. Paul That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord that we desire to be out of the body to have his presence that we desire to please him whether present or absent c. rehearsed the Creed the Priest says This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Then praying for the Consecration O Lord God says he look not upon the multitude of my sins ' and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sacrifice AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee we may find acceptance with thee On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ in which he will appear ar the last day Immediately after he calls the gifts the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then beseeches God they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith Again he says That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and prays to God That his Holy Spirit may come down and rest on this Oblation and sanctifie it to
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
nature but only in Sacrament contradict the Church Here he acts the part of a Disputer if his arguing be good we will believe him if it be a Sophism we 'll not matter it Now 't is a sophism for according to the maxim of S. Augustin The Sacraments assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments so that to deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Body of Jesus Christ BVT adds Mr. Arnaud 't is moreover false that this is only a consequence Book 8. ch 9. p. 852. For this proposition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Presence was included both in the Principle and Conclusion of Paschasus his argument He concludes That those who deny the Real Presence commit an horrid crime in opposing the Faith of the Church Here we have it comprehended in the conclusion Did ever man hear such kind of reasoning 'T is false that this is only a consequence because 't is a proposition contain'd in the conclusion This is just as if a man should say 't is false that it is day Why Because the Sun is at his heighth for for to be day and the Sun to be at its heighth are not more the same thing than to be a consequence and to be a proposition contained in the conclusion of an argument Are these the prodigious effects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick And the Principle of this conclusion is adds he not that the Church simply recites these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui but understands them in the sense of the Real Presence Which is what I deny The Principle whereon Paschasus argues is no other than this That the Priest says Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui and the People answer Amen That the Church did or did not understand this of the Real Presence is what Paschasus does not touch on He is careful not to advance so far Had he known says Mr. Arnaud that the Church took these words in another sense he must needs be a mad man to reproach as he does these persons for being contrary to the sense of the whole Church He supposes then this for a Princile that the whole Church took them in the sence of a Real Presence and consequently supposes she held entirely this Doctrin This is mere wrangling Paschasus does not say that these persons against whom he inveighs were contrary to the sense of the Church but only that they went against the Church to wit inasmuch as they went according to him contrary to the terms of the Liturgy Secondly Whether he did or did not know that the Church took these terms in another sense 't is not necessary to enquire seeing he does not explain himself therein and speaks neither far or near of the sense of these terms And 't is likely he knew there were at least three sorts of persons in the Church the doubters the ignorant and formal adversaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this sense Thirdly Supposing we say not that Paschasus was mad but argued like a Sophister what inconvenience will follow and what shall we say more than appears from the bare reading of his discourse He would have the Church on his side what could be more easie supposing at that time the conversion of substances and Real Presence were believed than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church Bishops Religious the Doctors and generally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor less and there only needed them to be consulted Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them His Adversaries could not have denied this truth and had they the impudence to do it they might easily be convinc'd by a million of persons then living Why had he recourse to arguing and consequences Why must this consequence be drawn by the hair out of a passage of the Liturgy which may receive I know not how many explications Why did he not at least say 't was certain the Church understood this clause in the sense of a Real Presence Wherefore was he silent touching the sense and argued only from the force of these terms Corpus dilectissimi filii tui c. as if all those that utter these terms or add to em their Amen believ'd the Real Presence Which shews us two things the first that Paschasus acted like a Sophister sheltering himself as well as he could under the Authority of the Church against the reproach objected against him of being a Visionary and an Enthusiast and the other that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud supposes he had which is that the whole Church was of his opinion and the people commonly believed the Real Presence and conversion of substances of Bread and Wine he would not have fail'd to make the best of it and o'rewhelm his adversaries with it Mr. ARNAVD will now then perhaps comprehend that there 's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain and of which he himself is a witness and one that draws a consequence and perhaps will no longer say That my distinction separates by terms which have no sense that which reason cannot separate And at the same time acknowledg that never pretension was worse grounded than that of the Author of the Perpetuity and his own They affirm the whole Church was of Paschasus his mind But whereon do they ground their supposition Were the Adversaries of Paschasus agreed about it No. Does Paschasus himself expresly affirm it No. But 't is because Paschasus insinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made use of But does Paschasus formally assert that the Church understood this term in the sense which he gave it No. But 't is because Paschasus must thus understand it says Mr. Arnaud to make his reasoning just Take away then from Paschasus his reasoning the justness which Mr. Arnaud would give it the subintâ—lligitur is annull'd and these Gentlemen bare of proofs THESE words of Paschasus says Mr. Arnaud Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem furnish us with another proof of the same nature For they shew that this solution of virtue was new and that Paschasus had not learn'd it but of late Mr. Arnaud does well to advertise us that 't is a proof of the same nature as the others for 't is so in effect that is to say a very slight one and scarcely worth offering Paschasus is astonish'd at what his Adversaries say in reference to virtue not that this solution appears to him new He says nothing of it in this respect but because it does not appear to him
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
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
man should do that when he answereth which he is not obliged to do but when he opposeth or to expect he should do that when he opposeth which he is not obliged to do but in answering It sometimes happens that an Adversary makes an Exchange and whereas he is obliged to answer directly to the Proofs of the contrary Party or to oppose others against him of the like Nature and Force he shifts them and falls into a Discourse to no purpose and all this while the contrary Proofs he should have answered remain firm In such an occasion we have Power to reduce such a one from his affected Wand'rings by supposing the Proofs he has left unanswered strong and sollid For in such a case they are not supposed good and firm but only to oblige him to answer them and shew their weakness or falsity and if he answereth them not we may reckon as to him the Question in effect is decided because when a man hath nothing to say against the Method of proceeding and that the forementioned Proofs have bin proposed according to the exact Rules of Disputation a man must then either acquiesce in them or answer them and to do neither of these is mere wrangling NOW to apply these Maxims to the matter in hand and to judge of Mr. Arnaud's Censure we need but consider first That when I supposed Mr. Aubertin's Proofs to be firm and good I did not thereby propose to my self an absolute end of the Question touching the Change which hath hapned in the Church of Rome by this simple Supposition but only to regulate the Debate and reduce it within those Bounds wherein it ought to be Secondly that in supposing them good I have only delivered my Opinion which I take upon me to maintain against the Author of the Perpetuity without depriving him of the Liberty of defending the contrary Thirdly that I have supposed them to be good without proving them so because we ever suppose Proofs sufficiently firm till such time as something at least is objected against them and hitherto Mr. Aubertin's Book has layn unanswered Fourthly that I made use of them as a means whereby to resist the Author of the Perpetuity's attempt and when a man only defends himself in a Dispute he is not obliged to prove any thing Fifthly and lastly I did not offer them but only as Prejudices at his Opinion which ought necessarily to be removed out of our Minds before the Arguments of the Perpetuity be offered us for as much as these Prejudices make the Author 's Reasonings ineffectual and improper to that design of making us acknowledg there hath bin introduced no Change into the Roman Church From whence it follows that I may not only suppose these Proofs are clear firm and numerous seeing that 't is under this Notion we have entertained these Prejudices but morever suppose them without proving them and I do so to the end I may oblige the Author of that Treatise to shew us if he can that they do not amount to what we imagine IN short if he would obtain his end he must shew us that our Prejudice ought not to hinder us from hearkning to what he hath farther to offer us which is to say supposing our Proofs to be most firm and evident yet ought they not to avert our Minds from considering his moral Conjectures or shew us that our Prejudices have no grounds and that our Proofs are neither plain nor sufficient The first of these is absurd the second is what we desire him to take in hand But instead of this Mr. Arnaud has bethought himself and requires us to prove the validity of our Proofs IF our Proofs being supposed good are in effect the Calvinists Victory and the Romanists Defeat as Mr. Arnaud himself granteth we have reason to admire he should think he hath overthrown them by five or six Lines stuffed with Raillery HATH he bin more concerned at the calling of the Reasonings of the Perpetuity imaginary Conjectures than at the glorious Victory over the Romish Church which hath bin attributed to Mr. Aubertin's Book and this Innovation brought in by the Church of Rome which is apparent to all the World Doth he more value the Reputation he thinks he hath gotten by writing a small Treatise than the settlement of the Catholick Church and ought he for the interest of a particular work to have rifled both East and West whilst in the mean time the Catholick Church perisheth before his eyes lying prostrate Mr. de Vence in his Approbation at the Feet of Victorions Calvinisme I will grant my Supposition resides but in my own Imagination and in theirs of the same Communion yet certainly this a man would think should be sufficient to stir up the Zeal of a Person whom the Son of God hath given to the Church to be a Teacher of Truth and who hath bin enlightned by his Grace and filled with his Spirit on purpose to rescue and vindicate Truth from the Subtilties and false Glosses of Error as speaketh one of his Approbationers THIS I think should be sufficient to make him prefer the Reputation of his whole Church before that of a single Author of whose name the greatest part of the World is still ignorant And moreover as hath bin already said this Prejudice under which we labour whether true or false makes a distinction between the interest of this Treatise and those of the Romish Church for it puts a stop to all the pretensions of the Author and bereaves him of all the Conquests he promised himself For to regain the Author of the Perpetuity's Reputation will be to no purpose seeing that Calvinisme will not give over celebrating Aubertin's Victories and stand firm to his Proofs The Confutation of Aubertin's Book would be to give such a mighty stroak as would ever stop the Mouth of Calvinism and at the same time raise up the Glory of the Catholick Church out of the Dust There ought to have bin no waverings between these two Parties and yet Mr. Arnaud this Doctor who hath bin given to the Church furnished with such Gifts betakes himself to the writing of a Treatise and sends the Church away till another time IN short to finish the justification of my yet unproved Supposition I need but propose the Example of a man who to shew me the Victorys which the Treatise of the Perpetuity hath obtained against us if we have any Reason left us supposeth without proving it that the Proofs of this Book are plain and solid If I should apply to him Mr. Arnaud's Maxims and tell him that provided he may have the Liberty which he immediately makes use of inventing and supposing what he pleaseth he is in a sure way to conclude thence what he will that these kind of discourses founded on unproved Suppositions are not wholy judicious and that they shew he knoweth not how to distinguish between the things which he is not permitted to assert
Methods of Prescription But this would be to undertake to shew a thing impossible for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili as the Schools term them could not surmount the strength of our Proofs of Fact which depend on the sight of our Eyes and common Sense a great part of which propose the thing imediately in it self BUT how then may we never establish our Sentiments by a Method of Prescription We do not say so We only mean thus much that when the Sentiments of Persons are opposed which are grounded on Proofs of Fact and which they believe to be as I have already said as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senses it is then I say an unreasonable thing to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Method of Prescription grounded on moral Impossibilities This is the Knot of the Question If a man hath to do only with People prepossessed in favour of his Opinion he may then use his Method of Prescription to confirm them in the thoughts they have already entertained There could nothing be alledged against his manner of Proceeding the strength of his Proofs are in that Case only to be considered If he has to do with indifferent Persons that is to say with such who have not yet taken any side and desire to be instructed he might then likewise use a Method of Prescription provided his Principles be well grounded and his Conclusions more decisive than any thing which can be alledged against them There need then be nothing to be replied unless there were something indirect in his Method but this could do no more at farthest but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles and that of its Consequences and not make them reject them for indirect Arguments conclude sometimes with as great Evidence as direct ones Nay I will not fear to say that when he should have to do with Persons prepossessed with Opinions contrary to what he would perswade them he might then lawfully use a Method of Prescription for it would not be sufficient to say that a man is prepossessed by another Method nor object that that of Prescription proceedeth indirectly or follows not the Order of Nature these kind of Objections may cause Suspicion but they ought not to proceed so far as to make men absolutely reject Arguments which perhaps are attended with a greater Perspicuity and Certitude than those which have occasioned the Prejudice But as to what concerns us against whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written we are in none of these Circumstances being not only led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypothesis and by Proofs which propose us the Point in Question immediately in it self but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction and yet he would have us change our Minds by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones and which at farthest can amount to no more but meer Probabilities being applied to the Subject in hand We have then Reason to say that these are mear Chimeras in our respect and that without considering them any otherwise than in their own kind and in the matter on which they treat they cannot make such a strong Impression on us as to deface that which we have already received for 't is not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities than with solid Proofs which are grounded on common Sense MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Comparisons of the Methods of Protestants with them of the Church of Rome It may be made apparent that we have surer and shorter ones than those which it proposeth But this is not our Question and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions His Words cost him nothing and People are disposed to receive them be they what they will as Oracles But 't is not the same with me for should I wander from my Subject as often as he does there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our Debate I shall only tell him he is mistaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controversies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read or hear them read publickly Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Salvation and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister under whom they live is able and willing to shew them the way of Life and whether our Society be the true Church For in this Case we need but examine two things The first whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God and secondly if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of these things for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to satisfy our Consciences and to live in the fear of God and to ascertain our selves in our Saviours Promises and moreover if nothing be taught or practised which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity For if nothing doth offend the Conscience we ought to be perswaded we are in the true Church it being needless for us to enter into a Discussion of all the Errors which have troubled or still perplex the Christian Religion After the same manner as 't is not necessary to Salvation for a man to know all the particular Heresies which have troubled the Peace of the Church nor to make a formal and positive Renunciation of them for it is sufficient that we are not tainted with any of them and firmly to believe the fundamental Truths of Religion neither is it likewise necessary to assure our selves we are in the true Church that we inform our selves of the several Opinions of men It may suffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members teacheth what it ought concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification and maintains nothing which doth not answer these Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church for if he compare his Ministers Doctrine with the Word of God he will be satisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein he shall perceive likewise that we mix no Doctrines of men with it which overthrow its Foundation This way of Examination is short easy and proportionable to the Capacity of all People and thereupon there may be made a Judgment as certain as if every single Controversy had bin examined apart THE most simple then among us may live in perfect Peace But it is not so in the Church of Rome for these Methods of Prescription mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are not built but upon one of these two Principles either that the Church which is to say the Body of the People cannot err nor cease to be the true Church in ceasing to believe
one and the other are obliged to render themselves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatise of the Perpetuity because our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them but as unevident and uncertain and moreover this Treatise being fitted to all Capacities and grounded on the Light of common Sence it may be understood by all in general This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter IN the sixth Chapter he extends his Pretention a great way farther for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his side he will not suffer even those who are obstinate amongst us to escape his Hands It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53. being necessary for this saith he to enter into an Examination of all those Passages without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatise of the Perpetuity can prove nothing But lest this Pretention should at first amaze People observe after what sort he declares his meaning He saith then that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand and the Proofs of the Treatise of the Perpetuity on the other these two contrary Evidences necessarily cause a suspension of our Judgments and hinder us from determining and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties And thus far tends the Treatise of the Perpetuity which leading us hither Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us we cannot any longer refuse to leave our Sect and pass over to the Catholick Religion first because the Church of Rome is the Maternal Original Successive and Catholick Society from which we must never make aschisme Secondly because we must ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors before we separate from it and at the same time have a full certainty of the Purity of that Society we are of to keep in it Thirdly because the Church is in Possession of the Ministry of the ordinary Vocation and Authority and that the Ministers who have not been above a hundred years standing have none of these things Fourthly because that People of ordinary Capacities amongst us being obliged to yield themselves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity and consequently to return to the Church of Rome they ought to serve for Examples to the Judicious it being impossible for us all not to return to this Society to which the greatest part of Men must necessarily belong Lastly he confesseth that all these Arguments suppose the Proofs of the Treatise are clear and substantial and maintains that be may reasonably make this Supposition to convince me I have no other way left to defend my self than by shewing these Proofs of the Treatise are Invalid and so by consequence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done by declaming against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method AND thus have I Epitomiz'd these two mighty Chapters in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illustrate the glorious Designs of the Author of the Perpetuity and this perhaps being one of the most important Points in his whole Work he has therefore spent thereupon the greatest part of his Wit and Eloquence Yet howsoever it comes to pass I know not we are so different in our Apprehensions that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project I have found nothing at all therein of Reason nor coherence of Parts neither in his Suppositions nor Consequences and this I shall briefly and clearly manifest FIRST methinks that Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World in proposing as it were from us a Difficulty which weakens our Cause altho it do's not concern us For I do not pretend that one of our Communion into whose Hands shall be put the Treatise of the Perpetuity and who is able to read it is absolutely obliged before he forms his Judgment thereupon to make a particular Comparison of our Proofs with those of that Treatise I maintain that he may reject these last by the general Consideration alone which he may make without entring into the Examination of each Particular because that in this general View he will find sufficient Grounds for rejecting them viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearness and Solidity which are grounded on common Sence Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatise ought not to be admitted and that if we take the trouble to examine them 't is out of Condescension not Necessity IN the second place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the several ranks of Men who may profitably read the Treatise of the Perpetuity For the greatest part of them in our Communion judging this Perusal needless will not mind it for they will neither have Leasure nor Curiosity enough for this the Title alone will disgust them without proceeding any farther But then he will say that these are unjust and obstinate Persons We believe it a Point of Rashness to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26. heard the Owners Experience of it would it not then be a more inexcusable Rashness to pretend to judge of a Difference which respects our Salvation by Arguments offered only on one side in suffering our selves to be transported by the first Impressions The least which ought to be done by them who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion is to hear both Parties and weigh their Reasons I answer that these Persons I mentioned will act very Justly and Reasonably in doing what I said For there being two Questions the one touching what we ought to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other touching what has bin believed by the Primitive Church The first Question being once dispatched we need not trouble our selves about the second Now as concerning the Persons in our Communion the first Question is solved to them by the Word of God For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith This is it which judgeth us all and had the Author of the Perpetuity guided his Reasonings by this Principle there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him but instead of this he immediately tells us of nothing but the Consent of all Ages and perswades himself that henceforward the Ministers will be no more hearkened to when they say in general that we must only apply our selves to the Word of God THIS Question touching the Consent of all Ages may be decided three ways First by the Rules of Christian Charity Secondly by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promises and cares of his Providence Thirdly by an exact Knowledg of the History of all Ages Now this last means being above the Capacity of most People is needless It is enough to a well meaning Person that he sees in Scripture what he ought to believe touching the Eucharist and thereupon charitably presumes that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Errors It sufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promises to the Church that he would never forsake it have had their
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
Points which cannot be altered without passing over from Truth to Error or from Error to Truth If then it be true as I have already said and as the Author of the Perpetuity has not denyed that the Church has bin several times of contrary Opinions upon which account it is impossible but she has bin in Error and consequently she is not Infallible in this Infallibility of Grace and Priviledg attributed unto her The Author of the Perpetuity's Answer doth evidently suppose the actual reality of this Change it has then given me just Occasion to make this Objection I have made and Mr. Arnaud's Distinction comes too late IT is in vain he assures us that the Author of the Perpetuity never had the least thought of denying this Infallibility of Priviledg and Grace The Question here is not to know absolutely what that Author believed or not believed what he thought or did not think when this shall be questioned we shall always be ready to hear Mr. Arnaud's Relation of that matter but here it concerns us to enquire into the Consequences which may be drawn from his Terms and whether he hath given me a just occasion to make that Objection against him in my Preface It will not be sufficient to make Declarations on this Matter it must be shewed that the Consequence is not true Mr. Arnaud imagins he has sufficiently justified his Friend in asserting he made not use of the Infallibility of Priviledg because 't is a Priviledg to be proved and not supposed and the Calvinists denying it it is thence clear that to make an advantagious use of it it should have bin established before which is to say there ought to have bin an intire Treatise made of the Churches Infallibility before it could be made use of in this Dispute But saith he to conclude from thence he hath denyed it and doth not acknowledg it is one of the most rash Consequences as ever was drawn altho that Mr. Claude hath done this in the Preface of his Book AND this is Mr. Arnaud's true Character that he is never more fierce than when he is Gravelled or alleageth things wholly besides the Purpose We have not grounded our present Objection on the Author of the Perpetuity's not using the Infallibility of Priviledg for his Principle this is a wilful mistake For it has bin grounded on this that the terms of his Answers to the instances of a Change which I had affirmed do oppose this Infallibility which the Church of Rome pretends to and acknowledg no other but that of the People Now 't is to this he should apply himself and not continually entertain us with impertinent Digressions MOREOVER what signifies his telling us that the Infallibility of Priviledge is a Principle to be proved and not supposed and that the Reason disswading the Author of the Perpetuity from making use of it is because we deny it We no less deny the pretended popular Infallibility which is a Principle needs proving as much as the other He himself tells us in the beginning of his eighth Chapter that the Principle of insensible Alterations which is directly opposite to that of popular Infallibility is a necessary Foundation to the Calvinists whereon to build the greatest part of their Doctrines and that all this great Machine of the pretended Reformation consisting of so many different Opinions has almost need upon all Occasions of this Supposition That the contrary Opinion which it undertakes to overthrow has bin insensibly Introduced into the Church And thus does he speak when he would have us deny him his Principle but when he would have us grant it him he then holds another Language The Author of the Perpetuity Lib. 1. c. 7. sais he does not design to attribute to the People any other Infallibility than that which all the World allows them and which Mr. Claude doth himself grant Never any Person disposed more freely of other mens Thoughts then Mr. Arnaud We Deny we Confess according as he pleases he brings us on his Stage as often as he list making us say sometimes one thing and sometimes another and is not this to Dispute successfully But whether we Confess or Deny this his popular Infallibility it is all one to me for here the Question is not about this but to know whether the Author of the Perpetuity has not opposed the Infallibility attributed to the Pope and Councils this is the true State of the Controversy and Mr. Arnaud is at a loss how to defend himself from it WHAT signifies his telling us that there are an infinite number of things Lib. 1. C. 7. wherein not only the whole Church and all the People of the Universe but a particular number of People a Province a City a Borough a particular Person is Infallible that is to say wherein it cannot happen he should be deceived himself nor would deceive others Wherefore must we have the Gazetier brought in for an Instance of this who is Infallible when he tells us any considerable News such as is the Kings going into the low Countries the taking of Cities in Flanders the Canonization of St. Francis de Sales the Death of Pope Alexander the seventh and the Election of Clement the ninth If he relates this News only to advertize us he began his Book after the Kings Victories in the low Countries every man may believe as much as he thinks fitting for we know it is no hard matter to add a Period or two to the beginning of a Book altho 't is already far advanced but be it as it will I dare say that Mr. Arnaud's Victories will not be so certain as those of our Monarch If in effect he hath not mentioned this to us but to confirm by Examples his popular Infallibility I have reason to tell him that these Instances are besides the matter in hand for there must be a distinction made betwixt an Infallibility grounded on the Testimony of a single Person or a particular sort of People and that which is grounded on a whole Body of People I would call the first if you will an Infallibility of Testimony and the second an Infallibility of Perseverance in one and the same State There is a Difference betwen these two The first of these may be attributed to a People a Church a Province a City or a particular Person without the second I will grant likewise 't is impossible in certain Cases for the whole Body of a People to be mistaken in the News it relates tho to speak the truth even this happens not seldom there being nothing more usually false than popular News But tho I grant this is Impossible in some Cases yet this is far enough from acknowledging that a People governed by certain Persons may not insensibly without any Noise alter their Sentiments and pass over into an Opinion which they knew not before For to make such a kind of Change as this is there needs only the Concurrence of two
Man whose Voyages are Translated into French by Mr. De Vicqfort speaking of these same Georgiens in Herbert's Voyages L. 2. P. 244. the City of Assepose saies he and thereabouts dwell near forty thousand Georgiens and Circassians who all of 'em profess Christianity but live most miserable Lives being Slaves and destitute moreover of all Knowledg of the Christian Mysteries only they have a great Veneration for St. George who was Bishop of Cappadocia and their Apostle AS to what concerns the Coptites they are said to be as Ignorant as any of Thevenot's Voyages Part 2. C. 75. the rest These Coptites saies Mr. Thevenot are a sort of very dul and stupid People so that there can be hardly found a Person amongst them who is fit to be a Patriarch Montconys after the same manner tells us that the Coptites Montconis Voyages P. 129. hold the heretical Doctrine of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and are very Ignorant in matters of Religion EUGENIUS Roger a Franciscan Fryer one of the Popes Emissaries Description of the Holy Land L. 2. in Barbary speaking of these Coptites tells us That this Nation is the most dull and Ignorant of all the Eastern Christians They are never heard to discourse concerning Divine Mysteries or Religious Matters The greatest part of their Priests can neither Write nor Read and seem to act with as little Reflection as bruit Beasts as far as I could perceive all the time I sojourned in Egypt He adds that the greatest part of the Religious who dwell in Monasteries in the Deserts of Thebes are extream Brutish and work like Horses Mr. De Sponde Bishop of Pamiez giving an Account in his Annals of a Spond Ann. Tom 3. Ann. 1561. pretended Union of the Coptites with the Church of Rome made in the Year 1561 Pius the fourth being Pope he tells us amongst other things that their Patriarch whose Name was Gabriel was a very ignorant Man and one of their Errors was they reckoned seven Sacraments and instead of those of Marriage Confirmation and extream Unction they substituted Faith Fasting and Prayer which they adopted into the Number of Sacraments The Armenians are no less Ignorant for Anthony de Gouveau tells us Gouveau's Relations L. 3. C. 3. P. 368. they are a Peope wholly Unlearned and Simple and that moreover David their Patriarch knew no more than only to Write and Read in his own Language which is adds he a thing very common amongst them JOHN Barbereau a Jesuit whom I already mentioned saies they are in Constantinople to the number of above sixty Thousand and are if possible more Ignorant than the Greeks They hold the same Errors with them and have a particular Heresy which distinguishes them from the rest Their Ignorance addeth he is so great that I have heard themselves say they never go to Church Forrain Lettors Let. 1. but when they Consecrate knowing neither the Use nor Design of that Mystery and who can instruct them in these things their Patriarchs and Prelates are busied in getting Mony like the Greeks that they may have whereon to live VINCENT le Blanc speaking of the Christians of the India's called the Christians of St. Thomas and who follow the Nestorian Heresy the Le Blanc's Voyages Part 1. P. 115. Christians of these Places saies he have still retained some part of the Instructions left them by St. Thomas but they are extream Ignorant in the principal Articles of Faith and know not how to sing in their Churches so that 't is a hard matter to keep them in any kind of Tune THE Inhabitants of the Isle of Socotora saies Du Jarric the Jesuit call themselves Christians being likewise Christians of St. Thomas that is to say History of the East Indias L. 1. C. 6. P. 84. Nestorians they very much honour and reverence the Cross They are all of them very Ignorant so that they can neither Write nor Read and 't is the same with their Caciques that is to say their Priests who having learned certain Prayers by rote sing them in the Church and often repeat a Word which comes near to our Halleluja THIS same Du Jarrick who wrote the History of the Reduction of the Nestorians of Malabar to the Obedience of the Pope which was brought to pass by Alexis de Meneses Arch-Bishop of Goa in the Year 1599 does sufficiently set forth the Ignorance of this People For he tells us that there was so great Confusion amongst them in respect of the essential form of Baptism that every Cacanar for so do they call their Priests baptised after a several manner and the greatest part of them addeth he cannot be said in any kind to administer the Sacrament seeing they use not Words essential thereunto So that the Arch-Bishop found one of the greatest Towns of this Bishoprick of Angomalé to have bin deficient in this important Point of our Religion whereupon he privately Baptised the greatest part of the People after a right and due manner He relateth moreover that there were several amongst them who were not Baptised at all and yet received the Eucharist which was a very common thing amongst them that they usually did not Baptise their Children till some Months or Years after their Birth and that there were some at ten or eleven years of Age Unbaptized That they were wont every Sunday to kindle a Fire in the middle of the Church and having cast Incense thereon every one drew near to take of the Smoak with his Hand with which carrying it to their Breasts they thought thereby their Sins were chased out of their Souls He adds that the Latin Bishop which was sent them after their Reduction visited several Places of his Diocess in which there had no Prelate bin for this thirty Years where he found such a Degeneracy both as to Points of Faith and Manners that most of them had no more of Christianity in them but the Name ALTHO the Maronites have bin long since reconciled to the Church of Rome yet are they not better Instructed than the rest Joseph Besson in his Treatise of the Holy Land saies They are striken with four Plagues worse than the Plagues of Egypt viz Ignorance want of Devotion Usury and Injustice they can scarcely be perswaded saies he that the second Person of the Trinity is the Son of God and that Jesus Christ who is God dyed and that God ever had a Son It is incredible say they with the Turks How can he have a Son seeing he was never married and if he was God how could he dye I could easily produce several Testimonies touching the State of the Moscovites Abyssins and Jacobites for their Condition is no better than the rest God having suffered all these Churches which were heretofore so favoured with the Light of his Truth to fall insensibly into so great Darkness that a man can scarce perceive the least Mark of Christianity amongst them There is not in
ruled the Church after their manner and drove away the Greeks whensoever they could do it with safety and as to the Rebellious and Obstinate Greeks who would not relent and embrace the Truth they severely punished them as they had done heretofore in the East and especially at Antioch He afterwards produces the Testimony of an Anonymous Greek Author which I shall here set down and so much the rather because of the Consequence which may be made of this History Since the Emperor Porphyrogennetu ' s Ibid. time to that of John Batatza ' s the Latins did nothing else but Plunder Cities and Islands They expelled the Orthodox Prelates from their Seats and substituted Cardinals in their Places who were of the same Belief with them And this they did at Constantinople Cyprus Antioch and other Cities and not content with this they constrained all the People not excepting the Priests and Monks to be of their Opinion and Communion and commemorate the Pope They were Friends to those that obeyed them but as to them that reprehended them they treated them as Hereticks and those that abhorred their Communion were punished openly even to the making them suffer Martyrdom and used in the same manner as the Kings and Tyrants handled the Primitive Christians Witness the holy Monks of the Isle of Cyprus whom they kept three Years in Prison because they would not Communicate with them Inflicting on them all manner of Torments and in fine not being able to make them acknowledg their Doctrine to be good being possessed with Rage they fastned them to their Horses Tailes and drew them over Precipices causing othres to be burnt alive John their Abbot having remained some time in the midst of the Flames calling upon God one of these furious Latins struck him down with his Mace into the Fire And thus did this Holy Man render his Spirit unto his Creator He farther adds that the Pope having sent some Monks as Spyes under pretence of a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem they saw the Patriarch Germain at Nice who complaining of these Cruelties received for Answer that the Pope was troubled thereat and if the Greeks would send any to make Peace they would be kindly received It was only saies he to deride and impose on us that they would have us send first to them as it were to accuse our selves and acknowledg our Error which plainly appeared afterwards by their Letters BUT to the end we may not think Leo Allatius who relates this Complaint of the Greeks is suspected by the Latins under pretence that he himself is a Greek by Birth it will not be amiss to see the Answer he makes If this Author saies he means the Greeks who remaining fixt to their Ceremonies embraced otherwise the Truth he is mistaaen For the Latins have Ibid. bin so far from driving them away that they have made use of them as often as they have Occasion If he means the Schismaticks and those that maintained the Errors of the Greeks he trifles for how can he imagine the Catholicks who are so Zealous for the Roman Church should suffer in a Country they had Conquered with the loss of their Blood the Greeks their Enemies and Adversaries to their Faith to live unpunished These erronious People must be reduced being Rebels to their own Faith not only by simple Banishments but by Fire and Sword And this is Allatius his Moderation which does not well accord with that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Latines BUT we need not oppose Allatius against him we need but hear himself to know whether the Latins did not use all manner of Violences to settle their Religion amongst the Greeks After the taking of Constantinople L. 3. C. 1. saies he the Latins possessed themselves of all the Churches they established a Latine Patriarch they filled Constantinople with Latin Priests they created a Latin Emperor who was Baldwin Earl of Flanders and prosecuting their Conquest in Greece they brought under their Obedience almost whatsoever appertained in Europe to the Emperours of Constantinople The Grecian Emperour fled into Asia having but three or four Cities left him which were all that for a long time remained under the Obedience of the Greeks Behold here then all Greece subdued not only to the Temporal Authority of the Latins but likewise to the Spiritual Authority of the Popes He adds a little after that the Popes Legats used such hard and rigorous Courses to constrain the Greeks to Communicate with the Pope that at length the Emperour Henry Baldwin ' s Successor was forced to take them off mauger the Legat Pelagus He tells us likewise L. 3. C. 7. in another place that Greece was at that time filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors as he himself calls them who had often performed this Office in France and Germany and signalized themselves by punishing an infinite number of Hereticks who made it the greatest part of their Skill to discover them and a great part of their Piety to have them severely Punished that these Inquisitors were in several places Masters of the Greeks and were ordered by the Pope to Confer with them and examine their Doctrine WERE not them of the Church of Rome fully perswaded of Mr. Arnaud's good Intentions towards them these historical Passages he has offered were enough to make him suspected For this deplorable Condition of Greece and all the East and the violent Means the Latins here used to plant their Religion for several Years together that is to say for near two hundred Years in the East and fifty eight in Greece might well introduce amongst these People the Belief of a substantial Conversion and there is methinks more reason to admire if this has not hapned than if it hath WE are not yet gotten to the end of Mr. Arnaud's Histories He tells L. 3. C. 7. us three things worth our Observation The first is that altho Constantinople was retaken from the Latins by Michael Paleologus yet they kept still several places in Greece and even whole Provinces as Achaia Secondly that the Latines were still Masters of divers great Islands as Cyprus Crete Eubeé Rhodes and divers other Places Thirdly that the Necessity the Emperours of Constantinople lay under of obtaining the Assistance of the Western Princes caused them to keep a continual Correspondency with several of them and to be in sundry particulars subservient to the Latins which remained at Constantinople so that there was always a great number there who made Profession of the Romish Religion Here is then the Latins again not only mixt with the Greeks in their ordinary Commerce but in several places their Lords and Masters and in a fit Capacity to make them receive their Religion LEO Allatius tells us likewise that when the King of England had Possessed De Perp. Consens L. 2. C. 15. himself of Cyprus and given it to the King of Jerusalem that he might
in the other there are several particular points expresly determined by the Church of Rome propter diversas Haereses a quibusdam ex ignorantia ab aliis ex malitia introductas by reason of certain Heresies introduc'd by the ignorance of some and Malice of others Now 't is under these last points that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained which plainly shews that this Doctrine was proposed to them as lately defined by the Church of Rome and of which those People had at that time no certain Knowledge MR. Arnaud then must seek elsewhere for Proofs whereon to ground his pretension touching the Antiquity of the Opinion in question and I will not stick to affirm he must be an extraordinary Person if he can solidly acquit himself of what I have lay'd before him and in all which I defie him to produce a false Quotation He has been shewed five remarkable deceits whereby he has imposed on the World in concealing whatsoever was necessary to be known in order to a right understanding of this Controversie and in turning to a vain and unprofitable use whatsoever concludes directly against him He has been shewed the profound Ignorance wherein these People have lay'n from the eleventh Century to this present and the fond Superstitions reigning amongst them which makes them very unfit Judges of our Controversie He has been shewed the miserable condition of these Churches in respect of Temporals and the Violences offered them by the Latins to make them change their Religion We have represented him with the Persecutions they suffered from their own Princes upon this account We have observed all these Countries ore-spread with Monks and Emissaries time out of mind and that without interruption to this day We have represented him with a particular account of what the Emissaries do and what the Seminaries contribute towards the making them receive the Roman Faith And in fine we have shewed him that one of their chiefest cares for these People was to make them learn the Mystery of the Substantial Conversion Now after this whether they do believe it or not it is an indifferent matter in respect of the main of our Controversie So that it only now lies upon me to vindicate my own particular Reputation that is to say whether I have rightly or no affirmed that they do not believe it and which I shall demonstrate by God's Assistance in the following parts of this Work and that in such a manner as I doubt not but will satisfie all reasonable Persons BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation CHAP. I. The Question stated and M. Arnaud's sixth Deceit manifested IT may be remembred that at the beginning of this Dispute touching the Schismatical Churches I undertook to prove the truth of of these three Propositions First that when Mr. Arnaud shall prove what he pretends concerning these Churches since the eleventh Century to this present yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in the Christian Religion or the change in question impossible or that it hath not actually hapned Secondly That the true Greek Church and others which the Latins call Schismaticks never reckoned Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Belief nor the Adoration of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies Thirdly That whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative is void and ineffectual and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends I have already made good the first of these Propositions in the preceding Book and shall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this present that I may thereby accommodate my self to Mr. Arnaud's Method And as to the other Greek Churches I shall treat of them in my fifth Book But it is first necessary to lay down the true State of the Question to the end that what we undertake may be the better understood and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected Who continually wanders from the point in dispute supposing impossibilities proving impertinencies and confounding what ought to be distinguished WE must know then there are two sorts of Greeks the one reunited to the Church of Rome who acknowledge the Popes Jurisdiction and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council living in Peace with the Latins The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs having their Communion apart and separate from the Latins And this I suppose Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny seeing that in their Observations on the Request of M. the Archbishop of Ambrun they have themselves made this distinction of the Greek Catholick Church and the Greek Schismatical one It is needless to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact so well known In effect the Endeavours of the Latins to subject the Greeks to themselves have not been wholly fruitless for besides that in Greece it self and other Patriarchates they have acquired a great number of Persons and intire Families besides this I say there are whole Nations which observe the Decrees of the Council of Florence and live under the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome who yet still observe the Rites and Customs of the Greeks We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy Rome Venice Tuscany the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples which are called Italian Greeks we may also bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians For Allatius testifies that not only all these do observe the same Ceremonies as them of the East but that the Pope likewise obliges them to an Observance of them and therefore maintains a Greek Bishop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode to hinder 'em from receiving them in the East from the hands of Schismaticks We must likewise comprehend the Russians which inhabit black Russia and Podolia under the Government of the King of Poland who submitted themselves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the last Century Arcudius commends Sigismond the Third for that he did not only sollicite but in a manner Arcud Epist. ad Sigismond constrain them to make this Union ut ad Romanam says he hoc est ver am Dei Ecclesiam se adjungerent excitasti ac pene dixerim impulisti Our Question does not concern them their Submission to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Dispute I expresly excepted them when I denyed that the Greeks and other Christians held Transubstantiation and Adored the Sacrament having said in plain terms except those that submit themselves to the Pope SECONDLY We must remember that one of the chief Advantages Answer to the first Treatise towards the end the Church of Rome makes of these forementioned Seminaries and Emissaries in Greece is the gaining of Proselytes and instructing young People in its Doctrines to use them afterwards for the Conversion of
man that writes things on such slight grounds as he does nor so easily exposes his Reputation in asserting matters of Fact of whose untruth he is lyable to be convinced by every one that can read For not to go farther we need but read to find in the fourteenth Page of the first Treatise that the Author proposes to himself to make any man confess who is not extreamly obstinate by the evidence of truth it self that the belief of the Church of Rome touching this Mystery is the same with that of all Antiquity Now every body knows that the belief of the Church of Rome reaches as far as Transubstantiation We need but read moreover for this purpose the eighteenth and nineteenth Pages of the first Treatise wherein the Author of the Perpetuity being desirous to shew us the universality of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome tells us that Lanfranc having explained the Catholick Doctrine in these terms We believe the Terrestial Substances of Bread and Wine being divinely Sanctified on our Lord's Table by the Ministry of the Priests are CHANGED by the ineffable Operation wonderful and incomprehensible Power of God into the Essence of the Body of our Lord adds farther Behold here the Faith which the Church dispersed throughout the whole World which is called Catholick has held in all Ages and does at this time hold and that he confidently repeats this in the twenty second Chapter and presses Berengarius to inform himself of the Sentiments of all the Christians in the World in the East and West Ask the Greeks Armenians and generally all Christians of what Nation soever and they will all of them tell you they hold the same Faith which we profess We need but only read to be satisfied that the Author of the Perpetuity produces afterwards the Testimony of Guitmond in the same Sence and for the same end he cited that of Lanfranc to wit to prove that the Greeks and other Schismaticks do believe Transubstantiation and that in the twenty second Page he makes this remark That Guitmond does not only apply what he say's to the Opinion which is contrary to the Real Presence but likewise to the Doctrine of the impanation which is that of the Lutherans which clearly shews us that this Testimony of Guitmond respects not only the Real Presence but likewise Transubstantiation In fine to be ascertained in this matter we need but read what the Author of the Perpetuity immediately adds in his twenty third Page after he had alledged that passage of Guitmond All the Books of the Schismatical Greeks say's he which have come to our hands since that time do clearly testifie they held the same Opinions as the Church of Rome touching the Eucharist After this Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us that although the Author of the Perpetuity speaks only in his first Treatise of the Real Presence and contents himself with asserting that this Doctrine was held by all these Schismatical Churches Yet Mr. Claude turns aside the Question upon Transubstantion which Point this Author does not precisely Treat of What means then I pray these Quotations out of Lanfranc and Guitmond which he has expresly produc'd to shew that Transubstantiation was believed by the whole World both by the Greeks and Armenians and generally by all Christians Certainly Mr. Arnaud does himself an irreparable Injury thus to maintain things without consulting and examining them flattering himself with the hopes of being believed upon his own bare word That which has deceiv'd him without doubt has been this That he has observed in the Treatise of the Perpetuity that the Author having produced his Argument touching the Schismatical Churches in the manner already mention'd that is to say positively in reference to Transubstantiation passing afterwards to the proposing of some Arguments by which he pretends to shew that the Mystery of the Eucharist is distinctly known by all the Faithful and that an insensible change is a thing impossible he restrains himself to the Real Presence but there is a difference betwixt these two points and Mr. Arnaud ought to have considered this a little better I say then that in this Dispute of the Greeks and other Christians separated from the Roman Church the question concerns Transubstantiation and not the Real Presence as well for that the Author of the Perpetuity has expresly mentioned Transubstantiation in his first Treatise as I come now from observing and for as much as I plainly kept my self in my first Answer to this Doctrine alone and that of the Adoration whereupon it follows that the Debate has been precisely continued on these two Articles Yet do I here declare to avoid all Mistakes that altho our debate at present is not concerning the Real Presence yet do I not yield to the drawing of this consequence from hence that I acknowledge this Doctrine is believed in the Greek Church in the same Sence as the Latins understand it This is not my Opinion and I shall say no more of it but that this point is not the Subject of our present debate It will appear perhaps in the following parts of this Discourse what ought to be believed touching this matter it not being needful for this to alter the State of our question BUT besides the Observations I now made we must likewise observe that it does not concern us to know whether the Greeks do expresly reject Transubstantiation or whether they have made it a point of Controversie betwixt them and the Latins but the question here is whether they do positively believe it or no. For there is a great deal of difference between Peoples absolute rejecting of a Doctrine that is to say the making thereof a point of debate and the not receiving and reckoning it amongst the Articles of their Faith Our debate concerns only this last I mean whether the Greek Church as it stands separate from the Latin professes the Doctrine of the Substantial Conversion or not This is the true state of the question Mr. Arnaud maintains the affirmative and I the negative so that we must see now who has the reason and truth on his side Yet let me tell him that designing throly to handle this Subject he ought to have laid down all these distinctions and leave the Reader at his own liberty to judge of them But instead of this there is never a one of these Articles which I now mention'd that he has not manifestly perverted 1. He makes advantage of all those Parties which have been made from time to time either by the Violence and Authority of the Greek Emperors or by the Intrigues of the Latins for the Re-union of the two Churches 2. He makes use of the Testimony of Persons won to the Roman Interest such as Emanuel Calecas Bessarion John Plusiadenus Gennudius Scholarius Baronius Spatarius Paysius Ligardius all of 'em Persons manifestly engaged in the Opinions of the Church of Rome as shall be shewed him in the Sequel of this debate 3.
Roman Church having wrote a Book particularly against the Protestants to perswade us that the Greeks are at agreement with the Latins as to what concerns the Sacraments in all essential Points I cannot then otherwise alledge Arcudius than to confront him with himself concerning some Truths and Matters of Fact which do now and then escape him after the same manner as I would quote Cardinal Perron and Bellarmin and Mr. Arnaud himself not as witnesses that believe what I would conclude but as Persons who affirm things from whence I conclude what they themselves do not believe And thus does Mr. Arnaud quote Mestrezat and Daillé and sundry others of our Authors Now 't is evident that when the Testimony of an Adversary is alledged in this respect a man is not obliged to set down what has been his Sentiment at the bottom nor to relate all the words which may make it known for this piece of impertinence would be good for nothing but to tire the Reader 's patience and trifle away the time It is sufficient if what is alledged from them be true Mr. Arnaud therefore has very unjustly accused me seeing I published this illustration in my Answer to Father Noüel which altho well known to him yet has it not stopt him in his carreer concealing my Justification neither more nor less than if I had said nothing IT only then remains to know whether what I alledged from Arcudius be sufficient to conclude that the Greeks adore not the Eucharist notwithstanding whatsoever the same Arcudius has elsewhere asserted Which is what I take upon me to maintain He say's that when the Priest consecrates the Gifts Arcud lib. 3. cap. 21. in saying this is my Body this is my Blood he then shews them little or no respect at all he bows not his head neither does he adore them nor prostrate himself before them nor lights Candles nor makes any Reverence Mr. Arnaud answers the question concerns not the Adoration in it self but the time of the Adoration Book 10. chap. 9. that we must distinguish betwixt a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite or Ceremony that the first is one and the same both with the Greeks and Latins because it chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward Submission which both one and the other do as soon as the Consecration is performed that as to what concerns the second the Latins immediately perform it after the Consecration and the Greeks later to wit at the Elevation of the Hoste which is done a little before the Priest disposes himself to communicate THAT we may examine this Answer we must lay aside this voluntary Adoration of which he speaks for it has no other foundation in relation to the Greeks than his bare word or at most the Proofs he supposes he has given of their Belief touching the real Presence but this is what 's in question and we cannot yet suppose the solidity of his Proofs To colour over this pretended distinction of a voluntary Adoration and an Adoration of Rite he should shew us that the Greeks do give at least at some time to the Eucharist immediately after Consecration this honour he calls voluntary and that in their intention this is a sovereign honour But to tell us as he does that this honour chiefly consists in acknowledging the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ with an inward reverence and to perswade us the Greeks do this is a plain abuse for what is this but a setting us upon penetrating into mens hearts and guessing at their thoughts Those that have this inward reverence to the Eucharist do certainly shew it by some outward Sign and the Greeks shewing none Mr. Arnaud cannot ground what he say's on any thing unless it be upon some particular revelation he has had of this matter SACRANUS Scarga and Caucus who lived amongst the Greeks were ignorant of this pretended inward reverence for had they known any thing of it they would not have been so positive in asserting the Greeks do shew no Reverence Respect or Adoration to the Eucharist after its Consecration nor would they call them as they have done Heretical and Prophane People Even the Greeks themselves who answer'd Caucus there was no command which enjoyn'd this Adoration knew nothing of this This inward Reverence had its residence and operations in their Souls and yet they knew nothing of it for had they known it they would never return such an Answer None but Mr. Arnaud knew this secret but if he gives us not other Proofs it is to be feared his voluntary Adoration will be taken for one of his own private conceits WE must come then to this Adoration of Rite or Ceremony which is used as he say's at the Elevation of the Hoste and see whether it is an Adoration of Latria which terminates in the Sacrament it self Now I cannot but admire these Gentlemens Ingenuity with whom I am concerned The Greek Liturgy has these words That the Priest and Deacon adore three times in saying thrice with a low voice O God be propitious unto me a sinner The Author of the Perpetuity would have these three Adorations refer to the Sacrament Second Part. chap. 5. pag. 254. wherefore he say's that the Priest adores and the Deacon likewise three times in the place where they are in saying thrice softly Lord be propitious to me a sinner My Answer was that I found in Goar ' s Book of Rites and Answer to the second Treatise part 2 c. 8. Ceremonies not this Term of Lord but that of God which shews that this Adoration terminated it self in God and not in the Sacrament Mr. Arnaud who cannot deny this Truth leaves out the Priest's Prayer which discovers his deceit and contents himself with alledging these words of the Liturgy then the Priest bows and the Deacon likewise and a little while after the People in Book 10 ch 9. p. 7. general do reverently bow Leaving it to be believed that these Adorations do certainly terminate themselves in the Eucharist But he ought to proceed sincerely it is true that then the Priest and Deacon do adore but it is likewise as true that their Adoration addresses it self to God in these express Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O God be propitious to me a sinner from whence 't is plainly apparent there can be no such thing concludedas the Adoration of the Eucharist AS to Arcudius's Testimony who tells us that the People prostrate themselves on the ground as soon as they hear the Priest say Sancta Sanctis Holy Things are for Holy Persons and that they adore the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria we need not be much concerned thereat being a Person prepossessed and one who testifies of a thing whereof he is altogether ignorant Goar in not in S. Joan Chrysost Miss pag. 153. Arcudius say's Goar altho a Greek knew very little of the Rites of
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
their Faith as well as their Communion In effect the Terms of the Greeks are for the most part of 'em general and altho the Latins do abuse them in their Disputes to make us thereby believe they hold the substantial Conversion yet when the matter in the main relates to their own interest out of the Dispute they do not then find them sufficient for the forming a true Idea of Possevin Bibliot select lib. 1. this Conversion seeing there has been made an express Article touching this Point conceived in the Terms of the Council of Trent This is so true that when they send into the East those that have been educated in their Seminaries they make 'em sign this same Formulary to the end they may not fail to labour at the propagation of this Doctrine It is no longer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Change Mutation Conversion there is not enough in this to make a good Catholick it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Change of Substance Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud torments himself to make us acknowledge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the common expressions of the Greeks But that he may avoid this trouble hence forward let me only advise him to consult Pope Gregory the Thirteenth for it was by his Order this Formulary we mention'd has been compiled CHAP. XI The Two and Twentieth Proof taken from an Answer in Manuscript of Metrophanus Critopulus to some Questions offer'd him by Mr. Oosterwieck The Three and Twentieth is another Answer in Manuscript of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus and Hieroteus Abbot of the Monastery of Cephalenia The Four and Twentieth is the Testimony of Jeremias a Doctor of the Greek Church The Five and Twentieth is the Testimony of Zacharias Gerganus WHILST I am endeavouring to defend the Truth against the vain Subtilities of Mr. Arnaud I hear that several pious and learned men who cannot indure the World should be thus imposed on do interess themselves in this Dispute and having read this Famous Book I examine they have wonder'd its Author should with such confidence affirm that the Greeks believe the Transubstantiation of the Latins Some of 'em have sent me some Manuscripts which they judged proper for the clearing up of this Question I will produce them then here naming the Persons from whom I receiv'd them to the end if any doubt arise they may address themselves to them from whom I had them for their satisfaction MONSIEUR Spanheim a Reverend Minister and Divinity Professor in the University of Heydelberg sent me an extract of a Manuscript he has by him containing Seven and Twenty Answers made by the same Metrophanus Critopulus whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter to so many Questions that were put to him by Monsieur Oosterwieck who was then in the East and was so curious as to inform himself not concerning the particular sence of Metrophanus touching these Articles but of the whole Greek Church in which he then held a very considerable rank being Patriarch of Alexandria One of these Questions was thus expressed in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I desire to know the Opinion of the Greek Church touching these Articles of the Christian Faith The Three and Twentieth Article has for its Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Sacrifice of the Mass to wit whether Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament The Answer is this We call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice but a Sacrifice that is spiritual and commemorative spiritual as having nothing of carnal in it according to that of our Saviour the words which I speak to you are Spirit and Life Commemorative as being perform'd in remembrance of the Sacrifice once offer'd on the Cross according to that other expression of our Saviour do this in remembrance of me Which is what is taught by Saint Chrysostom and the whole Church saying this is done in remembrance of what was done then do this say's our Saviour in remembrance of me We offer not any other Sacrifice as did heretofore the High Priest under the Old Testament but we offer every day the same or to speak better we commemorate this Sacrifice But we never believed Christ was bodily present in the Mystery Had the Greek Church believed Transubstantiation it was here a fit place to declare it and to reply yes we do believe that Jesus Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament inasmuch as that the proper Substance of his Body lies covered under the Accidents of Bread or some such like equivalent thing It will be to no purpose to alledge that Metrophanus means Christ is not corporally in it that is to say after the manner of visible and sensible Bodies with all their Dimensions for this would be to make him return a captious Answer and such a one as is unbecoming an honest man seeing he well saw this was not the Question askt him and that the Term of corporally in the Question propounded respected the proper Substance of his Body So that the force of this Testimony cannot be evaded This Metrophanus was Patriarch of Alexandria in the Year 1642. THE said Mr. Spanheim imparted to me the Answer of Meletius Metropolitan of Ephesus made some twenty years since to the Divines at Leyden touching some Questions they proposed to him They askt him amongst other things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether we may pray to Angels or the Virgin Mary and religiously worship them and whether we must believe the Bread to be transubstantiated in the Sacrament Observe here what he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I declare say's he there are none of these things to be believed for I may not believe the Doctrines of men before those of Christ and his Apostles The Superscrâ—â—tion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adjoyning unto which is the consent of Hierotheus in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I Hierotheus an Archimandrite Abbot of Cephalania am of the same mind in all things here above contained with the most holy and prudent Metropolitain of Ephesus and all Asia according to what he has declared DR Benjamin Woodroff an Eminent Divine in the Church of England and Chaplain to the Duke of York has favour'd me with an Extract whose Original he has by him and which was given him by its Author being then at Oxford It is a Declaration of the sence of the Greek Church drawn up by a Greek Doctour named Jeremias Observe here its Contents The different use of the Mystery of the Eucharist having produced different Sentiments some celebrating it with unleavened Bread others with that which is leavened and kneaded some believing it to be only a Sign others that the Bread is changed and alter'd by the Word Those that believe the change are the Western People which administer this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and all the rest hold the Sign except the Eastern People For the Eastern Church differs from both
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
Rome Now I maintain this is not only possible but most probable whence it follows that Mr. Arnaud's Argument is neither Conclusive in genere necessario nor probabili as the Schools speak when we nearly examine it I. To shew this I first of all produce the Example of the Church of Rome it self which condemns not several Opinions which she knows are held by particular Persons and even by whole Societies too under her Jurisdiction and yet does not receive them nor approve of them She keeps Silence in their respect for Reasons best known to her self yet would not have it argued from her Silence so resolutely as Mr. Arnaud does from that of the Greeks The Question whether the Infallibility resides in the Pope or Council has remain'd hitherto undetermined several Persons still debate it and we know which side the Court of Rome favours yet we cannot positively say that they have condemned or opposed as an Error the Opinion of those who prefer the Council above the Pope and yet they will be loath men should argue from their Silence How long has the Church of Rome suffered the Sentiment of the Dominicans touching the Conception of the Virgin without opposing or condemning it altho she does not approve of it This Consequence drawn by Mr. Arnaud is so little solid and if I may say the Truth so captious that Innocent the X. advised us not to abuse thus the Silence of Persons for in his Constitutions wherein he condemns the five Propositions supposed to be taken out of Jansenius his Writings he expresly declares that altho he has only condemned these five Propositions yet he would not have any Man think he approves by his Silence the rest of that Book If I say then that the Greeks in disputing only on some Articles never pretended to approve by their Silence on the rest of the Religion of the Latins much less in particular of the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I assert nothing but what may be judged Reasonable from the Church of Rome's own Example and Maxim of Pope Innocent himself IT will not be amiss to observe two things in these Examples I now instanced the one that the Point before us is concerning what passed in the very Bosom of the Roman Church between Persons that belonged to it and whom she is obliged to instruct and reduce into the right way and ' thother that she had just cause to fear lest under the Favour of this Toleration the Error would communicate it self to several Persons and in fine the whole Body of the People be infected with it Now the first of these things has no place in reference to the Greeks for the Point before us does not concern an Opinion sprung up in their Church but in a forrain and separate one and over which they pretend no Jurisdiction As to the second thing I confess had the Greeks reflected as they ought on this their Silence they could not but perceive that the Latins who make advantage of every thing would not fail to indeavour the bringing in of Transubstantiation into Greece under the benefit of this Silence and take from thence occasion to perswade simple People that the two Churches are agreed in this particular But how manifest soever this Danger was it is clear that that wherein the Church of Rome ventures her self in suffering those Opinions to take root which she tolerates in her own Bosom is yet more evident and yet notwithstanding she remains Silent Which shews the Vanity of Mr. Arnaud's Consequence For if the Roman Church can suffer Opinions in the very midst of her which she does not approve why cannot the Greeks use the same Forbearance towards an Opinion of the Latins and if we may not conclude from the Church of Rome's not opposing a Doctrine that she holds it or teaches it why may we not make the same Conclusion in respect of the Greeks II. IN the second place I instance in several other important Articles wherein the Greeks do not agree with the Latins and yet we do not find they made them a matter of Dispute any more than Transubstantiation For Example the Greeks believe the Pains of the Damned are eased by the Prayers of the living They farther believe that so great is the efficacy of their Prayers that they sometimes deliver these Wretches absolutely from their Torments and rescue them from Damnation They are say's Allatius extreamly found of this Opinion that the Prayers of good People profit the Infidels Allat Diss 2. de lib. Eccl. Grec and those condemned to eternal Misery and that they are eased and sometimes wholy delivered by them Which he proves by several Passages in their Triode which is one of their ecclesiastical Books and other their most famous Authors The Latins are of a contrary Opinion It is certain say's Bellarmin that the Prayers of the Church are beneficial neither to the Blessed Bellarm de purg lib. 2. C. 18. in Heaven nor Damned in Hell but only to the Souls in Purgatory Which Doctrine is held by all the Schoolmen that follow St. Austin ' s Opinion Yet do we not find the two Churches ever made a Point of Controversy thereof or charged one another with Errour about it We do not find this Question was agitated when the Unions were in hand whether in the Council of Florence or elsewhere nor mention made of it in the Confession of Faith which the Popes so often sent them in order to an agreement THE aforesaid Allatius observes another Opinion of the Greeks which has some Relation with that I now mention'd For they believe that when Allat Diss 2. de Pentecost our Saviour descended into Hell he preached his Gospel to all the Dead as well to the Damned as Saints and saved from amongst them all those that believed in his Word and raised them up It appears from the Passages produced by Allatius as well out of their Pentecostare which is one of their Church Books as other Writings that this is their Opinion Whereas on the contrary 't is evident this is not the Opinion of the Latins for they look upon it as Erroneous and Heretical None of the damned Souls say's Bellarmin were delivered For Philastrius and St. Augustin say 't is Heretical to assert Bellarm. de Christi anim lib. 4. Cap. 16. that any of the Wicked were converted and saved by Christ's preaching in Hell Allatius adds that St. Ireneas and Epiphanius condemned this Errour in Marcion and that Gregory the I. who lived towards the end of the sixth Century censured it likewise as an Heresy in the Persons of George and Theodorus Allat Diss 2. the one a Priest and th' other a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople Now altho the Difference which is between the two Churches on this Article is manifest yet we do not find they made thereof a Controversy or that the Authors on either side wrote one against another on this Subject nor
remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but mentions not a Word of Confession Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiastical History their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place where their common Devotion brings them do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession nor that of Confirmation as appears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject he I say that believes these latter are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sacraments THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites and purging their Books from some Thom. a Jesu lib. 7. part 2. c. 7. Errors which were common to them say's he as well as to other Eastern Nations that is to say other Christians in that Country they found they misunderstood some Passages of Scripture and especially that touching the Institution of the Sacrament this is my Body They affirm say's he that we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins 't is the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption or such an Interpretation of the Words of Christ seeing 't is only on the literal Sence of these Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded I shall prove in its place as clearly as 't is possible to prove a thing of this nature that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation nor the substantial Presence This Truth will be plainly manifest and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion or made thereof a Point of Controversy Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it because they do not make thereof a Controversy AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument and discover the weakness of his Consequence But we must proceed farther for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable to wit that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation altho they never disputed against it I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity but even no Probability I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century till this present For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre James de Vitry Belon Cottovic Anthony Caucus Francis Richard Allatius du Loir Thevenot and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter I moreover produced the Testimonies of Bozius and Thomas a Jesu All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century There are Barlaam Epist 1. Bibl. patr Tom. 2. Edit 4. say's he few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it to which they willingly apply themselves All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Salvation So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith there are Millions ignorant of it Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book writes I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People for I know their Ignorance Epist ad Wittemborg in Epist Virro erudi and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith whom they Combat not with Arms but Patience and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops and therefore I continually upbraid them with it but to no purpose The Jesuits making their advantage thereof have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth and are like Foxes amongst Geese It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading written since Photius's time excepting some few Histories and Collections of the antient Canons the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy and some pittiful Treatises wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word without any Art or Sence almost II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present for there can be nothing imagined more dreadful and miserable Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate continually accompanied with Misfortunes or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers by means whereof Greece became divided into Factions and horrible Confusions In the Year 1034 Romanus Argirus Peteau Rat. tempor ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid. the Emperor having lost Syria was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit He lost Sicily and Bulgaria and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopted one Michael Calaphatus and made him Emperor but four or five Months Ibid. after she caused his Eyes to be bored out and gave the Empire to Constantin Monomaque whom she espoused He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054 and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him who Reigned but one Ibid. Year After her came one named Michael Stratiotique who Reigned also but one Year Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place wherein he remained Ibid orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull Ibid. and mean Spirited Prince who suffered the Barbarians
have given the Confession of Faith which we observed in the preceding Book in which those Terms are found They have set 'em down in Latin in the Acts of the Reunion But in the Greek of these same Acts they have contented themselves with the general Expressions of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as we have already seen They have not quarrelled with them about 'em for Reasons not hard to be understood and which we shall see hereafter and when the Proselytes and Scholars of the Seminaries found their Terms were not receiv'd they became angry thereat but on the contrary accomodated themselves to others We cannot then wonder if this Conduct has kept the Greeks from discussing any farther the Differences which separate the two Churches They agreed in the general Expressions that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into his Body and the Latins required no more THE Snare lay hid under this Complyance and this Conduct kept off the Greeks from all Inquiries For for to find the Difference there is between the Doctrine of the Greeks and that of the Latins and make a right Judgment thereon we must not lightly and superficially examine them seeing they require an application of Mind and Study We must read Latin Authors compare them with the Doctrine of the Ancients and with that of the Greek Church and not suffer our selves to be surprized with false appearances but consider the two Doctrines themselves and especially their Consequences to find wherein they differ For at first Sight the Difference seems not great They explain themselves sometimes in the like manner but their Consequences infinitely differ as has been observed in the last Chapter of the preceding Book Now how few amongst the Greeks have been able to go thro with this Discussion and of those that were capable how few were in a condition to make a right Judgment We have seen what Bozius said of 'em from the Relation of one Gregory that under the Empire of Andronicus he means I suppose Andronicus the younger in whose Reign the Re-union of the Churches was again proposed there was no Person to be found in all Greece that was able to Dispute with the Latins about Religious Matters Can it seem strange that People who could not maintain their ancient Controversies so greatly insisted on by their Fathers and which are as it were hereditary to them should neglect to discuss those new Doctrines I speak of and content themselves with keeping their own Belief without concerning themselves with that of Strangers X. MOREOVER we must consider that the Greeks have ever referred to almighty God the knowledg of the Change hap'ning in the Eucharist without offering to determine it This appears as well by their general Terms as by what I already related concerning the Confession of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria and the profession of Faith compiled for the Sarracen Proselytes from the Prayer in their Euchology the Judgment which Nicetas made on the Conduct of the Patriarch Camaterus and the Dispute of John the Patriarch of Jerusalem When then they hear the Latins who determine the manner of this Change saying 't is a real Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine we must not find it strange if they contain themselves in their generalities and neither Receive nor Condemn this Doctrine Whether they do well or ill in this I shall not here determine But howsoever 't is in no wise strange that People of that Temper the Greeks are of should thus deport themselves I have already observed elsewhere that he that shewed himself most forward amongst them was the Patriarch Cyrillus for he proceeded so far as to a positive Rejection of Transubstantiation and yet he rejected it only under the Title of Rash 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say's he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation rashly invented ALL which things being considered let any Man judg whether what I say concerning the Greeks not expresly opposing the Doctrine of the Conversion of Substances altho they did not believe it be not grounded on all imaginable Probability and whether on the contrary Mr. Arnaud's Consequence how surprising soever it may seem at first is not in effect void of all kind of Probability They have lived time out of mind in most stupid Ignorance They have been overwhelmed in Confusions and oppressed with domestick Misfortunes They have been continually urged by their Emperors to comply with the Latins that they might thereby avoid their Displeasure and procure their Favour They have been perswaded that this Complyance will bring no Prejudice to their Religion They are moreover a People that were ever noted to be naturally more than others fixt to their temporal Interests preferring the Preservation of their Estates before their Religion They are not ignorant how the Roman Church resents it when accused of Error as appears by the Complaint of Cyrillus who speaking of the Latins say's that they obstinately defend whatsoever they do right or wrong let their Errors be made Epist. Cyrill ad Wittemb in Epist. Viror erud never so apparent That they maintain they can neither Err in Belief nor Practice and that which is yet worse they fly in the Faces of those that Christianly admonish them and shew them their Errors That they persecute such with Fire and Sword as if it were not lawful to repel the Injury they do to Christianity and to guard and defend our selves against the Evil. It appears in their ordinary Conversation how reserved and fearful they are of offending the Latins The Question of Transubstantiation is not to be found amongst their primitive and original Disputes They might likewise reasonably doubt whether the Roman Church determin'd it before the Council of Constance The Latins have not disputed with them about it but accommodated themselves to the form of their Expressions It is no easy matter for them to penetrate as far as the real Differences which distinguish the Doctrines of the two Churches And in fine one of their Maxims is that they may very well leave the Knowledg of the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto God without troubling themselves any farther about it Is it not nearer to Truth to say as I do that it does not follow these People believed Transubstantiation altho they have not made thereof a Point of Controversy and kept themselves in a kind of Medium neither Believing it nor Condemning it than to say as Mr. Arnaud does that if they have not opposed it nor disputed on it nor reproached the Roman Church with it as an Error it inevitably follows they have and do still believe it CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of Mr. Arnaud's Negative Arguments A particular Reflection concerning what past in the Treaties of Reunion and especially in the Council of Florence and afterwards THE more we consider the Principles on which Mr. Arnaud Reasons the plainlier appears the Nullity of the Consequence he pretends to draw thence
Change of Virtue signifies a Change of Substance by three Explications of which he gives us the Choice MOREOVER I know not why he should tell us that the Faith of the Lib. 2. c. 9. p. 288. Eaithful never separates the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body itself nor his Body from its Virtue For if he means this generally as his Expressions intimate he should remember what he said just before That Baptism contains the Virtue of Christ's Blood in the same manner the Ministers imagine this Virtue to be Ibid. p. 179. contained in the Eucharist He should have observed that in his Chapter on Nicholas Methoniensis he positively asserts that the Virtue of Christ's Body is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. communicated to the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation It seems to me here 's a manifest Contradiction for if the Faithful do not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self that is to say according as he understands it from the Substance of his Body How does the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation contain the Virtue of this Body seeing 't is out of Doubt that they contain not the Substance of them But whence has he learned such a profound kind of Doctrine that the Faith of the Faithful does not separate the Virtue of Christ's Body from the Body it self Does not this Virtue accompany the Word of God which St. Paul calls the Power of God to Salvation and in which notwithstanding there is not to be imagined a Presence of the Substance of Christ's Body Does he not know that the Fathers teach We eat our Saviour's Flesh as well in the hearing of the Word as in the Participation of Baptism which can only be understood of the Virtue separated from the Substance If Mr. Arnaud say's that he understands this as meant only of the Eucharist besides that his Terms are general and in manner of a Principle which he afterwards applies to the Eucharist besides this I say this does not at all resolve the Question seeing our Debate is Whether the Virtue of the Body is in the Eucharist together with the Substance or whether it be in it alone and without the Substance Wherefore must not the Faithful who acknowledg in other Particulars this Virtue without the Substance acknowledg the same thing in the Eucharist AND this is what I had to say to the Passage of Theophylact and which may likewise serve for an Illustration to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Nicholas Methoniensis This Author wrote a Treatise which is inserted in the Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Greco Lat. Bibliotheca Patrum under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ MR. Arnaud say's he finds the Ministers very much perplexed touching this Doubt But this is only an imaginary Difficulty For what Perplexity is Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 223. there in it These People doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ But did they doubt that the Bread and Wine were the Signs or Representations of the Body and Blood of Christ No this was not the Cause of their Doubt Did they doubt that 't was the Body of Christ in Virtue Should we take their Doubt in this Sence 't would not be such a strange Matter as Mr. Arnaud makes it He may declame if he pleases Why could not they believe Christ might morally communicate to the Bread the Virtue of his Body Is it a harder matter to communicate to the Ibid. Bread the Virtue of Christ's Body than to communicate it to the Water of Baptism and the Oyl of Confirmation This is but a Flourish for Palladius tells us that a Monk doubted of this very thing having had no Respect to Mr. Arnaud's Remonstrances He doubted touching the Gifts and said how can the Pallad Hist cap. 73. Gifts sanctify me St. Ambrose in his Treatise de Initiatis combats the same Doubts touching the Virtue of Baptism Is this then this great Mystery which Eye hath not seen nor Ear heard nor yet hath entred into the Heart of Man to conceive I see the same Water which I see every Day is this that which must cleanse me Mr. Arnaud must not imagine it is so easy a matter for weak and prophane Persons to believe a supernatural Virtue to be communicated to the Bread and Wine We have already seen that Cyrillus of Alexandria and Ely de Creté having told us that God changes the Bread into the Virtue of his Body add that we must not doubt of it seeing Christ himself say's it which shows that this is as much a Subject of Doubt as any thing else BUT there is no necessity of expounding in this Sence the Doubt of those of whom Nicholas Methoniensis speaks His Expressions must not be altered They doubted whether the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of Christ and this Doubt arose from the general and usual Expressions of the Greeks who positively affirm it What can be concluded hence The Greeks then understand these general Expressions in a Sence of Transubstantiation or real Presence I deny it and that with Reason for this does not follow But it will be replied these Doubters at least believed their Church took them in this Sence and 't is likely this was the Occasion of their Doubt Which I also deny for if these were their Thoughts why did they not tell us so Why could not they say they doubted of the Truth of this Doctrine that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ To what purpose so many Words This Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ offended them and which way soever they turn'd it it could not seem to them capable of a rational Sence Whether this Doubt arose thro want of a thro-Consideration or whether in effect they had examined the matter or had considered the Proposition either confusedly in it self or in the Exposition the Greeks gave of it is more than we know for Nicolas Methoniensis say's nothing of it and we cannot inform our selves elsewhere This is a matter of Fact on which every Man may make his Conjectures but yet this Principle must remain undenyable that their Doubt arose from this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and not from this other the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud shew us if he pleases how it happens that between these two Doubts which Theophylact and Nicolas Methoniensis propose there arises never a one touching the substantial Conversion for supposing the Greeks believed it it could not be but some must doubt and say how is the Substance of Bread changed into that of the Body of Christ even as they say'd how is Bread Flesh How is Bread the Body The Languages which
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
Eutyches and Dioscorus and Severus and Timotheus Aylurus and in general all those that have opposed this Council This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council much less in his Church But 't is likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour and which occasioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church but his own particular for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation a mis-understanding or at most but a question concerning words which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions IT appears then from what I have said that Eutymius and Isaac were neither Impostors nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so certain now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins that is to say the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose CHAP. III. The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question and needs not to be confirmed by others yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Transubstantiation nor the real presence THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms The Guido Carmel suma de Heres de Her Arm. Cap. 12. Twenty second Error says he of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pronounced on the Bread and Wine the Body of Jesus Christ is truly and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood but established them only as a resemblance and figure And in another place Arguing against their Opinion The Armenians says he have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass to wit and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ They thus expound them the true Body that is to say the true resemblance of the Body but this exposition will not pass because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ as the Image of a Man is not a real Man Man is the true Image and resemblance of God but he is not true God by Nature if then this be only the resemblance and not the truth or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say it cannot be called the true Body The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony ask e'm why they can give you no other reason but this That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken 'T is indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a Religious who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions as a most trusty Servant and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days being Prior General also of his order Inquisitor General of the faith and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence were he not well assured of it What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22 that is to say in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys and especially Armenia Raynald ad ann 13. 18. whose King Ossinius embraced the Roman Religion receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony bethought Perp. of the faith part 3. Ch. 8. himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstantiation Despensus Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him and 't is likely he grounded himself on their testimony But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up and the Authority of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity I will not dissemble says he that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable and therefore has chose rather of his
fall who separate from the Raynaldus ibid Numer 18. Church of Rome That innovators howsoever have no reason to glory in the Antiquity of their Heresies nor bragg for the seducing of the weak that the Armenians and other Eastern People have the same sentiments with them For altho they hold some of these Errors yet do they not admit them all but differ from the Armenians in very considerable matters That the Divine justice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with these Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians This is not a proper place to Answer Raynaldus in 't is sufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold all these Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict in the instructions of Clement and consequently that they deny'd Transubstantiation and the real Presence WE may then reckon as a IV Proof the testimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's and the Catholick of Armenia's The 5th shall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the instructions he gave to the Armenians in the Council of Florence forgot not the Article of Transubstantiation the form says he of this Sacrament consists in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament The Priest speaking in the Eugen. ad Calcem Concil Flore◠Person of our Saviour Christ do's the same For by the virtue of these words the substance of Bread is changed into his Body and the substance of Wine into his Blood so that Jesus Christ is intirely contain'd under the species of Bread and Wine and is intire under each part whether of the Consecrated Host or Consecrated Wine even when the species are separate Mr. Arnaud say's 't is not usual to propose Capital Points of Controversie in this manner That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles nor are so lightly passed over but considered established and strengthened But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope established and strengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol which he injoyn'd them to receive altho a controverted Point How did he confirm the Article of the two Natures in Jesus Christ but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo Upon what Reasons did he ground the Article of the Remission of Original sin in Baptism when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error as appears by the information of Benedict XII What Proofs did he bring to shew 'em that the Consecration of the Eucharist is made by the words of our Saviour when the Armenians believ'd the contrary as we may see in the same information These kind of Remarks which are usual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them Eugenius is excusable let Mr. Arnaud say what he will he thought it no wise necessary to insert common Places in his Decretal nor to be so scrupulous in observing Heads or Tails like such as view the Dragon in the Firmament He design'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought henceforward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Bishop of Pamiez in the Passage I have related Now the Article of Transubstantiation being expresly mention'd therein 't is a sign the Armenians did not believe it CHAP. IV. Testimony of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation and the real Presence THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Proposition I defend is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion who have bin so far from questioning Guy Carmes's Testimony that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their suffrages We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldensis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century and a zealous Defender of Transubstantiation who writing against Wicliff calls the Armenians Nepotes Berengarii Berengarius his Children or Disciples I mention 'em says he to the end we may have a care of ' em And therefore also Guy Carmes speaking of them says that the Twenty Second of their Errors is that after the Consecration Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30. the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in Representation and Figure That Jesus Christ did not really Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in Resemblance and Figure PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred Prateolus Elench haeret pag. 63. in Armen art 12. years since testifies the same thing They deny says he speaking of the Armenians the true Body of Jesus Christ to be contain'd really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and Wine BZOVIUS an Historian of our time and a continuer of Baronius has Bzoviusad an 1318. Num 16. not scrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point He observes as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Heresies That the true Body of Jesus Christ is not under the species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers in that confused heap of Coccius Thes Cathol tom 2. pag. 601. Collections he has made of passages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points follows Guy Carmes and relying on his Testimony assures us That the Armenians deny the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ affirming it to be only a sign thereof THOMAS à Jesu who has made strict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schismatical Eastern Churches has thought as well as others he Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. part 1. C. 17. ought not to deviate from the sentiment of Guy Carmes nor that any man has Reason to doubt of the Truth of his Testimony He relates and approves it and says That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Heresies p. 349. DR Avily in his computation of Heresies both Modern and Ancient has likewise follow'd Guy Carmes and assured us from his Testimony That the Armenians teach Christ's Body is not really under the Bread nor his Blood under the Wine HOW comes it that these Authors who appear otherwise so zealous for the Interests of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended mistake of Guy Carmes Why should they suffer themselves to be so grosly imposed on or to speak better whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation how comes he to be better informed than other People WE shall in the following Chapter search into the Grounds of his Opinion and the Proofs he brings only mentioning here several Protestants whose Testimony is the less to be suspected in asmuch as what they wrote was not all design'd for our controversie We have already seen in the Discourse about the Moscovites that
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
when he says he that eateth not my Flesh nor driuketh my Blood altho this may be understood of the mystery yet the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it applies it self likewise to a thing which is not another but only by imputation Chrysostom speaking of a poor body and calling him a man corrects Chrysost hom 11. in Rom. immediately his expression as if it were not just A man says he or to speak better Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter Brixius has thus rendred Hominem autem seu verius dicam Christum ipsum In effect this correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes the sence of Chrysostom is that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man and yet it cannot be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance He is only so by imputation inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and morally The Church says he is taken in two respects either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfection of vertues which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus or rather of Turin who was an Author of the 8th Century has inserted word for word in his exposition of the same Epistle The Church says he which has neither spot nor Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl allâ—gor in Tobiam wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ The same expression may be met with in Bede As our Lord says he is the Head of his Church and the Church is TRVLY his Body so the Devil is the head of all the wicked and the wicked are his body and members IN all these examples I now alledged concerning the Gospel the Poor and the Church Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ or his Body stand for a figure nor that these things stand for figured truths For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man and the Church to speak properly is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Poor are truly Jesus Christ Whence it follows there 's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Gospel truly this Body nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure as a figure is really the thing it self which it represents he can hence conclude no more but this that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ without any regard to its substance that 't is matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so vehemently urge those terms and pretend 'um to be such a great argument For example those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites and Manichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body and allowed only a phantasm might not they say of the Eucharist that 't is our Lords true Body to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one such as these Hereticks attributed to him in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix or another image of our Saviour that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour who called the Bread his Body might not they likewise say 't is truly his Body not to determine the sense of these words but to establish only the certainty of them and represent 'um true beyond all question in the same sense in reference to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death our Burial and Resurrection with Jesus Christ to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true being rightly understood SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it and communicated only faintly the virtue of it might not they say in comparing them with our Eucharist that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ to signifie that it gives us a true lively distinct and perfect Idea of it that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful and makes it fell all the virtues of it in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure Pass we says he from Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. old things to new and from the figure to the TRVTH There Moses was sent from God into Egypt here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Father is come into the world There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel here the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot or wrinkle protects us against the Devils There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea here the Devil pursues us as
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
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
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
between Mr. Arnaud and us Paschasus Ratbert a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th Century was according to us the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist He treats of these Points in three different places of his works in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord in his Commentaries on the 26th Chapter of S. Matthew and in his Letter to Frudegard Book 8. ch 8. page 36. Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a pure work of fancy But adds he as mens fancies are very different that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge as not thinking 't were their interest to set ' emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century So that this same Paschasus against whom they pronounce such woes was at first in another course of fancy one of their best friends Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers to make Calvinists of whom they please Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly and takes him for one of the witnesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th Century Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain and the Council of Francfort but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse First seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him no not in one point I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point if we cannot in more Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus we shall not dislike it for he maintains his own sentiment but let him give us leave to tell him that Paschasus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts and all Roman Catholicks with him SECONDLY 't is not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation The Author of the Orthodox Treatise Page 479. touching the Eucharist Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist Lib. 9. Ch. 6. was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substantially in the Bread and Wine Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass ch 8 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we Sententia said he according Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Dom. to Lanfranc imo vecordia vulgi Paschasi atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis vini BUT 't is needless to cite Authorities when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore sanguine Domini his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew and his Letter to Frudegard will find First That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed absolutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin which died and rose again altho the colour and savor of Bread and Wine still remains Secondly That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity so he will have his substance to be in our flesh Thirdly That he held and taught that the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body must be understood neither of the figure of his Body nor his Body in the Sacrament nor of his Body in virtue but of his Body born of the Virgin Crucified and Risen in propriety of nature Fourthly That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary Fifthly That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be Sixthly That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church IT hence methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence and the same substantial conversion as Gregory VII and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church and that this truth cannot be call'd in question Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred that the Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express or uniform but that there are here and there several passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity acording to Damascen's Doctrin Mr. Arnaud must grant me this seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fathers Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been deceiv'd by these passages have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have entred into a more exact scrutiny of him especially considering that this opinion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment and that also of his whole Church WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator that is to say whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach Mr. Arnaud affirms that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human His reason is
hoc quidam de ignorantia errent He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age. I say in the second place that whatsoever design Paschasus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time nor ever said the Bishops which then governed the Churches the Abbots Priests Religious and all learned men held the same language as he did and all of 'em unanimously confess'd that the substance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Masters that taught it Paschasus was far from asserting this HE keeps to three things to some passages of the Fathers to the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to a clause of the Liturgy which says Vt fiat Corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi And as to the passages of the Fathers having proposed 'em he concludes That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthusiastical rashness nor a young man's vision but that he offered these things to those who were desirous of 'em from the authority of the Word of God and the Writings of the Holy Fathers Now seeing adds he it appears that all men have not Faith yet if they cannot understand let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there 's nothing impossible with God and acquiesce in the Divine words without the least doubt of ' em For we never as yet read any have erred in this point unless those that have erred touching the person of Jesus Christ himself altho several have doubted or been ignorant of the Sacraments of so great a mystery Is this the language of a man that loudly glories in the consent of the whole Church Were he assur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief what need he justifie himself from the suspicion of Enthusiasm and pretences to Visions Are we wont to suspect people in this sort who say only what the whole world says and believes And designing to justifie himself why must he rather betake himself to some passages of the Fathers whose sense and terms he may justly be said to have corrupted than to the testimony of persons in his own time and to say if he was an Enthusiast or Visionary all the Bishops Abbots Priests Religious Doctors and Christians in general were so too seeing they all believ'd and spake as he did But instead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly received Nunc autem says he exinde quia claruit quod non omnium est fides He exhorts those who reprehended him to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impossible with God and to acquiesce in the words of Jesus Christ Discant quoeso cum talibus credere si adhuc nequeunt intelligere quod Deo nihil est impossibile discant verbis divinis acquiescere in nullo de his dubitare WHEN then he adds that hitherto 't was not heard that any person erred on this subject unless 't were those who had erred touching Jesus Christ himself Quia usque ad proesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt He would say that till then no body had contradicted the Doctrin of the Fathers leaving it to be understood that then 't was contradicted because they contradicted his which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers So far we do not find him boasting of the consent of the Church in his time for we see on the contrary several things which sufficiently denote that he was far from doing it AS to the passages of the Liturgy and words of Christ he says that the Priest prays in the Canon in these terms Vt fiat Corpus Jesus Christi that all the People cry Amen and so the whole Church in every Nation and Language confesses that 't is this she desires in her Prayer Whence he draws this consequence Vnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum contra omnem Christi Ecclesiam Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur ubique omnes nniversaliter verum esse fatentur Let those then that had rather contradict this than believe it consider what they do against the Lord himself and his whole Church It is then a great fault to pray with all people and not to believe what the truth it self attests and what all do universally and every where confess to be true His Argument is a Sophism which amounts to this Our Saviour Christ says 't is his Body and the whole Church confesses the same But they that at this day deny that 't is his Body in propriety of nature deny that 't is his Body Therefore they contradict Jesus Christ and his Church Who sees not but there is a great difference between reasoning in this manner and positively assuring that the whole Church believes 't is his Body in propriety of nature I will have this says Mr. Arnaud Page 852. to be only a consequence Are not Authors persuaded of the truth of the consequences which they draw and do they not offer them for true as positively as their principles Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange The question is not whether Paschasus was persuaded of the solidity of his consequence or not but whether we ought to be persuaded of it our selves and take it for a testimony touching the publick belief of his time Mr. Arnaud should know that when a man testifies of a matter of fact and afterwards draws thence by way of argument and consequence another fact he is no farther credible in respect of this latter but only as his argument or consequence appears just to us If I say for example that Mr. Arnaud confesses in the first edition of his Book That 't is possible the faithful knew not always so expresly Book 6. ch 1. and universally whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament and I from hence draw by way of argument and consequence this proposition That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Transubstantiation was not anciently an Article of Faith in the Church My testimony in respect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my consequence will be good 'T is the same here Paschasus assures us that the whole Church in his time called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying these words Vt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui So far he acts as a witness we must believe him Whence he draws this consequence That those that do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of
all the Faithful universally believed and held distinctly according to Mr. Arnaud As all Christians believe the mysteries said he three pages before so they likewise all believ'd the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it They all then believ'd that 't is the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which he assum'd of the Virgin and which is now in Heaven and that the substance of the Bread is converted into it yet without any change either in the tast or colour of the Bread What has Paschasus done to make 'em more mind it Those mens minds adds Mr. Arnaud which are not sufficiently humble are apt to startle and endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to shun the difficulties which they cannot bear Whence should this startling come supposing they believed of the Eucharist what is commonly believed at this day of it in the Church of Rome Did they never hear say before that they received in the Communion the proper substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and buried nor that the substance of Bread is converted into this substance If 't were a novelty as to them they did not then believe Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence for 't is precisely in these ideas wherein these Doctrins do consist and if it be this particular manner of proposing the mystery which affrights them it must be necessarily acknowledg'd either that they were strangers to these ideas before or that they had been till that time very stupid and drowsie seeing they felt not the least trouble about it altho they had 'em always before their eyes whereas now a simple proposal of the same things without any objection without exaggeration affrights and constrains them to find out by their reason ways whereby t' avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear And then they commonly set upon him who proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful Which is to say that they then lose their senses For 't is mere madness to set particularly upon Paschasus who only proposed to 'em in a manner the most simple imaginable if we will believe Mr. Arnaud without either Preface says he artificial method or disguise what the whole Church believ'd and what they believe themselves Even sometimes these ill opinions are already formed Here Mr. Arnaud acknowledges one part of the truth For the truth is that these people here mention'd never heard of the novelties of Paschasus They knew only that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in Figure in Sacrament and in Virtue as they themselves explain'd their sense about it and this was the true cause of their astonishment and the only reason for which they accus'd Paschasus of Enthusiasms and Visions But let Mr. Arnaud explain if he pleases in what manner according to him these persons lived in the Communion of the Church They turn'd to their own sense says he most of the common expressions How happens it Mr. Arnaud who but the last moment could not suffer me to say Paschasus abused an expression of the Church and turn'd it to another sense now comprehended well enough that this whole Party turn'd to their sense most of the common expressions He that told us that Paschasus would be a mad man should he make use of this expression had he known the Church understood it in another sense will grant at present that these persons accommodated the greatest part of the Churches expressions to their sense without troubling ' emselves with the sense wherein the Church understood them Mr. Arnaud's Argument is like Aristotle's prima materia capable of any form at divers times Does his interest require the Churches expressions to be abused This may be done there are reasons for it Does the same interest require that it be a sensless thing to abuse 'em This cannot be and the reasons on the contrary are not wanting For in fine either these people were ignorant of the true sense in which the Church understood these expressions or they were not If they were ignorant of it Paschasus might be as well ignorant of it as they If they were not ignorant of it and yet abused it Paschasus might as well do the same contrary to his own knowledg They turn'd to their sense most of the usual expressions It seems that Mr. Arnaud by this supposes there were some of these expressions which might be turn'd by them Yet he adds And hence it happens that if any other person in following the ordinary notions makes use of any terms which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they charge this person with rashness This discourse thus couch'd has no coherence for if amongst the ordinary expressions there remain'd still some of 'em which they could not reduce to their sense why must they set upon Paschasus in particular who not only follow'd the sense of the Church but also her expressions to wit those which were too plain and full to be perverted Why must he then be accused of rashness 'T is evident Mr. Arnaud stood upon Thorns when he wrote this Answer A reason must be given why these persons before us reprehended Paschasus in particular and accused him of being a rash person Now there cannot be naturally any other but this That Paschasus had proposed a new Doctrin in the Church which was never before heard of having asserted the Eucharist to be the same Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin dead and risen again Mr. Arnaud to avoid the making of this Confession supposes there were a party in the Church that did not believe the Real Presence he will have these persons turn to their sense the common expressions but not being able to do the same with that of Paschasus this was the reason why they set upon him in particular and accused him of rashness To make this answer pass currant it must be necessarily supposed that the expressions of Paschasus were peculiarly of this nature that they could not be turn'd to the sense of these people and that this was their particular character which distinguish'd them from all the common expressions for a reason must be found why they set particularly upon Paschasus as a rash person and this reason must be something that was singular in Paschasus But to acknowledg this frankly and clearly Mr. Arnaud must engage himself in terrible ill conveniencies for this would be an acknowledging there was not any thing in the common expressions of the Church at that time which was expresly for the Real Presence and which might not be turn'd to another sense which is to say that all the common expressions were general equivocal and ambiguous By this means he would have exposed himself to abundance of questions as amongst others to these Whence Paschasus could know the Church believ'd the Real Presence seeing all her expressions were capable of another sense Whence he
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
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
Author of it This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes for supposing 't were true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca which is that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's and not Ratram's yet 't is certain what he says of the person of this Bertram or Ratram for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name is on our supposition that 't was the Religious of Corby Whether he admits our supposition as believing it in effect to be true or whether he admits it merely thro condescention 't is needless to inquire for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true which he does not he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author to wit that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings which suffices to justifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers Mr. ARNAVD's second complaint is that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin ' s Book an excellent piece which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs and his Proofs into Objections Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words intermixing several common places of raillery alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question to distinguish and argue in mood and figure and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable WERE it worth our while 't would be easie to shew he deceives himself in whatsoever he offers But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles we shall only say if either he or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery it does not follow that others have been so too We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections and Objections into Proofs is a conception so rare and well express'd that 't is hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter Moreover there 's a great deal of difference between saying that to discover the falsities of a Book we need only to confront the passages of it with the Originals and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs The confrontation of passages is the juster means the most natural and most ordinary to discover falsities but the change of Proofs into Objections and Objections into proofs is a kind of world turn'd upside down We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd 't would be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side there being few of them but what consist of Proofs and Objections and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary which are called Objections We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs and of Answers to Objections and this is what cannot be changed so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs yet would he be perplexed by these instances and answers and consequently must acknowledg he has lost his time and pains and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abused him Mr. ARNAVD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity He proposes it in his 9th Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable He ascends his tribunal and thence pronounces this sentence against me that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130 1131. of an heinous crime such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction I is says he again a detestable calumny an abominable crime the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches this is no jesting matter He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence If he has express'd himself thus thro incogitancy I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world and if he has done this with mature deliberation I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was and am certain there 's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding I protest before God with a sincere heart that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me I have answer'd his Book and am therewith content But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute which the publick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure and having discrediied it I say with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him What reason has he for such a passion I wrote these words in my Book God will one day shew who they are that wrong his Answer to the second Treatise part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter Church the light of his judgment will discover all things yea and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance and then 't will be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome and regaining peoples favour for when the face of things shall be changed this worlds wisdom will be useless Here is my crime this the spark that has set all on fire We Book 11. ch 9. page 1131. understand says he this language and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself and what interpretation his words will bear He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persuasion but out of policy and for worldly respects For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united if he believes what he says we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defended So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly respects is to charge him with not believing what he writes and to give this account of it THIS passion is a strange thing Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat he would have
the year 1080. seeing it is certain he lived till the beginning of the 12th Century But it does not follow from the error of Vossius that he was posterior to William This Continuer clearly denotes that he was Contemporary to Guitmond now Guitmond preceded William of Malmsbury for this latter wrote in 1142. whereas the other died about the end of the 11th Century or at the beginning of the 12th That if there be found several things alike in this Continuer and in William it is more reasonable to say that William has taken from the Continuer than to say the Continuer has taken from William and that the rather because William has enlarged his History farther than the other by thirty years which is the natural Character of a later Historian BUT supposing William of Malmsbury be the first who has spoken of the Martyrdom of John Scot this does but the more confirm the truth of this History for writing as he did in the very place and in the same Convent wherein what he relates hapned 't is just to believe that in this Narration he has offered nothing but what was grounded on authentick Acts or on a Tradition which in his time pass'd for an undeniable truth in this Convent IT is to no purpose for the Author of the Dissertation to distinguish what this William of Malmsbury has taken from the ancient Monuments of his Church and what he has added thereunto of his own He ought not thus to make of his own head this distinction on an Historian of the 12th Century and to tell us precisely here 's what he has taken from the Monuments of his Church here 's what he has added thereunto of his own There was one John that suffered Martyrdom and was reputed a Saint this is of the ancient Monuments of the Church of Malmsbury but that this John was John Scot is an addition of William This distinction of our Author is bold enough and was in effect unknown to Simeon of Durham to Roger de Howden to Matthew of Westminster and to all those other Historians which I have already denoted who all certainly believ'd that the Martyrdom of John Scot related by William of Malmsbury was a truth of History which is beyond question HIS telling us that William was the first Historian who gave to King Alfred two Masters of the name of John the one surnam'd the Saxon Abbot of Aetheling the other surnam'd Scot and since a Martyr First William does not say formally that this was two different men John the Saxon and John Scot nor that one was surnam'd the Saxon and the other Scot he says only in one place Joannem ex antiqua Saxonia oriundum and in another Joannes Scotus Neither must one necessarily conclude from his discourse that he regarded them as two different men as will appear if we take notice of what he wrote and of the occasion which has oblig'd him the first time to make mention of this John as it were transiently reserving himself to speak of him more amply afterwards as he has done But when we should suppose that William would distinguish these two Johns this makes nothing to th' establishing what he relates of the Martyrdom of John Scot's being a fable of his own invention on the contrary this very thing would help to establish that knowing two Johns and distinguishing them he must have better known what ought to be said of both one and the other Neither can it be said that he made two Johns Tutors of Alfred for when he speaks of John who was Abbot of Aetheling he does not say that he was the Tutor of Alfred he says this only under the name of John Scot. AS to what the Author of the Dissertation has remark'd that Anastasius in his Letter written to Charles the Bald in 875. seems to speak of John Scot as of a man already dead which shews that he was not the Tutor of Alfred seeing that this Prince gave not himself to learning till in the year 884. Neither is it moreover likely that so Religious a Prince would make use of such a man as John Scot who was decried as an Heretick driven out of th' University of Paris at the earnest pursuit of Nicolas I. as holding Doctrins contrary to the principal Fundamentals of Christian Religion I answer first That our Author returns continually to his fabulous History as if John Scot could have been driven out in the 9th Century from the University of Paris which began only in the 12th Secondly It is certain that Anastasius speaks of Erigenus as of an holy and famous man Virum says he per omnia sanctum which does not shew that he was thought then unworthy of being the Kings Tutor nor that he was decried at Rome for an Heretick Thirdly Seeing that John Scot was very much esteem'd by Charles the Bald he might be so too by Alfred Son of Aetelwolph Son in law to Charles the Bald. And in effect William of Malmsbury testifies that he had seen the Letters of Alfred wherein this Prince treated John Scot with great esteem and affection Alfredi munificentia ministerio usus ut ex scriptis Regis intellexi sublimis Melduni resedit and this is a mere mockery to make these Letters pass for fictious ones fram'd by the friends of John Scot and Berenger Fourthly It is not true that Anastasius speaks positively of John Scot as of a man already deceased and supposing it were he might think so by reason of his great age or some false report of his death In fine our Author absurdly supposes that Alfred did not betake himself to learning till the year 884. he has faln into this mistake for want of considering that altho Asserus and some of those that have follow'd him have attributed to this year what they have said of the Piety of Alfred and his applying himself to learning yet this happens merely from their recapitulating what hapned since the year 868 till 884 as I have already observ'd NEITHER is there more strength in the Argument which our Author draws from some terms which William of Malmsbury makes use of in relating the History of the Martyrdom of John Scot. Hoc tempore creditur fuisse Joannes Scotus propter hanc infamiam credo taeduit eum Franciae à pueris quos docebat ut fertur perforatus martyr aestimatus est He pretends that these terms are doubtful fears and suspicions and that these ways of speaking are likely to make one doubt of the truth of this relation BUT all this deserves no answer First The Author of the Dissertation has mixt Simeon of Durham's Text which bears Propter hanc infamiam c. with that of William of Malmsbury who relates this fact as a thing evidently certain And in effect the first term creditur refers to the time wherein John Scot lived in England The second credo is added by the Author of the Dissertation being not the Text of Simeon of
THE CATHOLIC Doctrin of the EUCHARIST Written in French by the Learned M. Claude Veritas fatigari potest vinci non potest Etheâ— Bâ—â—â— 1683. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 London Printed for R. Royston THE Catholick Doctrine OF THE EUCHARIST In all AGES In ANSWER to what M. ARNAVD Doctor of the Sorbon Alledges touching The BELIEF of the Greek Moscovite Armenian Jacobite Nestorian Coptic Maronite AND OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES Whereunto is added an Account of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord Published under the Name of BERTRAM In Six BOOKS LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON Bookseller to His most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIV TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON AND One of His MAJESTIES most Honorable PRIVY-COVNCIL c. J. R. R. Humbly Dedicateth this TRANSLATION To the Worthy Gentlemen The MINISTERS and ELDERS of the CONSISTORY Assembled at Charenton Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren THE design of the Book which I here offer you being chiefly to invalidate those pretended proofs of Perpetuity wherewith men would set up such new Opinions as alter the purity of the Christian Faith touching the Holy Eucharist I have therefore reason to believe that this present Treatise will not prove unacceptable to you for altho the Religion we profess needs not the hands of men to support it no more than heretofore the Ark of the Israelites yet have we cause to praise God when we see that Reproach of departing from the Ancient Faith may be justly retorted upon them who charge us with it Ye will find here in this Discourse a faithful and plain representation of things such as they are in truth in opposition to every thing which the Wit of Man and the fruitfulness of Human Invention have been able to bring forth to dazle mens Eyes and corrupt their Judgments As soon as ever I had read the Writings of these Gentlemen whom I answer the first thought that came into my mind was that of Solomon That God made man Eccles 7. 29. upright but he had sought out many inventions And indeed what is plainer than the Supper of our Lord as he himself has instituted it and his Apostles have delivered it to us and what can be more preposterous than to search for what we ought to believe touching this Sacrament amongst the various Opinions of these later Ages and different Inclinations of men and especially amongst them who are at farthest distance from us These remote ways do of themselves fill us with doubts and suspicions and the bare proposal of them must needs disgust us and make us draw consequences little advantageous to the Doctrins which these Gentlemen would Authorize Yet I have not refused to joyn issue with them on their own Principles as far as the truth will permit me and if they would read this Answer with a free unprejudiced mind I am certain that they themselves will acknowledg the contrary to what they have endeavoured to persuade others I here offer you then Gentlemen and my most Honored Brethren this last fruit of my Labor first for your own Edification and secondly for a publick testimony of my Respect and acknowledgments All that I do or have done is justly due to you not only upon the account of the Right which ye have over me and my Labors but likewise because it is partly from your good Examples that I have taken and do still every day draw the motives which strengthen me in the ways of God and in the love of his Truth It is in your Holy Society that I learn the Art of serving the common Master of both Angels and Men according to the purity of that Worship which he hath prescribed us and at the same time how to work out my own Salvation as well as that of others And indeed what is it that a man cannot learn in an Assembly wherein all hearts and minds do unanimously concur in the practice of Piety and Charity which consists of persons who have no other aim but so to order their Conversations as to draw down thereby the Blessings of Heaven upon themselves and the people whom God hath committed to their Charge and render themselves worthy of the protection of our great and Invincible Monarch This Work would have been published sooner had it not been for three great Losses we have suffered by the Death of Mr. Drelincourt Mr. Daillé and Morus three names worthy to be had in everlasting Remembrance These persons have left us so suddenly one after another that we have scarcely had time to bewail each of 'em as much as we desired The loss of the first of these extremely afflicted us the loss of the second overwhelmed us with Sorrow and the Death of the last stupified us with Heaviness God having taken to himself these three famous Divines it was impossible but this work should be retarded But being now at length able to Publish it I therefore entreat you Gentlemen to suffer me to Dedicate it to you that it may appear in the World honored with your Names May the Father of Lights from whom descendeth every good and perfect Gift enrich you more with his Graces and preserve your Holy Assembly and the Flock committed to your care These are the ardent Prayers of your most Humble and Obedient Servant and Brother in Christ Jesus CLAVDE THE PREFACE THE Dispute which the first Treatise of the Perpetuity of the Faith hath occasion'd on this Subject of the Eucharist has made such a noise in the world since Mr. Arnaud's last Book that I have no need to give an account of the motives which engage me in this third Reply Besides it is evident to every one that the Cause which I defend and which I cannot forsake without betraying my Trust and Conscience obliges me necessarily to state clearly matters of Fact and maintain or refute those Doctrins which are debated between Mr. Arnaud and me AND yet whatsoever justice and necessity there may be for publishing this Work I am afraid some persons will be displeased seeing so much written on the same Subject for this is the sixth Book since the first Treatise of the Perpetuity has been publish'd besides two others of Father Nouet's and mine And these Tracts which at first were but small have since insensibly grown into great Volumes Yet for all this we have not seen what Mr. Arnaud or his Friends are oblig'd to produce as to the first six Centuries of which without doubt much may be said on both sides IF any complain of this prolixity I confess it will not be altogether without cause For altho the Controversie of the Eucharist is one of the most important that is between the Church of Rome and the Protestants and which deserves therefore to be carefully examin'd yet since it may be treated with greater brevity even this consideration of its
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