Nicetas Pectoratus and Theophilact Compare the Discourses of Urbain the Second in the Council of Plaisance of Innocent the Third in the Council of Latran of Thomas Aquinas and all the School-men and in short of the Council of Trent with what he alledgeth out of Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Zonaras Nicetas Choniatus Cabasilas and Jeremias and you 'l find on the one hand the conversion of the Substances clearly and plainly expressed and on the other no such thing I have already mentioned Mr. Basire an English Divine who had a particular Commerce with the Greeks and during the time he was amongst them carefully applied himself to the reading of their Books observe here then what he wrote me from Durham Decemb. 6. 1668. Dico 3. in specie Ecclesiam Graecam Transubstantiationem nullibi asserere neque voce neque re De publicis instrumentis puta Symbolis confessionibus catechismis c. intelligi volo quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem neque in eorum vel unico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocis ut rei ipsius priscis patribus Graecis prorsus ignotae vel vola vel vestigium Privatos eorum Doctores nil moror quoniam non sum nescius quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Graecorum hieromonachum in suam cathechesin quam mihi videre licuit Constantinopoli illam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intrusisse qui vel ideo verorum Graecorum censuram haud effugit The Greek Church does no where teach Transubstantiation I mean in their publick Symbols confessions and catechisms c. several of which I have upon this account carefully perused but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this Term of Transubstantiation or the thing it self signifi'd thereby which Doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers I matter not some private Doctors amongst them for I know that a certain Monk of the number of these false Greeks had secretly inserted the Term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transubstantiation in his Catechism which I saw at Constantinople but he was severely checkt for it by the true Greeks It will be perhaps replied that Mr. Basire is a Protestant and consequently to be suspected in this case but besides that he is a person deservedly honoured for his integrity and whose testimony cannot be question'd without the highest injustice and moreover a Divine and therefore not likely to mistake in things relating to his own Profession being a person of great Learning and one that dwelt long in those Parts and had not only the curiosity but likewise the means and opportunities to inform himself exactly in the truth of what he relates besides this I say Mr. Arnaud cannot justly reject his Testimony upon this only ground that he is a Protestant seeing he himself has produc'd the Letters of Mr. Pompone his Nephew and Mr. Picquet and the History of what passed at M. the Archbishop of Sens touching the Muscovits attested by Roman Catholicks BUT should I lay aside Mr. Basire's testimony that of Mr. Arnaud would serve my turn I suppose there 's no body doubts but that Mr. Arnaud has made all possible search into these matters touching the Greeks and 't is certain had he found any passages containing in express Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would not omit them Yet it is evident that whatsoever he has hitherto alledged which seems to intimate the conversion of Substances in all this long dispute which takes up half his Book is but a meer Sophism imposing on us by means of the reunion made between the Greeks and Latins by Michael Paleologus and some testimonies the ancientest of which bears date but from the year 1641. We shall examine these matters in their proper place and hope to undeceive mens Minds whatsoever impressions they may have made upon them In the mean time we may observe that instead of giving us express and clear proofs which are the only ones that can lawfully be produced on this subject he amuses his Readers with tedious Discourses wide Consequences and negative Arguments which at bottom conclude nothing For the Point in question relating to a Fact which ought to be decided by proofs of Fact we expect thereupon Testimonies conclusive in themselves without the help of Mr. Arnaud and the impossibility wherein he has found himself of satisfying the publick expectation is in it self an evident proof of the contrary of what he pretends But this will appear yet more plain by what follows in the next Chapter wherein we shall more fully discover Mr. Arnaud's imposing on the World CHAP. III. The Third Proof taken from that the Expressions used by the Greeks are general and insufficient to form the Idea of a substantial Conversion The Fourth that the Greeks only receive for Determinations of Faith the Decrees of the seven first General Councils The remaining part of Mr. Arnaud's Delusion laid open The Fifth Proof taken from that the Greeks in their Transactions with the Latins have ever kept to their General Expressions Mr. Arnaud's Eighth Delusion discovered THE Common Expressions the Greeks use in the explaining their Belief touching the Mystery of the Eucharist are these They call the Symbols the holy gifts the holy things the ineffable mysteries the body and blood of Jesus Christ the sanctified bread the particle or parts the pearl and the like They say that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ that it is made the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ that 't is the real Body of Jesus Christ AND to express this change they use the Terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to change Now 't is certain these expressions whether we take 'em severally or joyntly cannot form the Idea of Transubstantiation For besides that being general they are capable of several particular sences and are found indifferently used on other Subjects wherein there is no Transubstantiation imagined as may be justified by a thousand Examples if it were needful besides this I say our reason guides us never to attribute a particular and determinate sence to persons who explain not themselves otherwise than in general Terms unless it evidently appears from something else that they had this particular sence in their minds I confess that in this case that is to say if it appears they have had a particular sence in their minds we ought readily to take their Terms in this sence how general soever they may be but if they come not up to this we can give them no more than a general and undeterminate meaning We know for example that in the Church of Rome Transubstantiation is commonly believed when then we are told that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that 't is changed into the Body of Christ although these words are general yet do we immediately understand them in this particular sence that the Bread is changed substantially into the Body of Christ But had she not
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
the help of his Senses but his Reason he will turn it on every side and invent Distinctions which will signifie nothing as are the greatest part of them which have bin made on this Subject yet will he still keep firm to his Eye-sight and common Sense IT will be replied perhaps that unless we are extream Obstinate we cannot pretend our Proofs of Fact are of this kind which is to say that they have the certainty of our Senses for they are taken from the Testimony of the Fathers whose Faithfulness may be called in question by setting up this fantastical Hypothesis mentioned by Mr. Arnaud which is That all our Passages are false and invented by the Disciples of John Scot or else in saying that the Fathers are mistaken or some such like matter which may Lib. 1. Ch. 2. Pag. 1. make the Truth and Validity of these Proofs to be called in Question and moreover that our Passages are not so plain but they may well be questioned seeing there have bin great Volums written concerning them on both sides To which I answer in supposing two things which seem to me to be both undenyable by Mr. Arnaud we can pretend against him our Proofs of Fact have such a kind of Certitude as is that of our Senses MY first Supposition then shall be That the Writings of the Fathers are faithful Witnesses of the Belief of the Antient Church He cannot disagree with me in this Point for we have not receiv'd it but from them of the Church of Rome they produce it themselves and we use it only out of Condescension to them not having need as to our own particular of any thing but the Word of God to regulate our Faith in this Mystery of the Eucharist And when this Point should be questionable yet must then the Author of the Perpetuity put it out of Question by his refuting of it before he proposes to us his Arguments and not having done it we are at liberty to act against him on this Principle The other Supposition we must make is That we know very well what is the Church of Romes Belief touching the Eucharist and that we rightly apprehend it so that there is no danger of our Mistake in this matter and this is that which hath never yet bin disputed against us In effect we neither say nor imagine any thing on this Subject more than what we find in Books and hear discoursed on every Day which is that the whole Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and the whole Substance of Wine into the whole Substance of his Blood there not remaining any thing more of the Bread and Wine but their meer Accidents which are not sustained by any Subject and further that the Substance of our Saviour's Body is really present at the same time both in Heaven and Earth on all the Altars whereon this Mystery is celebrated that they which communicate eat and drink this Substance with the Mouths of their Bodies and that it ought to be Worshipped with the Adoration of Latria This is undenyable I say then on these Grounds we have reason to presume our Proofs of Fact are evident even to Sense it self For we read the several Passages of the Fathers which speak of the Eucharist our Eyes behold them and our Senses are Judges of them But there are not any of these Articles to be met with which do distinctly form the Belief of the Roman Church neither in express Terms nor in equivalent ones We are agreed in the Contents of these Articles and in what they mean we are likewise agreed of the Place where they were to be found in case the Antient Church had taught them We know likewise that it belongeth to our Eyes and common Sense to seek them and judge whether they are there or no for when a Church believes and teaches them she explains them distinctly enough to make them understood and we must not imagine they lie buried in far fetched Principles or couched in equivocal Terms which leave the Mind in Suspense or wrapt up in Riddles from whence they cannot be drawn but by hard Study If they are in them they ought to be plain according to the measure and Capacity of an ordinary and vulgar Understanding Yet when we seek them we cannot find 'em if they were set down in express Terms our Eyes would have discovered them had they bin in Equivalent ones or drawn thence by evident and necessary Consequences common Sense would have discovered them But after an exact and thorow Search our Eyes and common Sense tell us they are not to be found in any manner This altho a Negative Proof yet is it of greatest Evidence and Certainty After the same manner as when we would know whether a Person be at home we are agreed both touching the House and the Person that one might not be taken for the other and after an exact Search if a mans Eyes and Senses tell him that he is not there the proof of a Negative Fact hath all possible Force and Evidence Yet we are upon surer Terms for a man may easily hide himself in some corner of his House and steal away from the sight of those that seek him and therefore the Negative Proof serves only in this Respect to justifie we have made a full and thorow Search But if the Articles of the Romish Creed were established in the universal Consent of all Ages as is pretended it would not be sufficient they were hid in some one of the Fathers Writings they must near the matter have appeared in all of them whence it follows our Negative Proof is yet more certain by the Confirmation it receives from an Affirmative Proof which consisteth in that our Eyes and Senses find out many things directly Opposite to these Articles and these two Proofs joyned together do form one which appeareth to be so plain and intire that there needs nothing to be added to it And yet this is it which the Author of the Perpetuity doth pretend to strip us of by his Arguments But let him extend his Pretensions as far as he will I believe he will find few Persons approve of them and who will not judge that even then when our Eyes should have deceived us which is impossible after so diligent and careful a Search the only means to disabuse us would be to desire us to return to the using of them again and to convince us our Inquiry hath not bin sufficient we should at least have bin shewed what we our selves were not able to find For whilst nothing is offered us but Arguments they will do us no good we may be perhaps entangled with them if we know not how to answer them but they will never make us renounce the Evidence and Certainty which we believe to be contained in our Proofs of Fact WE are confirmed in this Belief when we consider the Nature of the Author
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
may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs and Difficulties brought against them and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture strength of Reason and plain Instructions of their Ministers may give to the mystical Expressions which were then in use These are things wholly different I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of He needed not be brought in question for this seeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter in the beginning of my Answer I affirm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers is in it self a way which is indirect preposterous and very tedious wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings These are my Words and Mr. Daillé has said no more and I do still affirm that if a man examines these Passages apart and protests he finds no obscurity in them we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and which resulteth from an exact consideration of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other is undoubtedly on our side whether these particular Passages which seem at first to be difficult are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them or when their Difficulty should remain it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the certitude of this general Judgment which I mentioned for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity they give us the like Examples in other Matters and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them and satisfy a mans Mind BUT he saith that neither the Romanists nor the Protestants have any reason Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of laâ—e the Discourses of the antient Fathers written by them upon other matters several years before What he saith is true for we should be to blame should we take them for declaratory Sentences But this hinders not but we may still conclude they held not Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because that if they had held these Doctrines they would not have expressed themselves as they do Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines that they held them â—ot Neither does this moreover hinder but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose when he undertook to shew this pretended Contrariety which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me But Mr. Daillé ' s Design saith he is to shew in general that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies and especially in that of the Eucharist Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it because these Difficulties he mentions do shew this way is long and troublesom and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps This I do not deny but on the contrary do ever affirm that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is necessary they would easily be able by the Guidance of common Sense to make this Evident and certain Judgment That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I. IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 't is because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance by making of them contradict one another But return we to the rest of our Observations CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Arnaud assures us viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé ' s Mind that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touching the Eucharist by the Writings of the Fathers seeing they are so obscure and intricate that it is a hard matter to make them agree cannot refuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity in case they judge them evident whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere on the one hand and on the other all they who cannot judge by themselves will acquiecse in these Proofs This Pretension is as ill grounded as the former For there being as I already said two Questions before us the one touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church the first of these which is that of Right respects in general all them of our Communion but the second for as much as it may be decided by History only respects them amongst us who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves So that the Prolixity Difficulty and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions whereon depends that of our Controversies seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought to satisfy their Curiosity neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs they will answer they have no need of it being satisfied with the Word of God and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church they will answer that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity and our Saviours Promises But if we proeeed farther and suppose it be enquired
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
in such a manner as shall be sure to render it unjust and odious IN the second place we need not doubt but this same Passion of the Emperors obliged several others to manage these Controversies and let go divers Articles as being but of small Importance All the Schismatical Greeks De Perp. Cons L. 3. C. 12. saies Allatius are not like minded towards the Latins some of them are more moderate than others making the Difference consist only in one or two Points others more Rigorous for whatsoever the Latins do which agrees not with the Ceremonies and Rites of the Greeks they Condemn and Reject as an Abomination He Confirms afterwards what he saies by a Passage taken out of Demetrius Comatenus which tells us that several moderate Greeks agreed with the Latins in divers Particulars acknowledging the proud and fierce Humor of their Nation which hath almost become Barbarous by their frequent Commerce with the Barbarians and that these aforementioned have only stuck at the single Article touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost Mr. Arnaud himself saies 't was L. 2. C. 10. P. 200. observed the Greeks were of different Dispositions in those times he means in the twelfth Century for some of 'em maintained the Latins ought to be treated as Hereticks and others blamed these Transports of Passion But 't is certain even the most rigorous amongst them only stuck to those Points which were openly debated by the two Churches amongst which the Principal were touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost and the Azymes The Constancy they shewed in Reference to these Articles sufficiently exposed them to the Hatred and ill Usage of their Emperors so that we need not descend to the Examination of other Particulars which broke not out into Disputes on either side NEITHER need we any more doubt but that several condescended to the Will of their Emperors upon this Consideration that altho they were Reunited to the Church of Rome yet should they suffer no Alteration either in the essential Parts of their Religion or Ceremonies and that there was no hurt in cheating these Latins by this Fancy of a Union which signified nothing at th' bottom but which yet would yield them great Advantage in their Affairs And this was the chief Reason which Michael Paleologus offered to his Clergy according to Pachymerus his Relation he shewed them saies he that the only Cause moving him to procure this Peace with the Latine Pachym Hist L. 5. C. 1. Church was to hinder those Cruel and Bloody Wars which threatned them and to spare his Subjects Blood That as to the rest they might assure themselves that after the Reunion their Church should remain as it was without any Innovation That he himself would take care of it That the whole Reconciliation with the Church of Rome might be reduced to these three Articles viz. The Primacy Appeal and Commemoration all which signified nothing if rightly considered For when saies he will the Pope come to Constantinople to take Possession of this Primacy who will make Appeals to end them in so far a Country who will Cross the Seas for this And as to the Commemoration of the Pope in our Patriarchal Temple and your other great Temple when the Patriarch shall Officiate there being prudent as you are can this appear such a strange thing to you Do you not know the Fathers have often made use of Dispensations and frequently submitted themselves for the publick Good Pachymerus adds that there were some in effect who let go these two Articles touching the Primacy and Appeals upon this Consideration that the Pope would have only the Name and Shadow of the thing but never enjoy the thing it self BUT in fine we need not question but this Carriage of the Emperors much encouraged and imboldned the Latins to endeavour effectually to insinuate their Opinions into the Minds of both Clergy and Laity under pretence of instructing and making them capable of this Union We know what a Religious Zeal can do and especially when 't is countenanced by Power and seconded by hopes of Success Had the Greek Church remained but some Years in this Condition it might be said that these have bin but slight and transient Attempts which have not had time to produce any great Effects But 't is certain that since the eleventh Century which is to say since the time Berengarius was last Condemned till now she has bin continually as it were under the Roman Yoke and they have had all desirable Opportunities to introduce their Doctrine of Transubstantiation and 't is a kind of Miracle if they have not obtained their Ends. For when men have had to do with an ignorant and gross People in matters of Religion as the Greeks are and have bin for a long time when Persons have had a familiar and ordinary Commerce with them and have besides all proper means to prevail on them as Power Authority Mildness the way of Instruction Fear Hope and moreover upheld by the Emperors Patriarchs and Bishops it is so far from being difficult to do what one will that 't is on the contrary very difficult not to do it Whence it follows that even when Mr. Arnaud should make it appear that Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Eucharist have bin established amongst the Greeks since the eleventh Century his Proofs would be useless and of no Consequence as to our Debate for it might always be answered that this Doctrine hath bin communicated to them by the Latins and the ways of this Communication are not hard to be understood Mr. Arnaud has bin very sensible of the truth of what I say and therefore was willing to relate himself the greatest part of these Historical Passages I mentioned But he has otherwise represented them to the end he might draw fruitless and impertinent Conclusions from them and by this means hinder us from making a just and right use of them This Deceit of his is like to that he has us'd in the foregoing Chapter WE shall in the insuing part of this Discourse overthrow his pretended Consequences It may suffice at present to observe the Circuit he has taken on purpose to divert his Reader from discovering the real Truth For I do not believe there is any rational Man but will judge that seeing these Doctrines appeared not in the Greek Church before these Disorders if they should appear afterwards they must be introduced by them This is a natural and plain Conclusion CHAP. IV. That the Monks and other Emissaries with which the Eastern Countries have bin for a long time Replenished do Invalidate the Proof taken from the Belief of these People Mr. Arnaud's fourth Deceit laid open MR. Arnaud's fourth Artifice consists in concealing from us the Care taken for several Ages to fill Greece Asia Egypt Ethiopia the Indias and in a word all the Countries wherein there 's any People professing Christianity with Religious and other Ecclesiastical Persons sent
but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with
Servitude by which the Sacrament links us to God The Body has nothing but what it derives from the Soul and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of the heart from the heart likewise comes its Sanctification as well that of the Virtues as that of the Mysteries If then the Soul has no need of the Body to receive Sanctification but the Body on the contrary of the Soul why then must the Souls which are yet cloathed with their Bodies be greater partakers of the Mystery than those stript of them We must be strangely prepossessed with prejudice if we do not acknowledge that this Author only establishes the sanctifying and spiritual Communion and not that of the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour for if we suppose the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in Sanctification and Virtue it is easie to comprehend what he means but if we suppose Transubstantiation how shall we then understand what he say's viz. that the Gift is indeed received by the Body but it immediately passes to the Soul and afterwards communicates it self from the Soul to the Body Does not the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the Mouth into the Stomack and does it not remain there till the change of the Species How then shall we understand him when he say's that our Communion with Jesus Christ is first established in the Soul For 't is certain that to judge of it in the sence of Transubstantiation it would be established on the contrary first of all in the Body which would be the first Subject that would receive the Substance of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. How shall we understand the Conclusion he draws from all this Discourse to wit that the Souls of the dead are no less partakers of this Mystery than those of the living for the living do communicate after two manners Spiritually and Substantially whereas the dead only in one How in fine shall we understand what he means in saying that the Body has no other Sanctification by means of the Mystery than that which comes to it from the Soul Is it no wise sanctifi'd by touching the proper Substance of the Son of God CABASILAS stay 's not here for concluding by way of Interrogation that the Souls cloathed with their Bodies do not more partake of the Mystery than those which are stript of them he continues to demand what they have more Is it say's he that they see the Priest and receive from him Cap. 43. the Gifts But they that are out of the Body have the great Eternal High Priest who is to them all these things It being he indeed that administers to them that truly receive Was there ever any man that betrayed such a want of memory as this man does should it be supposed he believed Transubstantiation Could he not remember that the living have not only this advantage above the dead to behold the Priest and receive from him the Gifts but likewise to receive the proper Substance of their Saviour Could not he call to mind that the Spiritual Communion remaining common both to the one and the others the Substantial was particularly to the living Moreover what does he mean in saying that as 't is Jesus Christ that administers it to the dead so it is he likewise that gives it to the living that effectually receive it Is it that the Priest who gives the proper Substance of Jesus Christ does not truly and effectually administer it Is it that this Substance which is called with so great an Emphasis the Truth and Reality and which Mr. Arnaud always understands when he finds these kind of expressions the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it I say that this is not a Truth MR. Arnaud can without doubt remove all these difficulties when he pleases and 't is likely he will find a way to reconcile them with the belief of Transubstantiation seeing he himself has heretofore written that God admits Of frequent Com. part 3. P. 725. us to the participation of the same Food which the Elect feed on to all Eternity there being no other difference betwixt them and us but only that here he takes from us the sensible taste and sight of it reserving both one and the other of these for us when we come to Heaven He will tell us there 's no body doubts but that he is of the number of Transubstantiators seeing he has with so much honour vanquished the Minister Claude and yet that what he has maintain'd is not contradictory to the discourse of Cabasilas I do verily believe his single Proposition has almost as much force as whatsoever I have mention'd from Cabasilas for if there be no other difference between the participation of the Faithful on Earth and that of the Elect in Heaven than that of the sight and sensible taste which we have not here nor shall have but in Heaven I do not see any reason wherefore Mr. Arnaud should so bestir himself to shew us that what we take by the Mouths of our Bodies and which enters into our Stomacks is the proper Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ seeing 't is certain the Elect in Heaven do not receive Jesus Christ in such a manner But it being no ways reasonable that what Mr Arnaud has said at one time contradictorily to what he has said at another should serve me as a Rule for the understanding of Authors all that I can do in his favour is this freely to offer him to lay aside the Proof taken from Cabasilas when he shall have made his Proposition to be approved of in the Court of Rome CHAP. VII That the Greeks adore not the Sacrament with an Adoration of Latria as the Latins do and consequently believe not Transubstantiation The Thirteenth Proof Mr. Arnaud's Eleventh Illusion VVE may I think already begin to doubt whether the Greeks have in effect the same Sentiments with the Latins touching Transubstantiation and whether the assurances Mr. Arnaud has given us thereof be well grounded He appears very brisk and confident in asserting this Point and behaves himself as a Person that has already conquered but 't is more than probable that these flourishes are the effects of that kind of Rhetorick which teaches men to put forth their voices in the weakest part of their cause to the end they may obtain that by noise which they could not by reason But howsoever it may now be demanded what will become of all those Historical Collections Arguments Attestations Consequences Keys Systems those confident Defies and Challenges to produce any thing which had the least appearance of Truth or Reason against his Proofs and in a word of all this great torrent of Eloquence and mundane Philosophy Aurae Omnia discerpunt nubibus irrita donant THE Proofs I have already produced do sufficiently confirm this but that which I shall farther offer will yet more evidence it
any Purgatory but Sigism Com. ver Moscov hold that every one after death goes to the place he deserves good People into a place of Serenity amongst Angels and the wicked into dismal and dark shades amongst terrible Devils where they expect the last Judgment that the Souls of the faithful know they are in God's favour by the nature of the place they are in and by the presence of Angels which accompany them and so the others on the contrary Goar testifies that Ligaridius a Greek Author of the Isle of Chios expounding Jacob. Goar in notis in offic Exeq. the meaning of those frequent Allelujas sung at the Funeral of the deceased say's They are sung as sign of joy that those who remain alive may rejoyce in that the defunct has happily left this miserable life and is now in possession of Everlasting Bliss IT appears then by this diversity that there is nothing so regulated on this Subject amongst the Greeks but that Cyrillus may assert the Doctrine contained in the Article before us without contradicting the general Belief of his Church Besides his Terms are not so strict but that they may be well accommodated with the Sentiment of those who affirm the Souls Enjoy not the Beatifical Vision or a perfect Felicity till the last Judgment and that hold there are three States of deceased Persons for he say's only That the Souls of the deceased are in bliss or misery and assoon as ever they leave their Bodies are either in Heaven or Hell which will bear this sence that Judgment is already passed upon them and that God has already shown them their condition which hinders not but it may be said that the damnation of the one is not yet perfect and the felicity of the others not yet compleated And this sence seems to be favoured by what Cyrillus adds immediately afterwards That every one is judged according to the condition he is in at the hour of death which seems to intimate that he would be understood to speak only of the Judgment and not of the full and perfect execution of this Judgment There are two things most certain in reference to the Greeks the one that they pray for the dead and th' other that they reject the Purgatory of the Romane Church Now Cyrillus touches not on the first of these and as to the second he agrees very well therein with his own People for he calls Purgatory an imagination not to be admitted So that Mr. Arnaud impertinently accuses him of contradicting the Greeks in the chief Articles of his Confession WE come now to Mr. Arnaud's third Objection which consists of two pretended condemnations of Cyrillus his Confession the one under Cyrillus of Berrhaea and th' other under Parthenius I have already discoursed of those two Pieces in my Answer to Father Nüet wherein I have shewn they are suspected to be fictious But if the Reader will not trouble himself with consulting what I have elsewhere written touching the matter he may here behold a Compendium of my Reasons I. ALTHO these Narratives have been often printed there has been no body yet that has taken upon 'em to own and warrant the Truth of them to the Publick There is one of them printed from a Manuscript sent from Rome and th' other from an Edition printed at Jasi in Moldavia published by a certain Monk named Arsenius It seems to me there ought to be greater assurance given than what we have already seeing it is not sufficient to authorize so important a matter as the Determinations of two late Councils the one in the year 1639. and th' other in 1642. II. THESE two Narratives contradict one another the first of them which is published under the name of Cyrillus of Berrhaea is subscribed by several of those whose hands are to the second and by the same Parthenius to whom this last is attributed and yet in the second there is no mention of the first The first expresly anathematizes Cyrillus and calls him an impious and wicked Person The second say's only There are certain Articles produced under the name of the Patriarch Cyrillus The first condemns with an Anathema these Articles The second say's It was proposed in the Synod whether they should be received and held for pious and orthodox Points or rejected as being contrary to the Doctrine of the Eastern Church which plainly shews that they that made the second knew nothing of the first and yet they are both found subscribed by the same Persons III. THERE is no likelihood that Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who is said to have been an Assessor at the first Synod under Cyrillus of Berrhaea nor that Parthenius who is said to have held the second would have so lightly and fraudulently condemned Cyrillus Lucaris seeing one of 'em had been the Chief Officer of his Chamber and th' other his Protector and intimate Friend IV. ARSENIUS the Monk from whom 't is said we have the pretended account of the Synod under Parthenius and who sent it from Constantinople to a nameless Friend at Venice having stuffed his Letter with Railings against Cyrillus and his Confession yet mentions not a word touching its first condemnation under Cyrillus of Berrhaea Which shews us that these are counterfeit Pieces composed at several times and by different Persons who not consulting one another nor furnished with sufficient Instructions have been guilty of several Contradictions I will now add to what has been already said some other Remarks which are no less considerable the first is that when Cyrillus his Confession of Faith appeared in our Western Parts the first Game that was played was to deny it and affirm 't was a feigned Story but when this Shift would no longer serve turn and that the thing was made evident then an account of these pretended Councils appeared which shows that they were substituted as a new remedy instead of the other which could be of no longer use Secondly what Parthenius is made to say That there have been some Articles produced under Cyrillus his name is as every man may discover the Style of the Western People and not that of Parthenius himself who could not speak after this manner nor his Synod neither because 't was notorious in Constantinople that this Confession was in effect Cyrillus his own seeing he offered it in a Council and openly justified it before the Ministers of the Grand Senior in the presence of several Ambassadors and because Parthenius and his Bishops in the preceding Synod had already considered it as unquestionably his Moreover what likelihood is there that Parthenius and his Council would thus grosly and slanderously imputed to Cyrillus a thing that was false as they do For Cyrillus having said in the first Article of his Confession That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son which is an expression from which the Greeks never vary The first Article of the Censure bears That he asserted contrary to
that their Faith must be the rule of ours yet will I endeavour to satisfie the Reader in this particular I do also hope that this inquiry will not be useless towards the clearing up of the principal Question between Mr. Arnaud and my self because that in shewing what the Greeks do believe I do at the same time shew what they do not believe I shall do then three things in this Chapter the first of which shall be to shew the real Belief of the Greeks touching the Eucharist Secondly describe in what they agree and differ from the Church of Rome And thirdly likewise wherein we of the Reformed Church do agree with them and in what particulars we do not AS to the first of these Points to the end we may have a fuller and clearer understanding of the real Opinion of the Greeks it will be necessary we make several Articles of it and reduce them into these following Propositions FIRST in general the Eucharist is according to them a mystical representation of the whole Oeconomy of Jesus Christ They express by it his coming into the World his being born of a Virgin his Sufferings Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and the Glory he displayed on the Earth in making himself known and adored by every Creature Were it necessary to prove this Proposition we could easily do it by the Greek Lyturgies and Testimonies of Cabasilas Germain Simeon Thessaloniensis Jeremias and several others but this not being a matter of contest I shall not insist upon it SECONDLY They consider the Bread in two distinct respects either whilst it is as yet on the Table of the Prothesis or on the great Altar Whilst 't is on the Prothesis they hold 't is a Type or Figure Yet do they sometimes call it the Body of Jesus Christ sometimes the imperfect Body of Christ sometimes the dead Body of Jesus Christ although they do not believe the Consecration is then compleated This is confirmed by what I related in the Fourth Chapter of this Third Book and it is not likewise necessary to insist any longer thereon because this particular concerns not the matter in hand THIRDLY When the Symbols are carried and placed on the great Altar they say that by the Prayers of the Priest and Descent of the Holy Spirit the Bread and Wine are perfectly consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood of Christ To express this change they use these general Terms I already noted to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which signifie a change They say the Bread is the Body of Christ and that it is made the very Body it self or the proper Body of Christ and hereunto refer all those Citations Mr. Arnaud has alledged out of Theophylact Euthymius Nicholas Methoniensis Cabasilas Simeon Thessaloniensis and Jeremias We do not deny that the Greeks use these Expressions it concerns us here only to know in what sence the Greek Church uses them and what kind of change they mean thereby I say then that when we come to examine this change and determine in what manner the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ they curb our curiosity and remit this knowledge and determination to God and for their own parts keep within their general Terms Which appears by the profession of Faith which the Sarrazins made in the Twelfth Century when they imbraced the Greek Religion I believe Bibl. Patr. Tom. 2. Graeco-Lat say's the Proselyte and confess the Bread and Wine which are mystically sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments I believe likewise that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed intellectually and invisibly by his Divine Power above all natural conception he alone knowing the manner of it And upon this account it was that Nicetas Choniatus complains that in the Twelfth Century the Doctrine Nicetas Choniat Annal. lib. 3. of the Divine Mysteries was divulged and therefore censures the Patriarch Camaterus for his not having immediately silenced a Monk who proposed this Question to wit whether we receive in the Eucharist the corruptible or incorruptible Body of Jesus Christ He should have been condemned say's he for an Heretick that introduced Novelties all the rest silenced by his example to the end the Mystery may ever remain a Mystery John Sylvius in his Cathe'merinon Joan Sylv. aâ—rebat Cathem of the Greeks recites a Prayer wherein it is said That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are touched and changed on the Altar after a supernatural manner which must not be inquired into We have likewise already seen in the Tenth Chapter of this Book the Testimony of Metrophanus the Patriarch of Alexandria who having told us the consecrated Bread is really the Body of Jesus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 9. Christ and that which is in the Cup undoubtedly his Blood he adds That the manner of this change is unknown to us and the knowledge thereof reserved for the Elect in Heaven to the end we may obtain more favour from God by a simple Faith void of curiosity And thus acquits himself ANOTHER Greek Author cited by Allatius under the name of John Allat adversus Chreygton exercit 22. the Patriarch of Jerusalem You see say's he that Saint Paul scruples not to call this Body Bread But be it so if you will that it be no longer called Bread and being no longer Bread is neither leavened nor unleavened you see that it is not bereaved of these Appellations till after Sanctification But before this dreadful Sacrifice when you offer it to sanctifie it shall this be neither Bread nor an Azyme Now that which is done in this Oblation is by our selves but that which happens in this admirable change is not from us but God It appears by this passage recited by Allatius and taken if I be not deceived out of a Manuscript wherein this Author disputes touching the Azymes against a Latin who told him that this Controversie was vain seeing that after the Consecration it is no longer Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ and it seems this Patriarch maintains against him that 't was still Bread and proves it by the Authority of Saint Paul who so calls it It seems likewise by what he adds that he would say that supposing it was no longer called Bread and lost this name yet we must not speak of what it becomes by Consecration because God only knows that and not men ALTHO the Greeks are sometimes thus reserved restraining themselves within their general Terms yet for the most part they shew more particularly their thoughts touching the nature and kind of the change which happens to the Bread and Wine and which makes them to be the Body and Blood of Christ And they do it likewise in such a manner that 't is no hard matter to find out their meaning Which is what we have now to demonstrate But before we enter into
is not Flesh This Reasoning opposes the Expression of the Greeks that the Bread is the Body of Christ as also the Example which they gave of it to wit of the Bread which our Saviour eat but it does not disagree with the Exposition which they gave of it which is that it is the Body of Christ in Virtue on the contrary we have already observed that Theophylact uses this Exposition for the solving of the Objection contained in this Reasoning Which plainly shews that whilst this Proposition the Bread is the Body of Christ stands alone and unexplained it may give occasion to Ignorant People to form this Objection but as soon as 't is explained and shewed in what Sence the Greeks understand it the Doubt vanishes AND this will more plainly appear if we consider the Answer which Nicolaus Methoniensis made to those that doubted for it comes very near to that of Theophylact. God say's he respecting our Weakness lest we should conceive Horror at the Pledges of Eternal Life as being not able to indure the sight of Flesh and Blood does therefore deliver to us things familiar to our Nature and has joyned to them his Divinity saying this is my Body this is my Blood This Answer does in a manner explain in what Sence the Greeks believed the Bread was the Body of Christ to wit by its Union with the Divinity which does very well solve the Argument of the Doubters and bereaves it of its Strength For if it be the Body of Christ only by this means to wit by its Union with the Divinity there is no longer occasion to say it should appear Flesh IT is then clear that this whole Dispute of Nicolaus Methoniensis overthrows Transubstantiation as well as that of Theophylact. For as to those that doubted had they known the Greek Church taught that the Substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body they would have grounded their Objection not on the general Proposition that the Bread is the Body but on the particular one to wit that the Bread is changed into the Substance of the Body whence it more strongly and distinctly follows that it ought to appear Flesh after the Change And as to the Answer return'd them they must have been told that the Substance only is changed and that the Accidents of Bread remain to serve as a Vail to the Flesh of Christ This is what ought to be answered on the Hypothesis of Transubstantiation and not that the Bread is joyned to the Divinity This Answer would be absurd if we suppose Transubstantiation of the Difficulty would still remain Why the Bread becoming the Substance of our Lord 's proper Flesh it does not appear Flesh Yet Nicolaus Methoniensis will have these Objectors rest satified with his Answer and extends not their Doubts any farther CHAP. VIII The Profession of Faith which the Sarracens were caused to make in the twelveth Century considered several Passages out of Cabasilas Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople and several others Collected by Mr. Arnaud out of Greek Authors Examined VVE have already rehearsed the Profession of Faith which the Greeks of the twelveth Century caused the Sarracens to make that imbraced the Christian Religion to shew the Greeks kept themselves to the general Expressions of the Bread and Wines being the Body and Blood of Christ and how they are changed into this Body and Blood leaving to God the Knowledg of the manner thereof It is certain this is all can be concluded thence and yet Mr. Arnaud has not fail'd to draw this Profession of Faith to his Advantage But seeing he designed to make a Proof of it it seems to me he ought at least to rehearse truly the Terms of it and not alter them as he has done in his Version I believe say's the Convert and confess the Bread and Wine which Bibl. Patr. tom 2. Grec Lat. are mystically Sacrificed by the Christians and of which they partake in their Divine Sacraments This Clause thus expressed has not contented Mr. Arnaud and therefore he has not thought good to relate it in this Form altho it be so in the Greek and Latin Version I believe also say's the Sarracen that these things are in truth the Body and Blood of Christ being changed by his Divine Virtue intellectually and invisibly above all humane Understanding AS IS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF These are so far the true Expressions of the Profession Here follows Mr. Arnaud's Version I am perswaded Lib. 2. c. 15. p. 247. I believe I confess that the Bread and Wine mystically Consecrated by the Christians and of which they partake in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries are in truth the Body and Blood of our Lord being changed by his Divine Virtue in a manner not to be perceived by our Eyes and discernible only to the Mind but surpassing all the Thoughts of Men and which is only comprehended by God alone and so I promise that I will partake of it with other faithful People as being in truth his Flesh and Blood By this means 1st He confounds two things which the Proselyte distinguishes The one is to Confess the Bread and Wine of which the Christians partake and the other to Confess that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ These two Clauses being thus distinguished it is clear the first supposes that 't is Bread and Wine and this Mr. Arnaud would conceal by confounding them in one 2dly Instead of rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intellectually and Invisibly he has taken such a Circuit as changes the Sence In a manner say's he which our Eyes do not discover and which is discernable only to the Mind To hinder the Readers from observing that the Change in Question is Spiritual and Mystical not Sensible or Material for this is precisely what is meant by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3dly Instead of these Terms As he alone knows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which gives us to understand that God only determinately knows what this Spiritual and Mystical Change is He has Translated In a manner Comprehended by God alone to accommodate this to the Doctrine of the Roman Church which expresly determines the Change of one Substance into another But not being able to disintangle herself from the Difficulties she finds in this Doctrine sends us to God AND yet with all these Alterations Mr. Arnaud can conclude nothing from this Profession of Faith unless it be that the Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that they are changed by his Divine Virtue But this is not the Point we disputed on They are then changed in respect of their Substance It is this Consequence which we deny In Effect whether the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ by a change of Virtue and by way of Augmentation as the Greeks explain it or otherwise it is certain that they
Great Cham of Tartar that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ BROTHER Bieul of the Order of Preachers affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels The Jacobites say's he are Hereticks and Schismaticks They say there is in Christ but one Substance one Operation and one Will which is the Divine This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance Operation and Humane Will For the true Faith is that God was real God and real Man And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them We shewed them say's he wherein they erred when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance one Operation one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine POPE John XXII writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem Raynald ad ann 1â—26 num 28. complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared maintain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors Guid. Car. sum de baeâ—â—s tit de Jacob. Barth a Salignaico itiner terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis Pratcol Elench haret Lib. 7. de Jacob. art 3. Joann Cotov Itiner Hieros Syriac Lib. 2. Cap. 6. that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature no more than one Person and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger THE same may be seen in Barthol Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land They hold say's he speaking of the Jacobites that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ say's Prateolus THEY are corrupted by several Errors say's Cottovic and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature and make thereof but one Will and one Operation They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh and that he rather seemed to be a Man to be born and dye than really to do and be so Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation the Incarnation Passion Resurrection of our Saviour his Ascension into Heaven and his Second Coming are only things feigned and appearances and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony Cottovic Ibid. Voyages and Observ of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part ch 12. pag. 371 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks They follow say's he the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches which is common to them with the Jacobites THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux and hold the same Errors as the Armenians Jacobites and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eutyches THE Copticks say's Mr. Thevenot are Christians but Jacobites Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501. that is to say followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but acknowledge it neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks and receive from them their Abuna that is to say their Patriarch as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu Being askt say's he how many natures Thomas à Jesu Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13. wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union one Will and one Operation yet without confusion and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or confusion which they affirm to be the Divine Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon He answered they condemned this Council because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations to wit the Jacobits Copticks and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation that is to say the question is whether they be People indued with common sence For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature that his whole converse in the World his Birth Death and Resurrection were only bare Appearances without any Reality And to believe on the other that the Substance of Bread is really changed into the proper Substance of his Body into the same Substance he took of the Virgin and which he retains still in Heaven Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner But let him shew us then what this manner is Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread that is to say they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances WILL Mr. Arnaud say they hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence But if it be true
the end it may procure them the remission of their sins He says not to the end it may change the substance of it and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ which yet must have been said or something equivalent thereunto were this the formal effect of the Consecration Having recited our Lords words This is my Body this is my Blood he adds This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world And a little further Esay touched a live coal his lips were not burnt with it but his iniquity pardon'd Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self and this fire preserves their bodies and consumes only their sins 'T is easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is Approach we all of us says he with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour and with a pure heart and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection and let us clearly comprehend them For for our sakes the only Son of God has assumed a mortal Body a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth and at the end of his Oeconomy offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature he is risen from the Dead ascended up into Heaven and has left us his Holy Sacraments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist and having said that he is ascended up into Heaven does it not seem that instead of adding he has left us his Holy Sacraments he should have said he yet presents himself on the Altars in the substance of his Body Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him AS to the ancient Liturgy of France which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body signifie only his Body and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus Juvencus Gaudencius and of S. Chrysostom who likewise use the same term of proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprium corpus signifies suum corpus his Body not that of another but his own for this is often the sense of this term as we have already shew'd S. Hilary says There 's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 't is communicated to us in the Sacrament but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion and that Hilary's sense is we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man when he says that we eat the Lamb himself entire WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique Hesychius and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew GELAZIVS of Cizique says very well That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood but likewise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion is the only true one HESTCHIVS says That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist secundum veritatem according to truth because that in effect the mystical object represented and communicated to our Souls in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery as we have already observed elsewhere The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew makes this Saint say not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him That he Sacrific'd every See E the and Beatus who relate this passage Bibl. patr tom 4. day to God the immaculate Lamb but that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words on the Altar of the Cross to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross to wit in meditating on this Cross and preaching it to the people He adds That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb and drink his Blood and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive and altho he be truly sacrific'd and his Flesh truly eaten and drank yet he remains whole and alive This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews which was first sacrific'd and afterwards eaten by the people which was a figure of our Saviour the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross and whose Flesh was eaten and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in him by Faith The Lamb being divided and not rising again after he was slain our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten without suffering any division But whether we consider this manducation absolutely in it self or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb it is true For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews THE passage of S. Leo which says We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table as not to doubt in any wise of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is very impertinently alledged Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens who denied our Saviour had a real Body and his sense to be that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself in his proper person a real Body and Blood and is real man 'T IS now plainly seen that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages is but a meer illusion and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th and 8th Centuries now in debate He had so little to say concerning these Centuries that he thought it necessary to take the field and circuit about to amuse his Readers and fill up his Chapters But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns
receive his Body and Blood therein without searching after greater satisfaction THE fourth is of those who having been disgusted at the inconsistency of these terms the Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ found at length the real knot of the question I mean that the Bread is the Sacrament the memorial and pledg of the Sacred Body of our Redeemer THE fifth in fine is of those who at the hearing of these propositions The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ went immediately to their true and natural sense without perplexity or difficulty and without so much as thinking on the inconsistency of the terms well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be a Sacrament which represents and communicates to us the Lords Body and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth and a greater disposition to understand the stile and usual expressions of the Church HERE' 's says Mr. Arnaud what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the Lib. 6. ch 5. pag. 560. Church and the time of the distinct knowledg And yet of these five ranks there are three who knew not what the Eucharist was and understood not the sense of the expressions which form this Doctrin The fourth sought and happily found it says he after a long search and the fifth found it without searching it I ACKNOWLEDG that what has been said of these five ranks may be understood of all the time which preceded the change but yet we may divide this time into two and distinguish that wherein the Pastors took a more particular care to instruct the people and that of ignorance wherein the mysteries of the Gospel were neglected and the people ill instructed For as ignorance was never so great nor universal but that there were ever some persons knowing enough to understand distinctly that the Bread is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ because 't is the Sacrament of it so knowledg never so generally overspread the Church but there were always some weak and ignorant persons in it When we distinguish a time of knowledg from a time of ignorance we do not mean there were no ignorant people during the time of knowledg nor enlightned persons during the time of ignorance We do not thus understand it But we take the denomination from the party that most prevail'd and call a time of light and knowledg that wherein we see appear more learning and clearness a time of darkness and ignorance that wherein we find on the contrary appear much more thickness and stupidity When then I said that I reckon'd these five ranks of persons in the Church I understood that this was true in both the two times that is to say both in that which I called the Churches happy days the time of a distinct knowledg and in that of ignorance and confusion but I likewise meant that this was true in these two times diversly according to the difference which distinguishes them so that when the sense of my proposition is distributed reason requires that the proportion of each time be kept We must not doubt but that in the first six Centuries there were persons to be found of these three first ranks which I denoted but far fewer than in the following Ages AFTER this first remark Mr. Arnaud makes another which is that I do not prove what I offer touching these five orders This is says he an Lib. 6. ch 6. pag. 563. History no where extant These are news which he alone knows and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon But this is Mr. Arnaud's usual course when he cannot answer an Argument he requires proofs for it and so when he cannot invalidate an Answer he bethinks himself of saying prove it The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impossible I affirm 't is possible and to shew that it is so I suppose by way of explication and illustration five ranks of persons in the Church during the time which preceded the change If I suppose a thing impossible or absurd it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to shew the impossibility or absurdity thereof and not to require proofs of me I suppose nothing but what lies within the terms of probability and is conformable to the manner of mens thoughts which appears by their every days actions in like occasions as this altho not recorded in History Howsoever if Mr. Arnaud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force he should solidly attack my Answer and lay aside those fooleries of worlds in the Moon which do not well agree with the importance of our subject AND this he seems to be sensible of for he does not much insist on this demand of proofs but comes to a particular examination of these diverse ranks and to make it the more pleasant he gives each of 'em a nick-name and title the first he calls the rank of Contemplative Ignoramus's the next that of Lazy Ignoramus's the third that of Catholicks the fourth of Considerate Calvinists the fifth that of Inconsiderate ones In discoursing on the first rank he gives us a touch about Mental Prayer of being snatcht up immediately into Heaven concerning our meditation on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto and standing upon our guard against the terms which express the essence of the Mystery and he uses the same pleasant method about the rest which shews he can be frolicksome sometimes and has his hours of creation as well as other folks BUT laying aside these fine words let us come to things The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence offer'd the formulary of Communion Refutat part 2. chap. 2. Corpus Christi which was used in the ancient Church saying that these terms represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar and thence he concluded they had a distinct belief that it was thereon if they follow'd the sense of these words or if they rejected them they had a distinct belief of the Real Absence TO this I answer'd that the first impression which things make on our minds and words design'd to any use is that of their use that 't is thus every morning that we conceive of the light not as being under the notion Answer to the second Treat part 2. ch 2. of a body or accident or motion of air but under the notion of a thing which is useful to us and serves to lead us to our labors which I farther illustrated by several other examples Then applying this remark to my subject I said that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formulary of use design'd according to the intention of the Church to raise up the minds of Communicants to the meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ dead
in the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries th' Ecclesiastical order did not abound with famous men and especially the 10th Century CHAP. V. General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's Ninth Book An Examination of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment and Machins of Preparation HAVING consider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th Book we must now in order pass on to the 9th whose running Title is The impossibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Mystery of the Eucharist 'T is certain the genuine state of the question is only whether this change has really hapned this other whether 't was possible or impossible is a frivolous question tending to fruitless Speculations and tedious Debates which is what I clearly shew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity And which likewise several Roman Catholicks have acknowledg'd who have written on this Subject since the Author of the Perpetuity Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aside all this part of the In his Preface Dispute and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates wherein the Church of Rome is not concerned nor ought to be mention'd Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publish'd under the name of an Ecclesiastick to one of his Friends distinguishes likewise two quarrels wherein he says I have engaged my self the one against the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the other against the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith and he adds that in this latter I only encounter with a particular person Mr. Pavillon a Priest and Almoner to his Majesty speaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Eucharist The question is not t' examine whether Page 197. the Church could change her belief and how this change could happen for this is a going about the bust and running upon whimsies The question is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned He calls all these pretensions of impossibility frivolous questions and mere whimsies for these Gentlemen do one another right now and then But howsoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart and he obliges us to distinguish on this subject two questions the one whether the change before us has been possible and the other whether it has really hapned 'T is certain that the first appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence as we lately observed for altho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight first Centuries without troubling himself with the following yet 't is easie to perceive that if it could not have place in those Centuries wherein there was greater light it could not by stronger reason in the others wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance Yet for better information in this matter we must see what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impossibility of the change We shall here then discuss again the question whether in supposing that Paschasus an Author of the ninth Century was the first that proposed the Doctrin of the substantial invisible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it might happen that this opinion in succession of time has been receiv'd and establish'd amongst Christians For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th Book and which we shall now examine We shall not in truth find he has made use therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion for he seldom troubles himself about that nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the possibility which I alledged nor defended the Answers of the Author of the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud does not care to take so much pains But we shall find he has taken care to collect here and there seven or eight passages out of my Book and of them joyn'd together made a body which he calls my Machins and divided them into five orders with titles according to his own fancy He calls the first The Machins of Abridgment the second The Machins of Preparation the third The Machins of Mollifications the fourth The Machins of Execution and the fifth The Machins of Forgetfulness Now altho we may say in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleasant fancies by which he can easily find out odd names to make serious matters look ridiculous yet t' excuse him we may say that in this occasion he has follow'd not his own natural inclination but that of the Cartesian Philosophy with which his mind is said to be extremely taken up for you must know this Philosophy makes Machins of every thing But howsoever let 's see what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine THE first which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my passages the first of which bears That the question is not of the Answer to the second Treatise Part 3. ch 6. Book 9. ch 3. p. 886. whole world but of the West on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name That is to say says he I will not have the question concern it I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has introduc'd it self into the East into the Patriarchats of Constantinople Alexandria Jerusalem and Antioch into the Churches of the Armenians Nestorians Jacobits I do not care to trouble my self with guessing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia Moscovia Mesopotamia Georgia Mingrelia Moldavia Tartaria and the Indies 'T is better to say 't is not there this is sooner done and by this means I shall free my self out of a great perplexity But says he Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him that he is a man and not God so that neither his words nor his will are always effectual He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Presence to be in all these great Provinces But it is there and will be maugre him The matter depends not on him and we have demonstrated it by proofs which I hope he will not question He fills five great pages with this kind of discourse saying over and over again the same thing Mr. ARNAVD must pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high Is he so possess'd with the charms of his own Eloquence and force of these illusions touching the Greeks Armenians and other Eastern Christians to imagin a man must be a God to cope with him I think considering what we have observed a man need neither be an Angel nor an extraordinary person to demonstrate again clearly that the question concerns not these Churches because they do not at all believe the Roman Transubstantiation and supposing they did believe it which they do not 't would be no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croisado's Seminaries and Missions which is sufficient t' exclude them from this Dispute THE second passage from whence Mr. Arnaud
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
to his great common place of moral impossibilities and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist that they all took the Eucharist for Bread and Wine in substance that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a carnal motive lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it supposing I say this he thus reasons Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline and him so young that he calls himself a Child and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths and take his real Body for an image and simple figure that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery and is destin'd to declare it to the world This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude charges him so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind He afterwards says that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man undertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world For in fine they were twelve they wrought Miracles had other proofs than words they made Disciples and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd Paschasus had nothing of all this He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse TO answer this with somewhat less heat we 'l reply that these arguings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Paschasus his time and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in his Closet Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature there 's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the changing of the Faith of the whole world for instructing the people and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd or compared his design with that of the Apostles and examin'd what there was more or less in it 'T is the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they imagin'd most consonant to truth leaving the success to time and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner men enter upon 'em without much reflection and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen 2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings we need only apply them to John Scot or Bertram Suppose we then as he would have us that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and all the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of it knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ the same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin dead and risen and is now sate at the right hand of God that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the people to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread that thro a deplorable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus upon our supposition All the difference I find is that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus for 't is difficulter to root ancient and perpetual Opinions out of mens minds than to inspire them with new ones to make 'em lay aside their Rites Altars th' object of their supreme Adoration and Piety than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a subject for which they have already a great respect Howsoever 't is certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true Why then will he have it to be impossible for Paschasus who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence to advance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquainted Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side and impossibilities on the other Paschasus and John Scot wrote one for the Real Presence and the other against it This is a fact which is uncontroulable One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator If it be possible that 't was John Scot it is yet more probable 't was Paschasus if it be impossible that 't was Paschasus it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences seeing 't is his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong that never man spent his pains to less purpose than he has done in this occasion 3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus is that being yet young and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he thought this marvail was not enough known and that 't was necessary to explain it And therefore he undertakes to instruct his
that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise people raise or depress 'em according as their interests and designs require according as they oppose or favour their Opinions First Mr. Arnaud assures us that I falsified the words of the Author of the Chap. 6. Perpetuity Secondly He says I expounded his intentions according to my own fancy Thirdly He will not allow I had any reason to draw from his words compared with these of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the conclusion which I drew thence We must satisfie him in these three points AS to the pretended falsification observe here in what manner I related in short the discourse of the Author of the Perpetuity He says that 't was Answer to the second Tome part 3. ch 1. one call'd Ratram or Bertram an obscure and intricate Divine who adjoyn'd his reasonings to the ordinary expressions of the Church and expounded them according to his fancy that as he was a Divine he might argue as he pleased on this Faith and that we can easily conceive a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings There needs only the reading of the Author of the Perpetuity's discourse to acknowledg this to be a just abridgment of it Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it but he says I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram a frivolous and passionate Reasoner and for having Book 11. ch 6. p. 116. said absolutely of him that one may well conceive that a Divine might easily fall upon frivolous reasonings whereas he said this only conditionally to wit supposing 't were granted he was effectually in an error and this is what he calls a manifest falsity But Mr. Arnaud complains impertinently For I did not say that the Author of the Perpetuity has thus spoken of Bertram absolutely and this Mr. Arnaud acknowledges to wit that supposing 't were granted that Bertram had effectually erred this would not at all hurt the Church that 't is no wonder that one man has erred that a Divine should fall into frivolous reasonings This I say is sufficient for my design For what signifies this but that in case Bertram cannot be brought over to them and made to speak for the Real Presence he must then be a frivolous Divine one who has faln into frivolous reasonings Now this is precisely what I said that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise Authors according to their interests If Bertram be for 'em all is well they find no fault in him but if it must be granted he is against 'em then one may easily conceive that a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings And thus Mr. Arnaud's illustration only confirms my remark 'T is the same in respect of what he adds that I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram an obscure and intritate Divine which is not thus set down in his Book and that there is only that the greatest advantage which the Calvinists can pretend to touching this Author is that he be set aside as a perplext and intricate Author which can be profitable neither to one side nor the other I desire no more for this is almost in so many words to say that if they cannot have Bertram on their side he must be put by as an obscure and intricate Divine whom both Parties endeavour to explain in their favour but who at bottom favours neither by reason of his perplexity If he be for them all is well if he be not he shall be laid aside for a mystical Divine This falsification then which Mr. Arnaud imputes to me is groundless seeing he himself justifies me from it and he confirms himself the truth of my reflection NEITHER has he more reason in what he says afterwards that I Page 1117. explain the intentions of others according to my own fancy and raise up trophies to my self on imaginary conjectures These are angry expressions I pretend not to dive into the intentions of the Author of the Perpetuity neither do I think of raising trophies to my self at his cost My way of proceeding is frank natural and simple and if I commit faults I can sincerely protest 't is against my will I have said nothing concerning the Author of the Perpetuity which I have not proved not by making conjectures on his hidden thoughts but arguing on his Writing which is a kind of conjecturing very lawful in disputes BUT in fine Mr. Arnaud will not allow I had reason in comparing the words of the Author of the Perpetuity touching Bertram which those of the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers to draw thence the conclusion which I drew He says my arguing supposes that these two Authors Page 1118. are but one and the same person For if they be two different Authors what wonder can it be they have had different sentiments on another Author I answer my reasoning supposes only that the Author of the Perpetuity is one of the friends of the Author of the Apology and that what 's said abroad in the world of these Gentlemen is true that they publish nothing but what has been seen and approved of commonly amongst 'em which being so I had right to draw my conclusion from the comparison of the words of these two Authors as nearly as if they were but one and the same person 'T IS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say that an Author may be praise-worthy in one piece and blameable in another I grant it but I say that when one praises or blames an Author to raise up or depress any of his works 't is absurd to say that one praises him or blames him in this work for we praise or blame absolutely his person to give hence afterwards more or less Authority to the work in question When we depress or extol the person for the work sake then we praise or blame a man in his work but when on the contrary we depress or extol the work by the person then his praise or blame respects absolutely the person and then we draw this consequence that the work in question is or is not considerable Now we are in this last circumstance the Author of the Apology commends Ratram to give the greater weight to his Books of Predestination and the Author of the Perpetuity depresses him to take away all authority from his Book De Corpore Sanguine Domini so that their praise and dispraise respect directly his person 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud remarks that the Author of the Perpetuity did not suppose the Book which goes under the name of Bertram Page 1119. was Ratram's a Religious of Corby Author of the Books of Predestination and of the refutation of the errors of the Greeks That seeing he testifies on the contrary to incline to the opinion of Mr. Marca who will have this Book of Bertram and that of John Scot to be the same That it appears at least from his Book that he had no fixt sentiment that Ratram was the
is undeniable First That there was no Author of Bertram's name in the 9th Century Secondly That the Elogies which he gives to Bertram are suitable only to Ratramnus by the consent of all learned men That 't would be a wonderful thing for neither Trithemius nor Sigebert to mention a word of Ratramnus one of the most famous Authors of the 9th Century SECONDLY an anonymous Author who apparently wrote since Algerus which is to say about the year 1140. formally attributes to Ratram to have wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord against the sentiments of Paschasus Ratbert and dedicated it to the French King Charles the Bald. Now this is what agrees precisely with the Book which bears the name of Bertram For first he directly decides against the Doctrin of Paschasus altho he does not name him Secondly It is dedicated to King Charles Thirdly The arguments which the anonymous Author relates as being common to Raban and Ratram are sound in the Book publish'd under the name of Bertram THIRDLY The style and Hypothesis of this Book of Bertram are wholly the same with those of other Writings of Ratram as I shall make appear But before we come to this behold another proof which alone is sufficient to decide our question FOURTHLY There are Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bear the same name of Ratram First Those that in 1532. caused this Book to be Printed at Cologn expresly observe that they preferred the name of Bertram before any other name of the same Author which appeared to them less known Let the Reader know say they that altho the name of this Author is to be met with elsewhere express'd in another manner yet this name to wit of Bertram being most common and familiar ought to be preferred before any other This other name can be none but that of Ratramnus which appear'd to them less known than that of Bertram only because that in 1531. which is to say a year before the Edition of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers of Trithemius was publish'd at Cologn it self and therein mention made of this Author under the name of Bertram and not under that of Ratram Secondly The Divines of Doway had without question some Manuscripts of the Book of Our Lords Body and Blood under the name of Ratramnus without which they could not say of Bertram what they have said Thirdly Cardinal Perron attests he saw at In Indic 〈◊〉 voce Bertram 〈◊〉 lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 Aut. 39. p. ◠6. Mr. Le Fevre's the Prince's Tutor an ancient Manuscript of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord under the name of Ratramnus THESE proofs be convincing to rational men the only thing which has rais'd any scruple is the name of Bertram which some Transcribers and those that have publish'd it from these Copies have put in instead of the true name which was Ratramnus but this signifies little For first 't is certain that Bertram's Book was written in the 9th Century in which time there was no Author named Bertram so that this must needs be a corrupted name thro the ignorance of some Transcribers It is then fitting to attribute this Book to one of the Authors of those times whose name comes nearest to that of Bertram Now 't is certain there is none which comes nearer than Ratram Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has acknowledged this truth How easie has it been says he to confound Bertram and Ratram in so great Erotem page 132 133. an affinity and resemblance of names We may alledg two causes of this confusion which are very probable First 'T was the custom to give the name Beatus to illustrious men in the Church instead of Sanctus which has been since affectedly given 'em of which there are thousands of instances in Manuscripts and Printed Books 'T is then very likely that some Transcribers finding in Manuscripts the Title of this Book B. Ratrami or Be. Ratrami which signifies Beati Ratramni they have imprudently joyn'd all these Letters and made thereof but one name Thus in the Edition of Aldus instead of reading P. Cornutus which signifies Publius Cornutus they have joyn'd the Letters of the Manuscript which should be separate whereof they have made the barbarous name of Phornutus Secondly It is likely that the conformity of the letter B with the Letter R which in the ancient Impressions and Manuscripts differ only in one stroak may have given way to this Error The likeness of Capital Letters has produced like changes the Author of the Dissertation himself tells us that in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor the Transcribers have written Babanus instead of Si◠medit Tho. Waldensis an 1521. Paris Labbe de Script p. 205. T. 2. Rabanus And thus do we read in some Manuscripts of Haimon of Halberstat Raymo for Haymo SECONDLY It is certain that in respect of the Book it self there are none of the Authors of the 9th Century to whom we can attribute this Book but to Ratram This Book supposes in its Preface that there hapned a terrible division between the Subjects of Charles the Bald touching the Eucharist and that this Prince according to his Piety searching the means to reduce to the purity of the Faith those that had changed it engaged the Author of the Book of our Lords Body and Blood to tell him his thoughts on this subject Now this time is exactly that wherein Ratram lived and the esteem which Charles the Bald shews this Author is precisely the same which he paid to Ratram in an occasion like this For his Subjects being divided on the matter of Grace and Predestination he consulted Ratramnus on this difference and shewed how greatly he valued his judgment in Theological Questions ALL these reasons taken together do so well prove that the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord is of Ratramnus that those who have not consider'd 'em all have yet yielded to the evidence of those they were acquainted with We may moreover say that if they have not been explain'd they have been at least acknowledg'd before Vsher by the Divines of Doway whether they have seen Manuscripts of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bore the name of Ratram as 't is likely they did or believ'd with Raynaud that this corruption of the name of Bertram did not hinder but that Ratram must be acknowledg'd to be the Author of it In effect whence could they divine these three things First That Bertram was a Monk of Corby as well as a Priest Trithemius and Sigebert having never said so and the Title of the Book bearing Presbyteri and not Monachi Secondly That this Book was not dedicated to Charlemain but to Charles the Bald altho the Edition runs Ad Carolum magnum Thirdly That the Author was a Catholick Is not this a fair