conformable to these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body nor to these others The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh nor to these He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text and he 'l find what I say to be true Jesus Christ says he did not say this is or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body but he has said without feigning This is my Body S. John introduces likewise our Lord saying the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh not another than that which is for the life of the world And again He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him Vnde miror adds he quid velint c What can be concluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue IN fine Frudegard himself says moreover Mr. Arnaud to whom Paschasus Page 857. wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude ' s fable who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book Dicis says Paschasus to him te sic antea credidisse in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse sed profiteris postea te in libro tertio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio Mr. Arnaud will have these words Dicis te sic antea credidisse to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up and that the following Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et is very often a Particle which explains or gives the reason of what was before said and not that which distinguishes as I have already observ'd in another place He would only say that before he thus believed it having so read it in Paschasus his Book And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place he must have said not that he had thus believ'd it before but thus believ'd it from the beginning in his youth that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book who had confirm'd him in his belief but that afterwards he had found in S. Austin that 't was a figurative locution In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud whereas he distinguishes but two antea and postea and as to the first he says he had thus believ'd it and thus read it in Paschasus his Book denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections but having examin'd them 't will not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from ' em I do not believe says he that having considered all these proofs seriously one can imagin that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin has proposed a new Doctrin Neither can I believe that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obstinate as to maintain so evident a falsity and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers Thus does Mr. Arnaud wipe his Sword after his victory Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demonstrations and clear discoveries CHAP. IX Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whether Paschasus has been an Innovator was to search whether those that went before him and wrote on the same subject have or have not taught the same thing as he has done I repeat it here to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity or Father Noüet or Mr. Arnaud we have not right to suppose and to suppose as we do with confidence that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin into the world BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one we shall offer several others taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself 's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader 's perusal in my Book Epist ad Frud which I dedicated cuilibet puero I had rendred these words to a young man because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people this is no great matter yet am I inform'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery as we have already observ'd TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance and intelligence Paschasus here means For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful distinctions on this subject Ought not Mr. Claude to know says he that besides Book 8. ch 10. p. 860. this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the mysteries without much reflection there is another clearer one and which is often denoted in S. Austin by the word intelligence which does not precede but follows Faith as being the fruit and recompence of it sic accipite sic credite says this Father Vt mereamini intelligere fides enim debet proecedere intellectum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium As then all Christians believe the mysteries they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it that is to say they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament with the application which it deserves That they did not all know the mysteries contained in the symbols the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law the ends which God had in appointing them those that have right to partake of 'em the dispositions with which
said to this Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Presence on the same Article which was disputed him by his Adversaries on the same Article on which he produc'd the words of Jesus Christ This is my Body and the clause of the Liturgy Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi on the same Article whereon he had alledged several passages of the Fathers Quamvis says he ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent DOES any man desire another express and formal testimony of Paschasus I need only produce these words of his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew to satisfie him I have been more large on this subject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of 〈◊〉 Commentary permits because there are several that have another sentiment touching these mystical things and several are so blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing else but what we see with our eyes and tast with our mouths Here we have then actually persons that did not believe the Real Presence and those not inconsiderable for their number seeing he denotes them by the term of several and which he expresses so clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loss what to answer Mr. ARNAVD who well perceived he might be opposed on the first answer bethought himself of giving us another in which contrary to his usual manner he relaxes something of what he advanced Not but that says Book 8. ch 10. p. 852. he this word intelligence may likewise respect the Real Presence not as a new truth but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended and in a manner which penetrates more lively the heart for there are several degrees of growing in the knowledg of a mystery which one believes already by Faith He would say there might be people who knew less strongly and livelily the Real Presence and that in this respect they might acquire the intelligence of it but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it or to whom Paschasus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth But Paschasus himself refutes this gloss Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent This is an ignorance which according to him extends so far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Presence To err in an Article thro ignorance is it not a not believing of it at all as having never heard it mentioned Is not this a knowing nothing of it a having no knowledg and consequently no Faith in it Now such were Paschasus his ignorant persons who were far different from those of Mr. Arnaud In a word they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing else in respect of their substance than what they appear to our eyes and tast as Paschasus now spake THIS Principle being well establish'd as I believe it is at present 't will be no hard matter to see the consequence of it The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Presence or Real Absence of the Presence if it were taught in the Church of the Absence if the Presence were not therein taught Whereupon I raise this Argument There cannot be any person in a Church wherein the Real Presence is commonly taught but knows distinctly the Real Presence Now in the Church of the 9th Century at which time Paschasus lived there were people that were ignorant of the Real Presence and erred in this Article thro ignorance Therefore in the Church of the 9th Century the Real Presence was not commonly taught The first proposition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud without distinction or restriction the second is of Paschasus himself the conclusion of it I think then is inevitable 'T WILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of those called ad hominem which does indeed press an adversary by his own proper Principles but which are not always absolutely conclusive because it may happen that the Principles of an Adversary on which they are grounded be false and imprudently offered This Argument then may be convictive against the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be false and consequently the conclusion I draw thence TO solve this difficulty besides that 't is a great advantage for the cause which I defend that as able Doctors as these Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles 'T is to be observ'd that theirs being alternative must be distinguish'd into two propositions one of which is All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence if the Church of their time taught it And the other All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Presence In respect of this second proposition the Principle is false as I have shew'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity and in the beginning of his 6th Book in I think an unanswerable manner But in respect of the first the Principle is true and must be granted for in effect it is not conceivable that a Church should believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and yet let persons of age Communicate without instructing them in it That she should believe and teach a man must adore this Sacrament which we receive publickly practise this supreme Adoration and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it and in this respect err thro ignorance It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of those term'd ad hominem seeing 't is not grounded on the second proposition of these Gentlemens Principle which is in contest but on the first in which both sides are agreed so that my conclusion has all the strength and truth that can be desired in every respect NEVERTHELESS we must answer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections Paschasus says That he dedicated his Book to young People 'T is Book 8. ch 10. p. 859. then says he unlikely that Paschasus design'd to instruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant I answer 't was not indeed likely that he had immediately so vast a design 'T is more likely he proposed his Doctrin as he himself says petentibus to hir Scholars who pray'd him to shew them his sentiment in this matter but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new He says says Mr. Arnaud again That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains Now no man who discovers a mystery of this importance uses such humble expressions which suppose he says nothing but what 's vulgarly known Mr. Arnaud deceives himself for besides what I intimated in
to keep these from me but likewise to watch against their susprizes And for this purpose I can affirm I have laboured as in the sight of God not proposing to my self any other aim than his glory and truth always remembring that I write not a line of which I must not one day give him an account I have not warp'd from that sincerity and uprightness which an honest man ought to observe on these occasions I have not taken Mr. Arnaud's words in a wrong sense nor charged him with saying what indeed he saith not nor strained his expressions beyond their natural signification No man can reproach me for making false citations or maiming any passages by suppressing that which is important neither have I alledged them abusively and contrary to the intention of their Authors I hope there is no unfair dealings either in my Arguments or Answers in my Suppositions or my other Discourses I have followed Reason and Nature as much as I could and have not made use of Philosophy but to strengthen the ordinary notions of common sense and not to stifle or hinder their effects I hope likewise that I shall not be complain'd of as having not observed either in general towards the Church of Rome or in particular towards Mr. Arnaud all that moderation which might be reasonably expected from me I have noted the Errors and Sophisms of Mr. Arnaud which I have found very numerous in every Subject on which he hath treated especially concerning the Greek Church I was not a little troubled to see with what sincerity he alledged several passages whereof some are not faithfully translated and others so imperfectly that he hath suppressed whole Clauses which would clear up the difficulty and others which are palpably perverted contrary to the sense of their Authors I could not but resent his unhandsome dealing when he disjoynted from the series of a discourse several of my words to make them look of a quite contrary sense than what was intended or fastned on them strange chimerical senses that he might have some matter of triumph or groundlesly slandered some famous men or endeavoured to decry by violent and odious terms our morals which cannot but be holy and pure seeing we have no others but what are taken from the Law and the Gospel In fine when he employs his declamatory stile to dazle the eyes of the world and to mis-represent the truth I have discovered several of his contradictions and how much his opinions are influenc'd by his interest several fallacious suppositions which he would have introduc'd into this Dispute and some vain and ill-grounded accusations with which he hath charged me are clearly laid open and some faults of his in History and Grammar I have but lightly touched upon In short I have set before him what I believe he ought to have said on these occasions and others of the like kind and do moreover here protest that I should have wholly spared him in the most part of these matters had the interest of the cause which I take upon me to defend permitted me so to do But what I have said to him has been without sharpness and passion and even with as little complaining as may be against his starch'd Prefaces and imperious tartness which appears throughout his whole Book wherein I every where meet with the rough terms of Enthusiasm Extravagancy sensless Propositions and other such like expressions I confess that these injurious terms were not at all pleasing to me and presently I wondred that Mr. Arnaud should use a stile so little becoming his profession but at length being accustom'd to it I pass'd over it and have comforted my self by the motives of Christian patience There are very deserving persons even of his own Communion whom he has handled no better than my self and after all it suffices me to know that I have not given just cause for so great animosity and bitterness as I do believe some have already acknowledg'd and which I believe Mr. Arnaud himself will acknowledg when he has read my last Chapter in which I answer his 11th Book which concerns our pretended personal differences AS to exactness I believe I have kept as much to it as can be desired in such an Answer as this Indeed I have not followed blindfold Mr. Arnaud when he strayed from his own subject as he has done in the last Chapters of his first Book where he treats of Episcopacy of Praying for the Dead th' Invocation of Saints the Worship of Relicks and the Prohibition of certain Meats FOR seeing the matter in hand only concerns the Eucharist it would have been contrary to sense and a gross abuse to the Readers patience to engage in these Controversies on each of which there might be written whole Volumes not to say farther that I have endeavoured to avoid that prolixity which Mr. Arnaud seems on the contrary to have affected But according to prudence and discretion I have omitted nothing considerable in Mr. Arnaud's Book which relates to our present Controversie unanswer'd except the two Dissertations of the Criticism on John Scot and on Bertram to which there is a distinct Answer preparing It cannot be said that Mr. Arnaud and his friends have done the like by me for to speak ingeniously and freely is there any thing less exact or more careless than their large work considering it as a Refutation of my answer to the Perpetuity of which they have scarcely handled the tenth part They have taken here and there some one of my passages separated from the sequel of my discourse and the greatest part of them turn'd into another sense hereupon they have travelled from East to West And this they call the Perpetuity of the Faith defended against the Book of the Sieur Claude Minister of Charenton But seeing I have followed the second Treatise of the Perpetuity and even accommodated my self to its method ought not then the Author in defending it against my Book â—o follow me a little more closely And when he was oblig'd to write a second Volume as to what respects the first six Ages certainly he ought to have considered the rest with some care Mr. Arnaud's In his Preface excuse is vain and frivolous which he alledgeth for the length of this work For to make it short he needed only to have insisted on matters essential avoiding fruitless digressions and retrenching injurious invectives It is likewise a vain pretence of his that in following my fancies as he is pleased to speak the connexion of his Principles with their consequences remain hid and obscured For what else does he intend by this but to preserve these colours and appearances which cannot otherwise subsist Wherefore should he call that method which the Author of the Perpetuity hath himself begun and which I have but follow'd wherefore I say should he term this my fancies Wherefore should he at least suppress several things which I proposed in order to the discovery of the falsity
of these pretended Principles and their consequences and wherefore must this neglect have the Title of the Perpetuity defended For my part who de not believe my self bound to follow this example I have examin'd whatsoever I found of importance in Mr. Arnaud be it never so difficult If I have changed his method in some places it hath been to lay down a better more short and natural as when I joyned his 7th Book which treateth of Greek Authors from the 7th Age to the 11th to the general Dispute touching the Greek Church to avoid doing twice the same thing or when I referred his sixth Book touching the distinct belief of the Presence or Real Absence to the question of the impossibility of a change because that in effect this distinct belief was not invented but for this purpose or when I remitted what he said of Paschasius and the Authors of the 9th Age in the second part of his 8th Book to the account of the Innovation because this was its proper place But even in this I have not at all weakened Mr. Arnaud's proofs nor the less exactly examin'd his Book AS to what further remains the Authors which I have made use of cannot be suspected by Mr. Arnaud seeing they are for the most part either Greeks or persons of the Roman Communion or Authors of former Ages which neither one nor other of 'em have written with any foresight of our debate I have alledged but very few Protestants and they such of whose sincerity there is no reason to doubt Mr. Arnaud and his friends have not done the same who have cited in this Controversie Acts and Attestations sent by the Emissaries such as the Acts of a Synod of Cyprus the Profession of Faith of six Priests belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch and such like particulars in the 12th Book of the Writings of the Greeks Armenians or Nestorians latinis'd as of Manuel Calecas of John Plusiadene of Adam Nestorian and of Hacciadour an Armenian Patriarch now resident at Rome the testimonies of the Scholars of the Seminary of Rome as of Paysius Ligardius of Abraham Ecchellensis and of Leo Allatius c. They have likewise frequently made use of him that has lately continued Baronius named Odoricus Raynaldus a Priest of the Oratory at Rome but if any would know of what authority this Author is he may be inform'd by this description He is a man of little wit of no judgment no sincerity no credit who takes matters upon trust with an unsufferable boldness and delivers the most unjustifiable pretensions of the Court of Rome with the same confidence as if they were Articles of Faith who citeth Authors known to be the most partial and passionate of all others as Poggius Blondius Turrecremata and such like as unreprovable witnesses and by following whose Testimonies we shall be obliged to condemn the best of men even those whom God hath own'd by Miracles who for want of proofs makes use of unjust clamours and outragious declamations unbecoming an Historian who ought never to be led by passion And in short such a man than whom there was never any less fit for so important a work as is an Ecclesiastical History And this is the true Character of this Author Who would imagin that persons who believe what I now rehearsed and who desire the whole world to be of the same judgment with them should make use of him in a dispute so important as this and take from him the greatest part of their Relations And yet these are the Gentlemen who quote him at present with so great confidence after they themselves have represented him in the manner I mention'd It was either Mr. Arnaud or some of his Remarks on the 18th Tome of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Rodoricus Raynaeldus Aug. contr Faust lib. 32. ch 16. Friends who under the name of several Divines have taken the pains to publish their Animadversions on this History after a diligent perusal of it Whereupon may we not justly apply to them that of S. Austin to Faustus Who is there that having decried a witness as false and corrupted will ever again produce his testimony If we believe him and believe him not according to your fancy it is not him whom we believe but you And if we must needs believe you what need is there of your producing other witnesses We shall see what these Gentlemen will do henceforward for should they take the same course again as they have taken already in this occasion should they pretend to quote no other Authors but what are decried false Greeks Scholars of the Seminaries persons won to the interests of Rome or Proselytes of its Doctrin and remitted to its Sea this would be as much as to say that their Authority would have a greater share in this Controversie than Reason and perhaps they might be let alone to talk to themselves it being very unreasonable that a man should be continually employed in combating Phantasms and fighting with Shadows For to maintain faithfully and solidly the Hypothesis of the Author of the Perpetuity This was most necessary to be prov'd That the Real Presence and Transubstantiation were establish'd and commonly held in all Christian Churches when Berengarius his Disputations were on foot for which end a thousand attestations of persons now living would be of no use These attestations may serve to shew that the care which hath been so long taken and which is still continued to introduce insensibly the Doctrins of the Roman Church into other Churches by the ways which I have observed in my second Book and especially by their Missions and Seminaries hath not been altogether fruitless But this is the greatest absurdity of all to conclude from thence that the Doctrins in dispute were every where established in Berengarius's time or that they were perpetual There is reason to hope that the world will not suffer it self so easily to be cheated and what hath here been done will sufficiently manifest the Truth WE live not now in the times of ignorance and darkness wherein mens credulity is easily abused Our Age is an enlightned one and its notices are clear and penetrant and we should soon see the downfal of several ancient Errors were they not supported by the affinity which they have with mens temporal interests God will break off this alliance when it shall seem good in his sight but it is our duty to keep firm in his truth and prefer the honor we receive from it above all the advantages of the earth and beseech him that he would reconcile those to it by his Grace who are far from it that all of us may have but one heart to fear him and one and the same mouth to glorifie him A TABLE OF CHAPTERS BOOK I. Wherein is treated of the Method which the Author of the Perpetuity has follow'd CHAP. I. THAT I have reason to take for granted as I have done the Proofs of Mr. Aubertin against
other For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Religion by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyneth us to believe without becoming a Rule themselves and without arrogating this supreme Authority over mens Consciences which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature But perhaps it will be replyed that provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist what need we matter by what means we obtain it whether by means of the holy Scripture or by Consent of the antient Church If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate To which I answer That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours so that this doth not at all trouble us BUT be it as it will we must not forsake the Word of God nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be that is to say A Divine Faith were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us without having any fixed Principle is certainly of very dangerous Consequence For 't would happen at length after some Ages that the last would have no resemblance with the former because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture Draughts of which being taken one from the other become still every time less Perfect as they are farthest distant from their Original THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact to depend on the force of his Reasoning The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact the Truth of which cannot be attested by any Witness and I confess in this case no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings because there being no other Evidence to help us in our Search even Necessity warranteth this way of Proceeding altho it be indirect But we are not in these Circumstances seeing we have the Writings of the Antients and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eucharist which if we will apply our selves unto we shall soon discover their Opinions about it What need is there then for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers to hearken to the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments May we not now justly complain of him and answer him this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us and comparing these two ways the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain From whence it immediately follows That his manner of proceeding may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful for it is usual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road to walk in by-Paths MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method respects The second Observation justified Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4. the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads I shall first then make it appear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted and hath bin the first occasion of this Debate Secondly that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words for on one hand I have no more to do but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains his whole design is only to refute Mr Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation And on the other I have no more to do but declare to the World That from the first Moment of our Debate which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account but defend in general the whole Book against the indirect attempts of that Treatise Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest I know not any longer how to name things For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate which is not here Must a Book be assaulted this hath bin so Must it be defended this hath bin so Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit This hath bin likewise my Design because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me THE Author of the Perpetuity saith he never pretended his Treatise was Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4. a refutation of that Ministers Book and in a matter as this is which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him as from him he is mistaken and that this Author never designed what he charges him with Moreover he adds That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio in a Preface That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin ' s pretended Innovation but medleth farther with no other part of his Book Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me if I affirm that there 's not one word of Truth in all this For to speak properly the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dispute seeing our Debate began
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
accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. â— P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to
Libelle faustis quibus Sydereus subit puellus qui dum delituit tenebricosus sacris visceribus Sacrae Puellae quot miracula sunt secuta natum Hoc monstro fuit auspicatus uno quod cum numinis ad sui perenne lumen prodomo suoque Vali futuro ingenitas fugâsset umbras purgasset veterique labe foedum nil beatius aestimârit ille quam per pacificos subire plausus diem Virginis sinu Parentis involare sinum recentioris pacis Quid melius beatiusve iis ominibus diem videbis O quantum ominibus libelle faustis ex quo dum latites tenebricosus absque sole tui in sinu Parentis Dius immigravit ardor affulsitque viro undequaque numen quod imas animi in sui medullas quando ambilius vir ille sensit chartis gliscere de tuis libelle magis gliscere quo magis magisque lustraret latebras sinusque rerum tua luce liber nitoribusque raptus numine quo tumebat intus raptus numine numen ecce numen ib numeni ait severiorque in se se exerit hoc sides libello Enthusiasmo TO all which I have no more to say but only that I am not at all concerned at this pretended Divinity and that Mr. Arnaud's Thunder has neither scared nor hurt me his twenty Million of Witnesses are no more in my Apprehension than twenty Millions of Phantasms and in short I doubt not but I shall prove the Truth of these three Propositions First supposing that Mr. Arnaud is able to make good his Pretences concerning the Greek and other Eastern Churches from the eleventh Century to this present it would not hence follow that either the Alteration here in Question must be impossible or that it hath not actually hapned and consequently that this tedious Dispute on this Subject is vain and useless in respect of the main of the Cause which I defend Secondly That the true Greek Church and others whom the Latins call Schismaticks have never reckoned Transubstantiation nor the Adoration of the Sacrament amongst the Articles of their Creed Thirdly That all Mr. Arnaud's Endeavours to prove the Affirmative are Ineffectual and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of what he pretends And for as much as it may not be amiss to enquire into the Reasons of this his pretended Triumph so loudly proclaimed we shall therefore in confirming these three aforementioned Propositions observe likewise how Mr. Arnaud imposes on the World to the end his Proceedings may be the better laid open TO Evidence then the Truth of the first of them we must begin from the State of the Eastern Churches since the eleventh Century that is to say from the time Berengarius was condemned to this present for by this means we shall come to know those happy Fields which have furnished Mr. Arnaud with so many Laurels and at the same time discover the first of his Artifices whereby he would conceal the Condition of those Churches to the end he might make the World believe the Argument he draws from their Consent hath all the Weight and Strength which it is possible for Arguments of this Nature to have I say since the eleventh Century to this present because that Mr. Arnaud having divided his Discourse touching the Greeks into two parts The first from the seventh Century to the eleventh and the other from the eleventh to this present and having begun with this latter part I am thereby obliged to follow his order that I may accommodate my self as much as in me lies to his Method It must then be remembred the present Question only concerns these Churches and especially that of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this present for we shall examine in its place this other part of Mr. Arnaud's Discourse which reacheth from the seventh to the eleventh Century IT must not be imagined these Christian Churches are now in as flourishing a Condition as they have bin heretofore For they lost soon after the eleventh Century their antient Splendor being fallen into a most profound Ignorance and corruption of Manners and a horrid Croud of Superstitions and Disregard to the Mysteries of Religion Which State of theirs instead of being amended by time has grown every day worse WILLIAM Arch-Bishop of Tyre describing the Causes of the Inundations of the Barbarians into Syria and the Holy Land and of this long Bell. Sâ—cr L. 1. C. 8. Servitude of the Eastern Christians The Faith saith he and fear of God departed the whole Earth and especially from amongst them who styled themselves the Faithful Justice and Equity were no longer to be found amongst them for Fraud and Violence reigned everywhere and Malice had taken up the Place of Virtue so that the World seemed to be at its Period and the time of the coming of the Son of Man at hand For the Charity of many waxed cold and there was no longer Faith to be found on Earth The whole Face of things was changed and a man would have thought the Universe to be at the point of falling into its antient Chaos The Princes instead of keeping their Subjects in Peace broke their Allyances and made War upon every frivolous Occasion Wasting whole Provinces by their Violences and exposing the Goods of the Poor to the fury of the rude Soldiery there being nothing which could be preserved from their Snares Men were haled into Prison and suffered the most exquisit Torments to make them confess and resign up their Estates Neither could the Churches Treasure nor Monasteries escape their Hands altho their Priviledges and Immunities had bin granted by Princes The Sanctuaries were Violently broke open the Vessels dedicated to Gods Service together with the Sacerdotal Vestments and Ornaments were forcibly carried away The Churches were no longer a shelter to the Miserable The High-ways were filled with Robbers who spared neither Pilgrims nor Religious The Towns and Cities were as little free from Danger being full of Cut-throats who laâ—d wait for innocent Blood Fornication in all kinds was common and suffered without shame or Punishment as a thing lawful Men added Incest to their Adulteries and Chastity which is a Virtue so acceptable to God was grown out of use amongst them as well as Moderation and Sobriety which were forced to give Place to Luxury and Drunkenness And as to the Ecclesiasticks they lived no more regularly than the others it was the same with the Priest as with the People as speaks the Prophet For the Bishops growing careless became dumb Dogs having Respect to Persons They besmeared their Heads with the Oyl of Sinners like Hirelings abandoning their Flocks and leaving them to the Mercy of Wolves and becoming Simonists they forgat the Word of God freely you have received freely give The Almighty then being provoked by so many Crimes did not only suffer the Faithful in the Holy Land to remain in Bondage but farther to Chastise them who were at Liberty he stirred up
the Greeks of taking up their Dead a Year after they are buried If they find their Bodies are not yet consumed they examine what remains of them and if it doth not stink but hath a good Colour they esteem that Person a Holy Man But if on the contrary the Corps be Black or Swelled they repute him to have bin an ill Liver and an Excommunicated Person Wherefore it is that in their form of Excommunication one of their Imprecations is that such a Person may not be consumed after Death neither in this World nor in that which is to come but that he may be swelled like a Drum They verily believe this is perfectly accomplished And Leo Allatius tells us several Stories of those Phantasms which they call Burcolaques which are saith he Excommunicated Persons who being deceased torment the living and of whom the Greeks are as much afraid as our Children when we tell them of Fryar Bourru's Ghost Nay so greatly are they Prepossessed with false Opinions as to imagine an Excommunication pronounced by a Christian that afterwards turns Turk produces the same Effect that is to say keeps the Body from Consuming and causes it to grow hard and swell till such time as this Excommunication be taken off by him who pronounced it altho never so great an Infidel Which is confirmed by Leo Allatius concerning the Patriarch Raphael who to dissolve Christoph Angel C. 42. the Body of an excommunicated Person was forced to apply himself to a Renegado for his Absolution WE may reckon in the Number of the Grecian Superstitions the belief they have long held touching a Miracle that happens every Year in the Sepulcher at Jerusalem on the Saturday before Easter which is That all the Lamps being extinguished the Patriarch enters alone into the Sepulcher and God sends a Beam of Light from Heaven wherewith he kindles the Torch he holds in his hand and therewith lights all the rest Which is performed Annot. Allat de quorund Graecor opinat alii passim with great Ceremony and publick Acclamations of Rejoycing not only by the Greeks but all the Eastern Christians which are at Jerusalem for they all hold this Miracle to be true NEITHER do they at all suspect the Truth of another Miracle which Christoph Angel C. 42. they say happens once a Year in Caire near the River of Nile and which lasts from Holy Thursday to Ascension Day Which is that in several Countries the dead Bodies arise out of their Graves But this Miracle only happens when they celebrate Easter according to antient Custom Whereas should they Celebrate it according to the new Kalender the Miracle would infallibly cease as it fell out about fourscore or a hundred Years since when the Greeks altered the time of the Celebration upon which the dead Bodies arose no more and the Sacred Fire was also withheld from the Sepulcher which obliged them to the Observance again of the former Day whereupon the Miracles returned And this Relation we have from Christophorus Angelus and some others We might give a farther Description of the Ignorance and Superstition of these poor People were not what has bin already mentioned sufficient to inform the World of M. Arnaud's vain Triumphs For when it should appear that all these Sects held Transubstantiation and the real Presence what Advantage would accrue to him thereby Would it hence appear impossible that these Doctrines have crept in amongst them by the same means the true Mysteries of Christianity have slipt out for Ignorance and Superstition are but sorry keepers of Evangelical Truths It is easy to impose on these People whose Minds have bin so darkned with Errours all marks of Christianity having bin long since lost amongst them They may be made believe any thing being in this respect as white Paper whereon men may write what they please There needs but one mans falling into an Errour to draw all the rest after him And this Mr. Poulet hath well Relation of the Levant or the Sieur of Poulet's Voyage Part. 2. C. 28. observed in the Account he gives us of the Nestorians who still obstinately retain their old Errours for which Reason they are hated by all the Levantine Christians They know not what they Believe saies he being ready to receive any new Opinion be it what it will provided it includes not a Submission to the Holy See Which is as much as to say they are not firm or Precautioned against any Article but that of Obedience to the Pope having bin oftentimes tempted and sometimes surprized into an acknowledgment of his Supremacy but as to other Points they are very Ductil being ignorant of their Meaning And these are such People Mr. Arnaud desires and who seem to him fit Objects to ground his Dispute on He thought to make his Advantage of this Confusion but certainly he ought to give the World a true account of these Matters and not so highly to extol his own Victories seeing the Honour of them is much diminished by what I have allready offered CHAP. II. That the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Century and the Efforts the Latins have â—ade to communicate to them their Religion do invalidate the Proof which is pretended to be drawn from their Belief Mr. Arnaud's Artifice discovered HERE is then Mr. Arnaud's first Deceit detected which consists in the concealing from us the real Condition wherein this People have so long layn as to Religion to the end the weakness of his Arguments may lye undiscovered The second consists in setting before us several impertinent historical Passages on purpose to avert his Readers Mind from a due Consideration of those things which he knows would prove disavantagious to him It is without doubt a very disingenuous Artifice thus to change the natural Use and Order of things and snatch out of mens Sights the true and important Consequences may be drawn thence by substituting others which are but mere Amusements And yet this Mr. Arnaud has done for not being able to deny that the temporal State of the Eastern People since the eleventh Century hath very much facilitated the Attempts of the Latins establishing their Doctrines in those Parts He thereupon supposes I affirm the Greeks never knew the Latins believed Transubstantiation and under pretence of opposing this Fancy sprung from his own Brain he retails out the History of the East to shew that the Greeks could not be ignorant of the Belief of the Latins touching the Eucharist I will not insist at present on the little reason he had to charge me with this Opinion I shall make it appear in the following parts of this Discourse that this is his Chimera and not mine I shall only represent here the same historical Passages Mr. Arnaud has produced in that manner wherein they ought to be proposed to make a right Judgment of this Dispute and not in that false View wherein he has represented them In a Word
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
Advertisement lest he should accuse me of Dulness I shall venture again humbly to offer the Doubts wherewith common Sence furnishes me after Consultation with it against his pretended Solution 1st It seems to me to contain all the Characters of a Mind perplext and tormented with Study how to extricate it self out of a Difficulty through which it can find no natural Passage What relation has the Ideas of Concupiscence the Philosophy of the Thomists Cartesians Coperniciens with the Discourse of these good Greek Bishops who lived in the eighth Century and who without doubt had none of this Philosophy in their Heads Who can Imagine that their Expressions which are plain and simple should be grounded on the Model of these twofold Languages that is to say on an Observation which scarcely ever any Person before thought of so remote are these twofold Languages from the Sight and common Use of the World In truth I could never imagine the Ideas of Concupiscence the dead Bodies of the Thomists nor the Impressions or Automates of the Carthesians and Copernicus his Systems should ever be brought into our Dispute to decide the Question whether the Greeks believe Transubstantiation or not II. WHAT likelyhood is there that Bishops assembled in Council whose Words were to regulate the Peoples Faith and whom it behooved moreover to speak discreetly having Adversaries at their Backs should lay aside the Style of Religion if we believe Mr. Arnaud to take up that of Sence which Religion condemns That they should call the Eucharist without any Necessity a Matter and Substance of Bread considering it even after Consecration without adding to it either any Exposition or Mollification and expose themselves so imprudently to the Reproaches of their Enemies from whom they could expect no Favour nor Support and who waited for an Occasion to render them Odious to the People III. BUT how came it to pass their Adversaries who that they might censure them touching the Term of Image dared assert contrary to the Truth that none of the Fathers gave the Term of Image to the Eucharist after Consecration were so mild and favourable as to pardon them of Substance of Bread were their Faith in effect that of the Church of Rome that it is no longer the Substance of Bread Did they do this upon the account of the Thomists dead Bodies the Cartesians Automates or Corpernicus his System IV. IF we examine these Instances of a twofold Language which Mr. Arnaud proposes we shall find they are all Defective either in respect of themselves or in the Application he makes of them It is not true Religion absolutely teaches that what we call Goods are real Evils and that our Evils are real Goods nor that it turns Felicity into Misery Riches into Poverty Poverty into Riches Wisdom into Folly Prudence into Imprudence and Knowledg into Ignorance Religion teaches that these things are in Effect and in themselves what we term them because they are either Blessings and God's temporal Favours or Chastisements and Afflictions which come from his Hand and so far its Language agrees very well with the usual Speech of Men. But it also shews us that these things change their Name and Nature by the good or bad Use which is made of them that Riches become real Poverty Happiness Misery Wisdom Folly Prudence Imprudence and Science Ignorance to the Vicious who corrupt these Gifts of God and change their natural Destination that Afflictions likewise become Benefits Poverty Riches Misery Felicity to a Virtuous Person and one that fears God If Concupiscence would oppose it self against this Language and speak otherwise Religion will not let her So that the double Language that there is in respect of these things is grounded not on the Ideas of Concupiscence but on Truth it self When we call Riches Goods and Afflictions Evils we consider what they are in their own Nature and when we call them otherwise we consider 'em in relation to what they are by Accident These two Languages agree very well and they are both proper and true the Ideas of Concupiscence having no part therein Besides Religion moreover considers temporal Goods and Evils either absolutely in themselves or by Comparison with Spiritual Goods and Evils In the first respect it tells us that these are Goods and Evils as they are in effect In the second she can hardly give them that Name because they are not considerable in comparison of eternal Goods or Evils If Concupiscence opposes it self against this Language and speaks otherwise Religion restrains Her It is then certain that the double Language is grounded on various Respects and is ever true But it is not the same with the Point in hand For supposing Transubstantiation we cannot in any respect call the consecrated Eucharist a Substance of Bread nor say that we Offer the Substance of Bread and that the Substance of Bread is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ But Religion will Condemn these Expressions as False in every Sence and contrary to that Faith which injoyns us to believe the Substance of Bread does no longer remain To say that by the Substance of Bread is meant the bare Figure and Resemblance thereof as the Author of the Perpetuity does This cannot be for the Substance and the simple Appearance are two Terms directly opposite in the Language of Men and to say the Substance of Bread is as much as to say Real and not barely Bread in Appearance Moreover the Fathers of Constantinople compare this Substance of Bread with the Humane Substance which Christ assumed As our Lord say they took on him the Matter only or Humane Substance without the Personal Subsistence so he commanded us to Offer an Image a chosen Matter that is to say the Substance of Bread which shews they took the Term of Substance in a proper Sence and not for a simple Appearance In fine they say that as the Humane Substance which Christ assumed has not the Personal Subsistence so this Substance has not the Form or Humane Figure which clearly shews that as by the Humane Substance they meant a Subject capable of having personal Subsistence so they likewise understood by the Substance used in the Eucharist a real Subject which may have a Form or humane Figure and consequently a real Substance capable of Representing an external Form and Figure TO say likewise as Mr. Arnaud does that this is the Language of Sence which is contrary to the Judgment of Faith is as much as if he had said nothing For if Faith rectified the Language of Sence it would not suffer its Expressions to be Regulated by the Falsity of their Testimony and much less in a Decree of Council whose Expressions according to Mr. Arnaud's Maxims or the Church he is of must serve for a Law to Posterity not only for well Speaking but likewise for well Believing We ought then keep to the Language of Faith not that of Sence against which we must on the contrary
about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially
of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted to wit that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist but that it is a representation and a resemblance of them They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament he did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body but only instituted a representation or a resemblance of his Body and Blood and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of our Lord but the Host the Sacrifice or the Communion One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words this is my Body then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead but when he adds by which Holy Spirit c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resemblance of it The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence that by the real Body of Jesus Christ we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles nor Greek or Latin Church but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimony yet 〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths and to turn them to his own advantage He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up He adds that if this Original has been known to the Ministers yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony C 9. 348. 485. of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void and the Ministers had no right to alledge him nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule for besides that he say's nothing of it he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen But supposing it were so all that can be concluded thence is that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark BUT howsoever what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's which was not grounded on uncertain Reports but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia Raynald Ibid. We have long since says he been informed by several Persons of good credit that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries Yet before we gave full credit we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys and taking in Writing these their Depositions and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia and in his information 't is expresly said that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him and gave Raâ—nald Ibid. them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia but Armenians themselves and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia ' s I think here are as many formalities as can be desired and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein He says that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless extravagant and Socinian Opinions Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4â—4 That therein Original Sin the Immortality of the Soul the Vision of God the Existence of Hell and almost all the points of Religion are denyed That therein are also contrary Errors so that 't is plain this is not the Religion of a People or Nation but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions and some that differ little from Socinianism but this hinders not but they may be the Opinions of a particular People The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information some that are held in both one and the other Armenia others which are held only in one Armenia and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves in which the Particular Opinions are Described in these terms quidam or aliqui tenent as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit scripsit quod in generali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio And in the CVIII Article Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt
when he says he that eateth not my Flesh nor driuketh my Blood altho this may be understood of the mystery yet the Scriptures the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it applies it self likewise to a thing which is not another but only by imputation Chrysostom speaking of a poor body and calling him a man corrects Chrysost hom 11. in Rom. immediately his expression as if it were not just A man says he or to speak better Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which his interpreter Brixius has thus rendred Hominem autem seu verius dicam Christum ipsum In effect this correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes the sence of Chrysostom is that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man and yet it cannot be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance He is only so by imputation inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and morally The Church says he is taken in two respects either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfection of vertues which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus or rather of Turin who was an Author of the 8th Century has inserted word for word in his exposition of the same Epistle The Church says he which has neither spot nor Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl allâ—gor in Tobiam wrinkle and which is TRVLY the Body of Jesus Christ The same expression may be met with in Bede As our Lord says he is the Head of his Church and the Church is TRVLY his Body so the Devil is the head of all the wicked and the wicked are his body and members IN all these examples I now alledged concerning the Gospel the Poor and the Church Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ or his Body stand for a figure nor that these things stand for figured truths For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man and the Church to speak properly is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Poor are truly Jesus Christ Whence it follows there 's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ and the Gospel truly this Body nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure as a figure is really the thing it self which it represents he can hence conclude no more but this that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ without any regard to its substance that 't is matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so vehemently urge those terms and pretend 'um to be such a great argument For example those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites and Manichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body and allowed only a phantasm might not they say of the Eucharist that 't is our Lords true Body to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one such as these Hereticks attributed to him in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix or another image of our Saviour that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour who called the Bread his Body might not they likewise say 't is truly his Body not to determine the sense of these words but to establish only the certainty of them and represent 'um true beyond all question in the same sense in reference to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death our Burial and Resurrection with Jesus Christ to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true being rightly understood SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it and communicated only faintly the virtue of it might not they say in comparing them with our Eucharist that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ to signifie that it gives us a true lively distinct and perfect Idea of it that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful and makes it fell all the virtues of it in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure Pass we says he from Cyril Hieros Catech. myst 1. old things to new and from the figure to the TRVTH There Moses was sent from God into Egypt here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Father is come into the world There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel here the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot or wrinkle protects us against the Devils There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea here the Devil pursues us as
that the doubt was rejected in these terms I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges and that of proper in others and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them but he must not under this pretence form this proposition That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ for there 's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate which offer themselves in divers passages and in divers Authors and these same terms joyned together by way of exageration I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages nor all Nations we have already shew'd that he speaks only thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation or the substantial Presence and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any advantage of what he says AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait of Damascen of the second Council of Nice of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th Century and that of the Horologium of the Greeks for they have been all of 'em already sufficiently answer'd 't is only needful to remember what I have already established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians seeing we have already answered them We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armenians or to speak better the Armenians themselves have answer'd it IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians who formally declare as we have already seen that they mean nothing else by these terms than a true mystery of this Body and Blood and in effect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quotation that the Priest says in Communicating I eat by Faith O Lord Jesus Apud Cassand iâ— Liturgicis Christ thy holy living and saving Body I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians mention'd by Strozza is impertinently alledg'd for two reasons First That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome who in embracing its Religion wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church Secondly That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God but of God Incarnate that we drink truly the Blood of a Man but of a Man that is God relates not to our question nor is not said in this respect but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man and not the true Body of God Incarnate What 's this to the question to wit Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words In veritate saying Hoc est in veritate corpus hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubtful 'T is not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have retrenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate had he in truth found them in it Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop say this addition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate This is a mere Chaos wherein a Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500. man can comprehend nothing The Deacon says he sings still in their Mass Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia But what consequence can be drawn from these words 'T is certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Nestorians who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians There remains still in this Liturgy as correct as 't is several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church as what the Priest says Jesus Missae Christ apud Indos Bibl. patr tom 6. Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion Death Burial and Resurrection receive this Sacrifice from our hands Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance there 's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself Having read the passage of S. Paul That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord that we desire to be out of the body to have his presence that we desire to please him whether present or absent c. rehearsed the Creed the Priest says This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Then praying for the Consecration O Lord God says he look not upon the multitude of my sins ' and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sacrifice AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee we may find acceptance with thee On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ in which he will appear ar the last day Immediately after he calls the gifts the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then beseeches God they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith Again he says That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion Death Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and prays to God That his Holy Spirit may come down and rest on this Oblation and sanctifie it to
it there must be made this contradictory opposition Men are not always lyars men are sometimes lyars or men are always lyars men are not always lyars they are sometimes true That man will justly render himself ridiculous who having offer'd this proposition That during a thousand years men always spake the truth and attempting to maintain it shall afterwards give an exchange and say the question is Whether men could remain a thousand years without speaking any truth He may be well told this is impertinently stated and that this is not the point in hand but only to know whether they always said the truth during a thousand years without ceasing ever to speak it or whether they have been sometimes lyars This instance alone exactly discovers the Author of the Perpetuity's illusion who having offer'd this proposition That the faithful ever had a distinct knowledg whether the Eucharist was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for 't is thus he understands it has afterwards proposed the state of the question in these terms It concerns us to know whether the faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notionâ— whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ We have just cause to tell him that this is not the point but whether they always were in a condition to form this distinct notion or whether sometimes they were not Mr. ARNAVD endeavours in vain to excuse the Author of the Perpetuity that he only established this state of the question on the very terms of my answer For supposing it were true that the terms of my Answer furnished him with an occasion or pretence for this yet must he not thus establish it to the prejudice of the publick interests which require a man to proceed right on in a Dispute to find the truth and not to amuse ones self in deceitful and fruitless contests and prove things which will signifie nothing Now this is what the Author of the Perpetuity has done and Mr. Arnaud likewise by means of this false state of the question as will appear if we consider that when they have proved most strongly and solidly and in the most convincing manner imaginable That the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ which is a proposition contradictorily opposite to that which they express in their state of the question they will do nothing in order to the clearing up of our difference We dispute whether the change which the Protestants suppose be possible or not Now to prove that 't is impossible by the Argument of the distinct knowledge it signifies nothing to shew that the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming this distinct notion now in question For they might remain only a hundred years in it fifty years thirty years without forming it this is sufficient to invalidate their proof and give way to the change which we pretend To shew it is impossible that a man has entred into a house it is not enough to prove that the door of this house could not remain open for ten years together it must be shew'd that it was always kept shut For if it has been left open only one day the proof concludes nothing It is then evident that these Gentlemen beat the air and that whatsoever they built on their state of the question is only an amusement to deceive silly people Whence it follows that persons of sense may justly complain of them in that they have made my words be they what they will a pretence whereby to entertain the world with fruitless discourses BUT moreover 't is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity has perverted my words and sense 'T is true that in the fifth Observation of my first Answer I established this general Principle That error and truth have equally two degrees the one of a confused knowledg and th' other of a distinct one and that 't is hard to discover any difference betwixt them whilst they are in this first degree of confused knowledg unless a man comes to the other termed a distinct knowledg that the ideas are so like one another that a man cannot easily discern them It is true that from this Principle I generally concluded That before an Error becomes famous by its being opposed the greatest part of the Church content themselves with holding the truth in this indistinct degree I now mention'd and so it is easie for a new Error to insinuate and settle it self in mens minds under the title of an illustration of the ancient truth It is moreover true that in applying this Principle I added these terms To apply this to the matter which we treat of I say that before Transubstantiation came into the world every one believed our Saviour to be present in the Sacrament and that his Body and Blood are really therein received by the faithful Communicant and that the Bread and Wine are the signs and memorials of his Death and Passion on the Cross this was the Faith of the whole Earth but I shall not be mistaken when I say there were few that extended their thoughts so far as to observe exactly the difference of the two Opinions which do at this day separate the Reformists and Romanists there were also some who knew the truth only in general When then error came in thereupon and building ill on a foundation declared we must understand our Saviour is present in the Eucharist stubstantially and locally that his Body and Blood are received in it by the mouth of our bodies and that the sign of his Body is his Body it self this was without doubt in effect an extraordinary novelty and of which there was never heard any mention but yet I do not find it strange that several people were deceived by it and took this not for a novelty but as an illustration of the common Faith So far extends my fifth Observation BUT he ought not to stop here to raise a state of a question he ought to see likewise what I add immediately after in the sixth Observation Had the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud consulted it they would have acknowledged that I gave therein a formal explication and as it were a limitation to this general Principle which I laid down that this does not wholly take place in enlightned Ages wherein there are eminent Pastors for knowledg that take care to instruct clearly their Flocks in the truths of Faith For then their good instructions hinder the growth of Error and render people capable of knowing and rejecting it But it is wholly applicable to the Ages of darkness wherein Ignorance and Superstition have corrupted the Church Which I express in these words Which
Century and that 't will not be found I attributed it to the 10th Secondly That when I spoke precisely of the 10th I did not suppose any Disputes in it but on the contrary a gross ignorance which hindred 'em from disputing Mr. ARNAVD cannot comprehend that there were or that there were not any Disputes The means says he that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it or had an aversation to it and that they have been persuaded immediately so that they made no resistance And so far for the Disputes The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings that the Paschasits should publish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to ' em That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it And here we have something against the Disputes BUT people must never argue against matters of fact 'T is certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th Century we learn as much from Paschasus himself 't is also certain there were likewise in the 11th on the same subject We are informed of this by the History of Berenger It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant 'T is also certain the Real Presence was taught therein We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point nor Writings on either side It seems to me we ought to stop here and argue not against these matters of fact seeing they cannot be denied but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot to Bertram to Raban or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin THIS is the Point to be dispatched for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th Century What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus or that of S. Godart or S. Remacle We do not see says Mr. Arnaud in any of these Book 9. ch 6. page 907. lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence and to refute the contrary opinion Were this observation true what good would redound from it Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and instructions which they gave their people Moreover who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin William of Malmsbury as Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords Ibidem Body having shewed them by a miracle the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot or not 't is not necessary to enquire 't is sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number nor fame seeing a Primate of England th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dunstan Page 9 8. that he preached the Real Presence and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book telling 'em they might learn such great things in it as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th Century to establish the Real Presence For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book but the mysteries of the Real Presence 'T would be absurd to say that by these great things we must understand only the Devotion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament For 't is to be supposed these Learned folks mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devotion we are able and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence seeing it discovers it self sufficiently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ MOREOVER he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice need but read the 7th Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th Book He pretends to shew therein as the title of the Chapter bears That the mixture of the Page 914. two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th Century is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense He exerts all his parts to shew this mixture is impossible he cannot endure there should be therein either ignorant or prophane persons nor Paschasists nor Bertramists and argues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr Arnaud's subtilties will not prevail That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs and pass 'em over in silence to make way for his reasonings But let him argue as long as he will he cannot hinder its being true that in the 10th Century th' English were taught this Doctrin that as we consider two things in the same creature as for instance in the Lib. Catholicor Serm. ad Bed Hist l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Veloci water of Baptism the one that it is naturally true 't is corruptible Water and th' other that according to the spiritual mystery it has a saving virtue so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature but if we regard the spiritual virtue then we understand there is life in it and that 't will give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith That there is a great deal of difference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist and the visible species of nature that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine and that by
learned but a very honest man a bold defender of the Dissert c. 17. Catholick Faith against all Innovators and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority What likelihood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropolitan and such a man as Hincmar who was countenanced by the King would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Abbot IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say That Paschasus clearly testifies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books For this cannot be collected from his expressions unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud Let those says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th of S. Matthew that will extenuate the term of Body hear me those that say that 't is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church and that 't is not his true Blood imagining they know not what that 't is in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood and make the Lord a lyar saying that 't is not his true Flesh nor his true Blood by which we declare his true death whereas truth it self says This is my Body And a little lower I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 't is not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing but that it is Sacramentally so a certain virtue of his Flesh and not his Flesh the virtue of his Blood and not his Blood the figure and not the truth the shadow and not the Body And in another place a little further I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly because I understand that some rereprehend me as if I would in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacraments of Christ attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises And in his Letter to Frudegard Sed quidam says he loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt quaecunque possunt ne credant quoe veritas repromittit opponunt dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile visible hoec autem inquiunt quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt nec palpari ideo corpus non sunt si corpus non sunt in figura carnis sanguinis hoec dicuntur non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi sanguinis quoe caro passa est in cruce nata de Maria Virgine Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence That he had several clear and solid objections offered him whether by word of mouth or writing or by Books or bare discourses he does not inform us But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection dispute censure and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion Opponunt says he quoecunque possunt Ecce quam bene disputant dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem carnis non carnem Audivi quosdam me reprehendere c. Do men thus express themselves when they would represent private discourse But says Book 3. ch 8. p. 843. Mr. Arnaud Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard assures that altho some are deceived thro ignorance yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery I answer that the sense of Paschasus is that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery to wit that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according as 't is express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges Vt fiat Corpus Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi and by the words of Christ This is my Body Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ and to the terms of the Liturgy but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy and to those of Christ explain'd themselves very plainly against him for there 's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em They confessed that the words were true and could not be question'd without a crime but yet this hindred 'em not from setting ' emselves against the sense of Paschasus Paschasus pretends to draw advantage against 'em by their acknowledging the words imagining the words were plainly for him but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him nor against the sense he gave these words This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds just as if any one having said that there 's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there 's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses But pray why must these be secret discourses during Paschasus his life seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the principal question to wit whether Paschasus was an Innovator Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church which gives says he such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence Book 8. ch 9. in the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it He adds That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it according to the state of their time do overthrow this ridiculous Fable To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th 8th and 9th Centuries and Latin Authors of the 7th and 8th for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires Let 's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us HE has recourse next
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
knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapable manner of being perverted Who has given liberty to Paschasus to determin what the Church did not determin and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies has thought best to expess himself in an aenigmatical manner as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much They pervert says he to their sense most of the common expressions And hence it happens that if any body else in following the common notions makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense they accuse this person of rashness This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time Here 's exactly the description of a man that flies but fears to be taken in flying and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration Altho these things says he have the figure of Bread and Wine yet must we Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples This is my Flesh for the life of the world And to explain my self in a more wonderful manner Et ut mirabilius loquar 't is entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and is risen from the Sepulchre These terms ut mirabilius loquar are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing Mr. ARNAVD answers That all Miracles are not Paradoxes I grant Book 8. ch 10. p. 865. it and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner ut mirabilius loquar Did S. Chrysostom adds he offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist O wonderful he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests I answer that in effect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox a Paradox of an Orator which seems at first to contradict common sense altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense but likewise truth As to what remains I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated ut mirabilius loquar by these The better to explain to you this marvail The Rules of Grammar must be changed to favour this Translation ut mirabilius loquar naturally signifies to speak or explain my self in a more admirable manner or at most to say something more admirable which is to say that the expression which he was going to use or the thing it self which he was about to speak was extraordinary and surprizing Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expressions or conceptions were new whence 't is not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Matthew and adds Vt ex ipso considerare queas quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg themselves liable to mistakes and submit themselves to the censures of their friends 'T is not this Here is something more particular which I desire may be considered Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was censured for teaching the Real Presence and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin he defends himself the best he can he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew wherein he treats of the same thing and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment to see what may be more rationally believ'd or what may be charitably reprehended in him Quid intelligibilius credendum sit vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable either to believe it or not to believe it to know whether it be or be not worthy of reprehension to have offer'd it But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church and such a clear certain and undeniable Faith as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was to the judgment of a particular person leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable and that of reprehending him that is to say of censuring him provided he does it with charity Mr. ARNAVD reckons for my 6th proof this That Paschasus does Page 868. never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church This remark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd and found to be true I need only add that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer and without hesitation the formal consent of the Church of his time and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him and what all the Faithful made profession to believe with him 't was Paschasus He was set upon in particular he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin he was accused for being a rash person a visionary Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did and that his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence But instead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi PASCHASVS furnishes us likewise
because an addition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body And these are not two Bodies but one only Body because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another but the same Body When this Bread is broken and eaten Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten to wit in this Bread which is joyn'd to him and yet he remains entire and living to wit in his natural Body This Bread is offered for our Redemption inasmuch as 't is a commemoration of it and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross And in this sense 't is a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words Do this that is to say Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me to wit of my Passion and your Redemption for I have redeemed you by my Blood Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort For in fine a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds 'T were well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew that is to say from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 't is possible sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication Hoc est Corpus meum Id est in Sacramento contain'd these words Hoc est Corpus meum Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud did Answer to the second Treatise part 3. ch 2. not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute He only tells us that 't is the direct attention to the Sacrament and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words Hoc est Corpus meum by these id est in Sacramento For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament and that Book 8. ch 4. p. 797. which strikes our senses one cannot say strictly that 't is the Body it self of Jesus Christ It is apparent Bread 't is the sign the similitude the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament as Drutmar says This is not the point in question But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail 'T is by this we must supply Drutmar ' s expression for nothing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily and by an abridged expression IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist He explains these words of our Saviour This is my Body in this sense that is to say Sacramentally And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body or as if a Commentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal natural and essential sense of the words he explains without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself For I do not believe it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms This is my Body signifie that the accidents of Bread or the vail of the appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake for 't is an express and formal explication of our Saviours words Supposing people commonly believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence as Mr. Arnaud would have it what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus that Drutmar who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of would deceive the world betray the publick Faith of the Church favour those that opposed it scandalize his own proper party and give way to an heretical explication of Christs words and this by the rule of direct attention and by the means of abbreviated expressions In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us CHAP. XI Of other Authors in the Ninth Century Amalarius Heribald Raban Bertram and John Scot. AFter Drutmar we must examin Amalarius If we believe what Andrew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons entituled De tribus Epistolis the question will be soon decided For having related on the testimony of Florus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii praecursores veluti ante signanos Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius with John Scot were Berenger ' s fore-runners If we believe M. the President Maugin Amalarius was only a Stercoranist of whom we shall speak hereafter If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary for he strongly assures us That Bishop Usher was Perpetuity of the Faith page 83. mistaken when he thought Amalarius ' s error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks not only because this supposition is without any ground but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amalarius with Heribald
yields us a demonstrative proof that Paschasus was an Innovator for the rest do not speak like him there are two of the famousest of 'em viz. Raban and Bertram who have expresly applied themselves to the refuting of his Doctrin TO these two we may add a third which is John Scot who wrote also by the command of Charles the Bald against the novelties of Paschasus His Book was burnt in the Council of Verseil and we understand from the testimony of Ascelinus in his Letter to Berenger that the end which he proposed was to shew in this Book that what is Consecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body nor the true Blood of Jesus Christ Toto nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video ut mihi persuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Consecratur neque vere Corpus neque vere Christi Sanguinem esse hoc autem astruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opusculis quae prave exponit The Author of the Dissertation which Mr. Arnaud has inserted in his 12th Book pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram and that of John Scot are the same He endeavours likewise to lessen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adversary to Paschasus and I had not finish'd this Work without examining his Conjectures had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud I hope this friend of mine will soon publish his Piece which will or I am greatly deceived fully satisfie every unprejudic'd man that seeks the truth CHAP. XII Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book HAving satisfied whatsoever respects the matter of this Dispute my design wherein I am engaged of returning an exact answer to Mr. Arnaud's volume seems to require I should now pass to the discussion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled personal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me The interest also of my defence against Mr. Arnaud's injustices obliges me to this Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province for there are several reasons hindering me which I hope judicious persons will not disallow FIRST these personal differences are handled in so sharp and hot a manner so full of animosities that 't were better a thousand times to pass 'em over in silence and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety Patience and Christian Charity than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly and repel Mr. Arnaud's outrages which cannot be well done without sometimes exceeding the bounds of Christian moderation MOREOVER altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reason to believe that the publick will take part with what respects their persons yet I cannot pretend 't is the same with me These Gentlemen have made a noise in the world they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France Spain and Italy Whereas I am person obscure enough and whose name is only known by my interest in this Dispute so that 't will be a presumption in me to believe the publick will concern it self in my respect Should I then here begin with a long discussion of our complaints and reciprocal defences the readers might well say to one another that they have nothing to do with this and that 't is an abuse of their patience after a long discourse of things which relate to the cause to engage them further in a tiresom discourse of Personal Differences IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongst his Personal Differences several things to which 't is impossible to answer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of ' emselves have no coherence with that of the Eucharist I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity against the first Reformers which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner grounding it on Facts and Principles some of which are false others taken in a wrong sense and others invidiously perverted How can we handle in a few words so important a subject when the question concerns the justifying the innocency of several great men and to shew at the same time the justice and necessity of our separation from the Roman Church 'T is plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters and that this is matter for a great Volume I reduce under this head these passionate expressions which begin the 9th Chapter of this 11th Book and which I design to relate here that the world may judg of ' em We demand justice says Mr. Arnaud speaking of me for the excesses of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honesty and truth which even Pagans would blush to violate We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this license We are already satisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promise impunity to all manner of crimes provided they be of the faithful Calvinists who commit them and we do not question him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adversaries We know the solutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear contrary to what S. Paul says who tells us that slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdom of God But that which we desire to know is whether they have of late taken away from Crimes the name of Crimes and stript them of the general infamy which accompanies 'em whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongst Calvinists and whether they have sanctified this name which is so horrible amongst men that they could not find a blacker to shew their detestation of it than to call such Devils I design not to repel these discourses to be met with scattered throughout his whole Book any otherwise than by reciting 'em or at most by censuring 'em as excesses which do not at all become a person who pretends to correct our morals and teach us virtue and moderation I shall not retort upon him several things in my turn which a just and natural defence seems to permit and enjoyn me to tell him But I pretend to justifie so well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud blush for shame that he has attackt them with such an outragious and malicious air And this we cannot do here transiently nor by way of answer to ten or twelve hot periods which like lightning have more fire than matter 'T is necessary for this purpose to be disengaged from all other subjects for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it to cure a wound than to make it AND these are the reasons which withhold me from entring into an exact discussion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book But because there are in these Personal Differences some Articles which I cannot wholly pass over in silence having too near a relation to the things which we treat of the Readers
Author of it This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes for supposing 't were true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca which is that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's and not Ratram's yet 't is certain what he says of the person of this Bertram or Ratram for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name is on our supposition that 't was the Religious of Corby Whether he admits our supposition as believing it in effect to be true or whether he admits it merely thro condescention 't is needless to inquire for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true which he does not he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author to wit that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings which suffices to justifie the contradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers Mr. ARNAVD's second complaint is that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin ' s Book an excellent piece which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs and his Proofs into Objections Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words intermixing several common places of raillery alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question to distinguish and argue in mood and figure and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable WERE it worth our while 't would be easie to shew he deceives himself in whatsoever he offers But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles we shall only say if either he or the Author of the Perpetuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery it does not follow that others have been so too We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections and Objections into Proofs is a conception so rare and well express'd that 't is hard to hear it offered without finding in it matter of laughter Moreover there 's a great deal of difference between saying that to discover the falsities of a Book we need only to confront the passages of it with the Originals and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs The confrontation of passages is the juster means the most natural and most ordinary to discover falsities but the change of Proofs into Objections and Objections into proofs is a kind of world turn'd upside down We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd 't would be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side there being few of them but what consist of Proofs and Objections and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary which are called Objections We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs and of Answers to Objections and this is what cannot be changed so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs yet would he be perplexed by these instances and answers and consequently must acknowledg he has lost his time and pains and that the Author of the Perpetuity has abused him Mr. ARNAVD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity He proposes it in his 9th Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable He ascends his tribunal and thence pronounces this sentence against me that I am guilty Ch. 9. p. 1130 1131. of an heinous crime such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction I is says he again a detestable calumny an abominable crime the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches this is no jesting matter He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence If he has express'd himself thus thro incogitancy I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world and if he has done this with mature deliberation I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was and am certain there 's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding I protest before God with a sincere heart that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me I have answer'd his Book and am therewith content But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute which the publick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure and having discrediied it I say with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him What reason has he for such a passion I wrote these words in my Book God will one day shew who they are that wrong his Answer to the second Treatise part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter Church the light of his judgment will discover all things yea and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance and then 't will be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome and regaining peoples favour for when the face of things shall be changed this worlds wisdom will be useless Here is my crime this the spark that has set all on fire We Book 11. ch 9. page 1131. understand says he this language and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself and what interpretation his words will bear He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persuasion but out of policy and for worldly respects For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united if he believes what he says we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defended So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of political and worldly respects is to charge him with not believing what he writes and to give this account of it THIS passion is a strange thing Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat he would have
acknowledgment that Bertram is no other than Ratram an Author in whom these three things meet if we compare the Title of the Book with what Authors say that have spoken of this Religious This is the judgment of the Divines of Doway whom Vsher has only followed AFTER the Divines of Doway and Bishop Vsher who discovered this truth more distinctly Mr. De Marca was one of the first who lent his hand to it as appears from his Treatise in French of the Eucharist wrote before the year 1640. and publish'd by Monsieur the Abbot Faget his Cousin Theophilus Raynaud the Jesuit has since likewise follow'd the same sentiment Erotem p 132. Dissert Hist p. 134. in his Treatise of good and bad Books Mr. Mauguin acknowledges it likewise in his famous defences of Grace wherein he has been follow'd by Mr. Hermon a Canon of Beauvais under the Title of HIERONYMVS AB ANGELO FORYI Cellot the Jesuit agrees in this point with Mr. Epist 3. S. xxiii seq opp ad hist Goth. p. 569. col 2. Herman and Mr. Mauguin altho he elsewhere opposes the later in several things De Luc d' Achery and Mr. De S. Beuve have equally testifi'd they were of the same opinion the one in his Preface on the first Tome of his Spicilege th' other in his Manuscript Lectures on the Eucharist 'T IS true that since the late conjecture of Mr. De Marca became publick to wit that John Scot is the Author of the Work of our Lords Body and Blood and not Ratram De Luc seems to yield to this novelty and has Praefat. in T. 2. Spicil Part 3. c. 5. T. 1. de Script Eccl. p. 53. T. 2. p. 06. Triumph of the Euchar. p. 18 63 66 68 94 95 96 97. since been followed by the Author of the Perpetuity who speaks of it in a doubtful manner and by the Author of the Dissertation which I examin But a while after the learned Jesuit Labbeus opposed this conjecture of Mr. De Marca as handsomly as he could in a Book which he dedicated to him For in this Book he takes indifferently Bertram and Ratram for one and the same Author Mr. Pavillon also ingenuously acknowledges in his Book against Mr. Daillé that Ratram and Bertram are but one and the same person citing always Ratram of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The famous Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament book 5. ch 2. p. 264. Jesuit Noüet against Mr. Claude shews in this matter the same sincerity as Mr. Pavillon and Mr. Arbusti has follow'd them in his declaration HOWSOEVER it be after the reasons which I have alledged I believe I may affirm with all these learned men of the Church of Rome that Bertram and Ratram are but one and the same Author It only then remains that I refute in a few words what the Author of the Dissertation offers most considerable against some of these reasons TO one of these reasons viz. that the Religious of Corby being named Artic. 2. of the Dissert on John Scot. Ratram and Cellot's anonymous Author saying that Ratram wrote a Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord known under the name of Bertram is then Ratram's to this reason I say our Author answers that altho Cellot caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed in the two places of his Anonymous wherein are mention'd Paschasus his Adversaries yet 't is not thus found in two Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor but in the first there 's Intramus and in the second Ratramnus Cellot having caused the name of Ratramnus to be Printed contrary to what the Manuscripts bear BUT this answer is not sufficient First Cellot has caused his Anonymous to be Printed from Father Sirmond's Copy who had taken it from a Manuscript of Corby and not from the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor Secondly These two Manuscripts which are apparently false are not so considerable as the Manuscripts of the Anonymous mention'd by Vsher and others which have all of 'em the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscript De Success Eccles p. 39. c. 2. Du Perron Book 2 Auth. 39. p 666. of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord which bears the name of Ratramnus nor as the Manuscripts of the Catalogue of Sigebert of which we have spoken The Intram of the Manuscripts of the Abby of S. Victor is the Transcribers fault who has disfigured the name of Ratramnus just as his Babanus is the famous Raban TO another reason drawn from Sigebert who makes the Author of the De Success Eccl. c. 2. Book of Predestination to wit Ratramnus the Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord and of whom in effect two Manuscripts represent the name of Ratramus instead of Bertramus to this reason I say the Author answers First That the work of Bertram of Predestination is different from that of Ratramnus because that according to Trithemius the work of Bertram contain'd only one Book and was not dedicated to Charles the Bald whereas that of Ratram is dedicated to him and contains two Books Secondly That all the Editions of Sigebert having constantly the name of Bertram we may believe that a fault has slipt into the Manuscripts of Gemblou and of Vauvert where we have the name of Ratramnus BUT these two Answers are not satisfactory As to the first Trithemius as well as Sigebert says positively in two places that the Book of Bertram of Predestination is dedicated to Charles the Bald and brings such reasons for the proof of what he says that there 's no way to avoid the force of his testimony Secondly Either our Author supposes that Trithemius saw a Treatise of Predestination under the name of Bertram which contain'd only one Book or he will have him not to have seen it as he believes that Trithemius has not seen the Book of our Lords Body and Blood If Trithemius has seen this Treatise of Predestination what is become of it since Trithemius his time How comes it to pass no body ever heard of it but this our Author If Trithemius never saw it why will our Author give credit to his testimony when the question concerns this Book of Predestination and yet will not have us believe what he says of the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thirdly Our Author abuses the passage of Trithemius Trithemius has follow'd Sigebert and by librum seems to understand opus a work without having respect to the number of the parts of which it is composed unless we will suppose that one number has escaped the Printer and that instead of these words de Predestinatione j. we should read de Predestinatione jj which is very possible and of which there are an hundred examples in the Catalogue of Trithemius now in question OUR Author's second Answer is something worse than the first I
the year 1080. seeing it is certain he lived till the beginning of the 12th Century But it does not follow from the error of Vossius that he was posterior to William This Continuer clearly denotes that he was Contemporary to Guitmond now Guitmond preceded William of Malmsbury for this latter wrote in 1142. whereas the other died about the end of the 11th Century or at the beginning of the 12th That if there be found several things alike in this Continuer and in William it is more reasonable to say that William has taken from the Continuer than to say the Continuer has taken from William and that the rather because William has enlarged his History farther than the other by thirty years which is the natural Character of a later Historian BUT supposing William of Malmsbury be the first who has spoken of the Martyrdom of John Scot this does but the more confirm the truth of this History for writing as he did in the very place and in the same Convent wherein what he relates hapned 't is just to believe that in this Narration he has offered nothing but what was grounded on authentick Acts or on a Tradition which in his time pass'd for an undeniable truth in this Convent IT is to no purpose for the Author of the Dissertation to distinguish what this William of Malmsbury has taken from the ancient Monuments of his Church and what he has added thereunto of his own He ought not thus to make of his own head this distinction on an Historian of the 12th Century and to tell us precisely here 's what he has taken from the Monuments of his Church here 's what he has added thereunto of his own There was one John that suffered Martyrdom and was reputed a Saint this is of the ancient Monuments of the Church of Malmsbury but that this John was John Scot is an addition of William This distinction of our Author is bold enough and was in effect unknown to Simeon of Durham to Roger de Howden to Matthew of Westminster and to all those other Historians which I have already denoted who all certainly believ'd that the Martyrdom of John Scot related by William of Malmsbury was a truth of History which is beyond question HIS telling us that William was the first Historian who gave to King Alfred two Masters of the name of John the one surnam'd the Saxon Abbot of Aetheling the other surnam'd Scot and since a Martyr First William does not say formally that this was two different men John the Saxon and John Scot nor that one was surnam'd the Saxon and the other Scot he says only in one place Joannem ex antiqua Saxonia oriundum and in another Joannes Scotus Neither must one necessarily conclude from his discourse that he regarded them as two different men as will appear if we take notice of what he wrote and of the occasion which has oblig'd him the first time to make mention of this John as it were transiently reserving himself to speak of him more amply afterwards as he has done But when we should suppose that William would distinguish these two Johns this makes nothing to th' establishing what he relates of the Martyrdom of John Scot's being a fable of his own invention on the contrary this very thing would help to establish that knowing two Johns and distinguishing them he must have better known what ought to be said of both one and the other Neither can it be said that he made two Johns Tutors of Alfred for when he speaks of John who was Abbot of Aetheling he does not say that he was the Tutor of Alfred he says this only under the name of John Scot. AS to what the Author of the Dissertation has remark'd that Anastasius in his Letter written to Charles the Bald in 875. seems to speak of John Scot as of a man already dead which shews that he was not the Tutor of Alfred seeing that this Prince gave not himself to learning till in the year 884. Neither is it moreover likely that so Religious a Prince would make use of such a man as John Scot who was decried as an Heretick driven out of th' University of Paris at the earnest pursuit of Nicolas I. as holding Doctrins contrary to the principal Fundamentals of Christian Religion I answer first That our Author returns continually to his fabulous History as if John Scot could have been driven out in the 9th Century from the University of Paris which began only in the 12th Secondly It is certain that Anastasius speaks of Erigenus as of an holy and famous man Virum says he per omnia sanctum which does not shew that he was thought then unworthy of being the Kings Tutor nor that he was decried at Rome for an Heretick Thirdly Seeing that John Scot was very much esteem'd by Charles the Bald he might be so too by Alfred Son of Aetelwolph Son in law to Charles the Bald. And in effect William of Malmsbury testifies that he had seen the Letters of Alfred wherein this Prince treated John Scot with great esteem and affection Alfredi munificentia ministerio usus ut ex scriptis Regis intellexi sublimis Melduni resedit and this is a mere mockery to make these Letters pass for fictious ones fram'd by the friends of John Scot and Berenger Fourthly It is not true that Anastasius speaks positively of John Scot as of a man already deceased and supposing it were he might think so by reason of his great age or some false report of his death In fine our Author absurdly supposes that Alfred did not betake himself to learning till the year 884. he has faln into this mistake for want of considering that altho Asserus and some of those that have follow'd him have attributed to this year what they have said of the Piety of Alfred and his applying himself to learning yet this happens merely from their recapitulating what hapned since the year 868 till 884 as I have already observ'd NEITHER is there more strength in the Argument which our Author draws from some terms which William of Malmsbury makes use of in relating the History of the Martyrdom of John Scot. Hoc tempore creditur fuisse Joannes Scotus propter hanc infamiam credo taeduit eum Franciae à pueris quos docebat ut fertur perforatus martyr aestimatus est He pretends that these terms are doubtful fears and suspicions and that these ways of speaking are likely to make one doubt of the truth of this relation BUT all this deserves no answer First The Author of the Dissertation has mixt Simeon of Durham's Text which bears Propter hanc infamiam c. with that of William of Malmsbury who relates this fact as a thing evidently certain And in effect the first term creditur refers to the time wherein John Scot lived in England The second credo is added by the Author of the Dissertation being not the Text of Simeon of
irreverence shewing them how grievously they erred in that they testifi'd a greater respect to the Saints who are the servants and friends of our Saviour than to himself who is their Lord and Master These Papa's gave me no other answer but that there was no command which enjoyned this respect and adoration This answer is Heretical as I shall hereafter manifest for John Oecolampadus that arch Heretick of our time the ring-leader of the Sacrament aries asserted that our Saviour was not contain'd in the Sacrament of the Eucharist has likewise written and publickly taught that we ought in no wise to adore the Eucharist with an Adoration of Latria terming all them Idolaters that did so Wherefore let Catholicks judge whether this does not well agree with the Opinion of the Greeks IT will be thought perhaps this Author speaks only of some particular Persons and not of the Greek Church in general but such Persons may be soon satisfi'd when they read what follows towards the end of his Relation Behold most Holy Father say's he all the Heresies of the Modern Greeks which I have laid open and confuted as well as I could I say the Heresies of the Greeks not only of the Inhabitants of Corfou but of all the Eastern Greeks to the end the others may not magnifie themselves for they have all the same belief the same will and obstinacy to maintain every where the same things And here I think is another good Witness being likewise an Archbishop and a Person that wanted neither Wit nor Learning who dwelt among the Greeks He affirms precisely as well as the rest that the Greeks do not adore the Sacrament He proceeds farther and lays this to their charge as a crime and aggravates it by comparing it with the respect they shew the Images he relates their Reasons there being no command enjoyning this Adoration He condemns this Opinion as Heretical and likens it unto that of the chief of Hereticks he farther tells us that this is not only the opinion of some particular Persons but of all the Eastern Greeks and in short he remarks the irreverences which are directly opposite to all kinds of Adoration What can be more expressive and what can Mr. Arnaud reply to this Will he call again here to his assistance Allatius who disputes against Caucus and would have it believed that this Archbishop has falsely charged the Greeks But besides that it cannot be shewed by what interest Caucus should be moved to form such an accusation contrary to the respect he owed the Pope and that his testimony is found conformable to that of several others it is certain that Allatius himself is of all men the most passionate and least sincere frequently denying and affirming things according to his own Capricio or rather Interest and that which likewise is most considerable is that Allatius who meddles with other Articles dared not touch in particular on this so that his silence is a confirmation of what I say THE Jesuit that wrote the Relation touching St. Erinis affirms almost Relation of the I sle of St. Frinis cap. 12. pag. 142. the same thing as Caucus A great abuse say's he has crept in amongst the Greeks For when the Priest comes from the lesser Altar to the Offertory to pass on to the great one all the People there present adore the Bread which is not yet consecrated and shew a greater devotion during this action than in or after the time of Consecration for in the time of the Consecration they put out the Torches which they lighted for the Offertory And in another place We see Cap. 20. by what has been said in the foregoing Chapters how greatly the Greeks are to blame for the little respect they yield to this adorable Sacrament seeing that having consecrated on Holy Thursday a great quantity of Particles they keep them all the year in a little wooden box inclosed in a bag and hanged on a nail over the Altar or behind an Image without a light or any other mark of veneration When they enter into the Church to say their Prayers you may see 'em make a profound bow before the Images of our Lord or Virgin Mary or some other Saint but you will never see them prostrate themselves before this adorable Sacrament We have often reprehended them for this fault and some have promised to amend it others are really sensible of the unseemliness of this their carriage but being loath to appear singular in their Devotions they choose rather to follow the Customs of an ignorant People than to render themselves up to reason So great force has ill examples over weak minds Some time since the Lady Margareta D'argenta a Person both devout and eloquent told me that being in company with some Greeks she sharply rebuked them upon this occasion you Greeks really show your selves said she in matters of Religion to be void of sence not knowing to whom you owe your respects nor to whom to direct your Prayers On one hand you acknowledge that Jesus Christ who is God and Man our Creator and Redeemer is really in the Sacrament with all the Treasures of his Graces and on the other we can see you show him not any reverence answerable to the respect of his Majesty I have been several times in your Churches and having sought the only object of my affection and the God of my heart I found you keep him close shut in a wooden box hanging up in a little bag on a nail covered with dust and cobwebs A Saviour in a pitiful box an Infinite Majesty in the dust an Almighty God in a bag hanged on a nail He is not thus treated amongst us you may see him receive an other kind of usage shewing him far greater respect than this Our Priests keep him in a silver Pyx he rests in a Tabernacle gilded without and within covered with Sattin and to shew that we believe he is the Light which light'neth our Understandings and enflameth our Affections we have Lamps always burning day and night before him When we come into our Churches we set not our selves upon considering the several Pictures and other Ornaments for our affections do immediately lead us to the place where we believe our Treasure is Whereas you keep your selves standing like the Pharisees and we fall on our knees with the Publican THAT which the Jesuit makes this woman speak concerning the Greeks believing the real Presence is forged by him without any grounds in the sence wherein he takes it that is to say as a Substantial Presence for 't is certain the Greeks do not thus understand it But whatsoever he otherwise tells us is matter of fact which he has seen himself and concerning the truth of which we have no reason to doubt Now these Facts are such that we cannot but judge them inconsistent with the belief of adoring the Sacrament of the Eucharist with such a Supreme Adoration as is due to the Son of
God alone THE Author that wrote Mr. De la Haye's Voyages the French Ambassadour Mr. Haye's Voyages part 49. observes the same thing as the others concerning the linnen bag and that they hang it on a nail behind the Altar wherein they put the consecrated Particles He says he thus saw it at Selivrée and several other places But because this remark might offend his Readers he has therefore attributed the cause thereof to the great poverty of the Greeks but this is but a false colour for the Greeks are not so poor but that they may keep the Eucharist in a more decent manner did they believe it to be the proper Substance of Jesus Christ The true reason of this Custom is that they do not believe what the Latins do or as speaks Caucus they do not believe there is any command which enjoyns them to reverence the Sacrament according to the made of the Latins MR. Thevenot an exact and inquisitive Traveller gives us an account of Thevenot's Voyages part 2 ch 77. the manner which the Patriarch of Alexandria uses in celebrating the Sacrament but in all his Relation there is not a word of Adoration and he is even forced to say that they do in truth behave themselves with less respect at the Communion than the Latins MR. de Montconis describes likewise very exactly the Divine Service Montconis's Voyages p. 228. c. which he saw perform'd by a Greek Archbishop at Mount Sinai and observes not any thing which shews they adored the Sacrament MR. Arnaud who has seen the use which might be made of the express Testimonies by which it appears the Greeks adore not the Sacrament and several other Proofs which might be added and which conclude the same thing has betook himself to his usual Artifices First of all he has avoided the handling of the question touching the Adoration as a means whereby to clear up that of Transubstantiation or the real Presence He on the contrary handles it only as a necessary consequence of it I would say that instead of arguing thus the Greeks give to the Sacrament the Supreme Honour which is due to Jesus Christ they believe therefore that the Sacrament is Jesus Christ in propriety of Substance he reasons on the contrary after this manner the Greeks believe Transubstantiation and the real Presence therefore they adore the Sacrament Now I say there is a great deal of deceit in this method for although Transubstantiation may be used when 't is agreed 't is believed as a means whereby to conclude that those who believe it adore it yet who sees not that in this debate wherein I deny both one and the other of these to Mr Arnaud it had been a more just and natural course to begin with the Adoration as a means whereby to conclude Transubstantiation For Adoration is a thing which discovers it self by outward acts a publick Rite wherein a whole Church agrees and consequently is more sensible and apparent and more easily known than an Article of Faith concerning which we must consult the Writings of the Learned judge of Persons and weigh their expressions It is certainly a great deal easier for us to know whether the Greeks give the same honour to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome does or one equivalent thereunto than to know what their belief is touching the Substantial Conversion We may be imposed on by this last for there may be forged attestations produced and hunger starv'd Greeks brought in as witnesses whom a small pension will byass either way or the Decrees of Latinis'd Synods offer'd us for those of the Greeks A Consul zealous for his Religion may easily give or admit a change The testimony of a false Greek may be alledged as of that of a true one and moreover 't is no hard matter to dazle peoples eyes by a long train of Narrations and Arguments But it is not so easie a matter to make use of all these false colours in the point of the Adoration In a word it plainly appears that Mr. Arnaud's design was to send back this Article to his Treatise of Consequences to hinder us from treating of it according to our method of Proofs THE second thing he does seems to correct the first for he pretends to establish this Adoration by particular Proofs which he calls gross Proofs to distinguish them from that other more fine and slender Proof which he draws from the real Presence He immediately produces a passage of Cabasilas in Lib. 10. cap. 9. these Terms The faithful desirous to shew their Faith in receiving the Communion do adore bless and praise Jesus Christ as God who is manifested in the Gifts I answer he ought faithfully to translate this passage Cabasilas speaks of the Gifts and say's That the Faithful adore bless and praise Jesus Christ who is understood in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now a man must be very Cap. 37. little conversant amongst Greek Authors not to know that when the question is concerning the Symbols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Spiritual and Mystical Object represented by the outward Sign Jesus Christ then being represented by the Gifts is adored according to Cabasilas and not the Gifts themselves Which is what I observ'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity Mr. Arnaud would have me before I make use of this passage to consider all that he has taken out of this Author to shew he believed the real Presence For say's he Cabasilas asserts in his Book that our Saviour Christ is really present in the Sacrament and shews us in this passage we ought to adore him Lib. 3. cap. 8. p. 317. in the Gifts Therefore does he teach the. Adoration of the Eucharist I answer that Cabasilas neither teaches Transubstantiation nor the real Presence as I shall make appear in its place and had the Author of the Perpetuity alledged the passages cited by Mr. Arnaud we should not have been wanting to examine them but the question then in hand only concerning the Adoration I could not without great injustice tire the Reader with a long Dispute about the real Presence before I could alledge one formal passage touching the Subject I handled MR. Arnaud tells us afterwards that Cabasilas blames those that adore before Lib. 10. cap. 9. the Consecration the Gifts which are carri'd about and that speak to them as to our Saviour himself and approves they should give the same respect to the Eucharist after its Consecration I answer that the Greeks prostrate themselves before the Book of the Gospels and speak to it as to our Saviour himself and yet it cannot hence be concluded they adore the Book it self with an absolute Adoration as if the Book were in effect our Saviour himself Cabasilas likes they should do the same thing in respect of the consecrated Gifts but does not approve they should do it before their Consecration altho he already