the Church of those Ages pretended when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents and there 's no likelihood that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms as appears from Isidor's Books Bede's Alcuinus I say there 's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery the Lord scrupled not to say This is my Body when he gave the Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. sign of his Body 'T IS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi ut qui corpus sanguinem Ch. 3. p. 749 750. proprium pro nobis datum edimus bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum Which he thus translates O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us that having eaten thy proper Body and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever unworthy that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation an eternal remedy for the redemption of us from all our crimes Corpus sanguinem proprium do only signifie Corpus sanguinem tuum thy Body and Blood not the Body and Blood of another as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament nor that our mouths receive their proper substance the Liturgy does not say so but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passages of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence To prevent says he Ch. 3. p. 751 752. the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ the proper Body of Jesus Christ they meant only its figure This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies and an Officer appointed to make it thus understood by the people for otherwise 't is impossible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence And this effect being necessary and inevitable it ought to have been the chiefest care and business of the Fathers to hinder it had they not themselves been of this opinion ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered We have already sufficiently replyed to it 'T is true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the natural Body of Jesus Christ but this same term applyed to the Eucharist which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people nor sound of Trumpet to publish it as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place Sense Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea and publish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun the day Star from on High the light of the World the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice that it meant not a corporal Light or Sun but a Mystical one I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give notice to the people that that Lamb commonly called the Passover that is to say the passage was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote that we are buried with Christ by Baptism that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection that we are new Creatures that there is a new man formed in us and I know not how many other expressions which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us who was delivered and put to death for us not his Prophets but he himself Neither have they employed one when they called the Church the Body of Jesus Christ the very Body of Jesus Christ the real Body of Jesus Christ properly the Body of Jesus Christ the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ the Flesh of Jesus Christ Jesus Christ himself not his Vestment but himself nor when they said that we are one and the same person with him the same Body the same substance by Faith that we are transformed into him changed into his Flesh changed into his Body Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Officers for there 's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms but even the exaggeration of them 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question but likewise from amongst the Greeks Copticks Ethiopians Armenians Nestorians which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ his proper Body or properly his Body his real Body his true Body I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners first in general and secondly in particular IN general I say there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them believed the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches either because there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evidently there 's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence because they are all capable of another sense and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor God says Chrysostom Hom. 15. in Rom. has given his Son and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF who was given for you who was slain for you the Father has not
condition he can understand no other than that and 't is it which he rejects because 't is on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence when of it self it were not therein determined for 't is not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind at the same moment wherein he communicates this question Is the Body of Jesus Christ substantially present in this Eucharist which I receive but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight to inform himself This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence of which his eyes cannot be witnesses and that 't is this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight and if he does follow it his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence and in rejecting it should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence but must reject them all be they what they will without specifying or considering them I answer that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles and conceive them under this quality In a word when nature offers us but the idea of one single species there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds our fancy leads us to that particular species and if afterwards we conceive any other 't is always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity For as we have already said he is obliged to shew that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence they would have had in their minds dispositions and prejudices which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason this is not sufficient to produce actually an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith but as an innovation in the Churches Belief Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome nor France Holland that the Sun is not the Moon nor an House an Elephant thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself to use Mr. Arnaud's examples without having made this express and formal reflection this manner I say may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature that it agrees not with common sense but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith as 't is said to be or whether 't is a new humane invention This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing that the Eucharist is Bread that the Eucharist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ that this Body is a humane Body and that 't is in Heaven does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty by being persuaded that 't is the true Doctrin of the Church as 't is assured to be and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith 'T is in vain Mr. Arnaud tells us that supposing the Faithful had no other Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564 565. than these simple notions that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years or the Paschal Lamb a real passage and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins to be mad and sensless When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature and 't is certain the light of nature will render that man impertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence should a man judg of it on this ground But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith They endeavour to insinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Religion which has been always believed and for this purpose they spare no colours By which means they stop the course of nature and hinder men from judging according to its Principles reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church by which means 't is no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant 'T IS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance which all the Parisians know to be only Brass and that his body is only at S. Dennis He says perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there 's a great deal of difference between this example and that of the Eucharist here in question The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution wherein men suppose there 's nothing supernatural whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery in which there has been always believed to be something above nature The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular concerning which every man believes he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Reason The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies Henry the Fourth was indeed a
no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith and that Jesus Christ is God and Man that he was born of a Virgin died for us rose again and ascended up into Heaven and that there is an Eucharist but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them such as is common to persons unlearned and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion who go indeed for Christians but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed and receive some other general Instructions 'T is easily perceived that this was my sense and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th Century from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion as if they were become Pagans or Atheists or bruit Beasts but that it hindred them from having that clearness of apprehension and distinct knowledg which comes by study and pains and the hearing of able Preachers Which will evidently appear upon consulting the particular places of my Answer wherein I treat of the 10th Century for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see First Answer near the end his Nurse ill drest lean and sick which still supposes he sees her altho he sees her not in her usual condition In another place I say the Pastors grew Answer to the second Treatise Part 2. ch 3. and Part 3. ch 7. careless of instructing the People and the People likewise of informing themselves in matters of Religion that there were few persons that applied themselves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries that the Pastors extremely neglected th' instructing of the People and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg but that it was very scanty In fine 't will appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th Age which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion or whether 't was a Doctrin of the Fathers Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries but that the knowledg of them was very confused Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen if he pleased but he thought 't were better to betake himself to Sophisms imagining they would not be laid open and that he might so disguise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it And 't is on this Principle which is neither true nor sincere that he has grounded this reasoning the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th Century therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Christian Doctrin WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation Did they leave off says he reading the Holy Scripture Page 892. in the Churches and Cloisters Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ Bread and Wine But all these interrogations are needless A man may say they did not absolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture and expounding it Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament a Mystery Bread and Wine and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion The Greeks Armenians Moscovites Ethiopians Jacobites Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture and of some Fathers in their Church and Cloisters and yet is it true that all these people yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel WHAT he adds touching some Historians and Bishops that wrote Books is built on the same foundation Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel 'T IS false saith he that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses If this be false how does he himself understand they taught Transubstantiation in it For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the testimony of our senses seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension which is that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th Century is but a mere empty sound whose sense I my self do not understand In searching his Book says he in what sense he took it I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language which is to say that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct This discovery would be a very fine one indeed were it not merely imaginary 'T is grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries I say that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ that they lost not their natural substance but were called the Body and Blood of Christ because they were the Sacraments of ' em He hence concludes that 't is in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist He afterwards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular I say That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it To take Bread to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour to
importance is a good reason for shunning all tedious Digressions which tire the Readers mind and divert it from attending to so necessary a truth But it would be very unreasonable to charge me with this irksome length of our Debates since none can be justly blamed but those who have first made this Labyrinth and then plunged themselves into it to the end they might forcibly draw others after them For as to my own part I have ever protested that I entred not into it but in condescention only to follow them and that I might endeavour to draw them out of it and bring 'em into the right way IT is certain that for ending of this Controversie we must have recourse only to the Holy Scriptures by which we may examin the nature of the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted and the end which he hath appointed it for the force of the Expressions which he hath made use of the manner after which he himself did Celebrate it the circumstances which accompanied this Celebration the Impression which his Words and his Actions may be thought to make on the minds of his Apostles who were eye-witnesses of what they have delivered to us and the agreement which this Sacrament ought to have with the other parts of the Christian Religion and in a word every thing which is wont to be consider'd when men make an exact search after truth This way without doubt would be the shortest and certainest or to speak better the only certain method for satisfaction and that which can only quiet the Conscience For the Sacraments of the Christian Religion being as they are of an immediate Divine Institution our Faith our Hope and our observance of them ought to be grounded immediately on the Word of God there being no Creature who is able to extend them beyond the bounds of the Heavenly Revelation IT were indeed to be desired that the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud had taken this course but seeing they have been pleased to take another and enquire after the Faith of the Ancient Church before the rise of these Controversies they ought at least to have spared their Readers the trouble of all fruitless and unprofitable Digressions for so I call whatsoever they have done hitherto especially in Mr. Arnaud's last Volume He hath engaged himself to give us another wherein he promiseth to enquire into the belief of the six first Ages which plainly shews that he himself confesses the necessity of such a Disquisition Wherefore then hath he not at first taken this course seeing that at length he must come to it What necessity is there of taking up imaginary suppositions concerning the distinct belief of the Presence or rather Real Absence and of the conformity of the Greeks and other Eastern Christians with the Roman Church in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation WE have seen within a short time three different methods of handling this Subject that of Father Maimbourg's that of Father Nouet's and that of Mr. Arnaud The first seems to put a stop to all farther enquiry by this reason that what hath been once established ought not to be called in question and on this Principle he justifies the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation which having been decided by Councils ought not again to be brought under examination The second consents to a Review and to this end allows us to search for the true Doctrin of the Church in the Scriptures and amongst the Fathers from Age to Age. The last permits what hath been already decided to be called in question but withal proposeth for finding out the true Doctrin of the Church that men ought also to hearken to such arguments as are grounded on certain maxims which it supposeth OF these three methods that of Father Nouets is certainly the most reasonable and easie and had he contented himself with the holy Scripture without entangling himself in the Writings of the Fathers which be himself hath compared to a Wood where such as are pursued do save themselves on this account his method had been commendable That of Father Maimbourg is unjust because he sets up the decisions of Councils against us not remembring that nothing can be prescribed against Truth especially when Salvation is concerned and that the determinations of Councils are not considerable any farther with us than they are agreeable with the holy Scripture and the Principles of Christian Religion there cannot therefore be any more reasonable or effectual way to end these particular Differences which divide us than to examin strictly and impartially whether this agreeableness which we plead for be necessary or no. Yet it must be granted that this method of Father Maimbourg's is far more direct and better contriv'd than that of Mr. Arnaud's For besides that it is more agreeable to the Doctrin and interest of the Roman Church taking for its Principles the Authority of the Ecclesiastical decisions which the other doth not it engageth not a man as the other doth into new Disputes and new dangers yet both of them avoid a thro search into the bottom of the Controversie Now that which opposeth the judgment of the Councils can only involve us in that Debate which concerns the Authority of the Representative Church and its Assemblies whereas the other makes suppositions which we affirm to be false and of which we pretend there cannot any good use be made even tho we were not able to shew the falsity of them and by this means it entangles us into new and long Controversies whereby they gain nothing but rather run a greater risque of losing the whole Cause which they defend so that it seems this new way was invented for no other end but to give us new advantages against the Church of Rome and its Doctrins AND this will evidently appear if we take but the pains to read this work For first we shall see in general the uselesness of the suppositions and reasonings of the Author of the Perpetuity and of Mr. Arnaud and in particular the unprofitableness of their suppositions touching the Greeks and other Churches which are called Schismaticks This is the Subject of the first and second Book In the first I show that the method of these Gentlemen can be of no effect in respect of us and that we are not in reason oblig'd to hear or answer them whilst they lay aside the holy Scripture which is the only Rule of our Faith and yet leave unanswer'd the proofs of fact taken from the testimony of the Fathers by which we are persuaded that there hath been made a change in the Roman Church In the second I make it appear that tho it were granted that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do agree with the Roman Church in the Doctrins of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet the consequences which these Gentlemen would draw thence will be of no force for it will not hence follow that these Doctrins have been always
till he hath proved them and those which may be justly supposed without being proved IF this man reply to me he has only made this Supposition to oblige Mr. Claude to acknowledg he hath no other means left to defend himself but by shewing if he can the Reasonings of this Treatise are not just May I not then justly retort upon him that I only suppose Mr. Aubertin's Proofs are plain and firm that I may thereby force the Author of the Perpetuity to confess he hath no other way left him to defend himself but to shew if he be able that these Proofs are invalid Mr. Arnaud perhaps would be so reasonable as not to deny me the liberty of making use of these Principles and so much the rather because there is a very material and advantagious difference on my side seeing as already mentioned I am Respondent in this Dispute whereas this Person would be the Aggressor But you will ask me who this man is that is so little acquainted with Mr. Arnaud's Maxims Even Mr. Arnaud himself who having produced a long train of Arguments in the fifth and sixth Chapters of his first Book to shew us that the Learned and Unlearned the Simple and Obstinate and all Persons in general ought to acquiesce in the Proofs of the Perpetuity he thereupon makes this Conclusion 'T is true saith he that these Arguments being applyed to the Book of the Lib. 1. Ch. 6. pag. 62. pag. 63. Perpetuity suppose the Proofs are clear and solid and therefore I make use of them in this place to remove these vain Exceptions of Mr. Claude who would have them rejected without examining them on this general Reason That they are Argumentative Proofs Mr. Claude hath no other way of defending himself than by shewing if he can the Arguments in this Treatise are not sound We shall see by what follows whether he had reason to make this Supposition I shall content my self at present with concluding according to his Example that every man may make Suppositions provided he intends not thereby to end the Debate but only oblige an Adversary to come to the Discussion of that Point which he is not willing to meddle with And thus doth Mr. Arnaud censure in another that which he doth himself CHAP. II. That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess as he says that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist is the same with that of all Antiquity hath appeared so strange and irregular to me that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Invalidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact and by gathering them into an Abridgment to give a general view of them Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer Lib. 1. ch 1. P. 1. fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method provided saith he that I maintained Equity and Truth It may be I think then supposed I have so far done nothing contrary to Rule it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Reflections I shall not insist long upon the first of these because Mr. Arnaud hath alledged The first Observation justified nothing against it appearing undenyable in it self It is grounded on this That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touching the Eucharist the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided not by the word of God but the Churches Consent in all Ages and Depositions of the Fathers and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers but by Arguments Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course it being a Principle of common Sense that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally decided by the Rule of Right then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact and that again naturally the Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Deposition Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact which is that holy Scripture wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures so likewise we who have the same Faith with them ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Religion but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest than an Example for us to Imitate and an Example too submitted to the same Rule which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion he must ground this Method on Principles granted by both Parties for if his Positions are such as may be questioned he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them before he can suppose them For if he take not this Course he will quickly be at a loss and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith 'T is true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers and that we should do if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship But this reaches not our Question for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith neither in the matter of our present Debate nor in any
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
Methods of Prescription But this would be to undertake to shew a thing impossible for a Method made up of Proofs taken from Arguments all of 'em drawn from a genere probabili as the Schools term them could not surmount the strength of our Proofs of Fact which depend on the sight of our Eyes and common Sense a great part of which propose the thing imediately in it self BUT how then may we never establish our Sentiments by a Method of Prescription We do not say so We only mean thus much that when the Sentiments of Persons are opposed which are grounded on Proofs of Fact and which they believe to be as I have already said as certain as any thing which falls under the Judgments of their Senses it is then I say an unreasonable thing to pretend to make them alter their Opinion by a Method of Prescription grounded on moral Impossibilities This is the Knot of the Question If a man hath to do only with People prepossessed in favour of his Opinion he may then use his Method of Prescription to confirm them in the thoughts they have already entertained There could nothing be alledged against his manner of Proceeding the strength of his Proofs are in that Case only to be considered If he has to do with indifferent Persons that is to say with such who have not yet taken any side and desire to be instructed he might then likewise use a Method of Prescription provided his Principles be well grounded and his Conclusions more decisive than any thing which can be alledged against them There need then be nothing to be replied unless there were something indirect in his Method but this could do no more at farthest but only oblige People to examine with greater Care the Truth of his Principles and that of its Consequences and not make them reject them for indirect Arguments conclude sometimes with as great Evidence as direct ones Nay I will not fear to say that when he should have to do with Persons prepossessed with Opinions contrary to what he would perswade them he might then lawfully use a Method of Prescription for it would not be sufficient to say that a man is prepossessed by another Method nor object that that of Prescription proceedeth indirectly or follows not the Order of Nature these kind of Objections may cause Suspicion but they ought not to proceed so far as to make men absolutely reject Arguments which perhaps are attended with a greater Perspicuity and Certitude than those which have occasioned the Prejudice But as to what concerns us against whom the Author of the Perpetuity hath written we are in none of these Circumstances being not only led by a natural and direct Way in my Hypothesis and by Proofs which propose us the Point in Question immediately in it self but by Proofs which we believe to be above all Contradiction and yet he would have us change our Minds by Proofs which are not only indirect and mediate ones and which at farthest can amount to no more but meer Probabilities being applied to the Subject in hand We have then Reason to say that these are mear Chimeras in our respect and that without considering them any otherwise than in their own kind and in the matter on which they treat they cannot make such a strong Impression on us as to deface that which we have already received for 't is not likely that any rational Man will be more affected with Probabilities than with solid Proofs which are grounded on common Sense MOREOVER this is not the proper Place to make Comparisons of the Methods of Protestants with them of the Church of Rome It may be made apparent that we have surer and shorter ones than those which it proposeth But this is not our Question and I am resolved not to follow all Mr. Arnauds fruitless Digressions His Words cost him nothing and People are disposed to receive them be they what they will as Oracles But 't is not the same with me for should I wander from my Subject as often as he does there would be few Readers who would not be tired with our Debate I shall only tell him he is mistaken when he imagines that to be of our Communion a man is obliged to an examination of all the Controversies which to this day have perplexed the Christian Religion We have the holy Scriptures which every man may read or hear them read publickly Which do fully and clearly contain whatsoever is necessary to Salvation and by the Concurrence of Gods Grace even the most illiterate may judge whether the Minister under whom they live is able and willing to shew them the way of Life and whether our Society be the true Church For in this Case we need but examine two things The first whether we are taught in it all things clearly contained in the Word of God and secondly if there be nothing taught which corrupteth the Strength and Efficacy of these things for if we find in this Communion wherewithal to satisfy our Consciences and to live in the fear of God and to ascertain our selves in our Saviours Promises and moreover if nothing be taught or practised which overthroweth the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity For if nothing doth offend the Conscience we ought to be perswaded we are in the true Church it being needless for us to enter into a Discussion of all the Errors which have troubled or still perplex the Christian Religion After the same manner as 't is not necessary to Salvation for a man to know all the particular Heresies which have troubled the Peace of the Church nor to make a formal and positive Renunciation of them for it is sufficient that we are not tainted with any of them and firmly to believe the fundamental Truths of Religion neither is it likewise necessary to assure our selves we are in the true Church that we inform our selves of the several Opinions of men It may suffice us to know that the Church of which we are Members teacheth what it ought concerning Gods Glory and our Souls Edification and maintains nothing which doth not answer these Ends. Now this every man may find in our Church for if he compare his Ministers Doctrine with the Word of God he will be satisfied that what he teacheth is exactly contained therein he shall perceive likewise that we mix no Doctrines of men with it which overthrow its Foundation This way of Examination is short easy and proportionable to the Capacity of all People and thereupon there may be made a Judgment as certain as if every single Controversy had bin examined apart THE most simple then among us may live in perfect Peace But it is not so in the Church of Rome for these Methods of Prescription mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are not built but upon one of these two Principles either that the Church which is to say the Body of the People cannot err nor cease to be the true Church in ceasing to believe
more fully in the end they cannot remain in the Church of Rome with a safe Conscience there being nothing which holds them in it but deceitful Bands such as are Birth Education Interest Custom and the Example of others which are things very unproper to determine an honest Mind in matters of Salvation They are then obliged to range themselves on the side of the Reformists from whom they receive for a Rule things clearly contained in the Holy Scripture and where they may be assured there is none of them withheld in the publick Ministry and moreover where there is nothing taught which corrupteth the Efficacy of Gods Grace If it be replied that we must first satisfy such Persons by proving the Divinity of the Scriptures I answer first that this Principle doth not fall under Debate seeing the matter in hand relates not to the several Religions in the World but only to the particular Opinions of Christians for they all in general acknowledg the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures Secondly I answer that the Church of Rome is no less obliged to prove this Authority of the Scriptures than other Churches seeing that before she can make her self acknowledged as Infallible she must evidence her self to be a Church which she cannot do if the Divinity of the Scripture be denyed her and she will not take the Pains to prove it besides that all the Proofs by which she pretends to establish her Infallibility depend either mediately or immediately on the Scripture and consequently they suppose its Divinity But in fine I say the Characters of Divinity which shine in all parts of these Writings are so lively and so many in Number that the most ordinary Capacities cannot but be affected with them if they apply themselves to the Consideration of them with a pure Heart and unspotted Conscience Now this is it to which the meanest Capacity is obliged as well as the greatest and if they do it not their Damnation is just and their Impiety without Excuse AND this is what I thought I was obliged to speak briefly on these pretended Methods of Prescription this not being a proper Place to handle this Point more largly But to return to the principal Subject of our Dispute we are obliged to Mr. Arnaud in that he takes it not ill I endeavour to prove by several Passages that the Alteration pretended to be impossible is real and true The Author of the Perpetuity must likewise consent to this seeing Mr. Arnaud hath said it and if he doth agree to it he must suffer me to draw this Consequence that I could have hindred the Effect he promised himself from his Method which is to make us confess if we are not extream Obstinate that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the Sacrament is the same with that of all Antiquity This Confession cannot be justly extorted from us as long as there shall be any reasonable Occasion of disputing this Point between us and the Production of some Passages of my Writings starteth a particular Debate which Mr. Arnaud approveth for he only complains I have not produced them in a right manner but mained and dislocated from their Consequences and that I have concealed all those which might be opposed and understood But this Complaint is Unjust and he should not conceal the Reason I alleaged to justify the form of my Abridgment which is That that Book was made in Relation to that of Mr. Aubertins whose Proofs I take upon me to defend If he did not like to insert two large Volums in Folio into a Preface neither have I liked to put a great Volum into a short Answer which contains no more than thirty Pages I never pretended that my Abridgment alone should absolutely determine his Thoughts I know this cannot be expected but I was willing to shew the way which must be taken for the finding out of the Truth which is to make an exact Search into the Belief of the Fathers I design'd to shew them of my Communion what might be objected against the Author of the Perpetuity's Arguments and thereby obliged him to dispute henceforward in a regular manner we may be permitted to make Abridgments of this kind and that of mine hath nothing but what distinguisheth it from that which we call A Heap of Difficulties the matters of Proof with which it is furnished their Nature and Force do contribute that Truth to it which an Abridgment ought to have and the relation it hath to Mr. Aubertin's Book makes it evident and certain There can be nothing more required to conclude that the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the same with that of the Fathers and that there has bin made an Alteration for the Principles of this are marked out and their Consequence doth plainly appear that exact perspicuity which ought ever to accompany Arguments is in the Book to which we refer the Reader Mr. Arnaud need not conclude then Lib. 1. C. 4. P. 30. that there are Difficulties in the Doctrine of the Eucharist for we may easily conclude from what I said that the Doctrine of the Antient Church hath not bin the same with that which is taught at this Day by the Church of Rome His Mistake lies in that he has only read these kind of Abridgments which allways refer to another work in supposing that the Principles they mark out are clearly established in that Book to which they refer and from whence they draw their Conclusion And this is all that can be desired in this matter but yet this is a way of concluding and concluding too quite another thing than what Mr. Arnaud imagined viz. That there are Difficulties in the Eucharist I confess that to determine his Judgment we must not regulate our selves only by this Conclusion we must go to the Spring and see whether what is supposed issues thence but it doth not thence follow that the Abridgment is in fault nor that it should be esteemed as a Heap of Difficulties and indeed it would not be an Abridgment if in effect it did not abridge some other work wherein the Matter is handled at large A Heap of Difficulties to speak properly is a Collection of several Objections which are formed against a Doctrine without examining either the Grounds on which this Doctrine is established nor the Proofs or Arguments by which it is recommended nor the Answers which may be made against these Objections and in short without supposing any other work wherein all these things are handled It is certain that in a Controversy this manner of proceeding is confused and captious and ought not to make any Impression on a rational Mind But it belongs to Mr. Arnaud to say whether the Treatise of the Perpetuity is not of this Kind for as to my part I find that it hath all the Characters of it For being a Collection of Objections against our Belief touching the Change which hath happ'ned concerning the Eucharist
us in Suspense what follows thence that we must be determined by the Authority of the Church of Rome This indeed Mr. Arnaud saies and I maintain we ought wholly to apply our selves to the Scriptures and leave those Perplexities touching the Opinions of the Fathers that we may ground our Faith only on the Word of God and I pretend by this means we shall adhere to the reformed Church What must we then do about this new Difference Mr. Arnaud and I must Dispute concerning the Scripture and Church of Rome to know which of us two has most reason And these are the Effects of this admirable Method the Glory of our time and Quintessence of Humane Wit which after several windings and turnings several hot Debates and sharp Disputes and after an Invitation of all France and all them of either Communion to the beholding of this famous Contest refers the matter at length to the Holy Scripture and the Church And this is the fruit of the Treatise of the Perpetuity And indeed if we continue to dispute after this manner I think the World has little reason to concern it self in our Debate seeing 't is a vain amusement We wrestle against one another with all our Might we sweat and take a great deal of Pains and make our Books be bought dear and after all we are to begin again For if we must now dispute concerning the Holy Scripture and the Church wherefore did we not do so in the beginning Wherefore must the Treatise of the Perpetuity be for a Preludium to this Is it because the Gate of this Controversy is not yet wide enough of it self but that the Treatise of the Perpetuity must introduce us Or is it not worthy our regard and therefore the Treatise of the Perpetuity must be its Mediatour Is it that either the Church of Rome or the Scripture have need to the end they may be recommended to us the one of the Treatise of the Perpetuity and the other of my Answer and that no man can betake himself to either of these without our Guidance For my part I pretend not to this and therefore think it beside the Purpose to begin a new Controversy CHAP. VII The six last Chapters of Mr. Arnaud's Book Examined MR Arnaud's last six Chapters of his first Book being only as loose Pieces which relate not to the Method of the Perpetuity nor our Proofs of Fact and the greatest part of them consisting in fruitless Digressions which have no connexion with the Subject of the Eucharist it seems thereupon he has intended them only as an enlargment to his Book and as a means to tire his readers Patience Which will oblige me to make only a succinct Answer it being unreasonable to carry off the Debate to other Subjects and charge my self with unnecessary matters but howsoever concise my Answer may be yet will it manifest the weakness and folly of all these tedious and troublesom Discourses of Mr. Arnaud HIS seventh Chapter respects an Objection I made against the Author of the Perpetuity concerning the Infallibility he attributes to the People which he grounds on this that People naturally will not suffer their Opinions to be snatched from them nor Novelties introduced in matters of Religion for I had intimated that this would oppose the Infallibility which the Church of Rome attributes to the Popes and Councils The remaining part of the first Book is spent in treating on some other Innovations which we suppose to have insensibly crept in as that in the Establishment of Episcopacy praying for the Dead the invocation of Saints and prohibition of certain Meats These are the things I intend to treat of in this Chapter That I may proceed orderly I shall first examine this pretended popular Infallibility by comparing it with the Infallibility of Popes or Councils for we must see whether I had not reason to make against the Author of the Perpetuity the Objection contained in my Preface This Question will be soon ended if it be considered that I have alleaged some Examples of the Insensible Alterations which actually hapned in the Church in several Points as Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. well Practical as Speculative and that the Author of the Perpetuity could not defend himself but by protesting That he has not offered in general this Maxim that there could not happen in the Church any imperceptible Change in the use of Ceremonies or in Opinions which are no ways Popular but Speculative that he has bin cautious of proposing of it in this generality and therefore has restrained it to capital Mysteries which are known to all the Faithful by a distinct Faith To answer after this manner what is it but to confess a Change has hapned in Points which are not popular Which Confession absolutely overthrows the Infallibility claimed by the Church of Rome IT is to no purpose that Mr. Arnaud distinguishes betwixt an Infallibility Lib. 1. C. 7. of Grace or Priviledge and a humane and popular Infallibility and to assert that the Author of the Perpetuity doth in no wise pretend to disavow the Infallibility of the Church and Councils as it respects all kind of Mysteries whether Popular or others For these Examples I produced do equally oppose all manner of Infallibility and to acknowledg it in any kind would be to let go this pretended Infallibility of Priviledge I will suppose the Alterations I mentioned to have hapned in Points not Popular yet are they Innovations nevertheless and when they were not contrary to the natural Infallibility yet would they be to that which is termed of Grace seeing that they are actual Alterations in Points of Religion Whence it follows that a man who believes them to be true cannot deny but that he acts contrary to the Principle of the Church of Rome which is that the Popes and Councils are only Infallible and that Mr. Arnauds Distinction is a meer Illusion for if the Church of Rome has admitted an Alteration in Points not Popular she is not then Infallible in respect of these Points 'T is certain that the Author of the Perpetuity was minded to wrangle about some of the Examples I produced pretending the Doctrine of Faith has not bin altered altho the Practice of it has bin so but he does not oppose what I alleaged touching the Doctrine of Grace which is not a Point of Practice but Belief contenting himself only with saying That the Truths of Divine Grace have Perpetuity of the Faith Part 2. C. 7. never bin popular in all the Consequences which have bin drawn from them in Theology and that 't is false they are not still the same in principal and essential Points But is not this still to acknowledg that in respect of Points not Popular and which are neither principal nor essential in the matter of Grace there has hap'ned a Change Now these Points whatsoever they be whether principal or not great or small are Doctrinal
expresly to plant the Roman Religion and even to establish fixt Seminaries who are charged to use their utmost Endeavours to Instruct and Reduce these Schismaticks This Artifice of his is not of small Importance for he thereby deprives us of the Knowledg of several Particulars without which 't is impossible to make a true and right Judgment of this Controversie And in truth we have reason to admire Mr. Arnaud's Ingenuity For when there are any Historical Passages which seem to favour us if they are so publickly known that 't will be to no purpose to conceal them he then produces them but in so doing applyes them to other matters on purpose to make us lose the Consequence may be drawn from them and on the other hand if they are Passages less known and that he may well conceal them he then either not mentions them or but lightly touches on them to the end they may not be throughly considered He has taken this last course in what concerns the Missions Having prudently foreseen that this Mystery could not be handled without discovering at the same time the weakness and folly of his Proofs drawn from the Schismatical Churches he has therefore thought good to make no mention of them or if at all so slightly that they could scarcely be taken Notice of lest he should be charged with discovering the Secret and overthrowing himself what he has taken upon him to defend But seeing he has no reason to expect his Silence should set Bounds to mens Curiosity and that they must know no more but what he tells them so he must not take it ill if I relate what he would have concealed I say then that since the Latins Conquered the Holy Land and made 'em selves Masters of the Grecian Empire all Greece and other Eastern Nations have bin filled with Monks or Emissaries whose only design and employment has bin to Insinuate the Doctrines and Customs of the Church of Rome in those Countries Mr. Arnaud who commonly takes things in the worst Sence will be sure to tell me I am to blame in blaming this Design Seeing it is an effect of that Zeal the Latins have ever shewed for their Religion it being usual with Persons who are perswaded of the Truth of their own Faith to do all they can to make Schismaticks and Heretical People to Embrace the same To which I answer I do not at all blame the Endeavours of the Roman Church to win these People Seeing she believes they are in an Error and therefore would undeceive them and so far is Christianly and Charitably done but as to those artificial Means the Emissaries use which savour so much of worldy Policy they are in no wise to be commended I do not I say blame them of the Church of Rome for labouring to propagate their Faith seeing they believe there is no Salvation out of their Communion YET I cannot bear with Mr. Arnaud who knows full well what the Monks and Emissaries have done and do still in the East That he I say should attempt to prove the Perpetuity of the Doctrines of the Roman Church by this Reason That they are to be found established amongst these People For seeing their Conversion has bin endeavoured time out of mind no means having bin left untried to effect this how then can it be affirmed that if at this Day they Believe Transubstantiation this Doctrine hath bin received by them at the same time when Christianity was first planted amongst them Who sees not the Absurdity of this Consequence Let the Business of the Emissaries be termed a Reduction Instruction Conversion or what else he please Yet would I by no means have Mr. Arnaud attempt the perswading us That if the Greeks and other Eastern Christians for whose sake the Emissaries have taken such Pains do believe Transubstantiation it thereupon follows that this Doctrine has bin ever held by those Churches for this is a way of Arguing which will never prevail on rational Men. For any Mans Reason will tell him that if these People believe Transubstantiation 't is because the Emissaries have taught it them unless it be shewed that they held this Doctrine before they came amongst them And this is the Contents of this Chapter The Consequence I pretend to draw hence is clear enough in it self and we need no more but only represent what I already hinted touching the Employment of the Monks and Emissaries in the Levant FIRST then it is evident that after the Conquest of the Holy Land both Palestine and Syria were filled with Monks of every Order Mr. Arnaud himself acknowledges it and thereupon alledgeth the Testimony of James de Vitry who tells us that multitudes of People resorted from all parts L. 1. C. 10. P. 194. of the World to the Holy Land being allured thither by the Odour of those Venerable and Holy Places where they repaired the decayed Churches Built new ones and founded Monasteries in several Places by the Liberality of Princes In effect William of Tyre makes mention of several Abbots and Priors who were present at the Councils held at Napolis a City of Samaria and at Antioch Guill Tyr. L 12. C. 1â— L. 15. C. 16. L. 12. C. 25. He likewise remarks some who signed the Articles of Agreement made between the Venetians and Patriarch of Jerusalem Mr. Arnaud himself saies there were built Monasteries of the Order of Cistern Monks together with others of St. Norbet and St. Bennet in several Commodious Places NEITHER need we any more doubt but after the Latins had made themselves Masters of Greece the Monks dispersed themselves over all the parts thereof to which Mr. Arnaud consents and tells us That Greece was filled with Dominicans and Fryar Minorites that is to say Inquisitors who had often performed this Office in France and Germany He farther saies that the Pope had given them in Charge to confer with the Greeks and examine their Doctrine which is not a difficult matter to believe IN the Year 1177 according to Baronius Pope Alexander the third sent Baron ad ann 1177. a certain Physitian called Phillip into Ethiopia to convert the Christians of that Country and Instruct them in the Romish Religion NOT long after Innocent the third obtained the Popedom and immediately effectually endeavoured to bring the Hereticks and Schismaticks over Raynald ad ann 1193. num 55. to the Roman Church And sent for this Purpose John and Simon into Dioclia and Dalmatia and some others into Bulgaria Albertus and Albertinus to Constantinople and the Arch Bishop of Mayence into Armenia GREGORY the ninth his Successor continued the same Design Raynaldus Reports in his time all Asia was full of Religious who went up and Raynald ad ann 1233. down Preaching from place to place He produces likewise a Letter from a Dominican named Philip which he wrote to the Pope in which he gives him an account of the Progress he made in the Conversion of
in the other there are several particular points expresly determined by the Church of Rome propter diversas Haereses a quibusdam ex ignorantia ab aliis ex malitia introductas by reason of certain Heresies introduc'd by the ignorance of some and Malice of others Now 't is under these last points that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained which plainly shews that this Doctrine was proposed to them as lately defined by the Church of Rome and of which those People had at that time no certain Knowledge MR. Arnaud then must seek elsewhere for Proofs whereon to ground his pretension touching the Antiquity of the Opinion in question and I will not stick to affirm he must be an extraordinary Person if he can solidly acquit himself of what I have lay'd before him and in all which I defie him to produce a false Quotation He has been shewed five remarkable deceits whereby he has imposed on the World in concealing whatsoever was necessary to be known in order to a right understanding of this Controversie and in turning to a vain and unprofitable use whatsoever concludes directly against him He has been shewed the profound Ignorance wherein these People have lay'n from the eleventh Century to this present and the fond Superstitions reigning amongst them which makes them very unfit Judges of our Controversie He has been shewed the miserable condition of these Churches in respect of Temporals and the Violences offered them by the Latins to make them change their Religion We have represented him with the Persecutions they suffered from their own Princes upon this account We have observed all these Countries ore-spread with Monks and Emissaries time out of mind and that without interruption to this day We have represented him with a particular account of what the Emissaries do and what the Seminaries contribute towards the making them receive the Roman Faith And in fine we have shewed him that one of their chiefest cares for these People was to make them learn the Mystery of the Substantial Conversion Now after this whether they do believe it or not it is an indifferent matter in respect of the main of our Controversie So that it only now lies upon me to vindicate my own particular Reputation that is to say whether I have rightly or no affirmed that they do not believe it and which I shall demonstrate by God's Assistance in the following parts of this Work and that in such a manner as I doubt not but will satisfie all reasonable Persons BOOK III. Wherein is shewn that the Greek Schismatical Church so called holds not Transubstantiation CHAP. I. The Question stated and M. Arnaud's sixth Deceit manifested IT may be remembred that at the beginning of this Dispute touching the Schismatical Churches I undertook to prove the truth of of these three Propositions First that when Mr. Arnaud shall prove what he pretends concerning these Churches since the eleventh Century to this present yet will it not thence follow that the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching the Eucharist has been perpetual in the Christian Religion or the change in question impossible or that it hath not actually hapned Secondly That the true Greek Church and others which the Latins call Schismaticks never reckoned Transubstantiation amongst the Articles of their Belief nor the Adoration of the Eucharist amongst their Rites and Ceremonies Thirdly That whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has offered to prove the Affirmative is void and ineffectual and that even the greatest part of his Proofs conclude the contrary of that which he pretends I have already made good the first of these Propositions in the preceding Book and shall in this inquire into the belief of the Greeks from the eleventh Century to this present that I may thereby accommodate my self to Mr. Arnaud's Method And as to the other Greek Churches I shall treat of them in my fifth Book But it is first necessary to lay down the true State of the Question to the end that what we undertake may be the better understood and Mr. Arnaud's Deceit more plainly detected Who continually wanders from the point in dispute supposing impossibilities proving impertinencies and confounding what ought to be distinguished WE must know then there are two sorts of Greeks the one reunited to the Church of Rome who acknowledge the Popes Jurisdiction and receive the Decrees of the Florentine Council living in Peace with the Latins The other acknowledge only their own Patriarchs having their Communion apart and separate from the Latins And this I suppose Mr. Arnaud or his Friends will not deny seeing that in their Observations on the Request of M. the Archbishop of Ambrun they have themselves made this distinction of the Greek Catholick Church and the Greek Schismatical one It is needless to alledge other Proofs touching a matter of Fact so well known In effect the Endeavours of the Latins to subject the Greeks to themselves have not been wholly fruitless for besides that in Greece it self and other Patriarchates they have acquired a great number of Persons and intire Families besides this I say there are whole Nations which observe the Decrees of the Council of Florence and live under the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome who yet still observe the Rites and Customs of the Greeks We may place in this rank all the Greeks in Italy Rome Venice Tuscany the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples which are called Italian Greeks we may also bring under this Rank a great part of them who live under the Government of the Venetians For Allatius testifies that not only all these do observe the same Ceremonies as them of the East but that the Pope likewise obliges them to an Observance of them and therefore maintains a Greek Bishop to confer Orders according to the Greek Mode to hinder 'em from receiving them in the East from the hands of Schismaticks We must likewise comprehend the Russians which inhabit black Russia and Podolia under the Government of the King of Poland who submitted themselves to the Church of Rome towards the end of the last Century Arcudius commends Sigismond the Third for that he did not only sollicite but in a manner Arcud Epist. ad Sigismond constrain them to make this Union ut ad Romanam says he hoc est ver am Dei Ecclesiam se adjungerent excitasti ac pene dixerim impulisti Our Question does not concern them their Submission to the Roman See evidently excludes them from this Dispute I expresly excepted them when I denyed that the Greeks and other Christians held Transubstantiation and Adored the Sacrament having said in plain terms except those that submit themselves to the Pope SECONDLY We must remember that one of the chief Advantages Answer to the first Treatise towards the end the Church of Rome makes of these forementioned Seminaries and Emissaries in Greece is the gaining of Proselytes and instructing young People in its Doctrines to use them afterwards for the Conversion of
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
Bread which remain after Consecration THE difficulties which the Socinians object against the Trinity and other Doctrines mentioned by Mr. Arnaud are for the most part false Consequences which these Hereticks draw from these Doctrines It is no wonder if almost all Christians be ignorant of these Consequences They do not spring up naturally For 't is passion and blindness that produces them For I call blindness those false Lights which cause these Hereticks to behold that which is not But that which Mr. Arnaud calls the difficulties of Transubstantiation are real Consequences of this Doctrine and acknowledged to be such by them of the Church of Rome Let him say as long as he will these are Philosophical Consequences I affirm they are not so Philosophical as to hinder them from being very natural appearing to be so even to the light of common sence It is most natural for a man that believes the Substance of Bread ceases to be to think on the Accidents which remain It is very natural for him that believes the Body of Jesus Christ and his Blood to be substantially therein to imagine that where the Body or Flesh is there must the Blood be also which is called in one word the concomitancy It is most natural for him that believes that 't is not the Substance of Bread that nourishes to consider what should cause this nourishment It is very natural for a man that believes the Body of our Lord to be a real humane Body to inquire how this Body can be stript of the proprieties of its Nature It is natural when we see Worms which ingender in the Eucharist to inquire whence they take their matter It is likewise certain that Philosophy is not properly any more concerned in these Consequences than barely to defend them and not to illustrate them And yet when they should not appear in themselves to the eyes of the Greeks and we suppose the whole Body of this Church to be in such a prodigious stupidity that for so many Ages since they have discovered nothing of themselves touching these things which would be in my mind one of the boldest suppositions imaginable yet it must be acknowledged they have seen them in the Doctrine and common belief of the Latins who have filled their Religion with them since Beringarius his time NEITHER is it true that 't was mens Disputations which occasion'd all these Questions on the Subject of the Eucharist or discover'd these Consequences we speak of Mr. Arnaud would fain perswade us to it but we know the contrary and that 't is the very Doctrine it self of Transubstantiation which has produced them For they take their birth from what our eyes see and hands touch and experiences which cannot but be acknowledged In effect they are to be found more amongst the Schoolmen than Controvertists more amongst Authors of the Church of Rome than Protestants THERE is so great absurdity in saying the Greeks are ignorant of the Consequences of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation supposing they believed it that Mr. Arnaud seems to be ashamed to maintain it to the end Ibid. pag. 62. He turns himself on another side and tells us that 't is the docility of the Faith of the Greeks which will not permit them to behold these difficulties But this is very absurdly answered again For were it thus the Greeks themselves would at least tell us something of it I mean they would tell us themselves in some sort that they know well all these Consequences and are not so stupid but that they see such and such Questions which arise from the Conversion of the Substances but that they behold them as an Abyss which cannot be fathomed or to use Mr. Arnaud's Eloquent Expression That they stifle and Ibid. drown all humane thoughts in the absolute certainty of the Word of God and infallible Authority of his Church They would give some reason for their silence and endeavour to hinder its being interpreted in an ill sence They would instruct their People in the same Modesty and Docility and observe that their Conduct in this particular was more discreet than that of the Latins And this is what the Greeks would do did they believe Transubstantiation after this gentle and quiet manner Mr. Arnaud attributes to them Yet do they not so much as mention these Consequences or difficulties they take no notice of their own silence in this respect But Mr. Arnaud speaks for them without any call or order from them He tells us his Conceptions and those of Ernulphus an English Bishop of the Twelfth Century but not a word of the Greeks The Greeks are in such an absolute silence on this Subject that this silence cannot come from any other cause than the nature of their Doctrines which not having the Consequences of Transubstantiation do no ways oblige them to take notice of these same Consequences AND thus far I think my Argument may pass for good in the Opinion of those People that understand reason Yet Mr. Arnaud will have this to be Ibid. pag. 59. meer Folly and Extravagancy And to shew it to be so he tells us That reason it self shews us we must not disown certain and undoubted Truths under pretence they appear contrary amongst themselves on weak conjectures but the certainty of these Truths should make us conclude touching the falsity of these Reasonings and pretended Contrarieties It is adds he as certain a Truth as any thing of this kind can be that the Greeks and other Eastern Churches do believe the real Presence and Transubstantiation and there is nothing but may be called in question upon the same grounds if we may doubt of the consent of all the Churches with the Church of Rome in this Doctrine This is another Truth that the Greeks take little notice of the Philosophicl Consequences Whence he concludes that these two Truths being equally certain they cannot be contrary and that they shew us the falsity of Mr. Claude's Consequence IT must be acknowledged that never man had less trouble to answer an Adversary than Mr. Arnaud I prove to him the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation because they make no mention of its Consequences nor difficulties He denies my Consequence because the Greeks do believe Transubstantiation and that two Truths cannot be contradictory It costs little to make such kind of Answers and it costs no more to tell him that if it were a certain Truth as he affirms it is that the Greeks believed the conversion of Substances he would have no need to trouble himself to answer my Arguments For the Question being decided there would be nothing remaining upon this account betwixt us I believe I established the Negative which I defend a thousand times more solidly than he has proved his Affirmative but if I pretended to elude his Arguments by saying I deny the Consequence because the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation I should be an impertinent Disputer It seems to me I should
Cyrillus ever contradicted by his Actions any of these Sentiments nor believed these Opinions obliged him to seperate himself from the Communion of the Greeks and forsake the Patriarchal Functions His whole Conduct shewed on the contrary he believed 't was his duty to labour at the establishment of perfect Piety in his Church in opposing to the utmost of his power the progress of Error and Superstitions he condemned and not leave a Flock which God had committed to his charge and of which he was to render an Account All which he did to the last breath He held not the truth in unrighteousness nor was he false to the Dictates of his Conscience He published his Confession and put it in the hands of all the Greeks and maintained it before Kings and Princes in the presence of Ambassadors from Christian Monarchs so that 't was only passion that extorted this saying from Mr. Arnaud That he was a damnable Hypocrite and one that made his Faith buckle to his Interest 'T IS the same Passion caus'd him to say That the advantagious Judgment Lib. 4 cap. 11. pag. 417. we make of this Person shews that our Sect has no true Principle of Religion That the Spirit which animates us is rather a Spirit of Faction and a Cabal against the Catholick Church than a Spirit of Zeal for the establishment of true Piety God who is the Witness of our Innocency can be when he pleases the Protectour of it Our Interests are in his hands and as we pray him to defend them so likewise we beseech him to forgive Mr. Arnaud the Injury he does us We appear extream odious in his sight but when pleases God to inspire him with more equitable Sentiments he will judge wholly otherwise In this hope we will comfort our selves by the example of the Holy Apostles and of our Saviour himself who were accused say's Saint Chrysostom to be seditious Persons and Innovators that made it their business to disturb the Chrysostom Hem. 23. in Rom. Publick Peace We will endeavour to refute these kind of Accusations by a Christian Deportment without forgetting our Duty is to bless them that curse us and pray for them that despitefully use us ENGLAND and Holland are able to justifie were there occasion the Actions of their Ambassadours in relation to the business of Cyrillus without my interposing And as they were not the Masters nor Directours of his Conscience so they were never able to prescribe him what he had to do so that 't is very unreasonable to make them responsable for his Conduct in those particulars They have been no farther concerned in the Actions of this Patriarch than this that having known him in their Countries when he was there their acquaintance was turned into mutual familiarity when they found him at Constantinople But this familiarity reached no farther than the usual Services Persons of merit are wont mutually to render to one another notwithstanding the difference of their Opinions in Religion They helpt him to Books and to the keeping a correspondence with Learned men If Mr. Arnaud condemns this Commerce and makes it a Mystery of Iniquity Pag. 422. as he is pleased to call it who need be troubled thereat Strangers at Constantinople are not bound to give him an Account of their Friendships and Civilities I do not doubt but these Ambassadours were glad to find this Patriarch's Confession to be so agreeable with several Doctrines which the Protestants believe to be of great Importance and that he had no Inclination to a Union with the Church of Rome Neither do I doubt but they condoled the Afflictions to which his Dignity and Virtues rendred him obnoxious and would gladly have done him all the good offices in their power and what is there unlawful in all this Must Cyrillus therefore be one of their Creatures or govern himself according to their Directions Had they said Pag. 420. say's Mr. Arnaud that they had obliged him to make a Declaration of his Faith agreeable to their Doctrine Why would he have them acknowledge an untruth Did ever any body see any thing more captious than to establish in the form of an Answer from our part a false Foundation to build thereon an Invective Had they said they had in fine obliged him But should they say they obliged him not to this Confession but that he made it according to the Dictates of his own Conscience and Knowledge Now this is what they are without doubt ready to affirm seeing 't is the real truth As to his being canonized amongst us for a Saint and Martyr as Mr. Arnaud is pleased to affirm he knows we have no such power 'T is certain as I already mentioned his memory is still precious amongst the Greeks as that of a Saint and Martyr of Christ as I shall make appear hereafter but this is not to make him one of our Saints or Martyrs SHOULD we press those that judge thus of the Consciences of other men perhaps they would be straitned to give us a reason for theirs on the same Maxims on which they would have that of this Patriarchs judged and the Ambassadors of England and Holland For not to go farther how can they in conscience approve that their Scholars brought up in the Seminary at Rome which were wholly their Creatures sent into Greece to promote the Interest of the Roman See should take Orders from Schismatical Bishops and afterwards be raised to Bishopricks by Schismatical Patriarchs that they should live in their communion and dependance in the midst of a Church in which the Pope and all the Latins are continually excommunicated on Holy Thursday by the Patriarch of Jerusalem where their Sacrifice is abhorred and this Sentence read every Year in their Churches confounded be all they that In Triod offer unleavened Bread in the Sacrifice wherein Purgatory is rejected and 't is held a crime to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wherein the necessity of communicating under both kinds is held carved Images condemned and several other such like things which are not over favourable to the Latins How in Conscience can these said Scholars be advanced to Patriarchates elected and consecrated by Schismatical Metropolitains and placed at the Head of a Church which professes an open Seperation from the Church of Rome and live in Communion with that of Jerusalem in which all the Latins in general are excommunicated What I say is grounded on matter of Fact which Mr. Arnaud dares not deny for should he do it he would be convinced by the Testimony of Thomas à Jesu who expresly tells us That it has been ever thought fitting to permit the Schollars Thom. à Jesu de procuran Salute omn. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 4. of the Seminary at Rome to take Orders when in Greece from the hands of Schismatical Bishops it being necessary to use this Indulgence or Dispensation to the end the Patriarchs may not
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
in your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God I complained that this Worshiping it written in great Characters was an Addition to the Greek Text which only say's thus And bowing thrice the Knee Answer to the 2d Treat of the Perpetuit 2. part c. 8. and joyning your Hands you shall take c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Mr. Arnaud Justifies this Translation and first he say's That Mr. Claude may as well Reproach Bollandus and Peter Combefis who first Translated the Greek Words which signify no more litterally than bending the Knee by these Trinaque genuflexione adorans To whom Mr. Arnaud may likewise add Allatius his great Author for he also Translates Trinaque genuum flexione adorans But neither do Bollandus nor Combefis nor Allat in addendis ad lib. de Perpet cons Allatius excuse the Author of the Perpetuity He ought not to assert any thing in a matter of this Importance without a careful Examination of it for 't is not the Examples of others that will excuse such kind of Faults as these Moreover there is a considerable Difference between the Translation of Bollandus Combefis and Allatius and that of the Author of the Perpetuity They Translate Trinaque genuflexione adorans This adorans is an Addition to the Letter and an Explication of what may be pretended the genuflexion signifies but 't is not a spoyling of the Sence for 't is certain that in this Occasion the genuflexion is an Adoration Mr. Arnaud needed not Expatiate in long Discourses and Distinctions to prove it We grant it All that can be said in this Respect is that Bollandus Combefis and Allatius have rather performed the Office of Paraphrastists than that of Translators The Paraphrastists do not only Explain the Terms but the Matters Represented by them They inlarge upon Matters and when two Notions are joyned together by any Dependance they pass easily from one to the other this is allowable in them But Translators must be more exact they must faithfully render the Expressions as much as the Idiom of the Language they Translate in will permit them They ought especially to keep to the first Sence and Notion which the Letter gives them and never take the Liberty to pass over from one Sence to another or from one Idea to another whatsoever Coherence and Dependence there may seem to be betwixt them For this is not permitted them A Paraphrastist may for Instance very well say on our Saviour's Words to Judas Dost thou betray the Son of Man with a Kiss in doing him Homage and shewing him Respect and Friendship This does explain that which the Kiss given to our Saviour does naturally Signify and a Man passes thus from one Idea to another But should a Translator pretend to this Liberty it would be justly denyed him A Paraphrastist may make our Lord say I am the Spiritual and Mystical Light of the World inlightning others A Translator cannot for altho this be the true Sence of the Word Light yet 't is a second and explicatory Sence which is not exactly the first Notion which the Letter gives We must say the same that when Bollandus Combefis and Allatius have Translated Trinaque genuum flexione adorans They were Paraphrastists not Translators and kept not the Character they took upon them They cannot be excused by saying as Mr. Arnaud does that genuflexion in a Matter of Religion is an Act of Adoration For altho this be true this is not the first Idea which the Letter of the Greek Text gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if rightly rendred signifies no more than ter genu Flectens Adorans ought not to be added thereunto this is Expounding and not Translating this is passing from one Conception to another which is not a Translator's Business and so much the rather in that there was no Necessity to make this Addition the Latin very well bearing that we should say ter genu flectens It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say as he does that Combefis has done no more than the Evangelists did For as to St. Luke's saying That the leprous Person fell flat on his Face before our Saviour Christ And St. C. 9. p. 724. Mark That he kneeled down And St. Matthew That he worshiped him Mr. Arnaud here Imposes on us as he is wont St Mark and St. Matthew were not Translators of St. Luke The Evangelists are each of 'em Authors of their own Gospel and there is a great deal of Difference betwixt speaking as an Author and as a Translator Had the Translation of Mons rendred these Words of St. Luke kneeled down or worshiped him instead of falling on the Ground it might be justly blamed and that Man ill understands the Rules of Translation who allows in himself or others this Liberty SO far concerning Bollandus Combefis and Allatius But the Author of the Perpetuity did not think good to stop here Besides the Addition of an Expression which is not in the Greek Text he has proceeded to the altering the Sence in determining it For he Translates And WORSHIPING it in bending thrice the Knee and with folded Hands you shall receive into your Mouth the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ our God He has written this Word Worshiping in great Characters to shew that thereon depends the Decision of the Question as referring it self to the Body of Christ which we receive into our Mouths that is to say to the Sacrament it self Th 'others left it at the Readers Liberty to refer this Adoration to God or our Saviour in Heaven But the Author of the Perpetuity judged not this sufficient and therefore would have it only relate to the Eucharist Now this is an inexcusable Depravation For what Right has this Author to add an Expression and determine moreover the Sence of it by an Article which hinders us from understanding it any otherwise than he pleases Is it fairly done of a Translator who cites a Passage in a Dispute to deal thus It is apparent say's Mr. Arnaud that in this Passage these Genuflexions refer themselves to our Saviour P. 725. Christ Which I deny if by the Body of Christ he means the Sacrament provided Mr. Arnaud can say it is Apparent it is Clear or it is False the Matter is decided he has done enough But why is this apparent Is not there more likelyhood on the contrary that these three Genuflexions respect the three Persons of the Trinity to whom is sung the Trisagion This Answer is again say's he Ridiculous why Ridiculous Because say's he that singing of Psalms or of the Trisagion rehearsing the Creed and folding the Hands are several Parts of the whole Ceremony injoyned by the Bishop all of which respect the Blessed Sacrament and serve as a Preparation for its Reception and not to one another It is true they all respect the Celebration of the Sacramental Action and serve for a Preparation to the Communion but that they all refer
for a Proof The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi into the Body of Jesus Christ or to be the Body of Jesus Christ They believe then Transubstantiation 'T is evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion there is need of Ibid. something more precise than this But say's he this is a Catholick that speaks thus and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself and the question concerns his own Faith we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist by the Body of Christ he means the proper substance of this Body for we know that this is the Sence and Style of the Roman Church But when he Discourses of the Moscovites and the question concerns their Faith we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi he pretends no more than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give ' em What Sense is that This Sacranus does not determine and to go about to decide it by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand relates Moscovit Religion that the Consecration is performed amongst them by pronouncing our Saviour's words and that they attribute to them so great Vertue that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest they believe the Creature gives place to the Creator we must tell Mr. Arnaud that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fabulous relation such as is this le Ferre's This Author assures us that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation that they do it by the laying on of Hands in making the sign of the Cross and anointing the Party Confirmed on the Forehead That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People which they do not only every Sunday but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate as being Christ's Vicar and St. Peters Successor That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins This is all false as appears by other Relations of these People Possevin Com. 2. de reb Mosc And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors which are counted fabulous because say's he they have been mis-informed or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom to apply thereunto a Remedy What signifies then such peoples Testimony NOT to take notice that these Terms The Creature gives place to the Creator are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses For when we should say with Theodoret that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature or with St. Austin that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament or with the Greeks that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body the Creature will still give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 't is invalid and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre was to make the World believe that the Moscovites hold this Doctrine so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority as Lasicius has done do take it no otherwise Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's he would have found it full of false Reports and easily find his Authors main Design was to render the Moscovite Religion as Conformable as he could to the Roman and by this means to deceive his Readers and especially the Protestants whom he had at that time in his Eye He would then have absolutely rejected the Authority of such a Man who has palpably disguised the Truth He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question Ferre's Sence from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves supposing they were their own Words But this he has not done altho he ought to have done it and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation Whence it follows we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us concerning the Religion of Strangers but it does not follow 't is true in the main that the Moscovites believe the Conversion of Substances WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper Persons of greater Reputation Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation They put say's Dannaverus into the Wine contained in the Chalice the Bread broken into pieces they Bless it and believe 't is Transubstantiated They hold Transubstantiation say's Mr. Olearius So that here we have two express Testimonies and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged As to Dannaverus he has only followed Olearius's Authority knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors as appears by his Treatise But as to Mr. Olearius he is a Person of great Learning and has lived in those Countries and made it his Business to be informed of this Point and who not only gives us this Account in his Book but has likewise Confirm'd it in a Letter written to one of Mr. Arnaud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony and clear it from all Perplexity And this will be done by considering his own Perpe of the Faith Part 3. C. 8. Words as well in his Book as Letter Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them from the Original High-Dutch are They believe Transubstantiation that is to say that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ Those of his Letter Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438. related by Mr. Arnaud I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation that is to say they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony from his private
Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature They deny say's he that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Joann Lazicius de Rel. Armeni the Elements lose their Nature They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction and affinity between the Divine and Humane Nature that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction And when I demanded of them how this could be seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration they answered me This was effected by the Divine virtue to which we ought to give credit And these are Lasicius his words according to the Original but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence But as to my pretention I think 't is well grounded and beyond all Question seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Nature HE has had his informations say's Mr. Arnaud only from some Ignorant Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449. Persons in Leopolis If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testimony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point and knowing ones for the other perhaps say's he he did not comprehend that by the word Nature they meant only the Mass of external Accidents But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable Where will Ibid. he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which he himself tells us in another place the Greeks the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no mention Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the Lib. 10. C. 8. word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em or of which at least they make no mention Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles according as his occasions require Diruit aedificat mutat quadrata rotundis Which shews his Answers mere Evasions and in effect there 's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms of which he has not comprehended the sence For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Virgin Mary Now we have already seen that according to them Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature which had only a Body in appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not really Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be that the Divinity being every where it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist And with this agrees what they add that after the Incarnation there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Natures distinct for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divinity as we have already seen they commonly held So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament is no other than the presence of the Divinity which is every where but more especially in the Eucharist 'T is very probable 't was under this Equivocation the Patriarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter The Body of Jesus Christ say's he Born of the Virgin dead on the Cross and which is now alive in Heaven is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread The Body Born of the Virgin and Dead on the Cross which was to say according to them the Divinity which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross But when he was urged to acknowledge 't was the same Numerical Body he would not grant it because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies and consequently made it a real Body Mr. Arnaud will reply this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so 's But he has no other Grounds for his may be 's than his own Imagination whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothesis of the Armenians having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I describe it WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood in his Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24. Treatise of Religions For he say's expresly That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes but this shews he takes it for an unquestionable truth MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us that the Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form View of Religions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666. of Bread and Wine MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages in which are found these words The Armenians administer the Sacrament Herberts Voyages Lib. 2. q. 244 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine and deny the
at least must byass a mans Judgment towards those things which are afterwards offered If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any mention of the Substantial Presence nor Conversion of Substances that never believed these Doctrines and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect Now we know 't is contrary to Nature to believe it I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious far from being sincere and tending to surprize mens minds by making 'um take a part beforehand without any ground or reason that being thus prejudic'd they may see what is not and not see what is For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions the one that a Church believed Transubstantiation but never disputed about it Th' other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation nor ever heard it a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say here 's one of these defective Expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer and on the other a man will say here 's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery In effect hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers the one believe they see Transubstantiation in 'um because they read the Passages with this Prejudice that the ancient Church held it and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd the others do not find it in 'um because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice that the ancient Church did not believe it and these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable For this effect we must consider the Church either as a Society of men or as a Society of Christians In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation If she held it it would be in the second respect I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion which is the Word of God or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures and Tradition of the first Six Centuries and shew therein the Doctrines in question which done he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages and make his Discussion on this Principle that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transubstantiation But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute This is a plain Deviation and Illusion For till such time as the contrary appears to us we must always predetermine on Natures side Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere we cannot but suppose the Church in what time and place soever we consider it in a State purely Natural in this respect WEE can never reasonably predetermine without some considerable motive contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men nor contrary to Universal Notions and general Customs Now 't is certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question For our Senses give in their Testimony against them and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to ' um Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters WEE ought never to prejudicate without exceeding great reason against an example I mean against the usual manner of proceeding acting thinking or speaking in such like matters as is this in question Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses but also contrary to their Deposition WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy that is to say the Relation Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines Maxims and Customs of the same Religion For 't is with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building or Aedifices of the same City or Members of the same Body or if you will as with Children of the same Family They are known by one another because they all do in some sort resemble each other now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Expressions for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ to wit that of his Abasement and that of his Exaltation without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental WE shall not find 'um applying to
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
things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For
were elected by these Monsters seeing there 's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like Who doubts but they consented to all which they did who had chosen 'em but that they imitated 'em and trod in their footsteps but that they all desired our Saviour should sleep on and never rise to judg them nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth to the Council which the Emperor Otton assembled at Rome to depose him which shews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in those days Joannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei omnibus Episcopis Nos audivimus dicere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere si hoc feceritis Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare missam celebrare The Councils answer is as elegant Est vestris in literis scriptum quod non Episcopum sed puerilem ineptiam scribere deceret excommunicastis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi missam ordinandi Ecclesiasticas dispositiones si alâ—um Romanoe Sedi constitueremus Episcopum It a enim scriptum erat non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare Nunc usque putavimus immo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum nisi vestra autoritas priscorum sententias infirmaret autorum THE Zeal Fervour frequent Conversions and Reformations of those days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent as I proved in my Answer to the Perpetuity by the testimonies of Luitprand and Glaber and by the very confession of the Author of the Perpetuity himself which might be further made to appear were it necessary Now judg I pray you what science and zeal there could be in a Church where the ministerial Office was upon sale to him that offered most And moreover the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks commonly bestowed on Children uncapable of discharging those great trusts which Baronius expresly asserts for having told Baron ad ann 925. us from the testimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süelphus Arch-bishop of Rhemes were agreed that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-bishoprick should come to Heribert's Son he says that Heribert to make quick work caused Süelphus to be poisoned and his Son to be chosen in his place who was not above five years old that the news of the Election being brought to the King he confirm'd it which was also done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds That this example was quickly followed by several Princes who promoted their own or relations Children to the Episcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant which says he was likewise done in Rome it self in those days Constantinople and other great Cities And would to God adds he this custom had went no farther than those days and that so detestable a wickedness against the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether ignorance and carelesness are not the natural effects of such disorders WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the West was afflicted during this whole Century for 't is certain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe resounded with the noise of them France was therein troubled by the League of Robert and the dreadful consequences hapning thereupon by the Wars against the Normans Danes and Germans and by those which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain and th' Election of Hugo Capet England was therein disturb'd by divers Civil Wars and the frequent Incursions of the Danes Scotch Irish and other people still professing Paganism Spain was also molested by the Moors Arabians and Saracens by the Invasions of the Normans and by the dreadful Divisions of the Christians GERMANY spent this Century in perpetual Confusions the Danes Sclavonians and Huns ravag'd all things by their irruptions which often hapned For Children to contrive the death of their Parents was ordinary and Great Persons to rise up against their lawful Princes which commonly ended in bloody Battels not to mention the cruel Wars which the Emperors had to maintain in Italy against the Factious and in Calabria against the Greeks and Saracens As to Italy she was throughout this whole Century in the most deplorable state imaginable on one hand by the Princes of Tuscany on the other by the Wars of the Italian Princes one against another and the Arms of the Emperors and neighboring Kings In short the confusions were then so general that there was scarcely a corner in Europe wherein a man that loves quiet could obtain it Now who is it but knows that times of War and Divisions are apt to introduce carelesness looseness and ignorance of the mysteries of Religion into the Church I CONFESS there were in this Age some endeavours after a Reformation bu besides that they were but mere essays that proved ineffectual I deny they were strong enough supposing they could have had a wished for success to stir men up to search into the Controversie of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament The most considerable were those made in the Council of Trosly already mention'd by us and it will not be amiss to make some remarks on what was resolved therein Let us endeavour Concil Trost n Epilogâ— say these Fathers which were not above twelve by our own means and by the Priests under us to avoid as much as in us lies this terrible damnation which we have drawn down upon our selves and the people committed to our charge Let us instruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example Let us behave our selves as the Ministers of Christ that our Office be not dishonored and it be said of us the Priests are without knowledg those to whom the Law is committed have not known me and lest we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons First then let every Christian ground himself well in the Christian Religion which is the Catholick Faith without which a man cannot be called a Christian Let him believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit one only true God three persons in unity of substance But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Flesh to save us and thus suffered Death rose again ascended up into Heaven and will come in the same Flesh to judg both quick and dead Let him believe in the Holy Ghost and that by him we have the remission of sins in our Baptism and that thro his Grace our sins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and ministery of the Priests Let him believe also a real and general Resurrection of the Flesh at the coming of Jesus Christ This is the true foundation of Faith which must be adorned by Good Works for as 't is impossible without Faith to please God so Faith cannot be persect if it shews not it self by Charity for if it be void of works it 's become