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
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
may make of some Passages of the Fathers produced by both Parties and I speak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs and Difficulties brought against them and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Answer wherein I speak touching the Sence which People Assisted by the light of Answer to the Perpetuity P. 192. Scripture strength of Reason and plain Instructions of their Ministers may give to the mystical Expressions which were then in use These are things wholly different I do not deny but that there are several difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of He needed not be brought in question for this seeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter in the beginning of my Answer I affirm that the way of seeking the Truth touching the Eucharist by the Doctrine Answer to the Prpetuity P. 34. of the Fathers is in it self a way which is indirect preposterous and very tedious wherein we have great cause to fear Mistakes and Wandrings These are my Words and Mr. Daillé has said no more and I do still affirm that if a man examines these Passages apart and protests he finds no obscurity in them we cannot but take these his Protestations for Bravadoes But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Eucharist and which resulteth from an exact consideration of the Proofs relating both to one side and the other is undoubtedly on our side whether these particular Passages which seem at first to be difficult are illustrated by others which shew the real Sence of them or when their Difficulty should remain it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs The Considerations which Mr. Daillé makes on these difficult Places do in themselves contribute to the Establishment of the certitude of this general Judgment which I mentioned for they discover to us the Causes of this Obscurity they give us the like Examples in other Matters and by this means lessen the Offence which may be taken at them and satisfy a mans Mind BUT he saith that neither the Romanists nor the Protestants have any reason Ibid. to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which arose but of laâ—e the Discourses of the antient Fathers written by them upon other matters several years before What he saith is true for we should be to blame should we take them for declaratory Sentences But this hinders not but we may still conclude they held not Transubstantiation and the Real Presence because that if they had held these Doctrines they would not have expressed themselves as they do Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation which is to conclude by their Silence in these Doctrines that they held them â—ot Neither does this moreover hinder but that after a due Consideration of all these affirmative and negative Proofs we may make a certain and decisive Judgment on the Question touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour So that Mr. Arnaud has spent his time to no purpose when he undertook to shew this pretended Contrariety which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me But Mr. Daillé ' s Design saith he is to shew in general that we must not take the Fathers for Judges of Controversies and especially in that of the Eucharist Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47. I acknowledg it because these Difficulties he mentions do shew this way is long and troublesom and that we meet in it such Entanglements as are hardly to be surmounted and therefore this is not a proper means for all sorts of Persons but only for those that have time and all other necessary helps This I do not deny but on the contrary do ever affirm that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule and our having recourse to the Fathers is but by way of Condescension I say farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is necessary they would easily be able by the Guidance of common Sense to make this Evident and certain Judgment That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this present and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I. IF I have insisted too long on this Subject 't is because I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injustice towards two Persons whom he would fain set at Variance by making of them contradict one another But return we to the rest of our Observations CHAP. VI. A farther Examination of the pretended Advantages which Mr. Arnaud attributes to the Treatise of the Perpetuity THE Subject of my fourth Observation is taken from what Mr. Arnaud assures us viz. that all that are of Mr. Daillé ' s Mind that Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 47. is to say who are perswaded they must not decide the Question touching the Eucharist by the Writings of the Fathers seeing they are so obscure and intricate that it is a hard matter to make them agree cannot refuse to render themselves up to the Proofs of the Perpetuity in case they judge them evident whence he concludes that all-knowing Persons who are sincere on the one hand and on the other all they who cannot judge by themselves will acquiecse in these Proofs This Pretension is as ill grounded as the former For there being as I already said two Questions before us the one touching what we are to believe concerning the Eucharist and the other concerning what has bin believed by the antient Church the first of these which is that of Right respects in general all them of our Communion but the second for as much as it may be decided by History only respects them amongst us who have sufficient Leasure and Curiosity to inform themselves So that the Prolixity Difficulty and intricacy which we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers do sufficiently evidence that their Books are very improper for the Decision of the first of these Questions whereon depends that of our Controversies seeing these Difficulties will be insuperable to the greatest part amongst us altho they will not render them unfit to decide the second because they are not insuperable to them who would apply themselves thereunto as they ought to satisfy their Curiosity neither will they hinder them in short from making a most certain Judgment in our Favour If then the Treatise of the Perpetuity be only offered to them to whom the first Question belongs they will answer they have no need of it being satisfied with the Word of God and if they be demanded what they believe touching the antient Church they will answer that they judge of it according to the Rules of Christian Charity and our Saviours Promises But if we proeeed farther and suppose it be enquired
remarks their Opinion touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but mentions not a Word of Confession Nicephorus Callistus observes likewise in his Ecclesiastical History their Heresy touching the Unity of our Saviour's Nature but takes no notice of their rejecting the Article of Confession THE Nestorians which are another Christian Church in the East and have as well as others their apartment in the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem and are consequently continually amongst the Greeks in this place where their common Devotion brings them do acknowledg no more than the Jacobits the Doctrine of Confession nor that of Confirmation as appears by the Profession of Faith of Sulak their Patriarch which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum Let Mr. Arnaud shew us if he can that the Greeks have raised any Controversies on this Subject he I say that believes these latter are at agreement with the Latins touching the number of seven Sacraments THOMAS a Jesu tells us that the Pope having sent Apostolical Legats for the Reforming of the Maronites and purging their Books from some Thom. a Jesu lib. 7. part 2. c. 7. Errors which were common to them say's he as well as to other Eastern Nations that is to say other Christians in that Country they found they misunderstood some Passages of Scripture and especially that touching the Institution of the Sacrament this is my Body They affirm say's he that we must read this is the Sacrament of my Body Let Mr. Arnaud be pleased to tell us whether the Greeks ever censured the Proposition of these other Eastern Churches in the midst of whom they live For if it be true that the Greeks believed Transubstantiation as well as the Latins 't is the strangest thing in the World they should approve such a Corruption or such an Interpretation of the Words of Christ seeing 't is only on the literal Sence of these Words the Church of Rome pretends her Doctrine is grounded I shall prove in its place as clearly as 't is possible to prove a thing of this nature that the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation nor the substantial Presence This Truth will be plainly manifest and yet it will not appear the Greeks ever upbraided them with this their Opinion or made thereof a Point of Controversy Were it fair to argue from the Silence of the Greeks might I not conclude from their not disturbing the Armenians in reference to this matter that they are agreed with them to reject these Doctrines and conclude it too with a thousand times more Strength and Evidence than Mr. Arnaud concludes they are at Agreement with the Latins to believe it because they do not make thereof a Controversy AND here methinks are Instances enough to overthrow Mr. Arnaud's Argument and discover the weakness of his Consequence But we must proceed farther for having shewed him that the Principle on which I ground my Answer is reasonable to wit that the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation altho they never disputed against it I will likewise shew him there is all the likelyhood in the World that the matter is as I lay it down whence it will follow that not only his Consequence has no Necessity but even no Probability I. FOR this Effect it will be necessary to call to mind the profound Ignorance wherein the Greeks have lived from the eleventh Century till this present For I already related in the second Book what Wm. of Tyre James de Vitry Belon Cottovic Anthony Caucus Francis Richard Allatius du Loir Thevenot and Barbereau the Jesuit have written of this matter I moreover produced the Testimonies of Bozius and Thomas a Jesu All which has no other end but to shew us the miserable Condition wherein this Church has for so long time layn Observe here likewise what say's a Latiniz'd Monk called Barlaam who lived about the beginning of the fourteenth Century There are Barlaam Epist 1. Bibl. patr Tom. 2. Edit 4. say's he few Persons amongst them that trouble themselves with Learning And there are yet fewer that apply themselves to the Study of the Scriptures preferring the Heathenish Sciences above it to which they willingly apply themselves All the People in general are ignorant especially of that Holy Word that brings Salvation So that for one Person amongst them that understands the Summary of the Christian Faith there are Millions ignorant of it Observe here moreover what Cyrillus Lucaris the same Patriarch mentioned in the preceding Book writes I can bear with the Ignorance of the common People for I know their Ignorance Epist ad Wittemborg in Epist Virro erudi and Simplicity can defend them against the Enemies of their Faith whom they Combat not with Arms but Patience and so remain faithful to Jesus Christ But I cannot bear with the Ignorance and Stupidity of our Pastors and Bishops and therefore I continually upbraid them with it but to no purpose The Jesuits making their advantage thereof have setled themselves in Constantinople to instruct Youth and are like Foxes amongst Geese It is certain we can find no Book from this People worth our Reading written since Photius's time excepting some few Histories and Collections of the antient Canons the rest only consisting in Explanations of their Liturgy and some pittiful Treatises wherein they Transcribe one out of another Word for Word without any Art or Sence almost II. WE should likewise consider the temporal State of Greece since the eleventh Century to this present for there can be nothing imagined more dreadful and miserable Most of their Emperors have been either lazy or effeminate continually accompanied with Misfortunes or Prophane and Impious Persons that made a Mock of Religion or Villains that ascended the Throne by Seditions and Murthers by means whereof Greece became divided into Factions and horrible Confusions In the Year 1034 Romanus Argirus Peteau Rat. tempor ex Curopal L 8. Ch. 18. Ibid. the Emperor having lost Syria was cruelly murthered by the Treachery of Zoa his Wife who gave the Empire afterwards to her Adulterer Michael Michael Reigned seven Years possessed by the evil Spirit He lost Sicily and Bulgaria and at length turned Monk in the Year 1041. Zoa his Wife adopted one Michael Calaphatus and made him Emperor but four or five Months Ibid. after she caused his Eyes to be bored out and gave the Empire to Constantin Monomaque whom she espoused He lost Poville and was terribly beaten by the Serviens who killed forty Thousand of his Men. Constantin dyed in 1054 and a Woman named Theodora succeeded him who Reigned but one Ibid. Year After her came one named Michael Stratiotique who Reigned also but one Year Isaack Comnenus dispossessed him and took his Place wherein he remained Ibid orewhelmed with Diseases for the space of two Years and some Months He resigned the Empire in the Year 1059 to Constantin Ducas a dull Ibid. and mean Spirited Prince who suffered the Barbarians
how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstantiation Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick speaking in this manner All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43. in the words of the Evangelists and those of S. Paul But I Claud declare 't is not contained in them and confirm my assertion by my own authority This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity The fifth Reflection Mr. ARNAVD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God These says he are only suppositions without proof This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs and such Ch 6. p. 44 45. proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof They would be says he again very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because be accompanies these proofs with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority and possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority This proposition surprizes me The proofs of Scripture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity but weak proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church Hoc magno mercentur Atridae The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud But this was not S. Austins sentiment when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop he told him I must not alledg to you the Council Aug. lib. 3. cont Maxim cap. 14. of Nice nor you to me that of Ariminis For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last so neither are you bound to be guided by the authority of the first But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both oppose we Cause to Cause and Reason to Reason Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradition and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity are weak yea even infinitely weak separated from Tradition and the Churches Authority What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this publick sense and Tradition which is in it self grounded on weak proofs For after all why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves 'T is neither rashly nor enthusiastically nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side But what are the reasons of it if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture to ground this sense on are in themselves extreme weak Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjust advantage but likewise ruines himself his own Principle as fast as he thinks he establishes it HE says that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswerable When a Socinien shall reply thereunto we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come He adds That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage Which is what I do not suppose but I suppose they cannot object any that can prevail over those I offer'd I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their answers or objections If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th Book which is only grounded on a supposition He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence imagining he has well proved them But I need only mind him of his own remarks and tell him he supposes 1. That his proofs are unanswerable 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them and consequently his supposition is faulty If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies and produce my objections and that till then his supposition holds good let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question HE says in fine That I suppose reason remains neuter contenting it self without teaching the Trinity and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties wherewith reason furnishes those against this Article who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a terrible one as this is without grounding it at least on some proofs That reason furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason rather than from reason it self and I confess there are of this kind not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud exaggerates it but some that may perplex a mans mind So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em I have on the contrary formally acknowledged them But to say no more there needs only be read what I wrote on this subject to find that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer having left it untoucht in its full strength Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons and especially that of our Lord and Saviour and judg whether 't is wisely said That I ruin the Sociniens without redemption but 't is by such a way as will rather make them laugh than change their minds This discourse is not very edifying and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage But 't is better to pass on to his sixth Consequence The sixth Consequence THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation helps us to distinguish the necessary consequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments The first Reflection WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity which are not of absolute necessity But to make a good use of this
but S. Paul This great Doctor would not have us to be concerned for these things which he calls Commandments and Doctrins of men which says he have some appearance of wisdom in a voluntary devotion and humility of spirit and in that they spare not in any kind the flesh Let Mr. Arnaud extol as much as he pleases the glory of the 10th Century by these mortifications he shall never persuade reasonable people that an age wherein appears on one hand an almost universal ignorance of all that is good a prodigious neglect of the mysteries of Religion an almost universal corruption of manners a strange kind of Devotion to all manner of Vices a deplorable relaxation of Ecclesiastical Discipline and on the other several Monasteries founded and outward austerity practis'd that this could be an Age of Benediction and Grace MOREOVER what we have said of Edgar King of England Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury and the quarrel of the Ecclesiasticks in England has been grounded on good Testimonies William of Malmsbury tells us Edgar was reproached for dishonoring the first years of his Reign with Cruelties and strange Pollutions one of which was that being enamored with the Wife of Etelwold his Favorite he got him out one day into the Forrest to Hunt and there caused him to be cruelly murder'd Another of his wickednesses was the forcibly carrying away a Maid that he loved who to avoid his pursuits had cast her self into a Monastery and taken therein the Vail Another time falling in love with a Dukes Daughter and having given orders to have her brought to him the Mother who would not consent her Daughter should be dishonored substituted one of her Maids in her place who was also very fair which Edgar understanding he was thereat so enraged that he changed their rank and quality and made this Servant Mistriss over her own Mistriss He a while after espoused Elfride the Widow of his Favorite whom he had caused to be slain IT is said that Dunstan Excommunicated him because he had violated the respect due to a Monastery and drew out thence a Woman who wore the Habit of a Religious altho she was none and abused her It 's certain Guilliel Malm. lib. 2. c. 8. says he that Wulfritte for this was the Maids name was not a Nun but a Laick who fearing the King had taken the Vail which the King snatching from her abused her At which Dunstan being offended in that he dared to lust after a person that had only the Vmbra of Religion made use of his Pontifical power against him Now as we must judg of the zeal of Dunstan from the Historians own words so we cannot but say there was a great deal of hypocrisie in this action for is it not an horrible hypocrisie to have less regard to the Sacrament of Baptism an Ordinance instituted by God him-himself than to this human institution William of Malmsbury represents Dunstan displaying all his Pontificial Power to revenge the outrage offer'd to the shadow of Religion Vnde offensum says he beatum Dunstanum quod illam concupisset quoe vel umbraticè sanctimonialis fuisset vigorem pontificalem in eum egisse of the Consecration of Baptism or the enormity of the action he says never a word Let not Mr. Arnaud take it ill that I call this hypocrisie He says my censure is unjust because this Maid was Baptiz'd and so Edgar had violated in her the character and the consecration of Baptism as well as in the others But what signifies this remark This Maid was Baptiz'd without doubt and for that reason we esteem it ill that Dunstan grounded his severity and his Episcopal fury on a bare shadow of Religion without any notice of her Baptism AS to the quarrel of the Ecclesiasticks and Monks in England I have said nothing but what is grounded on the testimony of Polydor Virgil as appears by what I related in my Answer to the Perpetuity The Historian lays it upon the insatiable covetousness of the Monks neither does he excuse Polydor. Virg. Hist Ang l. 6. the Priests from the same charge and as to the image of the Crucifix that spake he says expresly there were several people of good report that believed 't was rather an Oracle of Phaebus than an Oracle of God which is to say that this voice was uttered not by the will of God but by the fraud of men What I also said that their disputations were not concerning the Gospel that they were all agreed to let that rest without understanding it without preaching it and without reading it is grounded on the testimony of Elfric Archbishop of Canterbury who lived at the same time for he was Primate of England in the year 989 a year after the death of Dunstan according to the report of Matthew of Westminster In these days says Elfric the Priests Elfric Ser. ad Sacerd. Miss in Bibl. Colleg. S. Bened. Cant. and Bishops are become so careless and idle who ought to be the Pillars of the Church that they regard not the holy Scriptures nor instruct Disciples that may become their Successors as we find several Holy men did who left behind 'em several good Disciples Their minds are more taken up with worldly Honors Concupisence and Covetousness than the Laicks and what a sad example do they give their Flocks not daring to speak of Justice because they neither love it nor observe it CHAP. VII Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of Forgetfulness Examin'd The Examples of the insensible Changes alledg'd in answer to the Perpetuity Defended I SAID in my Answer to the Perpetuity That if we had this Dispute Answer to the second Treat ch 1. with Greeks or Egyptians we should not perhaps take it ill for them to ask us how this change was wrought but we cannot bear without some kind of regret and vexation these same Transubstantiators this very party that made the change who have used a thousand tricks insensibly to effect it that have made use of Fraud and Violence to hinder its being wrought with noise that have taken infinite care to deprive posterity of the knowledg of the manner how 't was done to come now to us and demand how this could be WHEREUPON Mr. Arnaud tells us first That we have in effect to Book 9. ch 8. page 9â—3 do with not only Egyptians and Greeks but likewise Moscovites Ethiopians Nestorians Jacobites Armenians and Indians that all these people make the same questions as the Author of the Perpetuity and require the same satisfaction But that Mr. Claude cannot answer 'em seeing they had no Paschasus nor Popes nor Monks nor Councils nor Croisado's nor Inquisitors to work this Establishment In the second place he says that I am unjust in accusing Page 954. the Catholicks of this Age for making the change in question and employing Croisado's and Inquisitors against us That these are not the same persons that were in the