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
found nothing in 'em of what he saw at first I confess they may be understood in this sense that this affair was politically manag'd and with respect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome and regain the peoples good will and that this is a worldly wisdom But 't will not be found in 'em That the Author of the Perpetuity did not write by persuasion but only thro policy as Mr. Arnaud imagin'd This he will not find Why then does he extend my words beyond their natural signification and why does he wrong a man so scandalously on the imagination he said what he did not We understand says he The Book entituled The Port Royal and Geneva of Intelligence against the most holy Sacrament of the Altar this language He shews plainly he does not understand it seeing he charges me with saying what I did not and draws his Commentary only from himself and not from my words Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed against him wherein he is accused for formally opposing the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence by a proposition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Eucharist has been publickly in a Letter treated as suspicious that he has been told That if he be unwilling Answer to the request presented to the King c. Book 2. ch 6. p. 187. together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva he must change the act of the adoration which they perform assisting at the Mass to the Elevation of the Host for they say only I adore thee raised on the Cross at the general judgment and at the right hand of the Father without any mention of adoring him being present in the Church Had I severely applied my self to what he says somewhere in his Book on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philosophy That God sees in the matter in the figures and forms only a different order of parts to conclude thence that this proposition overthrows the existence of accidents without a subject in the Eucharist and consequently that 't is contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome as it has been observ'd in a Letter Printed not long since what tempests must I not have expected seeing for having only hinted that there might be some policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raised such a great disturbance Mr. ARNAVD protests he will never for my sake dispense with the Book 11. ch 9. p. 1132. rules of Justice that he will never devine my secret intentions Let him not then pretend to read in my heart nor attribute to me a mystical sense which I never intended nor is contained in my words All those that believe Transubstantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour Amongst those that are how many do betake themselves to other matters Is it not then a very likely matter that a person who is at liberty to write on any subject but pitches upon Transubstantiation is it not I say very likely his choice of this point is grounded on some worldly policy and carnal considerations In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very just and innocent And this is all that my words signifie to pretend to know more of my mind is to attempt a thing which is possible only to God and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do that he might have some colour for his passion Mr. ARNAVD I hope will suffer me likewise to tell him that what I said touching some words of the Author of the Perpetuity which I believed were not very advantageous to the common mysteries of our Religion do neither respect his person nor the main of his sentiments which I never pretended to handle but only his expressions which I judged and still do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we cannot shew enough respect We ought all of us to be very circumspect in our ways of speaking to give no oecasion to the open enemies of the Gospel truths which we joyntly profess This is my opinion and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we should be offended to hear these questions Why are the immortality of the soul and everlasting bliss so hidden and as it were so buried in the Books Perpetuity of the Faith refuted part 1. of the Old Testament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews Why did not Jesus Christ declare his Divinity in such clear and precise terms that 't were impossible to elude them What may the Pagans say on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin and this inconceivable transmission of a crime which is a spiritual and voluntary action to all the Sons of him that committed it altho they could not have any part in his action and of this dreadful condemnation of all humane nature for the fault of one man Can he think it strange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the mystery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner Were a man in this point to be guided by his reason he must needs start back at these inconceivable verities Should he pretend to make use of its lights to penetrate them she will only furnish him with arms to combat them Who can but be offended at the propositions which are in this last work of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of proofs which I alledged out of the Book 10. ch 6. p. 1042. Holy Scripture for the Trinity That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick because he accompanies these proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition But that these same proofs are infinitely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority without possession and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority That Mr. Claude Page 1043. who alledges the best part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus Christ overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy yet in such a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert ' em I do not believe these questions or propositions are justifiable take 'em how we we will but supposing they were it must be granted they are conceiv'd in such rough dangerous and excessive terms that 't is for the publick edification to avoid 'em yea and to censure ' em BUT in fine we must leave these Personal Differences which cannot but be displeasing And therefore we will come to the Preface of my Answer to Father Noüet which seems to have much incensed Mr. Arnaud and seeing he seems to be much concerned at it we will endeavour to satisfie him about it What then does this Preface contain which is so troublesom and grievous I confess we have mention'd a matter of fact in
contained only that the Bread is really changed as we shall make it appear hereafter NEITHER are the Attestations and particular Testimonies which are but from the year 1641. to be urged against us for not to alledge that these pieces are apparently the fruit of the Emissaries and Seminaries and that the quality of the Persons who make these attestations does not furnish them with sufficient Authority to decide our question which concerns the body of the Greek Schismatical Church all these pieces are too new whereon to build alone a Tradition from the â—â—â—venth Century that is to say since six hundred years WE may then already see in general that Mr. Arnaud's whole dispute is reduced to consequences which will be easily overthrown by a particular examination of them which shall be done in its place but in the mean time what I already said is sufficient to establish the validity of my Argument which is drawn from that the usual expressions of the Greeks I mean the clearest of them and those which the Church of Rome believes to be most favourable to her upon the account of the Eucharist only consist in general terms Whence I conclude they hold not Transubstantiation for there is nothing more opposite to this Doctrine than general expressions seeing the belief of the substantial conversion as I have already established it is in it self the particular and distinct determination of the manner of the Bread's being made or changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that 't is not possible but that a Church which believes it and would instruct its people in this Doctrine must explain this Point clearly and distinctly And thus in strength'ning my own Arguments I lay open the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's BUT this Argument I now produced ought to be attended by this following consideration which will farther evidence its strength and solidity Which is that the Greeks profess to receive only for the determinations of Points of Faith the seven first general Councils to wit that of Nice against Arius under the Emperour Constantine the Great that at Constantinople against Macedonius under Theodosius that of Ephesus against Nestorius under Theodosius Junior that of Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorius under Marcion that of Constantinople upon occasion of the quarrel of the three Chapters under the Emperour Justinian the third of Constantinople against the Monothelites under Constantine Pogonatus and in fine the second of Nice on the subject of Images under Constantine and his Mother Iréna Now 't is certain there is nothing in all these Councils which determins Transubstantiation for what is produced concerning the first at Nice That we must conceive by Faith that the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World lies ou this holy Table that he is sacrificed without a sacrifice by the Priests and that we do really receive his precious Body and Blood This I say as any man may see is not Transubstantiation no more than what is offered us touching the second at Nice as will appear by reading the fifth Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's seventh Book wherein he relates it And as to these Councils by which the Church of Rome has determin'd the conversion of the Substances as that of Gregory the Seventh held at Rome in the year 1079. that of Plaisance held in the year 1095. under Urbain the Second that of Latran in the year 1215. wherein Innocent the Third declared the Doctrine of his Church on this Subject that of Constance assembled in the year 1414. wherein Wicliff was condemned for opposing this Doctrine and in fine that of Trent which established the preeeding decisions the Greek Church receives none of these nor makes any account of them They all commonly say say's Richardus the Relation of the Isle of St. Erinys chap. 12. pag. 150. Jesuit in his relation of the Isle of St. Erinys that the Decrees of the seven first Councils ought only to be observed and the Priests make the people believe that at the end of the seventh Council an Angel descended from Heaven testifying that whatsoever concerned our Faith was therein perfected and there remain'd nothing more to be added or decided Leo Allatius likewise only mentions seven Councils which they approve They have say's he in great esteem Allat de prep cons lib. 1. cap. 9. the Decrees of the seven first general Councils and hold them inviolable they receive their Canons for their Rule in all things and the most Religious amongst them do constantly observe them ALEXANDER Guagnin discoursing of the Religion of the Russians Guag in Mosc descrip which is the same as that of the Greeks relates their Belief is that 't was concluded in the seventh general Council that the matters determin'd in the preceding Councils should remain firm for the time to come and that there should no other Council be called under the penalty of an Anathema wherefore adds he they say that all the Councils and Synods held since the seven first are accursed perverse and desperately defiled with Heresie Sacranus Chanon of Cracovia tells us likewise that they regard not any of those Councils which have been held since Relig. Rutheni art 9. the seventh saying they are not concerned in them seeing they were held without their consent SCARGA the Jesuit sets down this as their sixth Errour that there De uno past part 3. c. 2. ought only the seven Councils to be regarded and that whosoever receives the Decrees of an eighth or ninth is accursed Mr. Basire whom I mentioned in the foregoing Chapter confirms me in this matter by his Letter In publica say's he Graecorum professione non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recipiunt quas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant In the publick confession of their Faith they only receive the Decrees of the seven Councils which they call Oecumenical And Metrophanus Confess Eccles Or. cap. 15. the Patriarch of Alexandria authorises all these Testimonies by his express Declaration We only receive say's he the seven Oecumenical Councils and as to the particular Councils we receive from them what has been received and confirmed by the seven Oecumenical ones Should I conclude from hence they hold not Transubstantiation for an Article of their Faith this conclusion perhaps would not be contemptible for in fine not to receive for a determination of Faith any thing else but what is contained in the seven first Councils and at the same time to believe the Doctrine of the substantial conversion are two things very inconsistent with each other especially in reference to people that utterly reject the other Councils wherein this Doctrine has been determin'd And in effect it seems to me that this Doctrine is important enough to be inserted amongst the Articles of their Faith already decided or confirmed by Councils and not amongst the common customs or practices which are still observed altho not expresly determined or amongst the Points which being minute and inconsiderable
consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people this very thing should shew that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation wherein there 's no deceit to be feared the best which one can do is to keep to the Word of God THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin Now says he Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change and the benefit of it depends on circumstances which are mutable but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature that which is true at one time being so always Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change So adds he to introduce a new Discipline 't is not necessary to deceive the world nor shew 't is ancient but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de disguised which is oftentimes impossible In fine the belief of a Doctrin necessarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion whereas one may embrace a Discipline different from another yet without condemning that which one leaves THERE are several things to be said to this discourse For first It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual immutable and necessary at least as to necessity of precept and such is the Communion of both kinds Secondly There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice and Doctrins The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin because of two parts whereof a Religion consists to wit the Doctrins and Practices these last are most popular Thirdly There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins and are in such a manner the dependances and consequences of 'em that 't is impossible to change them without also changing the Doctrins and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds for it was anciently grounded on this belief that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People as appears by Paschasus his own testimony Drink ye all of it says he to wit as well the Ministers as other Lib. de Corp. Sang. Domin c. 15. c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon Comperimus de cons dist 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989. Believers and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary practise It is not well done says the same Paschasus to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood This Mystery says Pope Gelasius cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege It is a mere abusing the world says Mr. Arnaud to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings recited by Gratien and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn better the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius himself who was at the head of the Church of Rome who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the producing of a Testimony of a Pope It is Gratien says he that relates it Is it the less authentick for that Gratien did not invent it to serve us we did not inspire him with it and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it This passage adds he may receive several rational explications I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications but we should know whether these explications be just Mr. Arnaud should propose 'em and then we might examin ' em This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer to what 's alledg'd touching that subject THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appendant to a Doctrin for the ancient Church had this custom because she believ'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants S. Austin says so in express terms Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum Aug. de Peccat rear remiss lib. 1. c 24. participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church To the end says he its authority may be with plausible pretences trampled Page 990. under foot and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud did before me Missam facio says he Augustini Innocentii Maldon in Joan. 6. Binn not in Epist Innoc. primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistam etiam infantibus necessariam What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Milevé It appears says he that Innocent ' s opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years and which was followed by S Austin was that the Eucharist is necessary to little Children But seeing the command to receive the Eucharist does not oblige those that cannot receive it and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it the Church instructed by the use of several Ages and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd not only that the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to Children but that it ought not to be given ' em I know adds Mr. Arnaud that there are on this subject some passages of Page 990. S. Austin and Innocent the First which are difficult But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them To the passages of S. Austin and Innocent Mr. Arnaud might add others which will admit of no explication as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles of the Author of the Hypognosticks of Gregory the Second of the second Council of Toul and some others And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now