The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences.

WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book, seeing it con∣sists only of Consequences, which he draws from the consent of all Churches, in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th. Century to this present. For having overthrown as we have done his Principle, we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences. Yet that we may not neglect any thing, I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book, and that as briefly as I am able.

The first Consequence.

THE first Consequence bears, That the consent of all Churches in the * 1.1 Faith of the Real Presence, explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words. To establish this Proposition, he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words, This is my Body, to their sense, by an infinite num∣ber of metaphysical Arguments, which have only obscure and abstracted principles. That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this, the word is, and the word Body. That by this means that which yields no trouble (when a man follows simply the course of na∣ture and common sense) becomes obscure, and unintelligible. That sup∣posing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth, it's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em; for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately, nor the Soul and Body together, but a mere nothing. Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave. That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians, seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people, women and children, persons ignorant of humane learning. That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these per∣sons receiv'd without so many reflections. That to find this simple and na∣tural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectu∣ally taken for the space of a thousand years, by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes. That our Saviours intention was rather to express by these words the sense in which they have been ef∣fectually taken by all Christians in the world, which was not unknown to him; than that in which they have been understood in these latter days by a few Berengarian & Calvinistical Philosophers. That he has right to sup∣pose as a thing certain, that since the 7th. Century, all Christians through∣out the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Tran∣substantiation, and that this consent of all people for a thousand years is suf∣ficient to shew what the simple impression is, and consequently the real sense of Christs words. This is the summary of his first Chapter.

The first Reflection.

THE design of this whole discourse tends to cast men into horri∣ble confusions. I grant our Saviour intended not to speak so as to be un∣derstood only by Philosophers, but on the contrary, that his Religion should be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people, women, and children, and persons uncapable of deep reasoning. But if the sense of these words must be sought in the consent of all Churches, these women and children, and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it. How few persons are there capable of themselves to make this inquisition, for which they must have skill in Languages, read two hundred Volumes, or more, attentively examine 'em, distinguish the times, places and occasions, consider the cir∣cumstances of passages and drift of Authors, compare the various interpre∣tations, and do in a word a thousand things necessary to prevent their ta∣king one thing for another? And as for those that shall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another, how many cheats are they to beware of? How shall they be certain that they shall have no false Authors imposed up∣on 'em for true ones, forged Writings attributed to Authors, or false Passa∣ges, corrupt Translations, and false Explications to give them another sense than the natural one, that they shall not be imposed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Answers, yet well coloured; that they shall not be ti∣red with fruitless discourses to wear out their patience, and attention, and by this means make 'em fall into the Net. All this has been hitherto done, and I do not find such as be guilty of this do amend whatsoever complaints have been made. I grant one may find the true sense of our Saviour's words in the consent of all Churches: But is it not a more short, sure, and easie way to seek it by considering the words themselves, by comparing them with other Sacramental Expressions, by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour instituted, by the circumstances that accompanied it, the design he proposed in it, by his ordinary ways of expressing himself, by the other words he added, by the sense wherein, according to all probability his Dis∣ciples understood him, by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it, and in short by the genius and universal Spirit of the Christian Religion. Whe∣ther a man makes this inquisition by himself, or under the direction of an∣other, 'tis certain that the way which we offer is far less troublesome and dangerous, easier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people, than that of the consent of all Churches. Mr. Arnaud supposes this consent from the 7th. Century to this present, because he believes he has proved it. But were this supposition as certain and true in the main, as 'tis false and imaginary, it can reside no where but in the imagination of those that have read his Book. And how many are there in the rank of the sim∣ple people that never read it? Of those amongst 'em that have read it, how few have been capable to understand and Judg of it? Are they able to discern whether his citations be true or no, whether his Passages be faithfully tran∣slated, his Arguments conclusive, his Attestations allowable; and whether he has not concealed several things which ought to be known on this subject, for a man to be throughly informed in it? After all, reason requires 'em to suspend their judgments till such time as they have seen my Answer. And supposing my Answer does not satisfie 'em, how know they but that my weakness or ignorance has prejudiced the Cause I defend? In the mean time what will become of the Faith of these simple persons, if they will make it depend on the consent of all Churches, touching the sense of our Saviours

words. Mr. Arnaud under pretence of searching short ways, throws men into such labyrinths out of which 'tis impossible to get out.

Second Reflection.

I grant that the true sense of our Saviours words must be the simple and natural one. We dispute touching this simple and natural sense. Mr. Ar∣naud will needs have it to be that of Transubstantiation, and the Real Pre∣sence, we affirm 'tis the Sacramental or figurative one. Supposing we could not on either side find out this simple and natural impression which these words do of themselves make in the minds of men, by reason of our Di∣spute, and that we must go search it amongst those that be free from these prejudices, it is not reasonable we should stop at those that lived since the 7th. Century till now, to the prejudice of the first six ages. We must on the contrary begin from the six first. Tradition, said one, not long since, * 1.2 whose word ought to be regarded, must begin from the Apostles, and pass on till this present by an uninterrupted succession. The first then that are to be consulted, for the finding this simple impression, must be the Apostles that heard immediately these words from our Lords own mouth. We must search the History of the Gospel to see whether there be any thing that dis∣covers they took 'em in the sense of Transubstantiation, whether they have been surpriz'd by any astonishment, or ravished with admiration, or trou∣bled with some doubt, whether 'tis likely they were imbued with principles on which this sense is established; as that a body should be in several places at once, and accidents subsist without their substance, &c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with some maxims very opposite to this sense: as for instance, that to drink Blood was a crime strictly forbidden by Moses's Law, that the signs were called after the name of the things which they signifi'd, and whether it appears from any of their words or acti∣ons, that they adored the Eucharist. And 'tis here I think we ought to be∣gin, and afterwards come to S. Paul, and examine whether in what he has said on this subject, or any others, there be any thing that shews he belie∣ved Transubstantiation. We must afterwards discuss age after age, what the Fathers of the six first Centuries have written on it, consult the Com∣mentaries which they have expresly made on these words, and in short en∣deavour by an attentive meditation throughly to discover their sense. But to lay aside the Apostles, and the first six Centuries, to begin this enqui∣ry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th. and 8th. following ones. 'Tis as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France, in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom. But 'twill be reply'd, these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes: I grant it. But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek. What likelihood is there of finding it pure, according as we desire it, in Greece, since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue, whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas, according to Mr. Arnaud; but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we, whether Damascen believed the assum∣ption of the Bread, or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained? How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Egyptians, since these people have fallen into ignorance, gross Errors and Superstiti∣ons wherein they still remain. A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th.

Century till this time without intermission, may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression? Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the fol∣lowing ones, and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time.

The third Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words, This is my Body: But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it, who have made I know not how many glosses, and formed I know not how ma∣ny opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it, Let the Reader consider, says he, the labour and anguish which * 1.3 almost all Writers have undergone, when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun, This; for they write such a multitude of things, and those so contrary to one another, that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers 'em. The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural, which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Princi∣ples, nor metaphysical notions. If they argue either to establish their sense, or shew that these words can suffer no other, their arguings lie in ob∣servations which are clear and intelligible: as for instance, the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread, and that the whole propositi∣on must be taken as if our Saviour had said, this Bread is my Body; and to make this proposition intelligible, we must necessarily give it a figurative sense, for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body. I grant we must not Philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth. Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em; we under∣stand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him, as God made light at that very instant wherein he said, Let there be light. The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties. But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones, not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments, but because never man said, this is such a thing, to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another, hu∣mane language will not suffer it.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons, and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning, to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men, without study and reflection. This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely un∣known and undiscernable to us for two reasons; the first, that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression, they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them, for we know very well that in mat∣ters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em, and not what their first sense dictates to 'em. The other reason is, that whatso∣ever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years de∣pends on the Writings which are come to our hands. Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers, who may have given us their Spe∣culations,

and those of the same opinion with them, what they have learn'd in the Schools, or what they themselves have imagin'd, rather than the sim∣ple and natural impression of people.

The fifth Reflection.

'TIS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th. Century, be it what it will, (for I examine not at present what that is) must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour, under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words, in this Century, and in the following ones. The mysteries of his prescience, and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suf∣fers men to fall are unknown to us. Neither is it permitted us to pry into them. He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years, in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom. He has permitted men in the 4th. and 5th. Centuries to understand commonly these words, If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye will have no life in you, of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved. The ways of God are beyond our reach, and we must never judg of the true sense of his word, by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men.

Second Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's second Consequence is, That the consent of all the * 1.4 Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages be∣ing proved, determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages. His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd. That 'Tis against nature, sense, and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches, and that in all the other ensuing Centuries, they have been used in another sense, without any bodies perceiving this equivo∣cation. That 'tis contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opi∣nion, and all the Disciples to be of another, and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters.

The first Reflection.

THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th. Century (when the contests of Berengarius hapned) to deter∣mine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time. Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th. Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first. We have likewise seen in the 7th. Cha∣pter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words. What can we think of all these circuits, but that they are illusions, which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages. Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them, what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins, and mount up to them from the later Ages. It is then certain that these ways of reasoning, these suppositions and arguments from the bottom

to the top, are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires, that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion, which is, that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church.

The second Reflection.

'TIS consonant to reason to imagin, that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body, or not, having been agitated with great heat, those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers, and endeavoured to turn them to their sense. This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests, in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and con∣firm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation. It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances. We see but too many examples of this. It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences. The Divisions of Chri∣stians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner, the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em, and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity. When Scholars are become Masters, they no longer look upon themselves as Scho∣lars, but Doctors, and in this quality 'tis no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions, which they endeavour to establish on the te∣stimony of those that preeeded them; and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense: The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em; and as to the Doctors, there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty. One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly, and engage them into his opinions, which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church.

The third Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's third proposition is conceived in these terms, * 1.5 That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catho∣licks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike. To establish this proposition, he says, there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect dif∣ferent. The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions, and to shew they are not alike. The second is to discern them by opinion, by a simple view of the mind, and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed. Applying afterwards this remark to his subject, he says, that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Tran∣substantiation and reality, and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense, there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions, and that opinion has so well distinguished them. This is the summary of his third Chapter.

The first Reflection.

WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions, and the things themselves, by opinion, as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them. But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions, he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices, nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences, where there are no real ones. I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation, whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a meta∣phorical sense; this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as diffe∣rent expressions; but it does not follow that they be different in effect, un∣less it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible. It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing, and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever con∣formity there may be between them. A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding, as if they were alike such expressions as are not so, and then again take for different expressions such as be alike. As we never pre∣tended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things, so Mr. Ar∣naud must not pretend they are right in every thing.

The second Reflection.

THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the diffe∣rent expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike, is deceitful. For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of rea∣son, 'twill be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages where∣in the Fathers lived, and that of persons to whom they spake, and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions. Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation, and the others which we produce as being alike, in a metaphorical sense, and we will see what use we must make of his Rule. But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed, will be an apparent de∣ceiving of our selves, seeing 'tis not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine.

The fourth Consequence.

THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth, which is, * 1.6 That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Pre∣sence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine. The equi∣ty, says Mr. Arnaud, of this Consequence is apparently visible. For why must these terms subsisting, in Authors that lived since the seventh Century, with the persuasion of the Real Presence, be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages? And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages? And in fine, what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages, in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine, provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages.

Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made, and which he himself has sometimes used, con∣cerning a natural language, and one that is forced, will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it, and use it against his pretended Consequence. There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist, and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages. The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence; the former have done nothing like this. The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused. The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions, and such as are contrary to their natural sense, as well knowing they may be used against themselves. The first have used them indifferently in all occasions, because they contained their real opini∣on, but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required. The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use, for, dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said, that the Bread lo∣ses not its nature or substance: dared they say what Facundus said, that, the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ, but is so called because it contains the mystery of it? whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions, 'tis by constraint, because they must endeavour to accommodate, as much as in them lies, their stile to the stile of the Ancients, whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner. We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers, than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established. There they explain the real Be∣lief of the Church, here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief, which is expounded in another manner. There they must be taken in their natural signification, here in a forced and forein one.

THE natural sense of these words of Justin, Ireneus, Cyril of Jerusalem and some others, that the Eucharist, is not mere Bread, common Bread, is, that it is in truth Bread, but Bread that is Consecrated. The strained sense of these words is, that 'tis only Bread in appearance, and in respect of its accidents.

THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers, that our Lord called the Bread his Body, that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body, that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body. That our Saviour made an exchange of names, giving to the Bread the name of his Body, and to his Body that of the Bread. Their natural sense is, I say, that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread, has assumed the name of Christ's Body; the forced sense is, that the Bread takes the name of it, because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body.

THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols, signs, figures, images of our Lords Body and Blood, is, that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of be∣ing

the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, without losing their own nature. The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self, or that the accidents, that is to say, the appearances of Bread and Wine, are signs.

IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile, in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients. To take from us the liberty of making use of them, we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraor∣dinary and distorted sense. Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Book 10. ch. 1.
• * 1.2

  In the Re∣marks on the request of M. D' Ambrun, 9th. Remark.
• * 1.3

  Ambros. Cat••••r, Tract. de verb. quibus confici∣tur, &c.
• * 1.4

  Book 10. Ch. 2.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 10. cap. 3.
• * 1.6

  Book 10. Ch. 4.