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.

The first Reflection.

THE first of these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pre∣tension is invalid, and the second resides only in his own imagination. I say the first is invalid; for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms, as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, and some few others that say the Bread is changed: we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others, wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms, such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration, Bread and Wine, and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs, the sym∣bols, the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So far matters are equal, and the prejudice cannot favour either side.

MOREOVER, who told Mr. Arnaud, we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms? We oft prejudicate on the con∣trary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 'tis likely they are used figuratively; as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle, or in refe∣rence to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher. It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms. This is not enough to establish a prejudice, nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof; it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice. Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther, and shew that there's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice. But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter in∣to this discussion, because of its difficulty; and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile.

THE second reason has less strength than the first. For first 'tis not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world. Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say. Now that things are cleared up in this respect, every man may judg of 'em, and I hope they will make a just judgment of them. Secondly, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centu∣ries, and those of the later Ages, who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts. They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Bo∣dy, and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents; but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers. Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice, for had the Fathers meant by their ge∣neral expressions the same thing which these last do, they would have spoke like them, but this they have not done. 'Tis not then likely they had the same sense; and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point; for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form, without the help of any contest, the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood. This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and de∣terminate

sense, where the term of substance enters. There's no need of a disputation for this. Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it, they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last. It does not appear to us they have done it. It is not then reasonable to pre∣judicate they held this Doctrine.

THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pre∣tensions, who will suppose at any rate; oppose we against him a contrary pretension, which is, that we have right to suppose without any other proof, that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us, must not be under∣stood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence; and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative, he is obliged to do it by evident de∣monstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication. This here is our pretension; it remains only now to be observed how we prove it: and ha∣ving seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his, it will be easie to compare proof with proof, and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable.

FIRST, there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th. Cha∣pter of this Book touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense, which regulate the judgments of men, till the contrary does evidently appear. Now the state of nature is, not to believe the Doctrines we speak of, and it must be gran∣ted me that common sense does not teach 'em. We have then right to sup∣pose without proof, that the Fathers did not believe them, and consequent∣ly that their expressions must not be taken in this sense: And 'tis Mr. Ar∣naud's part to shew so clearly the contrary, that his proof may surmount the prejudication. Which if he does not do, reason obliges us to let the Fa∣thers alone in the state of nature and common sense.

SECONDLY, The matter in debate does of it self form our preju∣dice. The point in hand is touching a Sacrament, and in Sacramental ex∣pressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent; as may be verified by numberless instances. We then have right to suppose without any other proof, that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others, till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise under∣stood them.

IN the third place, our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self, about which we dispute. For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense, it answers to a very distinct question, which is, whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not; it says, that 'tis a change of substance. It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determi∣nation, that is to say, in applying their conceptions precisely to the sub∣stance; and 'tis not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opini∣on. It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof, that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations, not from general expressions, but by expressions which are formal and particular, or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them.

MOREOVER, It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed, and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it. What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are, capable of several senses? Had they no rea∣son to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side, and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words.

IN fine, we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed, to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence. For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed, whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible. What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation? For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine? Is it real Bread, and real Wine? They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine? How can these appearances be this Body and Blood? Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so? But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread? Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread? Is it that which was before Bread and Wine? But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood, seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say, that it was before Bread and Wine, but now Body and Blood. After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself, whereas if you under∣stand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body, you'l meet with no difficulty; for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments: and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind. Now when we contend about two senses, our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie, and less intricate, and make us suppose it without proof, till such time as it evidently appears that the other, (altho more difficult) yet is the truest.

COMPARE now (I pray) our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud, and judg which of the two is the most just and natural. He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question, and have already over∣thrown; and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties, and which are apparently conclusive. For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature, of common lights which regulate the judgments of men, the manner of the Sacramental expressions, and the most easie and least perplexed sense. Neither can it be denied that the na∣ture of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms, and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds, does not entirely favour this preju∣dication. It is then a thousand times more rational than the other.

Mr. ARNAƲD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he. For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged, in a literal sense; we say the same in respect of those which we alledg: but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend. Now 'tis far more reasonable to establish a par∣ticular right on particular advantages, than to establish it on a common

thing. For from that which is common to both parties, there can arise no particular privilege.