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.

CHAP. XI.

Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences.

The fifth Consequence.

HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable, but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining, and which is contained in his fifth Consequence, is less reasonable than the rest. He proposes it in these terms, That the Ca∣tholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em, and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident de∣monstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable.

THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford; Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority, and with which he has enriched his 5th. and 6th. Chapters. The result of all which amounts only to this, That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense, and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another, the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions, that they take the Body of Jesus Christ, for the Body of Jesus Christ, and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ. But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions, or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them. That in this contest 'tis evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks. The other thing is, that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world. That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence, that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them, and hin∣der our reason from acquiescing in them.

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.

The third Reflection.

ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense, and not in a sense of Transub∣stantiation or Real Presence; yet in the answers we make, we do not ab∣solutely make use of this right. For before we return our answers we esta∣blish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books, so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us. Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them, and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity. There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding, when he produces some of my Answers, and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs; whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs, from which they draw their light and strength.

FOR example, when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections, which bears, That Hereticks receive not the Eu∣charist * 1.1 and the Oblations, because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins, I said that Ignatius's sense was, That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body, as if he had no real Body, which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks; as appears by Tertullian's Disputes against Marcion, but that the Bread is the Sacra∣ment of this true Body, which died and rose again. This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers, which I had already produced, and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh, or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist, not the substance of this Flesh, but the Sacrament or Symbol of it, which is in it self Bread. To take this Answer alone sepa∣rate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards, that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs, is a thing that is neither ho∣nest nor ingenuous. Moreover, what I said touching these Hereticks be∣lieving our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body, as having no true Body of his own, is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opini∣on to Marcion, who (as every one knows) follow'd in this the ancient He∣reticks; and 'tis to no purpose to say, That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist, and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it. For 'tis certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist, celebrating it in their manner, but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution, which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ, who suffered death and is risen again, because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh, affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm. If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon, besides that I can tell him my Answer will be no less good, in the main, when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist, I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin, who expresly says touching this passage, That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the * 1.2 Sacrament of the Eucharist, as the mystery of the Incarnation; for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh, was, because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh; Mr. Arnaud

will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellar∣min.

THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a pas∣sage * 1.3 of Justin, which says, That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink, but that this meat being made the Eucharist, with which our flesh and blood are nourished, by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate. I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer, That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ, but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink, but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, which is celebra∣ted in remembrance of his taking on him our nature, it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions. I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words, and 'tis moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers, when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say, That my sence is without proof and Authority, contrary to the Letter and Ex∣perience, * 1.4 and consequently not worth considering. And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters.

HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus, Cyzique, and Cyril of Jerusalem; for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves, and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book. Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases, and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle. Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise, and the second Part, and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part, and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us, that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book, I am certain, will not like his proceedings, finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter. Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim. He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express de∣claration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture, and that they are not distinctly asserted therein. He says every * 1.5 body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the insti∣tution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks, that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther, that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope, he could never resist the perspicuity of them. That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Savi∣our, and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them, of whom he himself writes, that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one, which has, says he, all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation, whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression. He adds, That these words, This is my Body, do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ,

than that 'tis the figure of it; and this the consent of all Nations, who have taken them in this sense, shews us in a convincing manner. He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John, wherein there's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood, and what S. Paul says in the 11th. Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood. Whence he con∣cludes, That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks, that it appertains to them to say their Do∣ctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture, in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel, in the three Evangelists, and in S. Paul's Epistles. But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point.

SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him, without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular. Yet must I tell him, I have reason to suppose without any other proof, that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence; nor are they distinctly asserted in them. Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived, and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest. If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject, let him communicate it to us. But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto, we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them.

IT cannot be denied but these words, This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them. Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dis∣pute; 'tis sufficient the words will bear it, to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes. 'Tis to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident; for besides that he found no evi∣dence in them for Transubstantiation, but only for the Real Presence, with which he was much prepossessed. One may oppose against Luther's preju∣dice, the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no * 1.6 evidence in them, neither for the one nor th'other of these Doctrines, but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church. Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation can∣not be inferred thence, and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to be∣lieve it but the Churches determination.

AS to the words of the 6th. Chapter of S. John, so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist. Bellarmin reckons up six besides others, namely, Biel, Cusanus, Caje∣tan, * 1.7 Tapper, Hesselius, and Jansemius, but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three, which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Ar∣naud comprehend, that this Chapter is not so formal, nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines. I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul, That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily, are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood.

If he takes these words for an evident declaration, it is yet more evident that he is mistaken. To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies ac∣cording to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour, to be of consent with the Jews, that crucifi'd him. This is not very formal for Transubstan∣tiation.

WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose, Zuin∣glius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words, but he was igno∣rant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture. Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit, of which we have already discoursed, not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus, but also out of Apuleus, and S. Jerom himself; so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome. Mr. Arnaud's passion here∣in appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him, visus est monitor adesse, he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit. Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue, ater fuerit an albus nihil memini, which signifies that we know not a man, we never saw his face, rhis proposition, That he knew not whether 'twas a white Spirit or a black one. Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles?

BUT says he, The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks. It is favourable by an effect of preju∣dice, I grant. But let a man take off this vail from his mind, and repre∣sent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side, and the Eucha∣ristical Bread on the other, two visible objects really distinct and locally se∣parate from one another, and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other, or to a Sacramental sense. The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them, but from the mat∣ter in question, and circumstances of a discourse. And this is that which forms the first idea, as may be justified by infinite instances, should Mr. Ar∣naud question it. Now 'tis certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figu∣rative sense.

ALL Nations, says he, have taken them in this sense. All Nations, that is to say, the Latins since Gregory VII. and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither. This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it. But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe, that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense, it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words, nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof, that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture. For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words, be engaged in it through surprizal, and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest. And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed.

IN fine, supposing 'twere true the first idea of these words was very fa∣vourable to the Church of Rome, and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea, Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantia∣tion

and the Real Presence. And this he well knew himself. But that he might take his full carier, he imagin'd 'twas his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer, on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it, by some formal declaration of his word, because 'twould appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and sub∣stantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture, nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences, which is most true. Who * 1.8 will believe, said I, if they be of God, that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declara∣tion of his word. Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them, Who will believe that if they be of God, he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection? Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases, but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him, to alledg that which precedes, and that which follows, and suppress betwixt both, whole clauses, because they take from him all pretence of declaiming. 'Tis by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added to∣wards the end of this passage. Say what you will of it, I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you, especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Tran∣substantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY AS∣SERTED. This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud, he has ended his citation in these words, Say what you will of it, I cannot be∣lieve but this silence sufficiently perplexes you. This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another. But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud, especially considering how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus, and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstan∣tiation? 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 * 1.9 in the words of the Evangelists, and those of S. Paul. But I Claud declare 'tis not contained in them, and confirm my assertion by my own authority. This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity.

The fifth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD 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 suppositi∣ons without proof. This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs, and such * 1.10 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 Calvi∣nist, without authority and possession, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. This proposition surprizes me. The proofs of Scri∣pture 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 * 1.11 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 au∣thority 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 Rea∣son. 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 Tradi∣tion, and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture, seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity, are weak, yea even infinitely weak, se∣parated from Tradition and the Churches Authority. What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this pub∣lick 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. 'Tis nei∣ther 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 ex∣treme weak? Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the So∣ciniens an unjust advantage, but likewise ruines himself his own Princi∣ple, as fast as he thinks he establishes it.

HE says, that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswer∣able. 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 an∣swers 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 Do∣ctrines 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 obje∣ctions, 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 Ar∣ticle, 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 ter∣rible one as this is, without grounding it at least on some proofs, That rea∣son 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 ex∣aggerates 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 con∣trary formally acknowledged them. But to say no more, there needs on∣ly 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 'tis wisely said, That I ruin the Soci∣niens without redemption, but 'tis 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 'tis 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 con∣sequences 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 distinction, it must be attended by these following observations. 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity, have more or less force, ac∣cording as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question. 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural, and is confirmed moreover by experience, it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 'tis only a conse∣quence of congruity, which has not an absolute necessity. We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger, and which cannot be con∣futed by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences, how natural soever they may appear to be, or oppose against them a contrary experience, or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place, and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them. 3. That the Ar∣gument becomes very strong when 'tis drawn from a great number of these consequences, it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of 'em. 4. That when the natural consequences of a Do∣ctrine do not appear at certain times, or in certain places, there must there∣in at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those, it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect.

TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing, I I say that 'tis a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds, and produce Disputes and Contro∣versies amongst them, experience confirms it since the 11th. Century to this present. We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine, in that she remained in peace concerning this sub∣ject, till Paschasius's time, altho there were otherwise, Controversies touch∣ing almost all the Articles of the Creed. 'Tis not sufficient for the relating

of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does, that this is only a conse∣quence of congruity, and that 'tis natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into do∣cility towards this mystery. I will answer him that 'tis not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that 'tis on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all, and that that which he calls the custom of Faith, does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till af∣ter several contradictions and repugnancies, as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty. He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs, by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine, or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation, that were never controverted; or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natu∣ral one, yet has had no place during eight hundred years.

'TIS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, that 'tis endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles; for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions. Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present. We may then very well argue in this manner, and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th. Century, 'tis most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world. And 'tis not sufficient for the confuting of this Argu∣ment to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary; for altho this be true, yet that is a consequence natural enough, being grounded on expe∣rience.

IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds, and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the par∣ticipation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Cen∣turies, and it appearing in the latter, we may make hence a probable conje∣cture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Do∣ctrine. For 'tis not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary, and resolved at length to remedy them. To say, hereupon, that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood, is as much as amounts to nothing; for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason: as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance.

A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church, by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria, hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it, seeing she has none of these customs. For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Ado∣ration, yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em, or at least others equivalent to 'em, that are as significant to testi∣fie openly the acts of Adoration. This then is no satisfactory answer, but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity.

The second Reflection.

AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from con∣sequences, it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion. We make use of these proofs on the question, Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation, to shew she did not believe it; or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches, to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither, nor adore the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud has shun∣ned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions, he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th. Book, wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th. Century to this present. Whereas we say for instance, That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud perverts this order, and says, That our Argu∣ments drawn from these consequences are invalid, because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences. I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one, but by how much the greater art there is in it, by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments, seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner.

The seventh Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's seventh Consequence is, That the Doctrine of the * 1.12 Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the dis∣coursing of Philosophical Consequences, nor upon explaining the difficulties of this Mystery; and therefore 'tis no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of 'em.

Reflection.

WE have already refuted this opposition, and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion, who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones, such as are the existence of accidents without a subject, the existence of a body in divers places at once, the concomitance, &c. which were unknown to the ancient Church, as well as to the Schismatical Churches, supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation, and concludes afterwards that our proof mus•• needs be invalid, seeing here are the Greeks, Armeni∣ans and Copticks, &c. who make no mention of these difficulties. So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer.

WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the ado∣ration of the Eucharist in his 9th. Chapter. And as to what he alledges in the 10th. touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain, we will treat thereof in this following Book.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answer to the Perpetuity. part 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.2

  Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.3

  Answer to the Perpetuity, p. 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34.
• * 1.5

  Book 10. ch. 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38, 39.
• * 1.6

  Cajetan. in 3. Thoma quest. 75. art. 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem, 1588.
• * 1.7

  Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30.
• * 1.8

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Per∣pituity, part 1. ch. 3.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43.
• * 1.10

  Ch 6. p. 44, 45.
• * 1.11

  Aug. lib. 3. cont. Maxim. cap. 14.
• * 1.12

  Chap. 8.