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. I.

The state of the Question touching the distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence.

DESIGNING particularly to treat in this 6th. and last Book of the Change which has hapned (according to us) in the La∣tin Church, I could not better begin it than by the question, Whether men ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence. This distinct knowledg being one of the principal means which the Author of the Perpetuity has made use of to shew that the change which we suppose is impossible, it is necessary then to consider it first. 'Tis likewise for this reason that I reserved the discussion of Mr. Arnaud's 6th. Book for this place; for having treated of the Author of the Perpetuity's method, I believed 'twas necessary to discuss without interruption whatso∣ever concerned the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, to examin at the same time the state of the Latins in the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, and after∣wards pass on to the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pre∣tended consent of all Churches in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation. Which done, due order requiring us to proceed to the question of the change which hapned in the 9th. 10th. and 11th. Centuries; and this other Que∣stion of the distinct knowledg which Mr. Arnaud handles in his 6th. Book, being a dependance of that of the change, or to speak better, a preamble to it, I believed this was the most fitting place to examin it.

BUT before we enter into this matter, it is necessary to state the questi∣on clearly, and for this effect I shall propose some remarks which will plain∣ly discover wherein consists the point of our difference. First, I grant Mr. Arnaud that the Author of the Perpetuity has not offer'd his Argument drawn from the distinct knowledg, but only in respect of the Real Presence, and not in reference to Transubstantiation. But Mr. Arnaud likewise must grant that this proof does not fully answer the design which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed to himself at the entrance of his Treatise, To make us confess from the evidence of truth it self, that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Mystery of the Eucharist is the same with that of all anti∣quity. For the Roman Church does not simply stop at the Real Presence,

she believes likewise Transubstantiation. Now in this respect that Author's proof concludes nothing. Yet seeing he himself has restrained his Argu∣ment only to the Real Presence, it will not be just to give it a greater extent in this respect.

IN the second place it must be granted that the question here concerns nor persons that have no knowledg of Christianity, and consequently per∣haps never heard of the Eucharist nor Body of Jesus Christ. The point in hand concerns persons that made open profession to be Christians, who Com∣municated, and knew that our Saviour Christ is in Heaven, so that they had some kind of notion as well of the Eucharist as of the Body of Jesus Christ. So far Mr. Arnaud and I agree well enough.

BUT our difference begins from the complaint I make against the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity, in that he would establish the state of this question in an illusory manner. It concerns us, says he, to know whether the faithful could remain for the space of a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion, whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud maintains this state of the question, and I affirm 'tis wholly captious, and that the question does not at all con∣cern this matter. Which we shall illustrate by a third remark. I say then the question is properly to know whether during a thousand years the peo∣ple that were in the Church ever formed a distinct and determinate notion, whether what they saw was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in pro∣per substance, without ever ceasing during all this time to have this same no∣tion thus distinct and determinate. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud are obliged to prove the affirmative, because in their respect 'tis a necessary proposition which they offer in form of a Principle, wirhout which their Argument touching the impossibility of the change concludes nothing. I must defend the negative, but this negative consists not in affirming that during a thousand years the faithful could remain without forming this di∣stinct and determinate notion here in question, it consists in affirming only that during a certain time comprehended within the extent of these thou∣sand years the people have not formed this distinct notion. These Gentle∣mens affirmation must be general for the thousand years, and if there be wanting but one, or less than one Age, their supposition will be ineffectual, seeing 'tis only by this they can prove that the change we dispute about was impossible during these thousand years. But as to my own part, 'tis sufficient I affirm their supposition to be false during a certain time wherein the change will be made. It will do these Gentlemen no harm, perhaps, who scoff at that Philosophy which they call School-boys Exercise, to consult it sometimes; for it will teach them to distinguish between a contrary opposi∣tion, and a contradictory one. Two contrary propositions may be both of 'em false, and are never very proper to form a just state of a question between rational persons who dispute to find a Verity, and not to discover two fal∣sities. For example these two propositions, Men are lyars. Men are always lyars, are opposite by an opposition called contrary. They are both false and cannot form a just question. To form it there must be made this con∣tradictory opposition. Men are not always lyars, men are sometimes lyars; or, men are always lyars, men are not always lyars, they are sometimes true. That man will justly render himself ridiculous, who having offer'd this proposition, That during a thousand years men always spake the truth; and attempting to maintain it, shall afterwards give an exchange, and say

the question is, Whether men could remain a thousand years without speaking any truth. He may be well told this is impertinently stated, and that this is not the point in hand, but only to know whether they always said the truth during a thousand years without ceasing ever to speak it, or whether they have been sometimes lyars. This instance alone exactly discovers the Author of the Perpetuity's illusion, who having offer'd this proposition, That the faithful ever had a distinct knowledg whether the Eucharist was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ; for 'tis thus he understands it, has afterwards pro∣posed the state of the question in these terms, It concerns us to know whether the faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion••▪ whether that which they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ. We have just cause to tell him that this is not the point, but whether they always were in a condition to form this distinct notion, or whether sometimes they were not.

Mr. ARNAƲD endeavours in vain to excuse the Author of the Per∣petuity, that he only established this state of the question on the very terms of my answer. For supposing it were true that the terms of my Answer furnished him with an occasion or pretence for this, yet must he not thus establish it to the prejudice of the publick interests which require a man to proceed right on in a Dispute, to find the truth, and not to amuse ones self in deceitful and fruitless contests, and prove things which will signifie no∣thing. Now this is what the Author of the Perpetuity has done, and Mr. Arnaud likewise by means of this false state of the question, as will appear if we consider that when they have proved most strongly and solidly, and in the most convincing manner imaginable, That the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion, whether that which they saw was, or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ, which is a proposition contradictorily opposite to that which they express in their state of the question, they will do nothing in order to the clearing up of our difference. We dispute whether the change which the Protestants sup∣pose be possible or not. Now to prove that 'tis impossible by the Argument of the distinct knowledge, it signifies nothing to shew that the faithful could not remain a thousand years in the Church without forming this distinct no∣tion now in question. For they might remain only a hundred years in it, fifty years, thirty years, without forming it; this is sufficient to invalidate their proof, and give way to the change which we pretend. To shew it is impossible that a man has entred into a house, it is not enough to prove that the door of this house could not remain open for ten years together; it must be shew'd that it was always kept shut. For if it has been left open only one day, the proof concludes nothing. It is then evident that these Gen∣tlemen beat the air, and that whatsoever they built on their state of the question, is only an amusement to deceive silly people. Whence it follows that persons of sense may justly complain of them, in that they have made my words, be they what they will, a pretence whereby to entertain the world with fruitless discourses.

BUT moreover 'tis certain that the Author of the Perpetuity has per∣verted my words and sense. 'Tis true that in the fifth Observation of my first Answer I established this general Principle, That error and truth have equally two degrees, the one of a confused knowledg, and th'other of a distinct one, and that 'tis hard to discover any difference betwixt them, whilst they are

in this first degree of confused knowledg, unless a man comes to the other, ter∣med a distinct knowledg: that the ideas are so like one another that a man can∣not easily discern them. It is true that from this Principle I generally con∣cluded, That before an Error becomes famous by its being opposed, the greatest part of the Church content themselves with holding the truth in this indistinct degree I now mention'd, and so it is easie for a new Error to insinuate and set∣tle it self in mens minds under the title of an illustration of the ancient truth. It is moreover true that in applying this Principle I added these terms. To apply this to the matter which we treat of, I say that before Transubstantiation came into the world, every one believed our Saviour to be present in the Sa∣crament, and that his Body and Blood are really therein received by the faithful Communicant, and that the Bread and Wine, are the signs and memorials of his Death and Passion on the Cross; this was the Faith of the whole Earth; but I shall not be mistaken when I say, there were few that extended their thoughts so far as to observe exactly the difference of the two Opinions, which do at this day separate the Reformists, and Romanists, there were also some who knew the truth only in general. When then error came in thereupon, and building ill on a foundation, declared we must understand our Saviour is pre∣sent in the Eucharist stubstantially and locally, that his Body and Blood are received in it by the mouth of our bodies, and that the sign of his Body is his Body it self, this was without doubt in effect an extraordinary novelty, and of which there was never heard any mention; but yet I do not find it strange that several people were deceived by it, and took this not for a novelty, but as an illustration of the common Faith. So far extends my fifth Ob∣servation.

BUT he ought not to stop here to raise a state of a question, he ought to see likewise what I add immediately after in the sixth Observation. Had the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud consulted it, they would have acknowledged that I gave therein a formal explication, and as it were a limitation to this general Principle which I laid down, that this does not wholly take place in enlightned Ages wherein there are eminent Pastors for knowledg that take care to instruct clearly their Flocks in the truths of Faith. For then their good instructions hinder the growth of Error, and render people capable of knowing and rejecting it. But it is wholly applicable to the Ages of darkness wherein Ignorance and Superstition have corrupted the Church. Which I express in these words, Which will without doubt better appear if for a sixth remark we cast our eyes a little on the time where∣in this change has most advanced it self. It was not in Hilaries nor Athana∣sius's times, nor in that of Ambrose and S. Austin, but in the 10th. and 11th. Centuries, that is to say in the most dark Ages, &c. 'Tis no marvel then that Error made such conquests in those times, rather will it be a greater wonder if she did not. And this distinction (methinks) does sufficiently limit my Principle. To establish sincerely the state of our question these two remarks must not be separated, but joyn'd together to draw from them my whole sense, for the state of the question in my respect depends on my entire sense. Now my whole sense does not consist only in a gene∣ral Principle which I lay down, nor in the general application I make of it, but in the exception and limitation I give them, But neither has Mr. Ar∣naud nor the Author of the Perpetuity dealt thus, choosing rather to run af∣ter their own chimerical notions than to follow the truth.

MOREOVER, Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say, when he sets himself on reproaching me, that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation; 'tis not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book, which might be easily found in turning over some leafs. If I passed over 'em 'twas because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite, which contain the whole substance of my discourse, and which are no less significant than the others. But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say, That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time, altho there's no such thing in my Book. Mr. Arnaud's answer is, that the Author of the Perpe∣tuity represents my sense, and not my words; and because that this propo∣sition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters, which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms. Mr. Arnaud says that 'tis the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter. I will believe it because he says so, but yet my sense ought to be faithfully re∣lated, and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my ex∣press declarations, contained in several passages of my first and second An∣swer, rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot repre∣sent in this condition but half of that which I would say. Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense, Father Maimbourg the Jesuite, who wrote since Mr. Arnaud, in∣genuously perceived and related it as it is in truth. Mr. Claude, says he, as∣serts there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pa∣stors, Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery, without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence, or absence, because they studied not the point. This is in effect my meaning, and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me, that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion, whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ.

THE first of these three Remarks I now made, considers the point in respect of the Doctrine now in question, and determines it to the Real Pre∣sence alone, excluding Transubstantiation. The second considers it in respect of the persons, and determines it to the Christians only, excluding those that have no knowledg of our Mysteries; and the third considers it in re∣spect of the time, and determines it to the Ages of Ignorance and Dark∣ness: that is to say, to those wherein, according to us, the change was in∣troduced, which are the 9th. and 10th. and part of the 11th. For altho, according to the exact rigour of the Dispute the Author of the Perpetuity be obliged to prove his Thesis from the time of the Apostles to that of Be∣renger; yet there being only to speak properly these three Ages in question in this Dispute, we shall neither complain of him, nor Mr. Arnaud when they shall restrain their Argument to these.

IT remains only now to know in what dispositions of mind we must suppose the Christians were; when we imagin the Doctrine of the Real Presence was declared to 'em; for on this depends the question, Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible?

BUT before we enter upon this enquiry, 'tis necessary to make two far∣ther Observations. The first is, that the question is not whether the Chri∣stians of that time had knowledg enough to discover in some sort, when the

Doctrine of the Real Presence was proposed to them, that it agreed not with the Principles of nature; but whether in supposing they believed not this Doctrine, they had knowledg enough to discover 'twas an innovation, contrary to the Churches Faith and to reject it under this consideration. For for to conclude that people would have actually opposed the Real Presence had they not before believed it, it is not enough to shew, that it would have opposed their senses and notices of reason. I confess that if men did always what they ought to do, this alone were sufficient to put them upon reje∣cting this Real Presence, as we have elsewhere proved it. But people are liable to be deceived, and receive notwithstanding the contradictions of sense and common reason, that which they are persuaded is a mystery of Faith, and generally as soon as ever they begin to consider it as a mystery, they hearken no longer to sense nor reason. We should then proceed, and shew that they were in a disposition to reject this Doctrin as a novelty, which the Church never held, and which consequently was not a true myste∣ry of Faith.

THE other observation which we must make, is, that we ought to di∣stinguish the belief of the Real Absence in the sense in question, from the belief of the corporeal Absence. To believe the corporeal absence, is to form to a man's self the idea of the ordinary and natural presence of a hu∣mane body, such as is that of our Saviour's, and to reject it as false and ex∣travagant. But to believe the Real Absence in the terms of our Dispute, is to conceive the idea of an invisible Presence, such as the Roman Church con∣ceives and rejects as an error. A man may reject the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist under the notion of the ordinary existence of a body in a place, and yet not reject it, either generally under every notion, be it what it will, nor in particular under the notion of an in∣visible existence, after the manner of a Spirit; as appears from the exam∣ple of the Roman Church, which does not believe this ordinary and natural Presence, but yet admits the invisible one. It would have been well if the Author of the Perpetuity had not used in this Dispute these equivocal terms of the Real Presence, and real Absence, which give way to sophisms, as will appear in what follows; but seeing he has used them, it is at least necessary to distinguish them, as I have now done.

LET us see then upon these illustrations what are the pretensions on either side. The Author of the Perpetuity maintains that these Christians must have a distinct knowledg either of the Presence or Real Absence, that is to say, they must have known distinctly whether that which they receiv'd in the Communion was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in substance; for thus he understands it, there being no medium says he. I affirm on the contrary that they had not for the most part of 'em any distinct knowledg either of the invisible Real Presence, or the Real invisible Absence; and that they were not come as then to this distinct question. Whether the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ was invisibly present by its proper substance, and after the manner of a Spirit in the Eucharist or not.

SO far it seems that the method and state of this Dispute is clear, for 'tis likely by the Real Presence the Author of the Perpetuity means not the visible Presence, of which we do not dispute, and which the Church of Rome it self rejects, but the invisible Presence of which we dispute, and which the Roman Church holds; so that we need only propose the proofs of both

parties for the Readers edification. But Mr. Arnaud who can make clouds when he has occasion for 'em, has so greatly obscured this matter by distin∣ctions, and crafty pretences, that we must still spend more time to clear the difficulties he has cast in our way.

TO believe, says he, the Real Absence is to believe that the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ, or that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really present in the Eucharist. Now a man may distinctly believe or know that one thing is not another, or that 'tis not in another in three different manners. The first by an express and formal reflection, but general when a man generally denies one thing to be another, or affirms that 'tis absent but without specifying any par∣ticular manner. Thus in denying the King to be at Paris, we say he is not there in any real manner, altho we specifie not any one. The second by a distinct re∣flection on all the different manners of being a thing, or being really present in a place. Which is as if a man should say that the King is not at Paris neither visibly nor invisibly; and 'tis in this manner the Sacramentaries deny the pre∣sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. And the third without any reflection, and by a simple view of the nature of things which does so comprehend the ex∣clusion of whatsoever belongeth not to their being, that the mind knows as well what they are not, as if it had made an hundred positive judgments on 'em. Ap∣plying afterwards this distinction he assures us first, That the Author of the Perpetuity never pretended to prove that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence, they then believed the Real Absence in the second manner, which is to say, that they positively excluded, by a formal reflection, all the several kinds of presence, 2. That the greatest part of his Arguments conclude, that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they would have rejected it in the first manner, and by a general reflection which denies the thing with∣out considering the different species. 3. That altho a man may draw this con∣sequence from several of his Arguments, yet 'tis sufficient for his design to shew that these Faithful would have rejected the Real Presence in the third manner, that is to say, without reflection, and by a distinct knowledg of certain verities which include it according to the ordinary manner of conceiving things.

WE must then examin these three manners, and see in what sense the Author of the Perpetuity is obliged to maintain that if the Christians of whom we speak believed not the Real Presence, they then believed the Real Absence.

THE first is chimerical and impossible. For 'tis not possible for a man naturally to consider the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to reject it; without conceiving at the same time in particular, some kind or manner of presence. Either these persons, to whom Mr. Ar∣naud attributes his first manner of believing the Real Absence, knew the in∣visible Presence, or did not know it. Supposing they knew it, what neces∣sity was there of making them reject it in general, without specifying it in particular? Why not say, they rejected it in making a formal reflection on it? If they knew it not, as it seems Mr. Arnaud supposes, it is not at least possible but they had formally in their minds the particular idea of the cor∣poreal and visible Presence. For as soon as ever we conceive a humane Bo∣dy to be substantially present in a place, the first notion that offers it self naturally to the mind is that of the ordinary and corporeal Presence. It is possible we may conceive a humane body without thinking of the place wherein it is, we every day make such kind of abstractions as these, yet

'tis not possible according to nature for a man to conceive it to be present by its proper substance in a place without conceiving at the same time the idea of its corporeal Presence. Nature furnishing us with no other idea of the substantial Presence than that, it cannot be, but this idea will shew it self to the mind, as soon as ever we imagin a body in a place. To be present in a place, and that corporeally, are naturally one and the same idea in respect of a humane body. The Philosophy of later Ages has made two ideas of this, whether with reason, or not, I do not now dispute; but howsoever, na∣ture makes but one of it, and whilst we do not distinguish them, nor know the secret of making two ideas of them, the one general, and th'other particular, we shall never make this abstraction, for nature puts not men upon making it. Now we speak here of persons that think according to nature, and suppose they never heard the least mention of invisible and incorporeal Presence, it is not then possible but they must immediately form the idea of the visible or corporeal Presence, in the same manner as 'tis not possible for a man naturally to conceive the Sun to be present over our He∣misphere, but he must conceive the idea of his visible and ordinary Presence. It is then certain that a man considered in the state of nature, void of the fancies of this new Philosophy cannot believe the Real Absence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, without thinking on the corporeal Presence. In this condition he can understand no other than that, and 'tis it which he rejects, because 'tis on it whereon falls the first conception of his mind. This will yet farther appear if we consider that the eyes of a Communicant will determin his thoughts to the corporeal Presence, when of it self it were not therein determined; for 'tis not possible for a man who never heard of the spiritual and invisible Presence to raise in his mind, at the same moment wherein he communicates this question, Is the Body of Jesus Christ substanti∣ally present in this Eucharist which I receive? but that he must at the same time use his eye-sight, to inform himself. This inclination is so natural that if he does not follow it, it must necessarily be said that he has in his mind the idea of an invisible Presence, of which his eyes cannot be witnesses, and that 'tis this idea which diverts him from having recourse to his sight; and if he does follow it, his eyes which tell him that it is not therein derermin his thoughts to the idea of the corporeal Presence to make him reject it.

BUT is it impossible that a man in conceiving the idea of the corporeal Presence, and in rejecting it, should conceive at the same time that there may be invented other manners of a substantial Presence, but must reject them all, be they what they will, without specifying or considering them. I answer, that in this case he will conceive these other manners of presence in opposition to the corporeal and visible one, and consequently will specifie them at least as incorporeals and invisibles, and conceive them under this quality, In a word, when nature offers us but the idea of one single species, there arises not up immediately a general consideration in our minds, our fancy leads us to that particular species, and if afterwards we conceive any other, 'tis always in opposition to that which nature it self offers to our knowledg. Whence it follows that this first manner of believing the Real Absence by a general rejection of every kind of presence, yet without specifying so much as any one in particular neither visible nor invisible, is a mere chimera which resides only in Mr. Arnaud's brain.

AS to the third it is moreover invalid and illusory, seeing it answers not the design of the Author of the Perpetuity. For as we have already said,

he is obliged to shew, that if people had not believed the Real invisible Presence, they would have had in their minds, dispositions, and prejudices, which would have made them respect it not barely as a Doctrin that appears contrary to natural reason, (this is not sufficient to produce actual∣ly an entire rejection and opposition when the matter concerns a point of Faith) but as an innovation in the Churches Belief. Now this third manner of believing the Real Absence without any reflection by a bare view of the nature of things, in the same manner as we know Paris is not Rome, nor France Holland, that the Sun is not the Moon, nor an House an Elephant, thar the Kings Picture is not the King himself, to use Mr. Arnaud's examples, without having made this express and formal reflection; this manner I say, may make men capable of knowing that the Real Presence is contrary to the order of nature, that it agrees not with common sense, but not make 'em discern whether it be a mystery of the Churches Faith (as 'tis said to be) or whether 'tis a new humane invention. This simple view of the nature of things which consists in knowing, that the Eucharist is Bread, that the Eu∣charist is an image of the Body of Jesus Christ, that this Body is a humane Body, and that 'tis in Heaven, does not hinder a man from being surprized with the matter of novelty, by being persuaded that 'tis the true Doctrin of the Church (as 'tis assured to be) and on this persuasion Reason must yield to Faith.

'Tis in vain, Mr. Arnaud tells us, that supposing the Faithful had no other than these simple notions, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ, supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein, that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven, and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence, they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent; as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome, or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself, or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years, or the Paschal Lamb a real passage, and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins, to be mad and sensless. When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature, and 'tis certain the light of nature will render that man im∣pertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say. It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence, should a man judg of it on this ground. But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith. They endeavour to in∣sinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Reli∣gion, which has been always believed, and for this purpose they spare no colours. By which means they stop the course of nature, and hinder men from judging according to its Principles, reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church, by which means 'tis no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud brings in the Statute of Henry IV. for an instance, which all the Parisians know to be only Brass, and that his body is only at S. Dennis. He says, perhaps they never thought of formally rejecting the opinion that this Statue is really the Body of Henry IV. and yet be ready to oppose this opinion, should any extravagant person offer to make them believe it. But howsoever the Parisians stand affected towards the Statue of Henry IV. there's a great deal of difference between

this example and that of the Eucharist here in question. The Statue of Henry IV. is a work of humane institution, wherein men suppose there's no∣thing supernatural; whereas the Eucharist is a Divine mystery, in which there has been always believed to be something above nature. The Statue of Henry IV. is a thing absolutely popular, concerning which every man be∣lieves he has liberty of judging according to the principles of Sense and Rea∣son. The Eucharist is a mystery which has been endeavour'd to be made long since in some manner inaccessible to mens curiosity, by concealing it under a cloud of Ceremonies. Henry the Fourth was indeed a great Prince, whose memory will never die; but how great soever he deservedly was, yet is he consider'd only as a man whose body lies interred at S. Dennis in the same manner as others do. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose Body is living, and glorious, and hypostatically united to the Divinity. Should any man then imagin that the Statue of Henry IV. is really Henry IV. I doubt not but people would look upon him as a mad man, because 'twould be considered according to the light of nature as a thing touching which there can be nothing that's extraordinary and miraculous conceived, which is exposed to the knowledg of all the world, and wherein there's no∣thing at all that's Divine. Neither do I doubt but such a dotage would be rejected as a novelty unknown to our Fore-fathers, because 'twould be sup∣posed that our Fore-fathers had their sences made as ours, and that in respect of natural and sensible things their judgments have been the same as ours, nature ever remaining in a uniform state. But neither this example nor th'others which are like it do signifie any thing in respect of the Eucha∣rist which is a mystery of Faith, wherein all Christians agree that there's something supernatural, altho they agree not in the manner. A mystery concerning which every man does not think he can safely judg, much less from the principles of Sense and Reason: in fine, a mystery of the Son of God, the knowledg of which depends on a light which is not always equal. It is then manifest that neither this example nor the rest of the same rank pro∣posed by Mr. Arnaud are pertinent.

NEITHER is it less clear from what I now represented, that of these three manners of believing the Real Absence, which Mr. Arnaud proposes, there's only the second which can be admitted into this Dispute, to regulate the state of the question, because the first, as I have shew'd, is impossible, and the last can yield no advantage to the Author of the Perpeuitty's design.

Mr. ARNAƲD may here again call to mind the solidity of the distin∣ction which I made touching the two expressions which are very like one another, as to terms, but very different in sense, not to believe, or not to know that a thing is, and to believe, or know that a thing is not. The first denotes a bare negation of Knowledg, and the second a positive act of Knowledg and Faith, which formally denies the existence of a thing. Not to believe the Real Presence, barely signifies that this presence is not held for an Article of Faith; but to believe that the Real Presence is not, signifies something more, which is, that a man reckons it among the Articles which he rejects. The Author of the Perpetuity having said that there's no me∣dium between having a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence, and ha∣ving a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence, I had reason to tell him, that to make in this matter an immediate opposition, he must make it con∣tradictory, and not contrary, that is to say, he ought to bring in an affir∣mation, or the negation of the same thing, and not the affirmation, or po∣sitive

rejection, that he must say the Christians have had a distinct belief of the Real Absence, or that they have not had it; and not say they have had a distinct belief of the Presence, or Real Absence.

Mr. ARNAƲD calls this School-boys Philosophy. But this School-boys Philosophy, seeing he pleases to give it this name, is grounded on common sense. For common sense shews us that to make an immediate opposition we must set the negative on one side, and the affirmative on the other. We grant, says he, to Mr. Claude, that to speak logically we ought to oppose be∣lieving the Real Presence, and not believing the Real Presence, and not belie∣ving the Real Absence. But I affirm, that to speak rationally we may well op∣pose believing the Real Presence, and believing the Real Absence; which is to say, that not to believe the Real Absence, and to believe the Real Absence, may and ought to pass for the same thing in the point in question, because these two dispositions of mind have all the same effects.

I HAVE been ignorant till now of the distinction between speaking logically, and speaking rationally; for I always thought that true Logick, which tends only to cultivate our reason, and which explains it self clearly and intelligibly, had not any other language than what was rational. But not to stray from our subject, if in the matter in question, these two ex∣pressions, not to believe the Real Presence, and to believe the Real Absence, must pass for one and the same thing, it follows they are both of 'em equal∣ly rational at bottom. Seeing then they are both of 'em equally intelligi∣ble, and equally popular, why did not the Author of the Perpetuity make use of the first, rather than the second. For the first being as it is rational, intelligible, and popular as well as the other, it has moreover this advantage that Logick approves of it, whereas she rejects the other. The first expres∣sion does of it self explain justly and naturally what a man would say, nei∣ther more nor less; whereas the other, according to Mr. Arnaud's own ac∣knowledgment is equivocal, and does not explain what's meant, but only because of the matter in question. The first is liable to no contest. The second is disputable. Wherefore then has not Mr. Arnaud knowing them to be equivalent, left the second to make use of the first. He had lost nothing, if it be true, they both signifie one and the same thing, and he had spared the pains of a new dispute. For I maintain against him, that neither ration∣ally speaking, nor logically, these two expressions ought to pass for the same thing. The first cannot produce the effect which the second produces, seeing the second will make men oppose the Real Presence as an in∣novation which Faith rejecteth, whereof the first cannot of it self work such en effect. A man that is persuaded the Real Presence is a Doctrin which he ought to reject, will oppose himself against it, as soon as ever it shall be of∣fer'd him. A person that never heard it mention'd will easily suffer himself to be surprized when told this has been ever the Faith of the Church.

WHEREIN consists then you'l say the point of our difference, and what is the state of this question? It may be easily gather'd from what I have now said, which is to know whether the people of the 9th. 10th. and 11th. Ages, in supposing the Real Presence which was taught them, that is to say, the invisible substantial Presence, such as the Church of Rome holds at this day; for 'tis on that we dispute, was a novelty, which yet was taught them as the ancient Faith of the Church. I say, the question is, whether these people had notions and prejudices in their minds, which must of necessity

make them reject this Doctrin as a novelty contrary to the ancient Faith, even so far as to oblige 'em plainly and openly to oppose it. And because these prejudices can be no other than this distinct belief, That the Body of Jesus Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist, neither in a visible nor invisible manner, it concerns us to know whether one may rationally say in the terms of our supposition that they had this distinct belief. It lies upon Mr. Arnaud to prove the affirmative, and I the negative. This is the true state of this question, as appears from what we have seen in this Cha∣pter. But because Mr. Arnaud has so openly and plainly renounced this manner of believing the Real Absence by a formal reflection on the several kinds of presence, whether visible or invisible, it may be reasonably said this is no longer a matter of contest between us. I grant him (if he will) that people have positively rejected the corporeal and visible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that in this sense they have be∣lieved a Real Absence. I grant likewise if he will that these same people were in a capacity to know, that the light of nature opposes the Doctrin of the substantial and invisible Presence. He grants me for his part, that it does not appear they were for positively rejecting, and by a formal reflection this incorporeal and invisible Presence. Wherein then do we disagree? 'Tis clear that that which I grant him is not a sufficient disposition, whence to conclude that the people would have opposed the Doctrin of the invisible Presence as a novelty unknown to the Church. For, for to believe that Jesus Christ is not visibly and corporally present in the Eucharist, this does not hinder but that a man may embrace the opinion of the incorporeal Presence, and so likewise to know that the light of nature does not well agree with this in∣visible Presence, this does not hinder men from being deceived by imagin∣ing 'tis a mystery of Faith, which the Church has always believed, and touching which a man must not consult his sense or reason. It is no less clear that what Mr. Arnaud grants me is sufficient to conclude that the peo∣ple here mention'd had no distinct knowledg of the Real Presence, in the sense in which the Roman Church believes it, neither to admit it, nor reject it; and consequently they had no necessary disposition to oppose it when 'twas first taught them. For as to this general rejection, we have shew'd it to be chimerical and impossible: The question is then decided, but in my favour, seeing the result of all these illustrations is, that the change which we sup∣pose has been possible. Yet if Mr. Arnaud will obstinately maintain this general manner of believing the Real Absence, which denies every kind of substantial Presence without particularising any one of them, altho we have shew'd him 'tis fantastical, and contrary to nature; yet I say we will con∣sent that the question be this, Whether the people before-mentioned ought, according to our supposition formally and generally to deny all the several sorts of substantial presences of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whatsoever they be, without specifying any one of them. But this is what he has still to prove.

Notes

• Perp. Faith, pag. 14.
• Refutation, Part. 2. Ch. 2.
• Lib. 6. cap. 3.
• Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577.
• A Peaceable Method by Father Main∣bourg, ch. 3. page 108.
• Lib. 6. cap. 2.
• Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564, 565.
• The first Treatise of the Perpetuity.
• Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag. 5.