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. II.

Mr. Arnaud's Proceedings Consider'd. His unjust Reproaches also Examin'd.

SAINT Austin describing the humor and carriage of some persons in his time with whom he was concern'd, observes they were very co∣pious and eloquentin censuring the sentiments of others, but flat and dull in establishing their own opinions. Ipsos, says he, animadvertebam plus * 1.1 in refellendis aliis disertos & copiosos esse, quam in suis probandis certos & fir∣mos manere. Methinks the same may be said of Mr, Arnaud. For he trou∣bles not himself with proving either the propositions he advances, nor those of the Author of the Perpetuity, and is never more busied than in censuring the opinions of others. So greatly is he in love with this kind of proceed∣ing, that he scruples not many times to quit his principal subject, and fall upon any accidental one, provided 'twill but furnish him with a pretence to make objections; nay, sometimes he shall start fancies of his own on purpose to give himself this divertisement. Yet we must needs confess he has some reason to do thus, having a peculiar tallent of ridicu∣ling the most solid mattters; for sometimes he tells me of having private Dictionaries to my self, other times of Keys, and Machines, rhetorical En∣thusiasms, and a thousand other pretty fancies, which take with his Readers, and give him, together with the benefit of some slight objections and decla∣mations thereupon, the liberty of breaking loose through the strongest Ar∣guments.

AN example whereof may be seen in this Dispute of the distinct know∣ledg of the Real Presence, or Real Absence. For after the illustrations which we have given in the preceding Chapter, 'tis easie to find that Mr. Arnaud ought to establish this Proposition: that if the people of the 9th. and 10th. Centuries had not found themselves imbued with the distinct be∣lief of the Real invisible Presence, they would have distinctly believed the Real invisible Absence, at least in a general manner, that is to say, they would have formally rejected every kind of substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; yet without specifying ever a one of them in par∣ticular. He himself acknowledges that the Author of the Perpetuity would be understood to speak of this general manner of believing distinctly the Real Absence; so that it cannot be but the Readers must be in expectation of what he alledges for the confirming this Hypothesis. But they will find themselves much mistaken, for instead of applying himself to strengthen it, by new Arguments, or to maintain the Arguments of the Author of the Perpetuity in restraining them to the time in question, he has rather chosen to employ the rest of his sixth Book in examining the state of the people of the first six Centuries, not that 'twas necessary to enter upon this examina∣tion, seeing these Ages are out of the bounds of our Dispute touching the change. But seeing he would only refute the five ranks of persons whom I supposed to be in the Church before the opinion of the Real Presence ap∣peared, refute them I say in reference to the eight first Centuries to have thence occasion to multiply his objections. I may with good reason be dis∣pensed withal from following him; for to speak properly, 'tis mere running

into fruitless debates. Yet to omit nothing, I will still patiently hearken to what he has to say on this subject. Before I enter upon the discussion of his particular objections against my five ranks of persons, 'twill not be amiss to examin some of his general ones, for we must endeavour to satisfie him in all things.

FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self. He says, That * 1.2 if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages, if I inclu∣ded it in the 9th. and 10th. it follows that I knew that during eight Centu∣ries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist. I ac∣knowledg this Consequence to be just enough. But, adds he, Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 'tis more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity, and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence. Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self? What contrariety is there between these two things? Not, says he, but that there's an equivoca∣tion in all this. If there be any equivocation, Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it, nor say I am at discord with my self. But the truth is, there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it; for we have already told him, that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist, is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence, nor Real Absence, and that there's a difference in these things. To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute, is to reject formally, and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error. But to know di∣stinctly the mystery of the Eucharist, is according to us, to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, as to the substance of it, that by Con∣secration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Jesus Christ, that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devoti∣on towards Jesus Christ who died for us, and rose again, and is reigning in Heaven, they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood, that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech, because they do both represent them to our Faith, or because there's a great conformity between them, and the things which they repre∣sent, or because they communicate them to us, and several other like Ar∣ticles. In a word, to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament, which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Pre∣sence, or Real invisible Absence. I acknowledg 'tis not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity, nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church, especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest, who acquit themselves of their Duty, and watch diligently over their Flocks. But howsoever this is not to understand di∣stinctly the Real Absence in question.

IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject, let me tell him, that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries, we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform, or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlight∣ned. We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees, so that the 7th. and 8th. had much less of it than the first six. We know likewise

there has been always in the Church, I mean even then when 'twas most flourishing, a great number of pious Christians in truth, but little advan∣ced in knowledg, and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the myste∣ries of Christian Religion.

IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things, which would be strange enough were they true: the one, that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment, and th'other that I gran∣ted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to. He grounds these two re∣proaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity, That if * 1.3 he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a meta∣phorical sense, believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since, that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth, there after the manner of a Body, here after the manner of a Spirit, I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence, which is to say, they did not at all believe that he was sub∣stantially present in the Sacrament, applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit, setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love, &c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance, invented of late by the Roman Church. But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence, that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar, in multiplying his Presence in several places, I affirm'd they had it not at all.

BUT these two reproaches are without grounds, for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter, that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with; to wit, that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence, such as the Church of Rome believes, and that they for∣mally rejected it as an Error. For there's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute, seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen, is impossible, and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity; so that ne∣cessarily his sense must fall upon the second, which is precisely that which I have attributed to him. And as to the second reproach 'tis clear, that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him, his Argument will fall to the ground; for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance, such as the Church of Rome teaches, and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace, which is precisely what I grant him, it does not hence follow, I say, that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisi∣ble Presence, as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church. There needs something more than this, I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection. For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence, such as is fancied in the Church of Rome, but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church. For otherwise 'tis very possible that people will suffer themselves to be deceived, when told the Church has ever believed such a Presence, especially when they shall hear several passages out of the Fathers on this subject alledged in a counter sense. Moreover, if Mr. Arnaud imagins I meant to acknowledg of my own head, that one may call the disposition of these persons who believe Jesus Christ corporally present in Heaven,

(without considering what has been said since of his Presence in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, there visibly, here invisibly) believing the Real Absence, he is grosly mistaken. For what I said was out of condescention, and supposition, and not absolutely, which is to say, that in case the Author of the Perpetuity pretended only this, I would not dispute with him about an expression. In effect if we are agreed touching the thing, I'll never make war with him upon the account of terms.

Mr. ARNAƲD is no less mistaken when he accused me for making an illusory answer to the Author of the Perpetuity. The business is, that this Author said, that if the change which we pretend were true, There * 1.4 must have been of necessity a time wherein the belief of the Real Presence has been so mixt with that of the Real Absence, that there were half of the Bi∣shops, Priests, and People, who held the one, and the other half that held the other. To this I answer'd, That in the times of the greatest ignorance, even * 1.5 in the 11th. Century, I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of per∣sons in the Body of the visible Church, the one profane and worldly persons who kept themselves at a distance from these Disputes; others ignorant ones, who contented themselves with knowing in general, the Eucharist to be the memo∣rial of Christs Passion, and that they receive therein his Body and Blood, these holding the true Faith in a degree of confused knowledg. The third, of those that held the true Faith in a degree of distinct knowledg, and rejected the substan∣tial Presence. And the fourth, of those that had embraced the Opinion of this Presence. And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illusion. Whereas I affirm this answer is pertinent; for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church, 'tis ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two. But, says Mr. Arnaud, the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time before Berenger, and you speak of the time that followed him. I an∣swer that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time of the chimerical * 1.6 growth through which the belief of the Real Presence hath necessarily passed according to the imagination of the Calvinists: And thus doth he formally explain himself. And I speak of the time wherein Error made its greatest progress, in the greatest progress of error. These are my words. So far there's nothing mis-understood, we speak both of us concerning the same time. But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppose the Real Presence. But, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, the whole Church * 1.7 had already passed over into the belief of the Real Presence before Berenger's time, and Aubertin himself acknowledges as much. Which is what I deny, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof. The greatest progress of the Real Presence was then when Berenger declaring himself against it, Paschasius his Disciples maintain'd it by Disputes; so that this is precisely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated.

THESE are the first objections of Mr. Arnaud, after which he divides what he calls my System into three parts or times. The first, says he, com∣prehends * 1.8 the first eight Ages, and the five ranks whereof it consists. The se∣cond contains two Centuries and an half, which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Ministers, And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger. 'Tis certain that of these three times there was only the second (as I already said to speak properly) necessary to be exa∣min'd touching the question, Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible. For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight first Centuries have had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Pre∣sence,

or Real Absence in the sense wherein the Church of Rome takes these terms, yet did I acknowledg there was then light enough in the Church whereby to reject the Opinion of this sort of Presence, had it appear'd, so that it does not seem 'twas greatly necessary to dispute concerning these Ages, wherein we do not say the change was made, and which we suppose to have been different from those which followed. Yet seeing Mr. Ar∣naud will needs have 'em brought into the Dispute, I am willing to treat of them.

I THEN reckon'd in the Church five sorts of persons, who had no di∣stinct * 1.9 knowledg of the Real Presence, neither to reject nor admit it, with∣out comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded persons, and grounded my division on this reason. That 'tis not possible in this great diversity of conditions and humors of men, to reduce them all either to one and the same measure of knowledg, or to the same form of action.

THE first rank is of those who conceiv'd these two terms the Sacra∣ment, and the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament under the notion which their senses gave them; for whether 'twas call'd Bread, or by any other name, the idea they form'd thereof was such as their eyes represented them with. They conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ after the manner which the Gospel speaks of it, as a body, and flesh like unto that which we have, born of a Virgin, united to the Eternal Word, hanging on the Cross, risen and taken up into Glory, and in a word under the idea which Religion gives us of it. The idea of the Sacrament served to make them pass on to that of the Body, but they stopt there, and made not a particular reflection thereon, how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ. Their devoti∣on being content with the use which they made of the Sacrament, unto which they were assisted by this formulary of Communion, Corpus Christi, they proceeded not so far as that question.

THE second rank is of those who proceeded to the question, How this visible Bread, this subject call'd Sacrament, is the Body of Jesus Christ? but finding a great deal of inconsistency in the terms, their minds stopt at the single difficulty without undertaking to solve it.

THE third is of those who going as far as the question, proceeded as far as the solution, but their minds stopt at general terms, as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament, and that we receive his Body and Blood therein without searching after greater satisfaction.

THE fourth is of those who having been disgusted at the inconsistency of these terms, the Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ, found at length the real knot of the question, I mean, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the memorial, and pledg of the Sacred Body of our Redeemer.

THE fifth in fine is of those who at the hearing of these propositions, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, The Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, went immediately to their true and natural sense, without perplexity or difficulty, and with∣out so much as thinking on the inconsistency of the terms, well understand∣ing that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be a Sacrament, which represents and communicates to us the Lords Body; and these had a

more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth, and a greater disposition to understand the stile and usual expressions of the Church.

HERE'S, says Mr. Arnaud, what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the * 1.10 Church, and the time of the distinct knowledg. And yet of these five ranks there are three who knew not what the Eucharist was, and understood not the sense of the expressions which form this Doctrin. The fourth sought and hap∣pily found it, says he, after a long search, and the fifth found it without searching it.

I ACKNOWLEDG that what has been said of these five ranks, may be understood of all the time which preceded the change, but yet we may divide this time into two, and distinguish that wherein the Pastors took a more particular care to instruct the people, and that of ignorance wherein the mysteries of the Gospel were neglected, and the people ill in∣structed. For as ignorance was never so great, nor universal, but that there were ever some persons knowing enough to understand distinctly, that the Bread is call'd the Body of Jesus Christ, because 'tis the Sacrament of it, so knowledg never so generally overspread the Church, but there were al∣ways some weak and ignorant persons in it. When we distinguish a time of knowledg, from a time of ignorance, we do not mean there were no ig∣norant people, during the time of knowledg, nor enlightned persons during the time of ignorance. We do not thus understand it. But we take the denomination from the party that most prevail'd, and call a time of light, and knowledg, that wherein we see appear more learning and clearness; a time of darkness, and ignorance that wherein we find on the contrary ap∣pear much more thickness and stupidity. When then I said that I reckon'd these five ranks of persons in the Church, I understood that this was true in both the two times, that is to say, both in that which I called the Churches happy days, the time of a distinct knowledg, and in that of igno∣rance and confusion; but I likewise meant that this was true in these two times diversly according to the difference which distinguishes them, so that when the sense of my proposition is distributed, reason requires that the proportion of each time be kept. We must not doubt but that in the first six Centuries there were persons to be found of these three first ranks which I denoted, but far fewer than in the following Ages.

AFTER this first remark Mr. Arnaud makes another, which is, that I do not prove what I offer touching these five orders, This is, says he, an * 1.11 History no where extant. These are news which he alone knows, and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon. But this is Mr. Ar∣naud's usual course, when he cannot answer an Argument he requires proofs for it, and so when he cannot invalidate an Answer he bethinks himself of saying, prove it. The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impossible, I affirm 'tis possible, and to shew that it is so, I suppose by way of explication and illustration five ranks of persons in the Church during the time which preceded the change. If I suppose a thing impossible or absurd, it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to shew the impossibility or absurdity thereof, and not to require proofs of me. I suppose nothing but what lies within the terms of probability, and is conformable to the man∣ner of mens thoughts, which appears by their every days actions in like occasions as this, altho not recorded in History. Howsoever if Mr. Ar∣naud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force,

he should solidly attack my Answer and lay aside those fooleries of worlds in the Moon, which do not well agree with the importance of our subject.

AND this he seems to be sensible of, for he does not much insist on this demand of proofs, but comes to a particular examination of these di∣verse ranks, and to make it the more pleasant, he gives each of 'em a nick∣name and title; the first he calls the rank of Contemplative Ignoramus's, the next that of Lazy Ignoramus's, the third that of Catholicks, the fourth of Considerate Calvinists, the fifth that of Inconsiderate ones. In discoursing on the first rank he gives us a touch about Mental Prayer, of being snatcht up immediately into Heaven, concerning our meditation on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto, and standing upon our guard against the terms which ex∣press the essence of the Mystery; and he uses the same pleasant method about the rest, which shews he can be frolicksome sometimes, and has his hours of creation, as well as other folks.

BUT laying aside these fine words, let us come to things. The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence, offer'd the formulary of Com∣munion * 1.12 Corpus Christi, which was used in the ancient Church, saying that these terms represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar; and thence he concluded they had a distinct belief that it was thereon, if they follow'd the sense of these words, or if they rejected them, they had a di∣stinct belief of the Real Absence.

TO this I answer'd, that the first impression which things make on our minds, and words design'd to any use, is that of their use, that 'tis thus every morning that we conceive of the light, not as being under the notion * 1.13 of a body or accident, or motion of air, but under the notion of a thing which is useful to us, and serves to lead us to our labors, which I farther il∣lustrated by several other examples. Then applying this remark to my sub∣ject, I said that this formulary Corpus Christi, was a formulary of use, design'd according to the intention of the Church to raise up the minds of Commu∣nicants to the meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ dead and risen for them. Whence I concluded there were several persons who contented them∣selves with doing that to which these words excited them, without proceed∣ing any farther, their minds being sufficiently taken up with that. And this is that which Mr. Arnaud calls extravagant and fantastical, and wherein he meets with such ridiculous Hypothesises, sensless suppositions, and absurdities. 'Tis impossible, says he, for a discourse to be more faulty than this, altho it be the foundation of the first order of this system. First, 'twill not serve the end whereunto 'tis design'd. Secondly, 'tis laid on a false foundation. Thirdly, it concludes nothing this false foundation being supposed. These three re∣marks are essential, and need only proving.

AS to the first, he says, That supposing this ridiculous Hypothesis were granted me, yet there must be made several others to draw thence the conclusi∣on which I draw. First, It must be supposed that the Pastors who instructed the Communicants when they first received the Eucharist, taught 'em only to make a Mental Prayer over the Body of Jesus Christ, without mentioning to 'em a word of the essence of the mystery, and sense of the words which express it, and satisfying the doubts which might spring up in their minds about it. And yet the form of these instructions appearing in the Writings of S. Cyril of

Jerusalem, S. Ambrose, Gaudencius, and Eucherus, are very apt to imprint on their minds the distinct idea of the Faith of the Mystery, according to the Doctrin of the Catholicks. Secondly, We must suppose that when these people met with this expression either in Sermons, or particular Discourses, or Books, that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ, they caution'd themselves against admitting into their minds any idea of these words, but were immediately ra∣vish'd with abstracted Meditations. Thirdly, 'Tis to be supposed that this lasted'em all their lives. Fourthly, We must suppose they used the same cau∣tion against these expressions, The Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread, we are nourish'd with the Body of Jesus Christ, that the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us, that it is our strength and our life.

I ANSWER, that supposing the Proposition I stated touching the things, and usual expressions, were fruitless in respect of the instructions given to the Catechumenists, and those other expressions mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, yet does it not hence follow but 'twould be useful in respect of these terms Corpus Christi which were spoken before to the Communicants at the time wherein the Eucharist is deliver'd to 'em. Now 'tis precisely up∣on this account I made use of it, that is to say, to answer the Argument which the Author of the Perpetuity rais'd from these words Corpus Christi, which he said represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar. I shew'd then that these words were not only words of instruction, but like∣wise of use; the drift of which were to represent to the Communicants the Body of Christ dead and risen for us. Mr. Arnaud ought to consider my proposition in reference to the particular end for which I used it, and not take it loose (as he has done) from the sequel of my discourse. But 'tis his custom when he proposes any thing which I mention, to represent it indirect∣ly, and 'tis on such kind of proceedings as these whereon are grounded the greatest part of his objections.

TO confirm the truth of my Proposition, 'tis not necessary to change any thing in the Catechisms of the Fathers; there needs only one thing be supposed, which is not hard to believe, which is, that neither the Catechisms of S. Cyril, nor those attributed to S. Ambrose, and S. Eucherus, were used as forms of instructions which were given to persons the first time they Communicated, seeing the greatest part amongst 'em received their first Communion, immediately after they were Baptized in their tender years, yea sometimes whilst at their Mothers Breasts. I confess indeed they were not then taught to make Mental Prayers, as Mr. Arnaud speaks; and 'tis also likely they had neither the Catechisms of S. Ambrose, nor S. Cyril ex∣pounded to 'em, as he pleasantly supposes. And thus Mr. Arnaud's first Observation is absurd.

AS to the Books they read, 'tis not necessary to say, they caution'd themselves against the words which they met in 'em, we need only sup∣pose one thing which is not unlikely. That there were at that time, and are at this day in the Church several people who could not read, and that amongst such as could, there were some that read little in the Treatises of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist, Books not being then so common as they have been since Printing has been invented, and in fine, that amongst those who did, there might be some who applied not themselves attentively enough to form in their minds the question how the Sacrament is our Savi∣our's Body.

AS to private Discourses, if Mr. Arnaud by revelation knows any thing of 'em we'l hear him willingly, in the mean time he'l let us suppose, that there have been always people in the Church, who never set themselves to treat of abstruse questions of Theology in familiar Colloquies.

AND as to Sermons, seeing Mr. Arnaud pretends they must inspire all persons with curiosity that hear them, 'twould be just he should tell us, first whether he believes the Preachers handled always the Eucharist in difficult terms, sufficient to excite the curiosity of their hearers touching the questi∣on how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ. Whether they explain'd not themselves in terms clear and easie, which gave no occasion for this question. Secondly, 'Twould be just for him to tell us, whether when they made these difficult discourses they caused all the Faithful in general to come to 'em, and charged 'em not to fail of forming in their minds the que∣stion, How the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, In short it might be expected he should tell us whether he believes that all the Audi∣tors were of equal capacities to make reflections on the difficult expressions of the Fathers. For if he does not suppose these three things, there's little likelihood these expressions he mentions must have produc'd the effect in mens minds which he pretends. Perhaps persons of mean capacities, who yet may be good men (altho they have but little knowledg) in hearing their Preachers would have turn'd their minds sooner on the side of easie terms, than that of difficult ones. Perhaps also some of 'em did let these difficult ways of speaking pass without considering 'em with much attention, and troubling themselves with questions beyond their reach: and thus may I suppose the expressions of the Fathers seldom made any deep impression on them.

Mr. CLAƲDE, says Mr. Arnaud, who thinks that the putting of an ex∣travagancy into mood and figure, is sufficient to make it conclusive and deci∣sive, proposes us this in an insulting manner. What likelihood, says he, is there people should proceed to reflections on this mystery t' inform themselves whether it be really Jesus Christ or not? I answer, the question here con∣cerns the eight first Ages, and what he alledges I said, was meant of the time of the most gross ignorance, as 'twill appear to him that shall take the pains to see my words in the proper place whence he has taken them. He has not done fairly in this matter. For altho it be acknowledged that in the time wherein the Pastors took care to instruct their Flock, there might be some persons who proceeded not to the question, how the Sacrament was the Body of Jesus Christ? yet would we not be understood to speak gene∣rally of the people of that time, as if there were no difference between them and those that lived in the time when ignorance most prevail'd.

BƲT, says Mr. Arnaud further, There's nothing more wonderful than the alliance which Mr. Claude makes in this imaginary order, of two qualities the most irreconcilable in the world. Every body knows that an high Contemplati∣on does ordinarily suppose a higher knowledg of Mysteries than is to be expected in the common sort of the Faithful. Yet it seems the persons of which this rank consists were on one hand so stupid that they comprehended nothing in the most ordinary expressions amongst the Christians, altho their ears were struck with 'em in a thousand manners; and yet so spiritual on the other, that at the sight of the Sacrament, or upon the least mention of it, they had immediately

their whole hearts so fixt on the Body of their Saviour, that they could not reflect on the words used in the celebration of the mystery, or popular instru∣ctions.

EVERY body knows that to raise up one's devotion to our Saviour Christ who died and rose again for us, 'tis not necessary to have a very high knowledg of Mysteries. As the Death of Jesus Christ, and his Resurre∣ction are the most necessary notions of Christianity, so are they likewise the first; and if a man be not spiritual enough to send up his Devotions to our Saviour, 'tis certain he is no Christian. Neither need a man be very know∣ing to comprehend that the Sacrament is design'd for this use. The whole action of the Eucharist leads the most simple to this, and the sursum corda which they understood put them in mind of it. But to make reflecti∣ons on the expressions of the Fatherr, when they call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, or said the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ, this requires greater ability and curiosity. As to the first, which is the lifting up our hearts to our Saviour Christ dead and risen, it needs only be supposed that the persons of this first rank now before us, had learned their Creed, that they were not ignorant our Saviour died and rose again for us, and knew the Eucharist was intended to make us remember him. Now there are few Christians but know this. But as to the second, which is to make reflections on the expressions of the Fathers, 'tis to be supposed they had retain'd the common expressions which their Pastors used in their Sermons or Books, and because they were many, and very different from one an∣other, some having no difficulty, and others on the contrary being hard to be understood, we may imagin they precisely applied themselves to the dif∣ficult ones, without contenting 'emselves with the others: 'tis likewise to be supposed they had compared together these two ideas, that of the Sacra∣ment, and that of the Body of Jesus Christ, and remarkt the differences by a formal act of Meditation. Now all this requires some application of mind, without which 'tis very possible that simple people may remain in the Christian profession. Thus we see what's become of Mr. Arnaud's first Remark, and whether my supposition touching the persons of the first rank, ought to be respected as an extravagant and sensless distinction.

Mr. ARNAƲD's second Remark contains, That 'tis false the use of this expression Corpus Christi, which was spoken to those who Communicated, was according to the intention of the Church, to make them meditate on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto; that 'tis certain on the contrary, that this formulary Corpus Christi was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery, and exact from 'em the confession of it, so that 'twas a formulary of In∣struction and a profession of Faith, and not of Practice and Action.

THIS discourse has all the characters of a person that finds himself in∣tangled. What means he by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto? Is it meditating on his Death, Resurrection, and sitting on the right hand of the Father? 'Tis certain that this was the intention of these words according to the design of the Gospel, as appears by the testimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom, Primasus an African Bishop, and S. Basil; and this may be con∣firm'd by several other passages, and by these words of S. Augustin, We call * 1.14 Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by the mystical Prayer, is received by us for the Salvation of

of our souls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has suffered for our sakes: And by these of Tatianus, Jesus Christ having taken the Bread and * 1.15 Wine, testified they were his Body and Blood, and commanded his Disciples to eat and drink thereof, in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death. But for this purpose 'twere better to read the words of S. Paul. Every time ye eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye declare * 1.16 the Lords Death till he comes. If by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto, he means the meditating on it without conceiving it present on the Altar, 'tis not sufficient to say 'tis false, that this was the design of this formulary, Corpus Christi, according to the intention of the Church, he must prove that the Church meant by these words to represent this Body present in its proper substance in the Eucharist, which is what he must prove if he designs to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument, and does not think it sufficient, to say, This is most false.

THIS formulary, says he, was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery: Who doubts it? It was a formulary of use, and instruction both together, as I plainly intimated in my answer to the Author of the Perpe∣tuity; It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the mystery in which it instructs men. 'Twas, says he, moreover a formulary and profes∣sion of Faith, and not of Practice and Action. And I say 'twas both the one and the other. I have proved 'twas a formulary of Practice, I acknowledg 'twas a formulary of profession of Faith. But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove. I prove it, says he, by the word Amen which the Communicants answered. The Amen which the Communicants pronounced, signifies nothing less than this Pre∣sence of substance. The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est; It is * 1.17 truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. The Author of the Book of Sacraments, wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud, under the name of S. Ambrose, refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself, which we have in the Sacrament. S. Austin refers it to our selves, being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members. The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field, refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ, and effusi∣sion of his Blood. Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ, against the Error of the Eutichiens. And it signifies no∣thing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says, Hoc ore su∣mitur quod fide creditur, & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur, for 'tis clear enough that these terms signifie no∣thing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths, is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe, to wit, that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature, because 'tis the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive, and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth, so that when the Hereticks dispute against it, they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce. And this is the sense of Leo, in all which there's no substantial Presence.

AS to what remains, Mr. Arnaud takes a strange liberty. I told the Author of the Perpetuity that this formulary Corpus Christi was a formu∣lary of use and action designed for the stirring up of the Communicants to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ, and prov'd it very clearly by these words of the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom. Our

Saviour has given us his Sacramen to the end that by this means we should al∣ways remember THAT HE DIED FOR US, AND THEREFORE WHEN WE RECEIVE IT FROM THE HAND OF THE PRIEST, WE ARE TOLD THAT 'TIS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JE∣SUS CHRIST; and by those of Primasus, Every time we do this we ought to remember, THAT JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR US; AND THERE∣FORE WE ARE TOLD 'TIS THE BODY OF CHRIST, to the end that remembring what he has done for us we may not be ungrateful. What does Mr. Arnaud hereupon? He conceals these passages, and concludes from his own authority, That these notions of use, and this extasie of the Soul immediately transported by these words Corpus Christi to the meditation of the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto, are Mr. Claudes Dreams, exactly op∣posite to the sentiments of the Fathers, and the Churches intention, and that there's small likelihood the faithful would depart from them to dive immedi∣ately into these kind of Meditations.

'TIS certain Mr. Arnaud can conquer when he pleases, he suppresses my Arguments, recites my words in a contrary sense, turns things into ri∣dicule, and flourishes all this over with passionate expressions. But proceed we to his third remark.

IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground * 1.18 my Arguments were supposed a true one. Altho, says he, 'twere true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful, but only to excite in them certain inward motions, and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ; yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words: and 'twould be still ridiculous to suppose, that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions, that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them.

I ANSWER, Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly, the first, That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to in∣struct the Faithful, but only to excite internal motions in them, which I never imagin'd: I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary, as may be seen by whoso∣ever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin. There's * 1.19 little sincerity in this imputation; and as little in charging me with a con∣clusion which I do not draw, and in suppressing that which I do. I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms, Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants, should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words. I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will, so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense. But, I say, there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther, and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated, applied them∣selves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion, which these terms excited, without going any farther, and making reflection on what the terms, being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd. Let any man now judg, whether my supposition be ridiculous, extravagant and sensless, as Mr. Ar∣naud would make people believe; or whether 'tis not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it.

IT may also be here confider'd by the way, whether he has had reason to call absurd the notion I instanc'd touching light, when I said our conceptions about it every morning are not under the idea of a body or accident, or mo∣tion of air, but under the idea of a thing which serves us and leads us forth to labour. And this I think is the sense of the greatest part of the world, and perhaps of Mr. Arnaud too if he would speak his mind, there being few persons who think when the day begins to appear, or withdraw, of concei∣ving the light under the notions which Philosophy offers, be they what they will. At least I have the anonimous Author of the Discourse containing several reflections on the modern Philosophy of Mr. Des Cartes on my side, for he freely acknowledges, That this idea is such in effect as Mr. Claude supposes it in every workman, just as the workman says, that when the light of the day fails him, he had rather have the light of the Lamp than that of the Candle, for this or that kind of work.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. de Utilit. Cred. c. 1.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550.
• * 1.3

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 2. chap 3.
• * 1.4

  First Treatise of the Perpe∣tuity, page 37.
• * 1.5

  Answer to the first Treatise, page 12.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.
• * 1.7

  Page 562.
• * 1.8

  Page 563.
• * 1.9

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 2. chap. 3.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 6. ch. 6. pag. 563.
• * 1.12

  Refutat. part 2. chap. 2.
• * 1.13

  Answer to the second Treat. part 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.14

  Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4.
• * 1.15

  Tatian. in Diacess.
• * 1.16

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.17

  Ambros. de iis qui myst. init. cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr. Serm. de quarta feria.
• * 1.18

  Page 573.
• * 1.19

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch. 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit.