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. III.

A Defence of the second, third, and fourth Rank of persons against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud.

THE first rank of persons being defended against Mr. Arnaud's sub∣tilties, it now concerns us t' examin his Objections against the three others, but to do it with greater brevity: I shall not trou∣ble my self with his useless words, but as to matters of moment I shall not pass by any of 'em.

THE second rank is of those that proceeded so far as the question, how this visible Bread, this subject called Sacrament, is the Body of Jesus Christ; but finding an inconsistency in the terms, their minds settled on the only difficulty without undertaking to solve it.

Mr. ARNAƲD says, That the Fathers have not known these kind of * 1.1 people; he means they have not mention'd them in their Writings. But sup∣posing the Fathers never knew 'em, does Mr. Arnaud believe the Fathers must needs know or expound all the several manners of taking things, which were practis'd by all particular persons? Had they nothing else to do but to make general inventories of mens fancies, to find out and denote distinctly the strength or weakness of each individual person. If he imagins 'tis a sufficient reason to affirm there were not any persons in the ancient Church, who finding great difficulty in this proposition, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, stuck here without undertaking to clear the point, to say the Fathers have known none of this kind, he must acknowledg at the same time that there were none likewise that took these words in this sense, That the substance of Bread is chang'd into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ. For I maintain that the Fathers have not known any of these kind of people, never spake of 'em, never offer'd 'em as an example to doubters, nor declared that this was the true sense of their expressions. Neither can it be answer'd, that if they have not mention'd 'em, 'twas because all the

Faithful took them in this sense. For Mr. Arnaud confesses himself, 'Tis proba∣ble * 1.2 that the belief of the Faithful has been ever clear and distinct on the sub∣ject of the Real Presence, and that they have ever known whether what was given them was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ, altho they knew not al∣ways so expresly and universally whether the Bread did or did not remain in the Sacrament. Any man may see what means such an acknowledgment from Mr. Arnaud, I repeat it here again, that 'tis possible the Faithful did not always so expresly and universally know whether the Bread remains or not in the Sacrament, which is without doubt at this time a very considerable acknowledgment. But not to extend it further than the terms will bear, we may at least conclude thence that the Fathers ought to suppose there were persons who probably would not take these words, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, in this sense, The substance of the Bread is changed in∣to the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ: and hereupon may be askt why they have not observ'd the exactness and quickness of understanding in the one, to deliver the rest from the ignorance wherein Mr. Arnaud acknow∣ledges they may have been.

AGAIN, who told Mr. Arnaud that the Fathers knew not at least in general there might be persons who met with difficulty in this question, How the Bread can be the Body of Jesus Christ, because of the inconsistency of the terms of Bread and Body? This is the difficulty S. Austin proposes in express terms on behalf of persons newly Baptiz'd, in a Sermon he preach'd to 'em. How, says he, is the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood? * 1.3 The same difficulty is proposed by Theophylact, Let no body be troubled, says * 1.4 he, that he must believe Bread to be Flesh. This was the difficulty which the Fathers were willing to prevent or resolve by this great number of pas∣sages which explain in what sense we must understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ, to wit, because 'tis the Symbol of it, the sign or figure, the Sacrament of it, because there's some kind of proportion between Bread and Body, &c. as I shew'd in my Answer to the Author of the Perpetuity. Now what were all these explications for but to help those that were per∣plext with these ways of speaking, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, and who for want of such assistance might make thereof a rock of offence.

NEITHER need Mr. Arnaud make so many exclamations, How * 1.5 should those people discern the Body of our Saviour, who were not solicitous to know him, and that the Eucharist bore its name? What Devotion could they have for this mystery, seeing Devotion supposes Instruction? Altho they knew not how 'twas meant the Bread was the Body, yet did not this hinder 'em from having a respect for our Saviour's Body, from having a real Devotion, considering that our Lord was dead and risen for 'em, unless according to Mr. Arnaud it be no real Devotion to meditate on the Death and Resurre∣ction of Christ. Neither did this hinder 'em from receiving with great respect the Bread and Wine, as pledges and remembrances of our Lords Body and Blood. For 'tis not impossible for persons to know the Eucharist to be a remembrance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that also the Bread and Wine are said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, without knowing that the first of these expressions is the cause of the second, which is to say, that the Bread and Wine are said to be this Body and Blood, be∣cause they are the memorials and pledges of it.

BƲT, says Mr. Arnaud, This laziness which makes the character of this * 1.6 second order, would last their whole life, and not only some little space of time. That it would do so, we never told Mr. Arnaud, 'tis his addition. 'Twas a lazyness in a matter of the greatest concernment. I confess 'tis very important to make a good use of the Sacrament, which is what I suppose these persons did; but when a man shall find difficulty in knowing how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and knows not how to solve it, we must not therefore despair of his salvation. This, says he again, is a laziness from which a man may be freed by the least question offer'd to a Priest or Laick that is knowing, by the instructions which the Pastors gave to those that were admitted to the Communion, and by those they every day gave to the people concerning this mystery. 'Tis true they might be freed from it by a thou∣sand expressions of the Fathers, which denoted the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by an exchange of names which is made between the signs and the things signifi'd. But we are not wont to do every thing immediately which we can do; and 'tis not to be deny'd but several were freed from it by this means; but this does not hin∣der but that we may reasonably conceive a rank of persons who had not of 'emselves sufficient knowledg to clear this difficulty.

Mr. ARNAƲD earnestly demands of us, Why these people did not * 1.7 understand the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ in a sense of Transubstan∣tiation, or in a sense of Consubstantiation, rather than to take them in this sense, that the Bread remaining Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ; seeing the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians since six hun∣dred years; and that of Consubstantiation has been embraced by the Luther∣ans: whereas the last sense has been follow'd by no body, and as yet never en∣tred into any mans thoughts. I answer in two words, 'twas because neither Transubstantiation, nor Consubstantiation were then found out, and that these persons we speak of had not Philosophy enough to invent 'em them∣selves. They follow'd nature, which will not suffer us to take otherwise this proposition, if we understand it literally, than by conceiving the ordi∣nary idea of real Bread, and the common notion of a real Body; that is to say two inconsistent ideas. Moreover, not to insist upon what Mr. Arnaud says, that the sense of Transubstantiation has been follow'd by all Christians for this six hundred years; after what has been seen hitherto we may judg what truth there is in this proposition. Neither do I at present mind what he says, that the last sense has been follow'd by no body: this is as little ture as the rest. Rupert held the assumption of the Bread, John of Paris has openly asserted it; not to mention here that the true opinion of the Greek Church since Damascen is, that the Bread remaining Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by the union of the Divinity, and by way of augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ. But when there's occasion to deny or affirm things, Mr. Arnaud is always at his liberty.

I SAID that these persons of the second rank of whom we now speak, finding great inconsistency in these terms, Bread and Body of Jesus Christ, found no sense in this proposition, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and that it appear'd to them unintelligible. Mr. Arnaud says hereupon, That when two inconsistent notions are affirmed one of another, we learn three things. 1, These two notions affirm'd, that is to say, the notion of each one of the terms. 2. The affirmation which is made of 'em. 3. The falsity and impos∣sibility

of this affirmation, and that if this proposition is of a person to whom we cannot attribute a falsity, we have a fourth knowledg, which is, that this impossible affirmation is not the sense which the Author of the proposition had in his mind. I grant this. But I grant not the consequence he would draw hence, that one knows an inconsistent sense; for that which he calls an incon∣sistent sense is not a sense. We know an inconsistency, a mutual repug∣nancy of terms which cannot be reconcil'd; but we do not conceive a sense. Mr. Arnaud says, That this Philosophy surpasses his understanding, and seems to him to contain a manifest falsity. We must then endeavour to explain it to him, and make him acknowledg the truth of it. And for this effect it must be supposed that we speak here of an affirmative proposition, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ; that we speak of persons who respected the three terms of which this proposition consists, according to their literal sig∣nification, conceiving the common idea of Bread, the common idea of a human Body, and taking the term est in a sense of being real. This being supposed, I say, that in respect of an affirmative proposition, a sense is a notion which unites two ideas, and in which a mans mind may acquiesce, either in deceiving or not deceiving it self; if it be not deceiv'd, 'tis a real sense, if it be 'tis a false sense. The knowledg of an inconsistency is on the contrary a notion that so separates two ideas, that it makes them op∣pose and overthrow one another, and declares them irreconcilable. Now 'tis not to be imagin'd that a man can reconcile in his mind two ideas which his understanding judges to be absolutely repugnant. To conceive a sense, is to conceive a thing possible, to conceive an inconsistency is to conceive that there is therein an impossibility; to conceive a sense is to conceive a state wherein the mind or understanding may subsist; whereas to conceive an inconsistency, is to conceive that there is not there a state wherein the mind can subsist. It is then certain, as I said, that an inconsistency is not a sense, and that 'tis to speak abusively to say an inconsistent sense; for this is as much as to say a sense which is not a sense, a sense is a notion which unites two ideas, and an inconsistency disunites them. All Mr. Claudes subtilty, * 1.8 or rather deceit, says Mr. Arnaud, lies in that he does not distinguish between a conceiv'd and an expressed sense, and a sense believ'd and approv'd of. 'Tis certain that those who find a proposition includes an inconsistency according to the letter, and see no other sense therein, do approve no other; but 'tis not true that they conceive no other sense therein, for they conceive an inconsistent sense, which is to say, that they conceive only inconsistent terms are therein affirmed, and therefore disapprove of 'em, and conclude from the inconsistency of this sense, that this is not the sense of the proposition of the Scripture and the Church.

BUT Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy has given here a false stroke; for, fot to say that a man conceives an inconsistent sense, is to speak absurdly. We must distinguish between those that offer an inconsistent proposition, and these that judg it inconsistent. Those that offer it, do not always see the inconsistency of the terms, either because they conceive them under re∣spects wherein th' inconsistency does not discover it self, or because they conceive them confusedly, and in such a manner wherein they hide from themselves the contradiction, and then those that judg of their propositi∣on enter into their thoughts, and conceive the sense which the others have imagin'd to be possible, altho in effect it be not. They suspend a while their own judgments, to put themselves in the place of others, and by this means conceive this apparent possibility which has deceiv'd them. But this is not

to conceive an inconsistent sense, but on the contrary a sense that appears consistent and reasonable to abused persons, altho at bottom it be otherwise. Whilst a man judges of it according to the false lights of these persons, he calls it a sense, because his mind acquiesces therein, as seeing nothing therein impossible, but as soon as he judges of it upon th' account of th' inconsi∣stency of the terms, 'tis no longer a sence, 'tis a mere contradiction that has no sense, and which is unintelligible. I confess, that as mens minds are sub∣ject to fearful capricio's, it sometimes happens that they advance propositi∣ons, wherein contradictions are so evident that they must needs have seen 'em themselves: such as is that of this Philsosopher mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, who affirmed, That if God pleas'd, two and two should not be four: but in this case 'tis requisite to say that these persons impose on the world, and un∣derstand not themselves what they say. For, for to say that a man can make to himself a sense of a contradiction, when it appears to him to be a contradiction, that he can unite two ideas, by affirming one of the other at the same time, wherein he sees they cannot be accorded; that is to say, that he can persuade himself that a thing is possible, ev'n then when it seems to him to be impossible. If this be Mr. Arnaud's Philosophy, he must Philoso∣phise by himself for me.

'TIS then clear, I had reason to say, that this second rank of persons, which I supposed in the ancient Church, who found inconsistency in the terms of this proposition, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, conceiv'd properly no sense at all in it. For as to their parts they could not find any in it, seeing the proposition to them seem'd inconsistent. Neither could their Pastors help 'em, seeing 'tis laid down for a maxim, that they knew not in what sense the Fathers understood it. But, says Mr. Arnaud, not knowing * 1.9 any other way to make the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ, they must make an entire separation of the Bread and Body, and absolutely deny the pre∣sence and existence of Jesus Christ in the Bread, which is rejecting the Real Presence. I answer that this is not a good conclusion, the persons of which we speak found no sense in the proposition, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the two ideas of Bread and Body appeared to them inconsistent, they knew no other means of making the Bread to be the Body, I grant, but seeing 'twas a proposition of their Pastors, whom they would not charge with falsity; and being taught it as from the authority of Jesus Christ him∣self, 'tis not to be doubted but they acknowledg'd in general that it must have a good sense, altho they knew not which was this good sense; and therefore I said in my answer to the Perpetuity, that their minds stopt at the only diffi∣culty, without undertaking to resolve it. 'Tis fruitless to enquire whether they rejected by a positive judgment the unity of these two substances Bread and Body, or whether their minds hung in suspense, notwithstanding what appear'd to 'em from th' inconsistency of the terms. I have not attributed to them this rejection, as Mr. Arnaud says I have, in impertinently trans∣ferring what I said of them, who went as far as the Sacramental sense, to those of this second rank, who proceeded not so far. But whether they formally rejected this unity of two substances, or only suspended their judg∣ments, it is clear they neither rejected Transubstantiation, nor Consubstan∣tiation; for neither one nor the other of these two opinions establishes th' unity of these two substances Bread and Body, in the sense we understand it here, that is to say, by affirming that the Bread remaining Bread is the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ. They may have deny'd the Real Presence in this last sense, that is to say, judged that the Bread remaining Bread, cannot be the

Body of Jesus Christ; but as to other ways since found out to make the Bread to be the Body, having no knowledg of 'em, they could not reject them. They rejected (if you will) the unity of the two substances, they conceived no sense in this expression, the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ; yet they acknowledg'd it must have a good and a true one, altho they knew not in particular which that was, they carry'd off their minds from this dif∣ficulty, but in all this they conceiv'd no distinct notice either of Transub∣stantiation or Consubstantiation.

IN vain does Mr. Arnaud endeavour to persuade us, That the natural * 1.10 idea of these words, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, in explaining them in the usual manner was, that appearing Bread 'twas not so, but the very Body of Jesus Christ, and that 'tis a renouncing all the lights of reason to pretend that this so common, true, and authoriz'd sense by custom never entred into the thoughts of any man during eight hundred years. All this signifies nothing, seeing his pretended sense is contrary to nature, the question concerning Bread which a man seeth, and which all the notices of sense and reason as∣sure to be Bread, these same notices do not inform us that 'tis not Bread, or that 'tis only an appearance of it. The question likewise concerning a Bo∣dy which we know is in Heaven, and which is like unto that which we have, the notices of reason urge not a man to understand that this Body is there under the appearance of Bread. So that should we suppose that du∣ring eight hundred years this sense entred not into any bodies thoughts, we shall suppose nothing but what's very natural and reasonable. But, says Mr. * 1.11 Arnaud, when Raphael led young. Toby, if any one that knew who he was should say, this Man whom you see is an Angel, Toby would not have imagin'd that he was both Man and Angel too; but easily conceive he meant only, that appearing Man he was really an Angel. But does not Mr. Arnaud consider that this example is quite different from our case? When the Angels appear'd under the form of men, there was always some sensible character that distin∣guish'd them, and easily shew'd there was something more than natural in 'em. There's nothing like this in the Bread, th' apparition of Angels in a humane shape, was very frequent under the old Testament, and Toby was instructed in his infancy in the belief of this. This apparition of the Body of Jesus Christ under the form of Bread was unheard of in the Church. We know that an Angel leaves Heaven, when he comes to appear on Earth in a humane shape; whereas we know on the contrary that the Body of Je∣sus Christ is so in Heaven that it will not leave that place till the last Judg∣ment. We know an Angel is of a spiritual nature, and a man consults not his eyes to know whether he is present or not; but we know that the Body of Jesus Christ is of a sensible nature, th' object of our sight and feel∣ing. Had then any one said to Toby, This man whom you see is an Angel, perhaps Toby had taken this proposition in Mr. Arnaud's sense, because he would have been led to it, by what I now come from representing touching th' appearance of Angels. But suppose as we ought to suppose in this place of our dispute a man that knows not as yet the Doctrin of Transubstantia∣tion, nor that of Consubstantiation; that knows not the Principles of it, that never heard of it, nor of an appearance of Bread without its substance, nor of a humane Body, impalpable, invisible, and existent in several places at a time; and moreover, knows that the Body of Jesus Christ is in Hea∣ven. Let this man be told the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, 'tis certain that the light of reason will never lead him to this violent explication, That that which appears Bread, and is not, is the very Body of Jesus Christ in sub∣stance.

As to the rest, Mr. Arnaud ought not to abuse several passages of Calvin, Beza, and Zuinglius disputing against those called Lutherans. Their sense is, that if these words, this is my Body, may be literally understood, we must rather admit the sense of the Roman Church than that of the Lu∣therans. But it does not hence follow that the sense of the Roman Church is the most natural one, nor that the people must find it of themselves; this consequence does not any ways follow.

SO that here are two of the ranks of persons which I asserted delivered from the unjust pursuits of Mr. Arnaud: The third, says he, is less trouble∣some * 1.12 than the others. Why? Because, adds he, it consists only of persons that believed the Real Presence, and had a distinct Faith of it? This rank is of those, who going as far as the question, How the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ? proceeded also to the solution of it; but their minds stopt at ge∣neral terms, as that Jesus Christ is present to us in the Sacrament, and that we receive therein his Body and Blood without searching a greater light. 'Tis certain, says Mr. Arnaud, there might be in effect faithful persons in the an∣cient Church that penetrated no farther into this Mystery than barely to be∣lieve that Jesus Christ is therein present, and that we receive therein his Bo∣dy and Blood. God be praised that we have at length once said something which Mr. Arnaud does not contradict. And to return him the same kind∣ness do tell him, that what he grants here does not at all displease me. For this plainly shews there were faithful people in the ancient Church that knew nothing of Transubstantiation, but conceiv'd only a Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and a reception of his Body and Blood under a general notion: yet Mr. Arnaud pretends that this notion, how general so∣ever it might be, was distinctly the Real Presence. Which is what I deny, and must examin. The question is then only whether these persons be∣liev'd distinctly the Real Presence, he pretends it and I deny it.

THEY knew, says Mr. Arnaud, neither the key of Figure, nor the key of * 1.13 Virtue, according to the Hypothesis it self. So that neither the presence of Vir∣tue, nor the presence of figure came into their thoughts. I grant it. What presence then could they conceive but the Real Presence, but the Real Recepti∣on? And why must they have given to these words another sense than that which they naturally have? This is ill concluded. They would have con∣ceiv'd a confus'd and general idea of Presence without descending to a par∣ticular and precise distinction. I confess 'tis very hard for persons that have their sight, and never so little of common sense, not to acknowledg that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist in this ordinary and corpo∣real manner, by which a body is naturally in one place: and I am sufficient∣ly persuaded that those persons in question could not come so far as to en∣quire how the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ, without conceiving the idea of his visible and sensible Presence to reject it: but we shall suppose nothing that is unreasonable, in saying that in carrying off their thoughts from this corporeal Existence, they conceiv'd it present under a very con∣fused notion; for 'tis a usual thing with persons that are unlearned, to con∣sider things in a confused manner; and therefore we commonly see they cannot express themselves otherwise than in certain obscure and general terms, which do never well shew what they have in their minds. It can∣not be deny'd but this kind of confused ideas are usual among people. But Mr. Arnaud must not imagin that these persons of whom we speak believed the substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, for re∣jecting

the idea of the corporal Presence, as 'tis likely they did by the very instinct of nature, to maintain they believ'd a substantial Presence, we must suppose either that they had the idea of another manner of substantial pre∣sence of a body than the corporeal one, or at least that they knew there was some other which was not less a substantial Presence than the corporeal one, altho they knew it not. Now of these two suppositions the first is acknow∣ledged to be false by Mr. Arnaud himself, and the second is wholly contrary to reason; for who should inform them there was another manner of a sub∣stantial presence of a body than a corporeal one? Nature shews us no other, the expressions of their Pastors mention'd no other; whence then must they have it? It must then be said they had a confused idea of another manner of presence than the substantial one, they beheld it in the expressions of their Pastors, felt it in the motions of their Consciences; but to denote pre∣cisely what that was, was what they could not otherwise do than by gene∣ral terms of presence, reception, and such like. Now this was in effect to believe not a substantial Presence, but a Presence of union, a Presence of sa∣lutary efficacy, in reference to the Soul, altho they comprehended it not in its full distinction.

THE fourth rank is of those who after they had been puzled with the in∣consistency of the terms of Bread and Body of Jesus Christ, found the real knot of this difficulty, to wit, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the memo∣rial and pledg of the holy Body of our Redeemer. They found it, says Mr. Arnaud, because it pleases Mr. Claude to suppose so, but 'twas after a long search. My supposition contains nothing but what we see happens every day in the world. 'Tis certain there are persons who be full of doubts, this is no wonder, and we find 'em not so easily freed from them; they esteem themselves happy when after a long search they get them resolved. What extraordinary matter is there then in this supposition.

BƲT whilst they were in search of it, and could not find it, adds Mr. Arnaud, dares Mr. Claude say their minds were not smitten with any idea of the Real Presence by all the passages and instructions of the Fathers. They never knew of any key of Virtue, or Figure, how then understood they the words of the Fathers which assured them that the Lamb of God is present on the Eu∣charistical Table; that the Bread appearing Bread was not so, but the Body of Jesus Christ; that we drink the immortal Blood of Jesus Christ; that the Blood of Jesus Christ is added to ours; that it enters into us; that this sin∣gle Body, which is distributed to so many thousands is entire in each of 'em; that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in truth; that we must not doubt of it, seeing he has said so himself; that altho what we see has nothing like to a hu∣man body, yet none refuse to believe what Christ himself has asserted to be true; that the Bread is changed into the very Body of Jesus Christ; that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by the ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit; that we must not look for the usual course of nature in the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Claude cannot defend himself from these passages, but by applying to 'em his keys of Virtue and Figure, and enduring a thousand vexatious oppositions. Now these persons being strangers to these inventions, conceived the literal idea of these words, they conceived that Jesus Christ entred into us, that 'twas not Bread, but the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'twas not to be question'd; that they ought to give their senses the lye: and thus during all the time of this search, they had maugre Mr. Claude, the Real Presence still in their minds.

TO make this arguing good, there must be several things supposed, which Mr. Arnaud himself will not approve to be reasonable. First, we must suppose that those of this fourth rank now in question, had either heard a great part of the Fathers preach, which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour as well Greeks as Latins of several Ages, or read almost all their Writings concerning the Eucharist; for what Mr. Arnaud now recited to us is a rhapsody of several expressions to be found here and there in Gelasius of Cyzique, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom; Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nysse, Hesychius, Gaudencius, Epiphany, Damascen and Ambrose. Secondly, We must suppose they made an exact collection of all these ex∣pressions of the Fathers which Mr. Arnaud abuses, and put them altoge∣ther to make a better survey of them, and grounded thereupon their difficul∣ty. Thirdly, We must suppose that those of this fourth rank did all the same thing, or at least, communicated this rhapsody to one another, to behold therein all of 'em the Real Presence during the time of their doubting. Fourthly, We must suppose they took care to collect nothing that might carry off their minds from rhe Real Presence, or offer 'em contrary objects.

LET Mr. Arnaud consider, if he pleases, that those of this fourth rank now in question are a middle sort of people, whom we suppose to be per∣sons of small reading, or study, who were not capable of making either for themselves or fellows, collections of difficult passages, but only heard their Pastors say that the Bread of the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ, or is made the Body of Jesus Christ. For when we suppose persons that knew all these expressions of the Fathers proposed by Mr. Arnaud, and that have collected 'em, 'twill be just to suppose likewise they were not ignorant that the Fathers taught also, That what we see on the Altar is Bread and Wine, creatures and fruits of the Earth; that they are signs and mystical symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; that these symbols leave not their own nature, but remain in their first substance; that our Saviour Christ has honored them with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their nature, but in adding grace to their nature; that Jesus Christ as he is God is every where, but as Man is in Heaven; that his Body must be in one place; that when his Flesh was on Earth it was not in Heaven, and that being now in Heaven, it is not certainly upon Earth; that the Bread is not properly his Body, nor the Wine his Blood, but so call'd, inasmuch as they contain the mystery of 'em; that our Saviour has made an exchange of names, having given to his Body the name of Symbol; that he has called the Bread his Body, to the end we might know that he whose Body the Prophet had anciently figured by Bread, has now given to Bread the figure of his Body. By this means when Mr. Arnaud pretends the former passages gave the idea of a Real Presence, I may pretend like∣wise that these last mention'd carried the same persons off from it, and led 'em to a Sacramental sense. But as I said, it is not needful to put them of this fourth rank upon collecting passages out of the Fathers on either hand, seeing we suppose they were only meanly instructed in points of Religion.

TO finish this Chapter, and the defence of the second, third, and fourth ranks of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church, we have on∣ly to answer in few words an objection which Mr. Arnaud has proposed in his tenth Chapter, which respects these three ranks in general; I mean the second, third, and fourth: which objection consists in this, That there being two sorts of doubts, the one in which a man understands and conceives a thing,

but knows not whether it be or be not, whether 'tis possible or impossible; as when a man doubts whether Beasts think, whether our blood circulates in the body; others wherein a man knows not what makes the doubt; as when one doubts of the causes of the flux and reflux of the Sea, or of the sense of a passage of Scripture, when the sense which appears is false, and yet a man sees no other: there is this difference between these two ways of doubting that in the first, there's no need to have the thing explained to us, 'tis sufficient we have proofs given us of it. But the second which includes an ignorance of the manner, neces∣sarily requires an explication. That the doubt or ignorance which Mr. Claude attributes to three of the ranks, which compose his system, is of this second kind, that is to say one of these doubts which have need of information and explica∣tion of the manner of the thing, being the persons in question were offended at the inconsistency of these terms, Bread and Body, and knew not how it could be true, that the Bread was the Body of Jesus Christ, or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ; so that their ignorance could not be cured, but by shew∣ing 'em the manner in which the Bread might be the Body of Jesus Christ, to wit, in Figure aed Virtue. In the mean time the doubt against which the Fa∣thers have pretended to fortifie the Faithful is removed by the same Fathers by confirming and several times repeating that the Eucharist is the Body of Je∣sus Christ without the addition of an explication of Figure, or Virtue. Whence it follows, that the doubt they would take away is not in any wise that which Mr. Claude attributes to three of his ranks. For his doubt requires not proofs but illustrations, that is to say, the question is not to prove the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ, but to explain in what sense this is true. Now in all the passages of the Fathers wherein they mention a doubt, they are only solicitous to prove that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ, without any elucidation, and they prove it by these words, Hoc est corpus meum: or by these, Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est, or by the divers examples of the Power of God, the Creation of the world, the Miracles of the Prophets, and by that of the Incarnation.

I PRETEND not to examin here all the parts of this discourse, 'twill be sufficient to make some remarks which will clearly discover the imperti∣nency of it. First, The division Mr. Arnaud makes of the doubts is insuf∣ficient for the subject we are upon; for he should again subdivide into two, the second kind of doubt, and say that sometimes those that doubt in being ignorant of the causes or manner of the thing, yet do nevertheless acknow∣ledg the truth of the thing it self, and hold it for certain, altho they know not how it is. Thus when a man doubts of the causes of the flux, or reflux of the Sea, he yet believes that this flux and reflux is true. When Divines doubt of the manner after which God knows contingent matters, this hin∣ders 'em not from believing he knows them; and when they doubt concern∣ing the manner in which the three persons exist, in one and the same essence, this does not hinder them from believing that they do exist. But some∣times the ignorance of the manner makes people doubt of the truth of the thing it self. Thus Nestorius not being able to comprehend how the two Natures make but one Person in Jesus Christ, doubted of this truth, that there were in Jesus Christ two Natures and one Person; and not only doubt∣ed of it, but deny'd it. Thus Pelagius, because he could not understand how Grace operates inwardly on the hearts of the Faithful rejected this operation. We may call this first doubt a doubt proceeding from mere ig∣norance, and the second a doubt of incredulity. Secondly, Mr. Arnaud takes no notice that the doubt which arises from the inconsistency of these

terms, Bread and Body, so far prevail'd in the minds of some, as to make 'em doubt of the truth it self of these words. How can this be, said they, seeing we see Bread and Wine, and not Flesh and Blood, Who will doubt, * 1.14 says Cyril of Jerusalem, and say, 'tis not his Blood? You will tell me, per∣haps, says the Author of the Book, De Initiatis, I see quite another thing, how will you persuade me I receive the Body of Jesus Christ. And the same kind of doubt we have observ'd among the Greeks of the 11th. Century in Theophylact, Quomodo inquit? caro non videtur: and in the 12th. in Ni∣colas Methoniensis; for he entitles his Book, Against those that doubt and say the Consecrated Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps, says he, you doubt, and do not believe, because you see not Flesh and Blood, but Bread and Wine. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud takes notice, that when we have to do with these kind of doubters, who will not acknowledg the truth of the thing it self, because they are ignorant of the manner of it, we usually take several ways to persuade them; sometimes we confirm the thing it self, without expounding to 'em the manner, altho it be the ignorance of the manner which makes them doubt of the thing. Thus our Saviour seeing the doubt of the Capernaits, How can he give us his flesh to eat? did not set about explaining the manner of this manducation to 'em, but opposes 'em by a reiterated affirmation of what he had told 'em. Verily, verly, says he, if you eat not the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood, you will have no life in you, &c. Sometimes the explication of the thing and the manner of it are joyn'd together; and thus our Saviour dealt with the doubt of Nicodemus, How can a man be born when he is old; can he enter again into his Mothers womb and be born? Verily, verily, says our Saviour, I say unto you, unless a man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. These words do at the same time both confirm and explain. But when we have to do with doubters that are on∣ly ignorant of the manner without calling into question the truth of the thing, then we usually explain only the manner without confirming any more the thing, because this alone is sufficient to instruct them; and 'tis thus the Angel bespeaks the Virgin: How, said she, can this be, for I know not a man? The Holy Spirit, says he, shall come upon thee, and the virtue of the most high shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.

TO apply these things to the present occasion, I say the Fathers had to do with two sorts of Doubters; the one who were only ignorant of the manner, how the Bread is, or is made the Body of Jesus Christ? but yet who held the proposition to be true, altho they knew not the sense of it: and they are those that make up the third, second, and fourth ranks in my An∣swer to the Perpetuity: others who went so far as to call in question the truth of the proposition under pretence they understood not the manner of it. As to these last, supposing the Fathers contented themselves with some∣times confirming their proposition by the words of Jesus Christ, who is Truth it self, it must not be thought strange; the nature of the doubt led 'em to this: yet is it true they have always added to the confirmation of the thing, the explication of the manner, as may be apparently justifi'd by several passages which we have elsewhere cited. But when they had only to do with the first sort of Doubters, then they contented themselves with explaining the manner, without pressing the truth of the words. Thus does S. Austin, (after he had proposed the doubt of those that were newly Baptiz'd, How is the Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood?) make this an∣swer,

My Brethren, these things are called Sacraments, because that which we * 1.15 see is one thing, and that which we hear another; what we see has corporeal species, but what we hear has a spiritual fruit. To this end do all the passa∣ges of the Fathers tend which declare how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, to wit, or because 'tis the Sacrament of it, the sign and figure, or because it stands for it, or because it communicates it to us, or because Christ changes it into the efficacy of his Flesh; and those which term it the typical Body, the symbolical Body, the mystical Body, and those that at∣tribute to the words of Christ a Sacramental or figurative sense; for these are as so many explications of the manner which serve to clear up the doubt in question.

Mr. ARNAƲD's illusion then is a double one▪ for on one hand what ought to be referred to one kind of doubt, he refers to another: what re∣fers to the doubt of incredulity which respects the truth of the words, he refers to the simple doubt of ignorance which consists only in not knowing the manner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ: and this illusion is grounded on the imperfect division which he has made of the doubts. On the other hand he suppresses whatsoever the Fathers have said in order to th' explaining in what sense the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ, and offers only what they have said to confirm that it is so. As to the passages he proposes, he shews but small sincerity in telling us the Fathers add no ex∣plication of figure or virtue; for the greatest part of those he alledges speak either of the Type, or Figure, or Sacrament, or spiritual Understanding, or Virtue. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the type of Bread, and of the type of Wine. The Author of the Treatise De Initiatis concludes that 'tis the Sa∣crament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. Gaudencius says, That the Bread is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. Chrysostom says that God gives us in the Sacrament the intelligible or spiritual things by means of sensible. And Hesychius recommends to our consideration the virtue of the Mystery, and spiritual understanding of it.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 6. ch. 7. pag. 575.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 6. ch. 1. pag. 529.
• * 1.3

  Serm. ad i••s.
• * 1.4

  Theophyl. in Joan. 6.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575.
• * 1.6

  Page 576.
• * 1.7

  Page 577, 578.
• * 1.8

  Page 580.
• * 1.9

  Page 580.
• * 1.10

  Page 583.
• * 1.11

  Page 582.
• * 1.12

  Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586.
• * 1.13

  Page 587.
• * 1.14

  Cyril Hieros. Catech. myst. 1.
• * 1.15

  Serm. ad inf.