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. IV.

Defence of the Fifth Rank against the Objections of Mr. Arnaud.

THE fifth rank of persons which I supposed were in the ancient Church was of those that at the hearing of these propositions the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is chang'd into the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, proceeded im∣mediately to their true and natural sense, without perplexity or difficulty, and without considering the inconsistency of the terms, very well understanding that the Bread remaining Bread is consecrated to be to us a Sacrament which im∣parts to us our Lords Body, and these had a more clear and distinct knowledg of the truth, and an apprehension better fitted to understand the style and com∣mon expressions of the Church.

Mr. ARNAƲD spends all the 11th. Chapter of his sixth Book to shew that these persons, whom I suppose had necessarily before their eyes

a distinct idea of the Real Presence. Which is what he endeavours to prove. First, By the example of this infinite number of Christians which were found to hold in the beginning of the 11th. Century the belief of the Real Presence, and who had taken up this Faith from the same expressions of the Fathers which ever rung in the ears of the Faithful of the first eight Centuries; whence it without doubt follows that these expressions which have persuaded the whole world into the belief of the Real Presence, might well give the idea of it to those which preceded them. Secondly, He offers the double idea which the me∣taphorical terms offer to the mind, for they offer, says he, to the mind that which one would have it understand, and shew it at the same time the image by which one represents it. Thus this expression of Scripture, Vicit Leo de tribu Juda, puts us upon thinking that Jesus Christ is compared to a Lion by reason of his strength; so that the word Lion forms at the same instant in the mind two ideas, that of the strength of Christ which is the natural idea of the thing conceiv'd as true, and which the Scripture would signifie, and the idea of a Lion which is the natural idea of the Word, but which is only the resemblance of the truth which the Scripture would make us conceive. It is easie, says he moreover, to conclude hence that when a man should take all the words of the Fathers which express the Real Presence for metaphorical ones, when one shall give 'em all the senses which the Ministers give them, and suppose that the Faithful of the fifth Rank were all of 'em born every whit as metaphorical as Aubertin was after he had corrupted his judgment by vain wranglings for thirty years space, when we should grant they had all an infused knowledg of 'em, and had 'em also as present as the first Principles, they could not but see the Real Presence in the expressions of the Fathers, either as the true idea which they would mark, or as the image of this idea, but an image so lively and sensible, and denoted by such a great number of expressions, that 'tis impossible but their mind must have been touch'd with 'em. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud uses for the same design the example of other Ministers, Who conceiv'd, says he, a li∣teral sense in the passages produc'd by the Catholicks. In fine he uses for this end the very passages of the Fathers, and especially one of S. Hilary, and another of Gregory of Nysse. We shall answer in order these four preten∣ded reasons.

AS to the first which is taken from th' example of the people of the 11th. Century, it is evidently ineffectual by means of two essential differences there are between these people, and those of the eight first Centuries. The first is, that the idea of the Real Presence, I mean of that about which we dispute, was offered to those of the 11th. Century by the Disciples and followers of Paschasus, who maintain'd, and taught it, and applied there∣unto the passages of the Fathers, dazling the eyes of the world by false co∣lours, and giving to these passages a sense which the people would never have discovered, had they been led by the light of nature. But there can be no∣thing said like this of the people of the eight first Centuries, to whom the idea of this substantial and invisible Presence was not yet discovered. They had not been taught it, nor were they told 'twas in this sense they must take the expressions of their Pastors. Moreover, the people of the 11th. Cen∣tury had not the clear and easie passages of the Fathers proposed to 'em, which might give the true meaning of the Sacrament, and at the same time serve for an explication to the obscure expressions, and by this means shew∣ing 'em only one side of the thing, and making 'em consider it in wrong circumstances, 'twas no hard matter for 'em to be deceiv'd, and take that for a Real Presence which was far from being it. But we must make another

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

judgment of the eight first Centuries, wherein the Pastors instructing their flocks, gave them other ideas of this mystery, which carried them off from that of the invisible and incorporeal Presence.

We may in a manner apply the same answer to Mr. Arnaud's third rea∣son, which is taken from the example of several Ministers, who altho they pretend that the true sense of the passages of the Fathers produc'd by those of the Roman Church, is the metaphorical one, yet do conceive the literal sense. For there is a great deal of difference between us and the people of the eight first Centuries. They lived in those times wherein the idea of the Real Presence, such as the Roman Church believes, was not discovered; whereas we live in those times wherein 'tis continually represented before our eyes. Both Rhetorick and Philosophy are set on work to shew it us in the Writings of the Fathers. 'Tis not possible then but entering into the sense of those that dispute incessantly against us, and putting our selves in their places to comprehend what they think, but we must conceive in the passages which they alledg to us, the sense of the Real Presence, altho we judg it to be false. 'Tis also true that they offer some to us under the name of the Fathers, which as Mr. Daillé has well observ'd, seem in no wise to admit the sense of the Protestants. But these passages are of two kinds, for either they are falsly attributed to the Fathers, as is that denoted by Mr. Daillé, That the Bread changes its nature, and becomes by the Almighty Power of God the Flesh of the Word, which he has consider'd as the words of S. Cyprian, under whose name they have been usually cited, whereas they are Arnaud of Bonneval's, an Author of the 12th. Century. As to such as these I confess 'tis not easie for Protestants to accommodate them to their sense, but very easie on the contrary to conceive the idea of the Real Presence in 'em; but this happens by their being regarded as the words of the Fathers, where∣as indeed they be not. The others are really the sayings of the Fathers, but contain a particular sentiment, which is neither that of the Roman Church nor that of the Protestants; so that it cannot seem strange if those that would accommodate them to the sense of the Protestants found them∣selves perplexed with 'em; and such are several passages in Gregory of Nysse, Anastasius Sinaite, and Damascen, which to speak properly, are nei∣ther for the Church of Rome, nor for us; I mean, do neither confirm our positive belief nor theirs, altho they alledg them in their own favour.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud says touching the metaphors, I grant they do naturally form this double idea of which he speaks; but he is not ignorant there are, as I said, metaphorical terms, which use has made proper: so that they do not of themselves offer to the mind the natural idea which they sig∣nifie, but only the metaphorical one; unless a mans mind makes a parti∣cular reflection on them. Thus the term of House in Astrology, the term of Aristotle and Plato in a Library, and I know not how many others of this nature, do not present more to the mind than the idea of the things which they originally signifie. Let Mr. Arnaud call them as long as he will equivocal terms, dark metaphors which are abolish'd by use, this does not hinder the truth of my remark, nor th' application which I made of it to the terms of Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Christi, which use had made so proper to the Sacrament, that they brought no other idea to the mind than that of the Sacrament, according as our senses represent it, without bringing in that of the natural Body of Jesus Christ. It is true, says Mr. Arnaud, * 1.1 that the custom of employing some terms in a metaphorical use does sometimes

in such a manner obscure the double idea, that the mind feels no more than the impression of the thing signifi'd and conceiv'd as true. This is exactly what I would have. I desire no more, and it signifies nothing to alledg that this does not contradict the rule which the Author of the Perpetuity had proposed, because he spake only of terms which were really metaphorical, and not of equi∣vocal terms, such as those are wherein the double idea is not felt. This, I say, signifies nothing, for besides that the Author of the Perpetuity had pro∣posed his Principle a little too generally, my exception invalidates the use which he would make of it; for it shews that in applying this Principle to the terms, Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Christi, a man can draw no advantage thence, nor say that they brought into the mind the idea of the Real Presence, because that in effect these terms did not represent more than the idea of the Sacrament, according as our senses offer it.

I confess we cannot apply this remark to several passages of the Fathers, wherein the figure is more sensible; and therefore we have only apply'd it to these terms precisely, Corpus, Corpus Domini, Corpus Christi, by which the Sacrament has been often design'd. An answer is not the less good for being proper and particular to a subject. And as to other passages which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed, we have already maintain'd, and do still, that their natural sense was the Sacramental one, and not that of the Real Pre∣sence, excepting some which we will speak to hereafter. And for the better un∣derstanding of this, we must first distinguish the particular sense of each term, from the sense of the whole proposition; each term has its proper common and ordinary signification, and being thus taken apart, brings na∣turally into the mind the idea of that which it signifies. But the first and natural sense of th'entire proposition must not always be taken from the natural signification of each term, but oft-times from the force of the mat∣ter in question which guides nature to a certain sense, without suffering her to imagin any other: and this is oft the metaphorical sense, which I illustra∣ted by th' example of these propositions, The Stone was Christ, The King is the head of Gold, The seven stalks are the seven years. The particular terms Stone, Christ, was, taken apart do naturally bring into the mind the idea of what they signifie. The Stone offers the idea of a Rock, Christ the idea of Jesus Christ, was, gives the idea of an affirmation, but the simple and natu∣ral sense which results from these three terms gathered together, is no other than the metaphorical one, by reason of the matter in hand, which suffers not naturally the mind to conceive another. 'Tis the same in reference to these propositions, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ enters into us, we receive the Body of Jesus Christ, and such like. If a man considers each term of these in particular, they na∣turally bring into the mind the idea of what they ordinarily and commonly signifie, the Bread, that of Bread, the Body of Jesus Christ, that of the Body of Jesus Christ, is, that of an affirmation, changed, that of a change, enter and receive, that of an entrance, and reception: But the sense which results from these terms collected being determin'd by the matter in hand, can be naturally no other than a mystical sense, to wit, that the Bread is the Sacrament, the sign, the pledg, the memorial of the Body of Jesus Christ; that it serves us instead of it, that 'tis mystically chang'd into this Body, that this Body enters into us by its symbol, that we receive and partake of it by a spiritual reception and participation. This is the true and natural

sense of these expressions, and that which first presents it self to the mind by reason of the matter in hand.

NEITHER the truth of my Principle, nor the truth of the applica∣tion which I make of it can be disputed me. The Principle is, that when the matter in question determins the propositions to a certain sense which they may reasonably receive, then we must not seek for the natural sense of these propositions in the natural signification of each term taken apart, but from the matter it self; and that the sense to which the matter determins them is the simple and natural sense. This Principle may be justifi'd by a thousand examples drawn from the ordinary use of human speech, in which is made every moment propositions, which would be sensless did not a man take the natural sense of the matter in question. Each Art and Profession has also its particular expressions which would be as so many extravagancies, were they not understood according as the matter determins them; and this is in my opinion, what no one can contradict. Th' application which I make of this Principle is no less undeniable; for 'tis true that the expressions of the Fathers on the Eucharist are determin'd to a certain sense by the very na∣ture of the Eucharistical action, which is a Sacrament or a mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: Seeing then their expressions are capable of receiving a Sacramental and mystical sense, it must be granted that that is the natural sense.

THE natural sense of a proposition is that which may be most naturally in the mind of him that made it; but to judg well of it, we must consider the matter, and see whether it has not led them to explain themselves in this manner. Now it will be granted me that the question here being about signs or mystical symbols, and a Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ, men have more naturally in their thoughts the mystical and Sacramental sense than that of Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation.

BUT besides this distinction which respects the expressions both in themselves, and in relation to those that have used them, there must be made another, which regards the persons to whom these expressions are addressed. For there are some that have small knowledg of the matter in hand, which know only confusedly what a Sacrament or mystery is, who have made lit∣tle reflection on the manner after which our Lord communicates himself to us in the Eucharist; and there are others that have this knowledg more di∣stinct and better form'd. Now it being the matter or subject in hand that determins the sense of these expressions, 'tis certain they are more or less clear, more or less intelligible, according as this matter is more or less un∣derstood by every one: But 'tis likewise certain, that to mark well the natu∣ral sense of 'em, we must suppose persons who have a distinct knowledg of the subject in question, and manner after which the Church has expressed her self about it▪ and not ignorant persons that have only a very obscure notion of it. The natural sense of th' expressions of each Art, and each Profession is without doubt not that in which those may take it, who have scarcely any knowledg of this Art, or this Profession but that wherein intelligent and able persons take it; and 'tis for this reason the later are con∣sulted rather than the others upon any difficulty. I confess Religion ought to be the Art and Profession of the whole world, but men are neither wise nor honest enough to apply themselves exactly to it. It cannot be deny'd but there have been always many persons in the Church little advanced in

the knowledg of the mystery of the Gospel. 'Tis not from them then that we must learn the natural sense of the expressions of the Fathers. They might have been the object of their Faith, tho not of their Understanding. I mean, they might believe 'em to be true without diving into the sense of 'em, and knowing what they signifie. And this is the meaning of S. Au∣stin in his Sermon to Children. What ye see, says he, is Bread and Wine, which your eyes likewise tell you, but the instruction which your Faith demands is, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Cup, or that which is in the Cup his Blood. This is said in a few words, and perhaps this little is suf∣ficient to Faith, but Faith desires to be instructed; for the Prophet says, If ye do, not believe, how will you understand? Ye may reply, seeing you have comman∣ded us to believe, explain to us what that is, to the end we may understand it. Whilst these persons remain in this degree of Faith without understanding, 'tis not to them we must address our selves for the finding out the natural sense of the propositions of the Fathers, seeing they do not understand 'em. We must desire this of them that are more advanced in knowledg, who know what the Church means by these ways of speaking, and can give a good ac∣count of the natural impression they make on their minds.

BUT who are these people? They are those that learn'd from the Fathers themselves, what a Sacrament or Mystery is, who knew that a Mystery or Sacrament is when we see a thing, and understand and believe another, who knew that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are signs, images, figures, me∣morials, representations, resemblances, pictures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who knew, that the Bread and Wine are to us instead of the Body and Blood, that Jesus Christ is signified and communicated to us by means of these symbols, and that in partaking of this visible Bread we spiritually eat our Lords Flesh, who knew, that the signs take commonly the names of the things which they represent, that the Sacraments are called after the name of the things themselves, that our Saviour did not scruple to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body, that he made Bread his Body in saying, This is my Body, that is to say, the figure of my Body, that we must distin∣guish between the Bread of our Lord, and the Bread which is the Lord him∣self, that the consecrated Bread is honored with the name of our Lords Body, altho the nature of Bread remains, that the nature or substance of Bread ceases not to be, and that that which we celebrate is the image or resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who knew, that the humanity of Jesus Christ is local, absent from Heaven when on the Earth, and left the Earth when it ascen∣ded up into Heaven, that to eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ is to believe in him, that this locution is figurative, and must not be taken according to the letter, signifying we must communicate of our Lords Passion, and call to remembrance that his Flesh has been Crucified for us.

'TIS such kind of persons as these who are well instructed in the sense of the Fathers, that are to be consulted to find the natural sense of these other expressions which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour. What likeli∣hood is there that with these preparatives which they receiv'd daily from their Pastors they should stick at these expressions they heard 'em use, That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis made the Body of Jesus Christ, changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that the Body of Jesus Christ enters in∣to us, that we are refresh'd with his Blood, and nourish'd with his Flesh, and other expressions of this nature; what likelihood is there they should hesi∣tate at 'em, or see any other sense in 'em, than the Sacramental or figurative

one? Now these are the persons whereof my fifth rank consists, whom I supposed to have a knowledg of the truth more distinct and clear than the others, and a mind better fitted to understand the stile, and ordinary ex∣pressions of the Church. Let the same instructions, the same expositions be given now to the people which the Fathers gave them, let neither Transub∣stantiation, nor the Real Presence, nor the conversion of the substance of Bread into the very substance of Christs Body, nor the Body of Jesus Christ concealed under the vail of accidents without a subject, nor th'existence of these accidents without a subject, nor the real existence of the Body of Je∣sus Christ in several places, nor his double Presence, that is to say, his visible and invisible one, nor his Sacramental state after the manner of a Spirit be mention'd, let 'em not be enjoyn'd t' adore the Sacrament of the Eucharist with that Sovereign adoration which is due to Jesus Christ alone; and in a word, let all things be suppress'd which we find the Fathers did not speak or do, and let the impressions and prejudications which these novelties have introduc'd into mens minds be lost: let the same instructions and expositi∣ons, I say, be given to the people now which the Fathers gave them, and then let 'em be told as long as you will, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, that 'tis chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ; for I am persuaded, and be∣lieve every reasonable man will be so too, that the people will never con∣ceive from these expressions either Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, but understand 'em, without difficulty in a Sacramental sense. Where! Where's then this great noise which the Real Presence made, knocking, as the Author of the Perpetuity words it, millions of times at the gate of the hearts of all the Faithful? Is not this clatter a mere dream, and has Mr. Arnaud any reason to reproach me with the deafness of my ears?

BUT 'twill perhaps be question'd, whether persons of mean capacity (whom we do not suppose to have this knowledg of the style and sense of the Church) did not receive by these words th' impression of the Real Pre∣sence. I answer, we shall do 'em no wrong by supposing they did not un∣derstand them: You have commanded us to believe, said they in S. Austin; * 1.2 explain to us then, how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, to the end we may understand it. They did not understand it then before the explication. In effect the greatest part of the Fathers words taken literally are void of any natural sense, Philosophy must give 'em one; for how can we understand naturally that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, according to a literal sense, or chang'd into the Body of Jesus Christ, seeing we behold it still to be Bread? I confess there are some of these expressions which are apt to of∣fer to ignorant people the idea of a Real Presence, but not of the real in∣visible and incorporeal Presence, touching which we contend, but on the contrary, the idea of a corporeal Presence, for a mans mind, especially that of an ignorant man, does not imagin th' existence of a human, invisible, in∣sensible, and impalpable Body. I moreover say, that this idea of the cor∣poreal Presence would be immediately rejected as false by the most stupid and ignorant, from the testimony of their own senses, which they could not but consult, supposing at least they knew Christ's Body was a human one. But supposing they did not, 'tis likely their simplicity would lead them to believe that the natural Body of Jesus Christ was really upon Earth in the form of Bread, such as they saw in the Eucharist: and this is what S. Au∣stin says little Children would do were they earnestly and gravely told 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ.

AS to the passages of S. Hilary, and Gregory of Nysse, which Mr. Ar∣naud alledges, as offering the idea of the Real Presence, I confess the first is able to surprize th' ignorant, and make 'em conceive a corporeal Presence; seeing it has these words, that Jesus Christ is in us in reality of nature, and not by a simple consent of will: and then again, that Jesus Christ dwells in us naturally; which literally signifies that our Lords Flesh exists in us in such an ordinary and corporeal manner as the flesh of animals exists in us when we eat 'em; which was the sense wherein the Capernaits took the words of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud himself seems to have acknowledg'd this, seeing he believ'd himself oblig'd to add in his Translation a corrective that mol∣lifies or explains this term naturally. Naturally, says he, that is to say, re∣ally. But this, that is to say, really, ought not to be written in Italick, as if 'twere S. Hilary's own explication; and if the fault be the Printer's, and not Mr. Arnaud's, he should at least have set it in the Errata, because it cau∣ses two illusions at a time: on one hand it makes a man believe S. Hilary taught the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in us, in proper terms, seeing he says that he remains in us naturally, that is to say, really, which is not true: and on the other it hinders us from perceiving that the ignorant taking the naturally of S. Hilary according to the letter, would have had the idea of a corporal and natural Presence, and not that of a spiritual and invisible Pre∣sence. These are a kind of faults for which people are not wont to be over∣sorry when they happen; for they have a desir'd effect for some time, and when they chance to be discover'd may be laid on the Printer. But howso∣ever 'tis certain that all the impression which this passage of S. Hilary could make on the mind of an ignorant person was only to put him upon concei∣ving a corporal Presence, which he might easily reject, by the testimony of his proper senses. But to speak the truth, there's little reason to suppose the Books of S. Hilary De Trinitate came to the knowledg of such ignorant and simple people as we speak of.

THE passage of Gregory of Nysse gives naturally the idea of a change of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, by the union of the Bread into the Word, and by way of augmentation of the natural Body of Jesus Christ, as appears from the example which he brings of the Bread which Jesus Christ ate, which became the Body of the Word, which is far remote from the Transubstantiation of the Church of Rome, who will have the substance on the Altar to be the same in number as that which our Saviour Christ assum'd from the Virgin, and which is now in Heaven. There's little likelihood that simple and ignorant people understood what Gregory meant, even suppo∣sing they were acquainted with his Catechism, which is not very likely. But supposing they knew it all by heart, and comprehended the sense of it, they could thence only conceive this change by union to the word, and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ, which Damascen has since ex∣plained more clearly. And this is what Gregory supposes also, not as the true Faith of the Church, but only as a probable opinion, according as he formally explains himself, Perhaps, says he, we are in the right.

AND this is what we had to say concerning Mr. Arnaud's sixth Book. Whatsoever success this Dispute might have had, he could not thence pro∣mise himself any advantage, because as we have already observ'd more than once, the eight first Centuries being out of the time wherein we suppose the change was wrought, when he shall have proved the Real Presence, or Real

Absence was distinctly held therein, he will be still told the question con∣cerns not those Ages, but the following. But 'tis not the same with me, who draw thence several advantages. For first, neither Mr. Arnaud, nor the Author of the Perpetuity can henceforward prevail by the equivocation of the term of Real Absence, which may be taken either for the rejection of the visible or corporeal Presence, or for the rejection of th' invisible Presence, seeing we have shew'd 'em that in this debate the question concerns not the Real Absence in the first sense, but the Real Absence in the second. Se∣condly, They can no longer confound these two things as if they were but one, to wit, to be in a condition to acknowledg that the Real Presence does not agree with the lights of nature, and to be in a condition to acknow∣ledg 'tis a novely which was never held in the Church, seeing we have shew'd 'em there's a great deal of difference between these two dispositions, and that it does not follow hence that those who are in the first, are also in the second, which is precisely that which is here in question. Thirdly, Neither will they I think any more confound two sorts of very different doubts, the one of incredulity which deny the thing it self, and the others of simple ignorance which consist only in not knowing the manner, yet without denying the thing, seeing they have been shew'd clearly enough the difference of 'em, and that they ought not to refer to one of these doubts what belongs to the other. Fourthly, They can no longer blind the world by this vain distinction of three ways of rejecting the Real Presence, or by a general rejection, without denoting any one kind of 'em, or by a formal rejection of all the kinds, or by a bare view of the nature of things, seeing we have shew'd 'em that the first is impossible, that the third brings no advan∣tage to 'em, and that there's only the second which they can reasonably stick to, and which yet they renounce, because they find it unjustifiable. Fifth∣ly, 'Tis likely they will no longer obstinately maintain that a known in∣consistency, that is to say, a pure impossibility, and respected as such, is a sense after th' illustrations given on this subject. Sixthly, They can no lon∣ger say that the ancient formulary of the Communion, Corpus Christi must necessarily direct the minds of the Faithful to conceive the Body of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist which they receiv'd, seeing it had another use, which was to raise 'em up to meditate on the Death and Resurrection of their Saviour; this other use being sufficient to employ many of their minds. Seventhly, They will henceforward in vain pretend that the terms which the Fathers used in their ordinary instructions, brought naturally the idea of the Real Presence into their Auditors minds, seeing we have shew'd that the natural sense of their Propositions did not depend on the natural significati∣on of each term, but on the matter in hand, which determin'd them to a figurative sense. Eighthly, They have had no reason to pretend that all the Faithful have always had a distinct belief either of the Presence or Real Absence, in the sense wherein the Roman Church understands these terms, seeing we have shew'd them five ranks of persons in the Church of the first eight Centuries, who had no formal knowledg of either the one nor th'other. Ninthly, It being thus in reference to the first eight Centuries, it hence fol∣lows 'twas the same by greater reason in the following, which were far dar∣ker. Tenthly, And that which is most important is that one may already know by this, that the change which occasions our principal question has been not only possible, but easie. For there being only two things which can hinder it, the one the distinct belief of the Real Absence, that is to say, the formal and positive belief that the Body is not in the Eucharist by its proper substance, neither visible nor invisible; and th'other the knowledg,

diligence, and fidelity of the Pastors, watching over their Flocks, ready to acknowledg and repel the new errors, and make them known to their peo∣ple. 'Tis already apparent that the first of these things is an unjustifiable supposition, and contrary to all probability. And as to the other 'tis cer∣tain it calls in question the credit of all Historians, and the judgment of all learned men who agree in this, that in the 9th. 10th. and 11th. Centuries th' Ecclesiastical order did not abound with famous men, and especially the 10th. Century.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 602.
• * 1.2

  Serm. ad inf.