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. IX.

Proofs that Paschasus was an Innovator.

I SAID in the preceding Chapter that the best way to be informed whe∣ther Paschasus has been an Innovator, was to search whether those that went before him, and wrote on the same subject, have, or have not taught the same thing as he has done, I repeat it here, to the end it may be considered whether after the discussion which Mr. Aubertin has made of the Doctrin of the Ancients, and what I have wrote also thereupon either to the Author of the Perpetuity, or Father Noüet, or Mr. Arnaud, we have not right to suppose, and to suppose as we do with confidence, that no body before Paschasus taught the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine, or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucha∣rist. Whence it follows he was the first that brought this new Doctrin in∣to the world.

BUT besides this proof which is an essential and fundamental one, we shall offer several others, taken from the circumstances of this History which do much illustrate this truth. The first of this rank is taken from Paschasus himself's acknowledging he moved several persons to understand this mystery. Altho I wrote nothing worth the Reader's perusal in my Book * 1.1 which I dedicated cuilibet puero (I had rendred these words to a young man, because that in effect his Book was dedicated to Placidus. Mr. Arnaud would have it rendred to young people, this is no great matter) yet am I in∣form'd that I have excited several persons to understand this mystery. Now this shews that before his Book came forth his Doctrin was unknown, whereunto we may also add the passages wherein he declares how the Church was ignorant of this mystery, as we have already observ'd.

TO judg rightly of the strength of this proof, and to defend it against Mr. Arnaud's vain objections we should first shew what kind of ignorance, and intelligence Paschasus here means. For Mr. Arnaud has wonderful di∣stinctions on this subject. Ought not Mr. Claude to know, says he, that be∣sides * 1.2 this knowledg common to all Christians which makes 'em believe the myste∣ries without much reflection, there is another clearer one, and which is often de∣noted in S. Austin by the word intelligence, which does not precede, but fol∣lows Faith, as being the fruit and recompence of it, sic accipite, sic credite,

says this Father, Ʋt mereamini intelligere, fides enim debet proecedere intelle∣ctum ut sit intellectus fidei proemium. As then all Christians believe the mysteries, they believed likewise all of 'em the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it, (which is to say that they all believ'd the Real Presence and Transubstantiation) but they had not all of 'em an understanding of it, that is to say, they had not all considered this adorable Sacrament, with the application which it deserves, That they did not all know the mysteries con∣tained in the symbols, the relations of the Eucharist with the Sacraments of the ancient Law, the ends which God had in appointing them, those that have right to partake of 'em, the dispositions with which a man ought to approach to 'em, the greatness of their crime who profane the Lords Body, and the rest of those things which are explained in Paschasus his Book. All this is contained under the word intelligence, and he comprehends it therein himself in explain∣ing afterwards what he means by this term, and by making an abridgment of his whole Book without marking in particular the Real Presence. The que∣stion then is, whether in Paschasus his sense the ignorance, and consequently the intelligence he speaks of do not extend as far as the Real Presence. Now this is what will be soon decided if we examin the passages themselves of this Author without suffering our selves to be blinded by Mr. Arnaud's il∣lusions. At the entrance of his second Chapter, wherein he declares his design to dissipate this ignorance, and remedy the evils it caused, he describes it in this manner, Sacramentum Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis quod quotidie in Ecclesia celebratur, nemo sidelium ignorare debet, nemo nescire quid ad fi∣dem, quidve ad scientiam in eo pertineat. Will you then know what kind of ignorance this was, Paschasus tells you immediately, Nescire quid ad fi∣dem * 1.3 quidve ad scientiam pertineat. Here are precisely the two parts of Mr, Arnaud's distinction contained in the definition which Paschasus gives of it. For nescire quid ad fidem pertineat, is not to have this knowledg which makes me believe the mysteries without much reflection, and nescire quid ad scientiam, is not to have this other clearer knowledg which Mr. Ar∣naud calls particularly intelligence. So that Paschasus and his Commenta∣tator are not at all agreed. Paschasus extends the ignorance he speaks of to the things which relate to Faith, which is to say, according to him, the Real Presence, and Mr. Arnaud restrains it to other things. But let us hear Paschasus further, Fides, says he, est erudienda ne forte ob hoc censeamur in∣digni, si non satis discernimus illud; nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus & sanguis quanta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute. We must instruct our Faith, lest for want of doing it we be reputed unworthy in not suffi∣ciently discerning this Sacrament, and understanding the excellent virtue and dignity of it. Can any man explain himself more clearly? The ignorance consists in not well understanding the great dignity of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which in his sense signifies not to know, that 'tis the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, and th' intelli∣gence on the contrary consists in knowing it. But to take away from Mr. Arnaud all pretence of the validity of his distinction, observe here what Paschasus adds afterwards. He receives the Sacrament ignorantly who is wholly ignorant of its virtue and dignity, and knows not the circumstance of it, and does not truly know that 'tis the Body and Blood of our Lord, according to truth, altho it be taken in the Sacrament by Faith. Mr. Arnaud will not de∣ny that in the stile of Paschasus to be the Body and Blood of our Lord accord∣ing to truth, is to be it substantially and really. Now the ignorance consists in the not knowing this, and by the reason of contraries the intelligence con∣sists in knowing it according to Paschasus.

Mr. ARNAƲD will say without doubt that Paschasus in all this whole second Chapter, intended only to shew the necessity there is of in∣structing persons before they come to receive the Communion, but that he does not suppose this ignorance was actually in the Church; and that on the contrary, this necessity of instruction, in the manner which he exaggerates, denotes that they took a great care in those days to teach the Communi∣cants the Doctrin of the Real Presence. But this evasion will not serve turn. For besides that Paschasus says expresly, That he receives the Sacra∣ment ignorantly that knows not 'tis the Body and Blood of our Lord according to truth; which is an expression of a man which acknowledges there are actually persons that thus receive the Sacrament: Besides this a man needs only read the passages of his Letter to Frudegard, where it cannot be de∣nied but he speaks of ignorant persons which were then actually in the Church; I say, there needs no more than the reading 'em to find he under∣stands this same ignorance which he had describ'd in the second Chapter of his Book. For having immediately proposed, as from the part of Frudegard, the objection taken from a passage of S. Austin, That the Sacrament is cal∣led the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a figurative locution, Quod tropica locutio sit ut Corpus Christi & Sanguis esse dicatur, which respects as * 1.4 every one sees the Article of the Real Presence; and having endeavoured to satisfie it, he passes over to another objection, which respects the same Real Presence. Multi, says he, ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille integer manet, & hoc Corpus Christi & Sanguis esse possit. Several doubt because they cannot comprehend how Jesus Christ remains entire, and yet the Sacrament to be his Body and Blood. He answers this Objection as well as he can, then imme∣diately adds, Here you have, dear Brother, what came into my thoughts at pre∣sent, and because you are one part of my self, I believe I ought not to conceal any thing from you, altho I cannot express my mind in this particular as 'tis necessary. As to your self, I desire you would read over again my Book touch∣ing this matter, which you say you have heretofore read, and if you find there∣in any thing reprehensible or doubtful, refuse not the labor of reading it again. For altho I have not written any thing worth the Readers pains in a Book which I dedicated to young people, yet am I inform'd that I have stirred up several persons to the understanding of this mystery. Who sees not that in all this his whole scope is the Real Presence. His whole preceding dispute was on this Article, and these terms, If you find in my Book any thing reprehensible or doubtful, can only relate to the same Article, for there was no question of any thing else. When then he adds, That he has stirr'd up several persons to the understanding of this mystery, 'tis clear that he has respect to the same thing, and means he has rescued several from th' ignorance wherein they lay touching the Doctrin of the Real Presence.

BUT to leave no room for contradiction and cavil, I need only repre∣sent what he writes towards the end of this same Letter, where having said he has confirm'd his Doctrin by the testimonies of Pope Gregory, the Council of Ephesus, S. Jerom and some others, he adds, Et ideo quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est, &c. Altho some do err thro ignorance in this point. What can be said to this? Here we have formally an actual ignorance on the Article of the Real Presence, on the same Article which was disputed him by his Adversaries, on the same Article on which he produc'd the words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, and the clause of the Liturgy, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis, dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri

Jesu Christi, on the same Article whereon he had alledged several passages of the Fathers, Quamvis, says he, ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent.

DOES any man desire another express and formal testimony of Pas∣chasus, I need only produce these words of his Commentary on the 26th. of S. Matthew to satisfie him. I have been more large on this subject of our Lords Supper than the brevity of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Commentary permits, because there are se∣veral that have another sentiment touching these mystical things, and several are so blind as to think the Bread and Wine are nothing else but what we see with our eyes, and tast with our mouths. Here we have then actually persons that did not believe the Real Presence, and those not inconsiderable for their number, seeing he denotes them by the term of several, and which he expresses so clearly that Mr. Arnaud will be at a loss what to answer.

Mr. ARNAƲD who well perceived he might be opposed on the first answer, bethought himself of giving us another, in which, contrary to his usual manner, he relaxes something of what he advanced. Not but that, says * 1.5 he, this word intelligence may likewise respect the Real Presence, not as a new truth, but as a truth which might be fuller comprehended, and in a man∣ner which penetrates more lively the heart, for there are several degrees of growing in the knowledg of a mystery which one believes already by Faith. He would say there might be people who knew less strongly, and livelily the Real Presence, and that in this respect they might acquire the intelligence of it, but that there were none that were wholly ignorant of it, or to whom Paschasus his Book gave the intelligence of it as of a new truth. But Pas∣chasus himself refutes this gloss, Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent. This is an ignorance which according to him extends so far as the making 'em err in the Article of the Real Presence. To err in an Article thro igno∣rance, is it not a not believing of it at all, as having never heard it men∣tioned? Is not this a knowing nothing of it, a having no knowledg, and consequently no Faith in it? Now such were Paschasus his ignorant persons, who were far different from those of Mr. Arnaud. In a word, they were people who thought the Bread and Wine were nothing else in respect of their substance, than what they appear to our eyes and tast, as Paschasus now spake.

THIS Principle being well establish'd, as I believe it is at present, 'twill be no hard matter to see the consequence of it. The Author of the Perpe∣tuity and Mr.Arnaud affirm as an undoubted truth that all the faithful Communicants have ever had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Pre∣sence, or Real Absence; of the Presence, if it were taught in the Church, of the Absence, if the Presence were not therein taught. Whereupon I raise this Argument. There cannot be any person in a Church wherein the Real Presence is commonly taught, but knows distinctly the Real Presence. Now in the Church of the 9th. Century, at which time Paschasus lived, there were people that were ignorant of the Real Presence, and erred in this Article thro ignorance. Therefore in the Church of the 9th. Century the Real Presence was not commonly taught. The first proposition is of the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud, without distinction or restricti∣on; the second is of Paschasus himself: the conclusion of it I think then is inevitable.

'TWILL be reply'd that this Argument is one of those called, ad ho∣minem, which does indeed press an adversary by his own proper Principles, but which are not always absolutely conclusive, because it may happen that the Principles of an Adversary on which they are grounded be false and im∣prudently offered. This Argument then may be convictive against the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud. But the Principle of Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity may be false, and consequently the con∣clusion I draw thence.

TO solve this difficulty, besides that 'tis a great advantage for the cause which I defend, that as able Doctors as these Gentlemen remain convict by their own proper Principles. 'Tis to be observ'd that theirs being alter∣native, must be distinguish'd into two propositions; one of which is, All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence if the Church of their time taught it. And the other, All the Communicants have had a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence, if the Church of their time did not teach the Real Presence. In respect of this second proposition the Principle is false, as I have shew'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity, and in the begin∣ning of his 6th. Book, in I think an unanswerable manner. But in respect of the first the Principle is true, and must be granted, for in effect it is not con∣ceivable that a Church should believe and teach commonly that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ; and yet let persons of age Communicate without instructing them in it; That she should believe and teach a man must adore this Sacrament which we receive, publickly practise this supreme Adoration, and yet one part of the Communicants know nothing of it, and in this respect err thro igno∣rance. It is then clear that my argument is not barely one of those term'd ad hominem, seeing 'tis not grounded on the second proposition of these Gentlemens Principle, which is in contest, but on the first in which both sides are agreed: so that my conclusion has all the strength and truth that can be desired in every respect.

NEVERTHELESS we must answer two of Mr. Arnaud's minute objections. Paschasus says, That he dedicated his Book to young People. 'Tis * 1.6 then, says he, unlikely, that Paschasus design'd to instruct the whole world in a truth of which he believ'd both the learned and unlearn'd were ignorant. I answer, 'twas not indeed likely that he had immediately so vast a design. 'Tis more likely he proposed his Doctrin as he himself says, petentibus, to hir Scholars who pray'd him to shew them his sentiment in this matter; but this does not hinder his Doctrin from being new. He says, says Mr. Ar∣naud again, That he had not written any thing worth his Readers pains. Now no man who discovers a mystery of this importance uses such humble expressions which suppose he says nothing but what's vulgarly known. Mr. Arnaud de∣ceives himself; for besides what I intimated in several places, that those who introduce new Opinions by way of addition, or explication of the an∣cient ones do not openly declare 'em to be new, but on the contrary endea∣vour to make 'em slip in by means of received expressions; besides this, I say, this humility of Paschasus relates not to the things themselves which he wrote, nor his sentiment; for he could not term them scarcely worth his Readers perusal, whether they were new, or not. But this relates to the manner of writing 'em, according to what he says to Frudegard, Ce∣lare non debui quoe loqui ut oportuit minime potui.

BUT pass we on to the second proof, which shews Paschasus to be an Innovator. 'Tis taken from the effect which his Doctrin produced in seve∣ral persons minds, which was, that they opposed him. I have discoursed, * 1.7 says he, of these things more at large, because I am informed some people have blamed me, as if (in the Book which I publish'd of the Sacraments of Christ, I would give more to his words than they will bear, or establish something else than the truth promises. These censurers proceed further, for they opposed a contrary Doctrin against that of Paschasus, to wit, that 'twas the Body of Jesus Christ, in figure, in Sacrament, in virtue. Which Paschasus himself tells us. Let those, says he, that will extenuate this term of Body hear, * 1.8 They that tell us 'tis not the true Flesh of Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church, nor his true Blood. They tell us, or rather feign I know not what, as if 'twere a certain virtue of the Flesh and Blood. He afterwards repeats two or three times the same thing. They proceeded so far as to accuse Paschasus of Enthusiasm, twitting him with having a young mans vision, as we remark'd in the foregoing Chapter. For this is what may be justly collected from these words to Frudegard. You have at * 1.9 the end of this Book the sentiments of the Catholick Fathers which I briefly marked, that you may know that 'tis not thro an Enthusiasm of rashness that I have had these Visions, being as yet a young man. Supposing Paschasus taught nothing but what the whole Church believ'd and commonly taught the Faithful, whence I pray you came these Censurers? The whole world lived peaceably during eight hundred years in the belief of the Real Pre∣sence; all the Preachers taught it, all Books contain'd it, all the Faithful believ'd it and distinctly knew it; there not having been any body yet that dared contradict it: and yet there appear persons who precisely oppose it as soon as Paschasus appeared in the world. But who so well and quick∣ly furnish'd 'em with the Keys of figure and virtue which Mr. Arnaud would have had all the world to be ignorant of, and th' invention of which he at∣tributes to the Ministers. Why if we will believe him they were people that dared not appear openly, that whispered secretly in mens ears, and yet were so well instructed that they knew the principal distinctions of the Cal∣vinists and all the subtilties of their School. But moreover, what fury pos∣sessed them to attack thus particularly Paschasus who said nothing but what all the world knew, even the meanest Christian, and what all the world believ'd, and who moreover had no particular contest with them? They could not be ignorant that the whole Church was of this opinion, suppo∣sing she really did hold it; for as I already said, the Doctrin of the Real Presence is a popular Doctrin. It is not one of those Doctrins which lie hid in Books or the Schools, which the learned can only know. 'Tis a Doctrin which each particular person knows if he knows any thing. Why then must Paschasus be thus teas'd? If they had a design to trouble the peace of the Church, why did they not attack its Doctrin, or in general those that held it, which is to say, according to Mr. Arnaud, the whole world. Why again must Paschasus be rather set upon than any body else? Does Mr. Arnaud believe this to be very natural? Are people wont to set upon a particular person, to the exclusion of all others, when he has said no more than what others have said, and what is taught and held by every body? Is such a one liable to reproaches and censures? Are we wont to charge such a one with Enthusiastical rashness and pretence to Visions? It is clear people do not deal thus but with persons that have gone out of the beaten road, and would introduce novelties in the Church. 'Tis such as

these whom we are wont to accuse, to censure and call Enthusiasts and Vi∣sionaries, and not those that neither vary from the common terms or senti∣ments.

TO elude the force of this proof Mr. Arnaud has recourse to his Chro∣nology. * 1.10 He says that the last eight Books of Paschasus his Commentaries on S. Matthew were not written till thirty years after his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini. That he speaks therein of his Censures as persons that reprehended him at the very time he wrote this Commentary, Miror quid volunt nunc quidam dicere, and that it does not appear he was reprehended before; seeing he did not attempt to defend himself. Whence he concludes, That this Book which Mr. Claude says offended the whole world as soon as 'twas made, was publish'd near thirty years before 'twas censur'd by any body.

I have already replied to this Chronology of Mr. Arnaud. Supposing there were in effect thirty years between Paschasus his Book, and the Cen∣sures of his Adversaries, 'twill not hence follow that his Doctrin received a general approbation during these thirty years, for perhaps this Book was not known, or considered by those that were better able to judg of it than others. Printing which now immediately renders a Book publick, was not in use in those times; and 'tis likely Transcribers were not in any great hast to multiply the Book of a young Religious of Corbie, which he at first in∣tended only for his particular friends. Supposing this Book was known, it might be neglected thro contempt, or some other consideration, as it oft happens in these cases, altho a Book may contain several absured and extraor∣dinary Opinions; because it may not be thought fitting to make 'em publick, till it afterwards appears there are persons who be deceiv'd by it, and that 'tis necessary to undeceive them. Moreover, what reason is there to say, that the censures of these people hapned not before the time wherein Paschasus wrote his Commentary on S. Matthew? 'Tis because, says Mr. Arnaud, he says, Miror quid volunt quidam nunc dicere. But this reason is void, for this term nunc according to the common stile of Authors does refer it self rather in general to the time in which Paschasus lived, than precisely to that in which he wrote his Commentary. And as to what Mr. Arnaud adds, That it does not appear he was reprehended before, seeing he did not attempt to defend himself. This concludes nothing, unless we suppose that Pascha∣sus was in a capacity, and in humor, to defend himself as soon as he knew he was censured. Now this supposition must be proved before it be offer∣ed as a thing certain, for this supposition does not establish it self. How many persons are there who having set forth singular opinions, do for a long time patiently undergo all censures and reprehensions without replies, in expectation of a convenient time to defend themselves. Paschasus had begun his Commentary on S. Matthew a great while before he became Ab∣bot; 'tis probable he was willing to stay till the explication of these words, This is my Body, which he believed so advantageous to his cause should fur∣nish him with an occasion to speak of his sentiment, and to defend it against the attacks of opposers. So that Mr. Arnaud's Chronology for this time will stand him in no stead.

WHO has given this liberty, adds he, to Mr. Claude to give the name of * 1.11 world to these unknown persons, of whom Paschasus only heard some mention, but who never contradicted him to his face, nor ever wrote against him? This term cannot be reasonably used but to denote the greatest part of Christians, or

at least those who had read Paschasus his Book. Now it is exceeding false in this sense that the world was astonish'd at Paschasus his Book, seeing none of his Friends, none of his Society, none of those with whom he met in Ecclesia∣stick Assemblies and Councils, have formally reprehended him for it.

BUT who has given Mr. Arnaud Authority to attribute the name of unknown persons to Paschasus his Adversaries, and to say thereupon what he says, seeing he has no grounds for it, as I have already shew'd? Who told him that John Scot, Bertram and Raban, who were not obscure per∣sons in the Church of the 9th. Century, have staid till Paschasus his death before they declared themselves against his Opinion, supposing 'twere true they did not write till after his Death, which is very uncertain? Who has given him power to conclude, That the world was not astonish'd at Pascha∣sus his Book, under pretence it does not appear, That he was formally re∣prehended about it, neither amongst his own Society, nor in the Ecclesia∣stical Assemblies, nor Councils, seeing it does no more appear, that Ber∣tram and Raban, when they taught a contrary Doctrin to that of Pascha∣sus, have been formally reprchended for it, either by any one of their Or∣der, or in the publick Assemblies, or Councils wherein they assisted? Who has given him right to say, as he does, that the world of whom I speak con∣sists of some small number of rash and troublesom Disputers, who privately blamed what they dared not contradict in publick? I shall not here repeat what I have already observed, That 'tis absurd to endeavour to make us conceive the Adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin as persons that blamed in secret what they dared not contradict in publick; seeing the Gentlemen of the Roman Church are forced to acknowledg, at least that after the death of Paschasus, there were publick Writings against this very Doctrin, and of which writings the Authors being famous men, did not at all conceal their names; as if the reason of this pretended fear depended not on the Do∣ctrin, but person of Paschasus, who must have been at this rate the ter∣ror of Ecclesiastical Writers, whilst he liv'd. I shall only say that Mr. Arnaud has no reason to reduce Paschasus his Adversaries, that is to say, those who would not receive his Doctrin to a small number. One may in truth reasonably suppose, that amongst those that rejected this novelty, there were some that made head, or appeared more than the rest; and in this sense Paschasus might say that he understood some reprehended him. But to conclude hence that these were the only persons of their party, and that all the rest of the Church follow'd the sentiment of Paschasus, is a groundless fancy. Raban speaking of Paschasus his party, calls 'em for∣mally * 1.12 some, Quidam, says he, nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis & Sangui∣nis Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus & Sanguinem Domi∣ni quod de Maria Virgine natum est. And the anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has caused to be Printed expresses himself in the same man∣ner on this subject. Some, says he, say that what is received from the Altar is the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin. Others deny it and say 'tis another thing. Paschasus himself formally acknowledges, that those who were not of his opinion, were not a small number; for he describes them under the name of several or many: Ideo, says he, in hac coena Christi prolixius elaboravi quam brevitas poscat tractatoris quia in his mysticis rebus plures aliud sapiunt.

AS oft, says Mr. Arnaud, as a difficult mystery is proposed, altho believ'd universally by the Faithful, in a manner which causes a greater application of

Spirit, those mens minds which are not sufficiently humble, are likely to be dis∣mayed at it, and to endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear. And thereupon they often set upon, the person who has proposed it to 'em endeavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful. Even sometimes these ill opinions be already formed. For there are found too oft persons in the very bosom of the Church, who giving too great liberty to their thoughts and reflections, conceive ideas of mysteries dif∣ferent enough from those which the other faithful have of 'em, in turning to their sense most of the common expressions. And hence it happens, that if any one else in following the common notions uses any term which they also cannot reduce to their particular sense, they charge this person with boldness and rash∣ness. And this is properly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time.

DOES Mr. Arnaud think to escape by these circuits and artifices: A difficult mystery, says he, believed universally by the Faithful is proposed in such a manner as makes people apply themselves the more to it. Does he pre∣tend Paschasus had said any thing which is new in his Book concerning the Real Presence to make men consider more that point, supposing it believ'd universally by the Faithful? Does Paschasus examin the consequences of it, or exaggerate the miraculousness of it, or offer several objections on the contrary? He does nothing of all this. But only says 'tis the same Flesh of Christ which was born of the Virgin and rose again: That the substance of Bread is converted into the true Body of Jesus Christ, altho the colour and savour of Bread remains: That the substance of Christs Body enters into our flesh. Now this is what all the Faithful universally believed and held distinctly according to Mr. Arnaud. As all Christians believe the mysteries, said he, three pages before, so they likewise all believ'd the Eucharist in Paschasus his time in the same manner as we believe it. They all then believ'd that 'tis the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, which he assum'd of the Virgin, and which is now in Heaven, and that the substance of the Bread is converted into it; yet without any change either in the tast, or colour of the Bread. What has Paschasus done to make 'em more mind it? Those mens minds, adds Mr. Arnaud, which are not sufficiently humble are apt to startle, and endeavour by their reason to find out ways whereby to shun the difficulties which they cannot bear. Whence should this startling come, sup∣posing they believed of the Eucharist what is commonly believed at this day of it in the Church of Rome? Did they never hear say before that they received in the Communion the proper substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin, dead and buried, nor that the substance of Bread is converted into this substance? If 'twere a novelty, as to them, they did not then believe Transubstantiation, nor the Real Presence; for 'tis precisely in these ideas wherein these Doctrins do consist; and if it be this particular manner of proposing the mystery which affrights them, it must be necessarily acknowledg'd either that they were strangers to these ideas before, or that they had been till that time very stupid and drowsie, seeing they felt not the least trouble about it, altho they had 'em always before their eyes; whereas now a simple proposal of the same things, with∣out any objection, without exaggeration, affrights, and constrains them to find out by their reason ways whereby t'avoid the difficulties which they cannot bear. And then they commonly set upon him who proposed it to 'em, en∣deavouring to distinguish him from the rest of the faithful. Which is to say, that they then lose their senses. For 'tis mere madness to set particularly upon

Paschasus, who only proposed to 'em in a manner the most simple imagin∣able, if we will believe Mr. Arnaud, without either Preface, says he, arti∣ficial method, or disguise, what the whole Church believ'd, and what they believe themselves. Even sometimes these ill opinions are already formed. Here Mr. Arnaud acknowledges one part of the truth. For the truth is, that these people here mention'd never heard of the novelties of Paschasus. They knew only that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in Figure, in Sacrament, and in Virtue, as they themselves explain'd their sense about it; and this was the true cause of their astonishment, and the only reason for which they accus'd Paschasus of Enthusiasms and Visions. But let Mr. Arnaud explain, if he pleases, in what manner according to him these per∣sons lived in the Communion of the Church. They turn'd to their own sense, says he, most of the common expressions. How happens it Mr. Arnaud, who but the last moment could not suffer me to say Paschasus abused an ex∣pression of the Church, and turn'd it to another sense, now comprehended well enough, that this whole Party turn'd to their sense most of the com∣mon expressions? He that told us that Paschasus would be a mad man should he make use of this expression had he known the Church understood it in another sense, will grant at present that these persons accommodated the greatest part of the Churches expressions to their sense, without troubling 'emselves with the sense wherein the Church understood them? Mr. Ar∣naud's Argument is like Aristotle's prima materia, capable of any form at divers times. Does his interest require the Churches expressions to be abu∣sed? This may be done, there are reasons for it. Does the same interest re∣quire that it be a sensless thing to abuse 'em: This cannot be, and the rea∣sons on the contrary are not wanting. For in fine, either these people were ignorant of the true sense in which the Church understood these expressi∣ons, or they were not. If they were ignorant of it, Paschasus might be as well ignorant of it as they. If they were not ignorant of it, and yet abu∣sed it, Paschasus might as well do the same, contrary to his own knowledg. They turn'd to their sense most of the usual expressions. It seems that Mr. Arnaud by this supposes there were some of these expressions which might be turn'd by them. Yet he adds; And hence it happens that if any other person in following the ordinary notions makes use of any terms which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense, they charge this person with rashness. This discourse thus couch'd has no coherence, for if amongst the ordinary expressions there remain'd still some of 'em, which they could not reduce to their sense, why must they set upon Paschasus in particular, who not only follow'd the sense of the Church, but also her ex∣pressions, to wit, those which were too plain and full to be perverted? Why must he then be accused of rashness? 'Tis evident Mr. Arnaud stood upon Thorns, when he wrote this Answer. A reason must be given why these persons before us reprehended Paschasus in particular, and accused him of being a rash person. Now there cannot be naturally any other but this, That Paschasus had proposed a new Doctrin in the Church which was never before heard of; having asserted the Eucharist to be the same Flesh of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, dead and risen again. Mr. Arnaud to avoid the making of this Confession, supposes there were a party in the Church that did not believe the Real Presence; he will have these persons turn to their sense the common expressions; but not being able to do the same with that of Paschasus, this was the reason why they set upon him in particular, and accused him of rashness. To make this answer pass currant, it must be necessarily supposed that the expressions of Paschasus were peculiarly of this

nature, that they could not be turn'd to the sense of these people, and that this was their particular character which distinguish'd them from all the common expressions, for a reason must be found why they set particularly upon Paschasus as a rash person, and this reason must be something that was singular in Paschasus, But to acknowledg this frankly and clearly Mr. Ar∣naud must engage himself in terrible ill conveniencies, for this would be an acknowledging there was not any thing in the common expressions of the Church at that time which was expresly for the Real Presence, and which might not be turn'd to another sense; which is to say, that all the common expressions were general, equivocal, and ambiguous. By this means he would have exposed himself to abundance of questions, as amongst others to these, Whence Paschasus could know the Church believ'd the Real Pre∣sence, seeing all her expressions were capable of another sense. Whence he knew the Church understood these expressions in one sense rather than in another, seeing she never express'd her self about 'em in a clear and incapa∣ble manner of being perverted. Who has given liberty to Paschasus to de∣termin what the Church did not determin, and t' express in particular terms what the Church only express'd in general ones? Mr. Arnaud who plainly foresaw these inconveniencies, has thought best to expess himself in an aenig∣matical manner, as those generally do who on one hand are urged by the force of truth and sequel of their own arguing, but who on the other are retain'd by the fear of saying too much. They pervert, says he, to their sense most of the common expressions, And hence it happens, that if any body else in following the common notions, makes use of any term which they cannot in the same manner reduce to their particular sense, they accuse this person of rash∣ness. This is exactly what we have reason to believe hapned in Paschasus his time. Here's exactly the description of a man that flies, but fears to be ta∣ken in flying, and therefore provides for himself another evasion against all occasions.

MY third proof is taken from Paschasus his proposing his Opinion in the manner of a paradox which must ravish the world with admiration. Altho these things, says he, have the figure of Bread and Wine, yet must we * 1.13 believe that they are nothing else after Consecration than the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. And therefore the truth it self said to his Disciples, This is my Flesh for the life of the world. And to explain my self in a more won∣derful manner. Et ut mirabilius loquar, 'tis entirely nothing else but the Flesh which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross, and is risen from the Sepulchre. These terms ut mirabilius loquar, are the expression of one that pretends to say something extraordinary and surprizing.

Mr. ARNAƲD answers, That all Miracles are not Paradoxes: I grant * 1.14 it, and therefore they are not all express'd in this manner, ut mirabilius loquar. Did S. Chrysostom, adds he, offer a Paradox when he broke forth into this expression concerning the Eucharist, O wonderful! he that is at the right hand of God is between the hands of the Priests? I answer, that in ef∣fect this discourse of Chrysostom is a true Paradox, a Paradox of an Orator, which seems at first to contradict common sense, altho that in effect being rightly understood it does not; but that of Paschasus is a false Paradox, because it opposed in effect and at bottom not only common sense, but like∣wise truth. As to what remains, I know not why Mr. Arnaud will have these terms translated, ut mirabilius loquar, by these. The better to ex∣plain to you this marvail. The Rules of Grammar must be changed to

favour this Translation, ut mirabilius loquar, naturally signifies, to speak, or explain my self in a more admirable manner, or at most, to say something more admirable, which is to say, that the expression which he was going to use, or the thing it self which he was about to speak, was extraordinary and surprizing. Now this shews he acknowledg'd at least that his expres∣sions or conceptions were new, whence 'tis not difficult to conjecture that his Doctrin was as new as his expressions.

WE may make another conjecture from his submitting his Doctrin to the judgment of Frudegard, and intreating him to see what is reprehensible in it. He tells him he sends to him his Commentary on the 26. of S. Mat∣thew, and adds, Ʋt ex ipso considerare queas, quid intelligibilius credendum sit, vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate, To the end that you may know what is more rationally to be believed, or what there is in me that may be charitably blamed. Mr. Arnaud is mistaken if he believes I ground my conjecture in general on this deference of humility which Paschasus had for Frudegard. We know that wise Authors are wont to acknowledg them∣selves liable to mistakes, and submit themselves to the censures of their friends. 'Tis not this. Here is something more particular which I de∣sire may be considered. Paschasus declares in his Letter that he was cen∣sured for teaching the Real Presence, and taking the words of our Lord in a wrong sense. Even Frudegard himself proposes to him an objection against his Doctrin, he defends himself the best he can, he desires Frudegard to read his Book over often, he sends to him his Commentary on S. Matthew, wherein he treats of the same thing, and leaves Frudegard to the liberty of his judgment, to see what may be more rationally believ'd, or what may be charitably reprehended in him, Quid intelligibilius credendum sit, vel quid in me reprehendendum cum charitate. Who sees not the question is only of the Real Presence, and that what he submits to the judgment of Frudegard is to know which is most reasonable, either to believe it, or not to believe it; to know whether it be, or be not worthy of reprehension to have of∣fer'd it. But who does not likewise see that this cannot be the language of a man that taught nothing but what the Church then believed; for people do not thus submit the Faith of the whole Church, and such a clear, certain, and undeniable Faith, as Mr. Arnaud supposes this was, to the judgment of a particular person, leaving him at liberty to take that part which he finds most reasonable, and that of reprehending him, that is to say of censuring him, provided he does it with charity.

Mr. ARNAƲD reckons for my 6th. proof this, That Paschasus does * 1.15 never vaunt this his Doctrin was formally that of the whole Church. This re∣mark consists in a fact which we have already discuss'd, and found to be true. I need only add, that if ever man was oblig'd loudly to offer, and without hesitation, the formal consent of the Church of his time, and to protest he had said nothing but what all the Bishops, and Religious of his time spake in conformity with him, and what all the Faithful made professi∣on to believe with him, 'twas Paschasus. He was set upon in particular, he was reprehended for ill expounding the words of Christ, his Doctrin was opposed by a contrary Doctrin, he was accused for being a rash person, a visionary. Now how could he after all this neglect the shelt'ring himself from all these insultings, and making 'em return with confusion upon his Adversaries by saying clearly that all the faithful people in the Church at that time, whether Pastors or others spake no otherwise than he did, and that

his Adversaries were faln into the utmost excess of impudence? But in∣stead of this he has recourse to some passages which he perverts as well as he can to his sense, and to a clause of the Liturgy wherein there is Corpus Christi.

PASCHASƲS furnishes us likewise with another conjecture from the manner in which he explains his sentiments on this subject of the Eucharist. For he keeps as much as he can the Sacramental expressi∣ons, endeavouring to accommodate them to his sense, and proceeds sometimes so far that he seems to conserve the substance of Bread; which appears by several passages which I remark'd in my answer to the Perpe∣tuity, and which is not necessary to repeat here. Mr. Arnaud answers, That the only conclusion which reason draws from hence is, that these Sacramental * 1.16 expressions do perfectly agree with the Faith of the Real Presence. But if they do agree 'tis by constraint, and in doing violence to the nature and signification of the terms. When Paschasus says for example, In pane & vino sine ulla decoloratione substancioe hoc mysterium interius vi & potestate divina peragitur. What violence must not be offered these terms to accom∣modate them to the change of the substance of Bread? For to say that the substance of Bread loses not his colour, is an expression which naturally in∣cludes this sense, that the substance remains with its colour. What violence must not be offered these other terms. Caro & Sanguis per Spiritum San∣ctum consecratur, alioqui mihi nec caro est nec sanguis est, sed judicium quod percipio, quia sine donante spiritu nullum male proesumentibus donum ex Deo proestatur. What violence I say must not be offered them to accommodate 'em to the sense of Transubstantiation? For naturally these terms signifie, that 'tis the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Faithful, which makes the Bread and Wine be to 'em the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, for which reason the Wicked who have not the Holy Spirit do not receive this Flesh and Blood. This language then of constraint shews that Paschasus strove still to conserve the common expressions, altho that in effect they were contrary to him, whence we may easily conclude that he was an Innovator.

A seventh proof may be taken from the testimonies of Bellarmin and Sirmond both Jesuits, which I have already mention'd in my Answer to the Perpetuity. The one says that Paschasus was the first Author that wrote seriously and at large of the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eu∣charist, and the other assures us, that he was the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Catholick Church, in such a manner that he has opened the way to others. The first idea which these words present us with is, that Pas∣chasus was the first Author that proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence clearly, and in plain and precise terms; for this is what is meant by the Serio of Bellarmin, and especially the Explicuit of Sirmond. And 'twill signifie nothing to answer as Mr. Arnaud does, that these passages mean on∣ly that Paschasus was the first who collected into one Book what lay scattered in * 1.17 several of the Fathers Writings, according as Athanasius was the first who wrote expresly Treatises on the Trinity, and S. Cyril the first who largely wrote of the Incarnation and Ʋnity of persons in our Lord and Saviour, as S. Augustin is the first who has largely and seriously treated of Original Sin, and that as Paschasus had good success in this labor, and in effect well collected the true sentiments of the Fathers, so he has been follow'd by all that came after him. This answer is an illusion, for 'tis far from completely answering Sir∣mond's words, Genuinum, says he, Ecclesioe Catholicoe sensum ita primus ex∣plicuit, * 1.18

ut viam coeteris aperuit, qui de eodem argumento multa postea scri∣psere. He means not that Paschasus was the first who collected in one Book what lay here and there in the Writings of the Fathers, but that he first ex∣plain'd the true sense of the Catholick Church. Before him, according to Sirmond, this true sentiment, which is to say, the Doctrin of the Real Pre∣sence, for this is what he means, was a confused and hidden matter. Pas∣chasus was the first who brought it to light, and he did it in such manner that he opened the way to all that came after him. Till his time this way lay hid, he found it, first entred into it, and by his example moved others to do the same, Now this is the honestest confession imaginable, that Pas∣chasus was the first Author of this Doctrin; for in fine this explication of the true sentiment of the Church, and this way, are nothing else but the Real Presence, and he was the first discoverer of it. There cannot be any thing said like this of S. Athanasius in respect of the Trinity, nor of S. Cy∣ril in respect of the Incarnation, nor of S. Augustin in respect of Original Sin. It may be indeed said that they have treated more amply of these matters than what was done before, that they have more firmly grounded them by disengaging them from the objections of Hereticks; but it can ne∣ver be said they were the first that explain'd the true sentiment of the Ca∣tholick Church, for it was explain'd, and distinctly known before them. The Church worship'd before Athanasius his time three distinct persons in the Godhead, acknowledged two Natures, and one only person in Jesus Christ before S. Cyril's time, and S. Austin's, and also believ'd that all the Children of Adam came into the world infected with his corruption.

THESE are the seven proofs of Paschasus his Innovation, which Mr. Arnaud has cited from me, and which he has endeavoured to answer. But, besides these, there are also some others which he has past over in silence, and of which 'twill not be amiss to put him in mind. I draw then an eighth from the testimony of Berenger, which makes Paschasus precisely as we do, the Author of the Opinion which asserts the real conversion of the substan∣ces of Bread and Wine. Sententia, says he, imo vecordia vulgi, Paschasi * 1.19 atque Lanfranci minime superesse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis & vini. The opinion, or rather folly of the Vulgar, of Paschasus and Lanfranc, that the substance of Bread and Wine remains not after the Con∣secration. Lanfrac who cites these words, says a little after, that when the Letters of Berenger were read at Rome, 'twas known that he exalted John Scot and condemned Paschasus, intellecto quod Joannem Scotum extolleres Paschasium damnares. This moreover appears by Berenger's Letter to Ri∣chard, injustissime damnatum Scotum Joannem, injustissime nihilo minus asser∣tum Paschasium in Concilio Vercellensi. And his Letter to Ascelin, You are, * 1.20 says he, of a contrary opinion to all the laws of Nature, contrary to the Go∣spel, contrary to the sentiment of the Apostle, if you are of Paschasus his opi∣nion in what he ALONE has fancied or forged in his imagination, that the substance of Bread does no more subsist in the Sacrament of our Lords Body. Sapis contra omnes naturoe rationes, contra Evangelicam & Apostolicam sen∣tentiam, si cum Paschasio sapis, in eo quod SOLƲS sibi confingit Sacramento Dominici Corporis decedere panis omnino substantiam. Now on one hand this shews Mr. Arnaud's injustice, which attributes to the modern Mini∣sters th' invention of this History which makes Paschasus the first Author of the opinion of the Real Presence; and on the other this gives a great presumption that what the Ministers say touching Paschasus is true, seeing in the 11th. Century when the Dispute about the Eucharist grew hot, peo∣ple

said the same thing then we do now. We see Paschasus in the 9th. Century charg'd with Enthusiasms and Visions; in the 11th. respected as the Father of Transubstantiation, as he that drew it only from his own fan∣cy, these two matters of fact are moreover confirm'd by I know not how many other considerable matters hereunto relating. And Mr. Arnaud comes telling us confidently, that he marvails we should dare still attribute this Innovation to Paschasus, and that our proofs are mere sophisms and conje∣ctures not worth the minding.

THE anonymous Author which Cellot the Jesuit has publish'd furnishes us with a 9th. proof in his way of defending Paschasus. For having said, That some assert what we receeive from the Altar is the same as that which is * 1.21 born of the Virgin, and that others deny it, and say that 'tis another thing, he adds a little after. Now for those which say 'tis the same thing as that which was born of the Virgin, or say 'tis another thing, we shall relate the several opinions of the Holy Fathers which do indeed appear to be different, but yet be satisfactory enough were they fully understood with discretion. Now I speak of Paschasus Ratbert, Abbot of Corby, who whether he was required, or pro∣voked, for 'tis uncertain which, has wrote on this matter a Book of about an hundred Chapters, which he has fill'd with several Authorities of the Fathers, and under the name of S. Ambrose has therein establish'd that what we re∣ceive from the Altar is entirely the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the Cross, risen from the Sepulchre, and is at this day ossered for the life of the world. Raban in his Epistle to the Abbot Egilon, and one Ra∣tram in a Book dedicated to King Charles, argue sufficiently against him, say∣ing, that 'tis not this same Flesh; which they prove by the testimony of S. Hie∣rom, which says, that the Body of Jesus Christ may be said to be in two man∣ners, and by the Authority of S. Augustin, which says, that this term may be taken three ways. And because they maintain that in S. Ambrose's Books we do not find it exactly thus, we shall relate not only the passage of S. Ambrose without any alteration, but also those of S. Augustin, S. Hierom, and others in the manner we found 'em, to the end that having considered them it may appear to those to whom it shall please God to reveal it, that these great men did not differ one from another in opinion, and that in the Catholick Church we must all have the same mind without the least Schism. Hitherto we do not find that this defender of Paschasus has recourse to the publick Belief of the Church of his time, or protests that Paschasus has offered nothing but what all Christians did generally agree to, except some small number of troublesom Disputers, who denied in secret what they dared not contradict in publick, as Mr. Arnaud speaks.. We find on the contrary that he denotes those which held the Doctrin of Paschasus under the name of some, and the opposite party under the name of others. Dicentibus quibusdam idem esse quod sumitur de altari, quod & illud quod natum est ex Virgine, aliis autem negantibus. This is not the language of one who was persuaded the whole Church spake like Paschasus. But this will still further appear if we consider what this same Author adds afterwards, for having alledged some passages of the Fathers which he believ'd favour'd Paschasus, Hoec ideo, says he, po∣sita sunt si forte per ea simplicitas Paschasi Ratberti possit excusari, unde ma∣xime ab obloquentibus Rabano & Ratramno sugillari videtur, quid dixerat ean∣dem esse carnem quoe de Altari sumitur & de virgine generatur, & quoe quo∣tidie adhuc pro mundi salute immolatur. I have brought these passages to see whether one could not excuse the simplicity of Paschasus Ratbert, especially in respect of that particular for which he is blamed by his Adversaries, Raban

and Ratram, for saying that what we receive from the Altar is the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin, and is still every day immolated for the salva∣tion of the world. Now let any man seriously tell me, whether people are wont to defend after this manner one who has the whole Church on his side, excepting some troublesom rash Disputers? Is such a ones simplicity endeavoured to be excused by any body? Do we say in such a case, if per∣haps it may be excusable? Do people place on one hand irreconcilable Ad∣versaries who defame him, and on the other simple excuses, and excuses offered in a fearful and doubtful manner, Si forte simplicitas Paschasii possit excusari? Let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases, the discourse of this anony∣mous Author offers such an idea of the Adversaries of Paschasus as of per∣sons that delivered themselves openly in the Church, who had then advan∣tage over Paschasus, even to the defaming him for teaching the Real Pre∣sence, and furnishes us at the same time with the idea of Paschasus, as of a man who must be excused upon the account of his simplicity, but yet his expressions may be defended by some passages of the Fathers. Now these two ideas plainly enough shew that Paschasus was an Innovator.

THERE are other proofs in my Answer to the Perpetuity which I do not think necessary to repeat here, having nothing more to add to 'em. We will pass then to Authors who were Contemporaries with Paschasus, to know of them whether they taught the same Doctrin as he did.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.2

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 860.
• * 1.3

  Paschas. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. cap. 2.
• * 1.4

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.5

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 852.
• * 1.6

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 859.
• * 1.7

  Comment in Matth. 26.
• * 1.8

  Ibid.
• * 1.9

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861, 862.
• * 1.11

  Page 868.
• * 1.12

  Poenitent. Rab. cap. 33.
• * 1.13

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.14

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 865.
• * 1.15

  Page 868.
• * 1.16

  Page 866.
• * 1.17

  Book 8 ch. 10. page 867.
• * 1.18

  Invita pasch.
• * 1.19

  Apud Lanfranc. lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.20

  Tom. 2. Spic. in not. advitam Lanfran. ad Luc. D' Actery.
• * 1.21

  Cellot in ap∣pend. ad Hist. Cottesch.