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.

AN ANSVVER TO Mr. Arnaud's Book INTIT'LED, The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholick Church, touching the Eucharist defended.

PART II.

BOOK V.

Wherein is treated of the belief of the Moscovites, Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites, and other Churches, called Schismaticks, of the belief of the Latins in the seventh and eighth Centuries, and of the Conse∣quences which Mr. Arnaud draws from the pretend∣ed Consent of these Churches, in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

CHAP I.

Of the Moscovites.

That the Moscovites do not believe Transubstantiation.

HAVING thus cleared up the Point in reference to the Greeks, I come now in order to the Examination of Mr. Arnaud's fifth Book, wherein he treats of the other Churches called Schismaticks, which are separated as well from the Greek Church, as the Roman. The first of those Churches which he Offers us is that of the Moscovites, and he immediately acknowledges that she makes up a part of the Greek one, and that the same

Proofs which serve for the one, suffice for the other. But this acknowledg∣ment ill agreeing with the Design, he had to make this the Subject of four Chapters; he say's afterwards, he thought himself obliged to treat of this at * 1.1 large, as well for that the Fallacious arguings which Mr. Claude makes thereup∣on, deserve to be represented; as that also, the Opinion of the Moscovites appeared to him very Considerable in this matter. To speak plainly, these are meer frivolous Pretences, as it will appear in the sequel, and unless he ima∣gined this Multiplication of Objects would contribute something to his Glo∣ry, and make it more Illustrious; there can be no reason alledged for the mentioning of the Moscovites apart, for if it be true these People profess to follow the Greek Religion, (as he say's;) assoon as ever we are satisfied of the Doctrine of these last, we need not trouble our selves any longer, con∣cerning the Belief of the others. Yet we must accommodate our selves to Mr. Arnaud's method, and treat of the Moscovites seeing he will have it so.

TO begin with the state of these People, Moscovia is a great Nation pro∣fessing the Christian Religion, but otherwise extream Barbarous and Igno∣rant of the Doctrines of Christianity. Some have questioned whether they may reasonably be called Christians; whereupon Mr. Olearius has Plea∣santly * 1.2 say'd: That it may as well be questioned whether they are Men, seeing their Religion does not so greatly differ from that of other Christians, as their Morals, and way of Living does from that of other Men; but as they shew themselves Men by speech, and Laughter, so in like manner they appear to be Christians by * 1.3 Baptism, and the outward Profession of the Christian Religion. They refer them∣selves upon all Accounts to their Prince as to their Oracle, saying when they be asked touching any Point, That God and their Great Czar know it, and that 'tis by the especial Grace of their Czar, they are in Health, and can sit on Horse∣back. One of their Chief Maxims is to suffer no Preachers amongst them, and in Effect they have none, but content themselves with the reading of the Psalms, some Chapters of the Scripture, and S. Athanasius's Creed; to which they sometimes add an Homely of S. Chrysostom, or the Life of some of their Saints. Mr. Olearius adds, That one of their Priests setting himself to Preach, and exhort the People out of the word of God to the duty of Prayer, the Patriarch deposed him together with some other Priests who followed his Example; that he excommunicated them and sent them into Siberia,

THERE are neither Accademy's nor Colledges amongst them, and it would be a Crime punishable by the Laws of that Kingdom, for a man to * 1.4 apply himself to the study of Sciences. They have only some small Schools wherein they teach Children to Write and Read, and perhaps a little Greek and Latine in one Corner of the Kingdom.

HENCE it is their Ecclesiasticks are so Prodigiously ignorant that * 1.5 Mr. Olearius tells us; There is scarcely any amongst their very Monks and Priests that can give an Account of his Faith, because they have none to Preach the word of * 1.6 God to them. And therefore the Patriarch will not permit 'em to Dispute about Religion, nor inform themselves by means of Strangers. Possevin likewise tells us, that demanding of their Monks who was the founder of their Order; * 1.7 not one of 'em could return him an Answer. And thus are we informed in the Ambassage of the Earl of Carlile: The Religion of the Moscovites is the * 1.8 same which the Greeks profess, for they follow their Faith, Rights, and Cere∣monies; but they are so Ignorant, that they scarce know themselves what Religion they are of.

THEIR Superstition is no less than their Ignorance, witness their calling * 1.9 their Images their Gods; saying when they enter into any House, I est le Boch, where is the God? Witness likewise their re-baptizing themselves every year, and not only their own Persons, but in like manner their Ima∣ges * 1.10 and Horses. And their giving a Testimonial or Pass port in due form and manner to their Dead, attesting, they have lived good Christians and observed the Greek Religion, to the end that S. Peter in seeing their Testimonial may ad∣mit them into Heaven. Witness moreover that fabulous and impious Book, mentioned by Olearius, wherein they have corrupted the Historical passages of the Gospel, adding thereto filthy and abominable Circumstances, such as is this amongst others: That Mary Magdalen prostituting her self one day * 1.11 out of Charity, her Action was so Meritorious in the sight of God, that it expiated all her past sins, and caused her to be Canonized in the Register of Saints.

I could willingly forbear mentioning things of this Nature, did not I find that Mr. Arnaud in his Discourses concerning these People, seems to repre∣sent us with an Idea of the most happy and flourishing People in the World.

THIS is, say's he, a great Kingdom almost intirely separate from all others. * 1.12 This is a Nation which has ever had but little Commerce with the rest of the Na∣tions of the World, few Persons Voyaging into those parts, and few Moscovites into Asia and Europe. There was never in this Country a mixture of Persons of divers Communions. It cannot be say'd the Latins have brought over their O∣pinions here by Croisados; and 'tis observed by all Authors that these People are exceeding careful to preserve their ancient Customs, and Doctrines. In fine, there is no Country in the World more tenacious of their Opinions, and which less easily admits a new one. The Church of this Kingdom is a Church purely Greek, and owes it's Conversion to the Greek Church, having received from her the Doctrine she Pro∣fesses. There are scarcely any other Books read amongst them, than some Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Tongue. The writings of these Fathers are expounded amongst them; they have no other Sentiments than those which Nature imprints in their Minds. Will not a man be apt to say in reading this De∣scription, that this Land is a kind of spiritual Canaan?

BUT what signifies disguising of things at this rate? Besides what I now related touching the Ignorance, and Superstitions reigning in this Church; we need only observe what judgment Possevin who lived several years in Mos∣covia makes of them. In respect of Schism, say's he, it cannot be imagin'd how deep∣ly * 1.13 they are ingaged in it, holding their Opinions for inviolable Maxims, or rather, adding still somthing to them, than abating any of them. It is the same with the Mosco∣vites as with those who once have wandred from the Unity of a Principle, the forward∣er they go, the more they multiply their Errors, just as may be observed in the Inno∣vators of our times. The Moscovites having receiv'd their Schism from the Greeks have departed from 'em, and having no Books, nor Learning they therefore abound with impertinencies. And yet according to Mr. Arnaud, this is the only Country in the World for conserving a Doctrine already established, and the least like∣ly to embrace a new Opinion. The same Possevin tells us that the Great Duke * 1.14 Basil having caused a Greek Priest to come into his Country, whom the Patri∣arch of Constantinople sent him, he threw him into Prison, and would not release him altho requested by the Turkish Emperor, because the Priest told

him, he found the Moscovites had erred from the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Greek Church; and from that time, they had no more Recourse to the Patriarch of Constantinople, for his Confirmation of the Metropolitain of Moscovia. In another place, he observes expressly that they differ in seve∣ral * 1.15 things from the Latins: Which caused Sacranus the Channon of Cracovia, * 1.16 to say, that they abuse in several things the Rights of the Greeks, and have been ever Reputed by the Greeks for Hereticks, which have departed from them. This proposition of Sacranus may be excessive, but it may be well concluded thence, that the Moscovites are indeed of the Grecian Religion, but, have not so carefully preserved it, but that 'tis alter'd in several things.

THIS pretended firmness which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them, has not hindred the Greek Religion, from being corrupted amongst them, nei∣ther has it hindred the Latins from using their utmost Endeavors, to introduce their Doctrines amongst them; nor Possevin from laying his Designs in Order thereunto. It has not hindred the Popes from sending their Emissaries a∣mongst * 1.17 them, as I have already show'd in the second Book, nor from making use of Merchants, who under pretence of Commerce obtain an easier access into these Countries, as appears by the History of Paul Jovius, nor Arcu∣dius * 1.18 a Latiniz'd Greek, from spending twenty years in Lituania, Russia, and Moscovia, in the propogating of the Romish Religion, as he himself testifies * 1.19 in his Letter, to Sigismond King of Poland, nor Seminaries from being set up in Lituania and other places, for the instructing of the Moscovites Children in the Romish Religion, as Possevin tells us. This firmness does not hinder, * 1.20 but that they have made use not only of Polanders for the Reduction of these People, who hold a particular Commerce with them, but especially, of the re-united Russians who appear less suspected to the Moscovites; because they * 1.21 observe still the Greek Rites. In fine this does not hinder the false Greeks, who having finished their studies in the Seminary at Rome, do return into Greece, from promoting the interest of the Roman Church, under the habit and dis∣guise of Schismatical Greeks, and from passing over from Greece into Mosco∣via when occasion Offers, as appears by the Example of Paysius Ligaridius, who wrote in Mosco it self, his Treatise of the Eucharist in favour of Mr. Ar∣naud, and at the Solicitation of Mr. de Pompone.

IS not this then a delusory Remark which Mr. Arnaud has made, That it cannot be alledged, the Latins have brought their Opinions into these parts by Croisado's? This is true, but if they have not brought them thither by Croi∣sado's, they have done whatsoever they have been able in order to the intro∣ducing them by Missions and Seminaries, by Commerce of Merchants, by Poland, Russia, and Greece it self which is their Mother-Church. Now can it seem strange to us if with all these Machins, and by abusing the Ignorance and stupidity of these People, they have been made to believe that Transub∣stantiation is a Doctrine of the Greek Religion, and consequently one of theirs? And can it be imagined, we are such Fools to make our Faith depend on that of this People? What Mr. Arnaud adds: That there is scarcely any other Books * 1.22 read amongst them, than the Writings of some of the Greek Fathers translated into the Sclavonian Language, does not well agree with what Possevin tells us, that they understand not any more of the Sclavonian Language, than what nearly re∣lates to theirs, or that of Poland. What signifies the reading of Greek Fathers Translated into a Language which the People understand not?

BUT let us see what kind of Proofs Mr. Arnaud brings to Convince us,

that the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation. The first he Offers is the si∣lence of all Authors, that have written on the Religion of this Church, who do not Remark that it differs in this Point from the Romane: To en∣hance the Value of this Proof, he Immediately complains that I have not alledged any thing that is Real and Positive, whereby to maintain my Thesis. It is strange, say's he, that Mr. Claude treating of this Matter, should choose rather to devine the Opinion of these People on weak Conjectures, than to inform himself whether he might not meet in so many Books, that mention the Religion * 1.23 of the Moscovites, real Proofs of what he would willingly find. He afterwards reproaches me with my Negligence in not reading those Books, and Pro∣tests he has not been guilty of the like, having read whatsoever he could find written on this Subject, eight Authors on one side, several Treatises on the other, such as Possevin, Baronius, Raynoldus, Botter, Breerwood, Hornbeck, and several others.

THERE is no need of this Account. There being no body as I know of that questions Mr. Arnaud's industry; we on the contrary blame him for taking so much Pains for nothing. As to my own part believing as I do, that the World do's not much concern it self, whether I am Diligent or Lazy, I shall not make this a matter of Debate, only say, that Mr. Arnaud with all his Reading will be no less perplexed than my self, how negligent soever I am, should ei∣ther of us be put upon the producing of the Testimony of one single Mosco∣vite Author, that expresly mentions Transubstantiation, either one way or other. If then by real Proofs, he means passages of the Moscovites them∣selves, I beg of him to shew me who are the Authors of this Nation, that have treated of the Mysteries of Christian Religion, for excepting the Let∣ter of John the Metropolitain of Moscou, which Sigismond d' Herberstein has * 1.24 published together with the Canons of another John, and the Answer of Niphon Bishop of Novograd, I know none that have written about Religion, or any thing else, and these three Pieces aforementioned, are but five pages of Paper in all. But if by these real Proofs Mr. Arnaud means the Testimo∣nies of those who have described the Religion of these People, his Com∣plaint has no grounds. We have already told him that Travellers, and those that make Discourses of distant Nations, give us seldom any other than a general Relation of their Opinions, without descending to Particularize what they hold or reject. So that there can be nothing certainly concluded from the silence of these Authors.

IT is to no purpose to say, that in the Comparisons they make of Religions, it is always with the Roman Catholick Religion, that they Compare all others, and that * 1.25 in this Comparison, the Principal differences are designed to be marked out. For supposing they all of 'em took this Course, it is certain they must reduce all these Principal differences, to those which spring from an express and actu∣al Opposition, wherein on one hand the Roman Church professes to believe such a Point, and the Church which is compared with it, professes on the contrary to oppose and reject it. So that we must not wonder if those that have discoursed of the Religion of the Moscovites have observed, that they hold as fabulous the fire of Purgatory, acknowledge not the Authority of the Pope, Communicate under both kinds, and give the Communion to Children, and yet have not observed that they do not hold Transubstantiati∣on. These Points are openly controverted between the Greek Church of which the Moscovite makes a part, and the Latine, but that of Transubstan∣tiation is not so. They do not teach it, neither yet do they make thereof a point of Controversie.

IF there can be any advantage drawn from the silence of these Authors it falls to me. For being most of them Roman Catholicks, and knowing well the Importance of this Article, and how greatly controverted in our Western parts, there is no Likely-hood if they had found it held, established, and taught amongst the Moscovites, but they would remark as much, on purpose to gratifie in this the Roman Church, and indeavour to clear it from the reproach of Innovation; neither must Mr. Arnaud imagine, that he is the only Person that had in his Eye the Schismatical Churches for the defence of the controverted Points in our Europe. These aforementioned Authors are not wanting to tell us of the Devotion which these People have for I∣mages, the worship they give their Saints, their Prayers for the Dead, their fastings, Monks, Confession, extream Unction, and in a word of all particulars wherein they are agreed with the Roman Church, and are contrary to the Protestants. How then comes it to pass they have forgotten that of Tran∣substantiation? It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say, that they do not particularly Remark the Articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, touch∣ing the Death of Christ, nor the others in the Creed, for besides that this is not absolutely true, there being some of these Authors, who declare the Moscovites hold Athanasius's Creed, and the seven first Councils, and con∣sequently the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. Besides this I say, these Articles are not debated between the Romanists and Protestants, as the others are, and especially that of the Conversion of Substances.

BUT say's Mr. Arnaud, we will shew Mr. Claude that they are not all of 'em silent on this Point, there being some that clearly affirm the Moscovites * 1.26 hold Transubstantiation. Which we are to Examine. He tells us then, that Paulus Jovius having observed they reject Purgatory, and disown the Popes Supremacy, and follow the Greeks Ceremonies, makes a general Conclusion concerning all the other Articles, that they hold the same as we do: In caeteris Eadem, quae a nobis de Religione sentiuntur constan••••ssime credunt. I think, adds Mr. Arnaud, that the Real presence and Transubstantiation are Articles * 1.27 important enough to be comprehended under this general Proposition. Were this a right consequence it would likewise follow hence, that the Moscovite Priests do not marry no more than those of the Latins, for Paulus Jovius say's nothing of that. It would follow they baptized not with three Im∣mersions, and hold all other Baptism to be of none Effect, for Paulus Jovi∣us does not remark this. Neither does he any more take Notice, that they reject the Confirmation of a Bishop, hold fasting on Saturday to be a great Crime, abhor the eating of Creatures strangled, and yet these Arti∣cles are as important in respect of the Moscovites as any others, seeing they make them principal Controversies, not being able to bear with them that are of contrary Opinions. Mr. Arnaud must not be so quick at drawing Consequences, or imagine that Paulus Jovius has been so exact in all that * 1.28 he has written concerning the Moscovites. For he tells us, they have St. Ambrose's works, St. Austin's, St. Jerom's, where St. Gregory's translated in∣to the Sclavonian Tongue, and highly respect them; and Possevin the Je∣suite tells us, that having made an exact inquiry into this particular, he could find no such thing, neither believes the Name of these Authors is known to * 1.29 these People, altho those of St. Ambrose and Gregory, may be seen in their Kalender, and that at the Princes Court, he could hear nothing of this.

SACRANUS a Chanon of Cracovia, adds Mr. Arnaud, who gives us

the largest Catalogue he could of the Errors of the Moscovites, say's touch∣ing the eigth Error. That according to the Moscovites, the Body of our Savi∣our * 1.30 Christ cannot be Consecrated with Azymes, and on the sixteenth Error. That they cut a Morsel of the Bread prepar'd for the Sacrifice into the form of a Triangle, and Consecrate it to make thereof the Body of our Saviour Christ, in Corpus Christi consecrant, and in the eighteenth Error, Consecrant panem in Corpus Christi.

'TIS certain Mr. Arnaud makes a small matter serve for a Proof. The Moscovites Consecrate the Bread, in Corpus Christi, into the Body of Jesus Christ, or to be the Body of Jesus Christ. They believe then Transubstantiati∣on; 'Tis evident for the Establishing of this Conclusion, there is need of * 1.31 something more precise than this. But, say's he, this is a Catholick that speaks thus, and who would be understood to speak of the real Body of Jesus Christ, that attributes this same Belief to the Moscovites. When Sacranus or any other that professes the Roman Religion speaks as from himself, and the question concerns his own Faith, we can easily believe that in a Discourse of the Eucharist, by the Body of Christ, he means the proper substance of this Body, for we know that this is the Sence, and Style of the Roman Church. But when he Discourses of the Moscovites, and the question concerns their Faith, we believe that in saying they Consecrate the Bread in Corpus Christi, he pretends no more, than to use the same Terms which the Moscovites use, without concerning himself with the Sense in which they take these words. They must be taken in the Sense the Moscovites give 'em. What Sense is that? This Sacranus does not determine, and to go about to decide it, by what Sacranus himself believed concerning the Sacrament is a meer Illusion.

AS to what John le Ferre Confessor to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand re∣lates, * 1.32 that the Consecration is performed amongst them, by pronouncing our Savi∣our's words, and that they attribute to them so great Vertue, that assoon as ever they are uttered by the Priest, they believe the Creature gives place to the Crea∣tor; we must tell Mr. Arnaud, that he does not do fairly in offering us a Fa∣bulous relation, such as is this le Ferre's. This Author assures us, that only the Bishops amongst the Moscovites Administer Confirmation, that they do it by the laying on of Hands, in making the sign of the Cross, and anointing the Par∣ty Confirmed on the Forehead. That one of the chief Offices of the Priest is to Preach the Gospel of Christ to the People, which they do not only every Sunday, but also on the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin and Apostles. That God's Word is Preached and heard with great Devotion. That they certainly hold the Doctrine of Purgatory. Acknowledge the Supremacy of the Roman Prelate, as being Christ's Vicar, and St. Peters Successor. That they freely assist at Mass with the Latins. This is all false, as appears by other Relations of these People. * 1.33 And therefore Possevin has not scrupled to reckon this John le Ferre amongst those Authors, which are counted fabulous, because, say's he, they have been mis-informed, or did not write with a Design to discover the Venom, to apply thereunto a Remedy. What signifies then such peoples Testimony.

NOT to take notice that these Terms, The Creature gives place to the Creator, are not sufficient to make us conclude from hence Transubstantiation. It being a general Expression capable of divers Senses. For when we should say with Theodoret, that the Divine Grace accompanies Nature, or with St. Au∣stin, that the Bread becomes of an Aliment a Sacrament, or with the Greeks, that it is changed into the Vertue of Christ's body, the Creature will still

give place to the Creator without any Conversion of substance. So that howsoever we take John le Ferre's Testimony 'tis invalid; and does not at all help Mr. Arnaud's Cause. But he having made a general Collection of good and bad Authors, John le Ferre must have his place amongst the rest.

I Confess that Lasicius the Polander that relates this Testimony, has taken it in the Sence of Transubstantiation, and as we need not doubt but that the Design of John le Ferre, was to make the World believe that the Mosco∣vites hold this Doctrine, so likewise we must not find it strange if those that refer themselves to his Authority, as Lasicius has done, do take it no o∣therwise. Had Lasicius well examined this Relation of John le Ferre's, he would have found it full of false Reports, and easily find his Authors main De∣sign was to render the Moscovite Religion, as Conformable as he could to the Roman; and by this means to deceive his Readers, and especially, the Pro∣testants whom he had at that time in his Eye. He would then have absolute∣ly rejected the Authority of such a Man, who has palpably disguised the Truth: He might at least distinguish in respect of the Words in question, Ferre's Sence, from the Sence of the Moscovites themselves, supposing they were their own Words. But this he has not done, altho he ought to have done it, and thence it is that on this bare Testimony without any other Proof, Lasicius has believed that the Opinion of the Moscovites leaned towards Transubstantiation. Whence it follows, we ought not lightly to Credit whatsoever a suspected Author shall tell us, concerning the Religion of Strangers, but it does not follow 'tis true in the main, that the Moscovites be∣lieve the Conversion of Substances.

WE must then come to the Testimonies of Dannaverus professor of Strasburg, and Mr. Olearius the Duke of Holstein's Library-Keeper; Persons of greater Reputation. Both say the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation: They put, say's Dannaverus, into the Wine contained in the Chalice, the Bread broken into pieces; they Bless it, and believe 'tis Transubstantiated. They hold Tran∣substantiation say's Mr. Olearius. So that here we have two express Testi∣monies, and against which it seems there can be nothing alledged. As to Dannaverus, he has only followed Olearius's Authority, knowing no more of the Religion of the Moscovites, than what he has receiv'd from the reading of Authors, as appears by his Treatise. But as to Mr. Olearius, he is a Per∣son of great Learning, and has lived in those Countries, and made it his Busi∣ness to be informed of this Point, and who not only gives us this Account in his Book, but has likewise Confirm'd it, in a Letter written to one of Mr. Ar∣naud's Friends upon occasion of this present Dispute, and Mr. Arnaud has not failed to make thereof a matter of Triumph.

IT will be no hard matter to reply to Mr. Olearius's Testimony, and clear it from all Perplexity. And this will be done by considering his own * 1.34 Words, as well in his Book as Letter. Those in his Book as the Author of the Perpetuity relates them, from the Original High-Dutch are, They believe Transubstantiation, that is to say, that the Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ. Those of his Letter * 1.35 related by Mr. Arnaud: I wrote expresly in the Relation of my Voyage, that the Moscovites hold Transubstantiation, that is to say, they believe the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. Distinguish then Mr. Olearius's Testimony, from his private Judgment, and you'l clear the Difficulty. His Testimony is, that the Moscovites believe the Bread and

Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which he has deno∣ted by these Terms, which is to say that they believe the bread to be changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. His private Judg∣ment is that this may be termed the belief of Transubstantiation, which he signifies by these following words. They hold Transubstantiation.

SO that the whole of this Testimony amounts to no more than the change of the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood, and his saying that they believe Transubstantiation has no other grounds than his own per∣sawsion that this is in effect a conversion of Substance. He does not attribute this to them but under the favour of his that is to say, They hold Transubstan∣tiation, says he, that is to say, the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood.

THIS that is to say explains what he means, and punct∣ually determines what the Moscovites hold. If to change and transubstantiate are one and the same thing, his Proposition must be received in its full ex∣tent, if they are not, the Change belongs to the Moscovites, the Transubstan∣tier to the private sence of M. Olearius. We then respectfully receive his Testimony without the least question of his sincerity; but as to his particu∣lar Judgement, we hope he will be so equitable as to lay no necessity upon us to receive it. For should we judge otherwise then he has done he will have no just cause to be angry. Neither had he any reason to be offended * 1.36 at the Answer I made the Author of the Perpetuity. That 'tis very likely he was mistaken by false conjectures, and that having heard of the change of Bread, he imagined this was the change of Substance. which is the same thing I say now. The distinction which I make between his Testimony and his Judgment is grounded on his own proper Terms, and the liberty which I pretend to have of rejecting the one and receiving the other is no more than what com∣mon Justice will allow me. I can therefore see no reason for his stuffing his Letter with rough and passionate expressions, which agree not well with the Character he bears, and which I suppose he has learned of the bar∣barous People he has so long conversed with. Why would he have us believe, the change of Bread into the Body is the Transubstantiation of the Latins, seeing we find on the contrary that this is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, of which expression we have so often already manifested the sence; The Moscovites follow the Greek Religion we grant, the Greeks say the Bread is changed, the Moscovites affirm the same, the Question is only whether to change is the same as to transubstantiate. Now I have plainly displayed the difference betwixt these two Terms in reference to the Greeks; we must then conclude the same in respect of the Moscovites. It appears from M. Olearius his own Relation what we are to conclude touching his exactness. For in the same place where he tells us the Moscovites believe Transubstantiation, he adds, that the rest of the consecrated Bread serves for Panis Benedictus. Now this would be a great impiety to make this the proper Substance of the body of Christ, but even in this he is mistaken, for what serves amongst these People for Panis Benedictus is only the Remains of the Bread from whence is taken the great Particle which is afterwards consecra∣ted and called the Body of Jesus Christ, and not the Remains of the consecra∣ted Bread.

BUT to oppose against the private Judgment of M. Olearius something yet more precise, I need only here relate what the Author of the Relation

of the three Ambassages of M. Carlile wrote on this Subject. 'Tis the Te∣stimony of an Honorable Person, who lived a considerable time in those parts, and since M. Olearius, who wanted neither Judgment, Sincerity, nor Curiosity to inform himself and us touching the belief of these people, in reference to Transubstantiation, without the least regard to the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and my self, as having no other design then that of * 1.37 discovering the Truth. Moreover, says he, I could not find by 'em what Olearius mentions, namely, that they hold Transubstantiation: and there are three Reasons inducing me to believe thty are not of this Opinion. For first, when we discourse with them, touching the Consequences of this Doctrine, they testifie their dislike of it: and to maintain it, fly not to the Almighty power of God as the Roman Catholicks do. 2. 'Tis more then probable that if they believed Transubstantiation, they would respect this Mystery more than they do, and it would be very strange that in so superstitious a Religion as theirs is, they should be behind hand in Zeal and Devotion, especially in a particular wherein it ought chiefly to appear, as we see it does amongst those of the Church of Rome. In fine, had they that Opinion which Olearius attributes to them, they must have it from the Greeks from whom they have received their Doctrines. But we do not find the Greeks were of this Opiwion. Let Mr. Arnaud then himself judge whe∣ther he may reasonably expect to prevail by means of Mr. Olearius his Ex∣plication.

WE come now to the Testimony of Paysius Ligaridius, but having already considered it in the foregoing Book, we shall trouble our selves no farther with him. 'Tis not to be doubted but the same thing may be done in Muscovia as in Greece, that is to say there may be persons brought in and settl'd there who finish'd their Studies in some of the Seminaries erected for this purpose. 'Tis certain whosoever shall address himself to these Persons (who are not only bred up in the Church of Rome, and sworn to ob∣serve it's Confession of Faith, but sent on purpose to communicate it to others, prevailing by means of their Ignorance) whether soever they be, whether in Muscovia or Greece, their Testimony shall not be wanting. But every body knows the Value of them. Let us pass on then to the Moscovite Priest, that accompanied, not long since the great Dukes Ambassador to his Majesty of France, who after Dinner, as 'tis say'd, at the Arch-Bishop of Sens, was desired to declare what the Moscovites held concerning the Eucha∣rist. There may be several considerable Reflexions made on this Relation; but not to enter into particulars, I say the Testimony of this Person is not sufficiently Authentick to decide our Question. We have already seen by Mr. Olearius his Relation that the Moscovit Priests are so ignorant in general that there is scarcely any amongst them can give an account of their faith, or knows the Religion professed in other Countries. These are two Characters that do not well agree with the use which Mr. Arnaud would make of this Priest. For to determine whether Transubstantiation be an Article of the Moscovite Religion, it ought to be known on one hand what it is the Latins call Transubstantiation, what they say and believe of it, and on the other, what the Moscovite Religion asserts touching the Eucharist. 'Tis no hard matter to make an ignorant Priest that speaks of a change of Bread into the Body of Christ believe tha•• he acknowledges a Transubstantiation. But not to wander from the point in hand, there is all the likelyhood in the World that that which passed at the Arch-Bishop of Sens is a meer Illusion. To judge of it we need only attentively consider the Expressions of the Relation which * 1.38 Mr. Arnaud has produced. After Dinner they withdrew into the Arch-Bishops

Chamber, where we began to Discourse them touching the different Customs of their Church, touching their Patriarchs Communion with the other Grcek Patri∣archs, concerning Fastings, Caelibacy, Prayer, their Liturgy, &c. But in fine the Arch-Bishop desirous to come to the main Point of which he was most desirous to be informed, prayed the Interpreter to tell him word for word what he was go∣ing to demand; having laid this strict charge on the Interpreter, he desired them to tell him their Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Mosco∣vite Priest answers without the least haesitation (which a little surprized us, for he had hither to stood as it were upon his Guard, as if he had feared the engaging too far in some point of Controversie, lest he might thereby endanger his Reputation) That it was the real Body and Blood of Christ, and that after the Priest had ut∣tered these words of our Saviour, this is my Body; the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and having said the same in respect of the Cup, the Wine is changed into his Blood. When the Interpreter had said this, the Arch-Bishop bad him tell him exactly word for word what the Priest had told him. The Inter∣preter told the Moscovite Priest what the Prelate desired, whereupon he repeated the same words the second time by the Interpreter. And for as much as he expres∣sed that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, he was asked whether the Moscovite Priest used a word which in his Language had the force of that of Transubstantiated in ours. He replyed, yes, and repeated the Moscovite word which signifies this, in looking on the Priest and Secretary, who both of them made Signs that this word was proper in their tongue and signified a change of Substance.

THE result of this Discourse is 1. That the Priest said 'twas the real Body and Blood of Christ, and that the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood. 2. That he repeated only the same words the second time. 3. That the Interpreter added, that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated. 4. That it was the Interpreter that profest the Moscovite word had the force of that of Transubstantiation. 5. That for a farther Confirmation, touching the force of the Word, he required the Priest's and Secretary's consent by a bare look, without speaking to them. 6. That the Priest and Secretary answered him by a sign without speaking. 7. That this sign signified this word was proper in their Tongue and signified a change of Substance.

IT is to be observed that this Interpreter was a Monk, not of the Moscovite Religion, but the Roman; and of the order of Jacobins, and that he explain∣ed in French what the Moscovites said in his Language, and in Moscovit what M. the Arch-Bishop of Sens said in French, for the Moscovites understood no more the French, than the French the Moscovit. Upon this remark which is beyond controul, for 'tis a matter of Fact well known throughout all Paris, I desire Mr. Arnaud to tell me why this Interpreter having returned the Answer of the Moscovite Priest, which he twice repeated in the same Terms without any Alteration, when he had I say given it in these words, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, wherefore did he add that the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated? Wherefore when he was asked whether the Priest used a Word which in his Tongue had the force of Transubstantiation, did he demand by a bare look the con∣sent of the Priest and Secretary to the Yes, which he answered, seeing the Priest and Secretary who understood not French, neither understood the Transubstantiated which he added, nor the Question put to the Interpreter, nor the Yes, he answered? Do they in Muscovia speak by sings or were

they agreed before hand that this look should signifie transubstantiated? How could the Priest and Secretary answer to that which they did not un∣derstand, why by signs, and why must this sign which answered a very obscure Question, signifie Transubstantiation? Certainly we are but sorry people here in the West in comparison of these Moscovites, that can treat of one of the most important Articles of Religion by signs and nodds, without know∣ing the point in question; had Mr. Arnaud and I learnt this Secret our Dispute would not be so tedious. Now if this be not delusory I know not any thing that I can call by that name.

'TIS certain the Moscovites profess to follow the Greek Religion although they have in some sort altered it. Which I told the Author of the Perpetuity, and this I did not assert upon light grounds, although Mr. Arnaud is pleased to say I did; seeing I said no more than what he himself acknowledges. This is a common Principle to us both, 'tis true, we draw hence different conse∣quences, but as matters are now stated and cleared, any man may easily judge which of us two has best grounded his Sentiment.

I said likewise that Lasicius affirms the Armenians although they deny Transubstantiation, yet do reverence the Sacrament more religiously than the Russians; whence I drew this Conclusion, that 'twas not likely the * 1.39 latter of these who are more cold in their Devotion should extend their Belief farther than the others, and that the others should have more respect for a Substance of Bread than these should have for what they esteemed the proper Substance of the Son of God. I know not what could oblige Mr. * 1.40 Arnaud to say, That it is scarcely to be imagined how many Disguisements and Falsities there are in this Argument. I designed no more by all this than the drawing of a just Consequence from a True Principle. 'Tis certain that Lasicius say's two things, the one that the Armenians of Leopolis deny the Bread and Wine lose their Nature, In Sacramento Eucharistae elementa Naturas suas amittere negant. These are his words, the other * 1.41 that they reverence the Sarcament more religiously than the Russians, Sacra∣mentum religiosius Russis venerantur, these are also his words. Whence I conclude 'tis not likely the Russians or Moscovites believe Transubstantiation, the reason is sufficiently evident, to wit, that those that believe the Sacra∣ment to be the proper Substance of the Son of God, cannot but shew it more Respect than those that believe it to be a Substanee of Bread.

IT is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say, that my Argument supposes * 1.42 according to this Author, the Armenians do neither hold the real Presence, nor Transubstantiation, and that if I do not suppose this, nothing can be less reasonable than my Discourse. For if the Armenians, adds he, together with the Substance of Bread do moreover admit the real presence of Christ, it is no wise improbable but that they have a greater respect for the Eucharist than those that do not admit this Substance of Bread. The respect of the Eucharist comes only from the Presence of Christ: and the presence or absence of the Bread contributes not any thing thereunto.

I hope Mr. Arnaud will not be offended if I tell him that his Authority is not yet great enough in the Church of Rome to counter-ballance that of Thomas Aquinas. Now Thomas his Doctrine is directly opposite to his, Contrariatur, say's this Author, venerationi hujus Sacramenti si aliqua

Substantia creata esset ibi quae non posset Adoratione latriae adorari. 'Twould be * 1.43 contrary to the Veneration due to this Sacrament, were there any created Substance in it to which may not be given the adoration of Latria. Now let any man if he can make this agree with what Mr. Arnaud says: Mr. Ar∣naud's Proposition say's that the respect due to the Eucharist proceeds only from the presence of Christ, and that the presence or absence of the Bread does not at all contribute thereunto, and Thomas assures us on the contrary that if the Substance of bread were present, it would hinder the Adoration of this Sacrament, whence it follows according to him, that those that hold the Substance of Bread ceases to be, ought more to reverence the Sacra∣ment than those that believe it remains. So that whether the Armenians do or do not believe the real presence this signifies nothing to my Argument. 'Tis clear according to Lasicius that they do not believe Transubstantiation, and consequently 'tis clear according to Thomas Aquinas that they hold an opinion which is contrary to the veneration of the Sacrament, yet do they adore the Sacrament more religiously than the Moscovites. How then can the belief of Transubstantiation be attributed to the Moscovites, for if they held this Doctrine they must have a greater veneration for the Sacra∣ment than the others. This Argument cannot be otherwise denyed than by opposing the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. So that with drawing my self out of the Lists I shall offer in my stead either Saint Thomas to be handled by Mr. Arnaud, or Mr. Arnaud by Saint Thomas, that is to say, the Master by the Disciple or the Disciple by the Master.

MOREOVER our Question touching the Moscovites relating only to Transubstantiation, 'tis evident it would be a Digression from the Point in hand to discuss the intire passage of Lasicius to know whether he imputes to the Armenians the belief of the real Presence. It will appear by what we shall say in the following Chapters what we may judge of them touching this particular. The Question now concerns only the Moscovites; and what Lasicius says concerning their worshipping less religiously the Sacra∣ment than the Armenians is uncontroulable, considering the testimonies we have produced in the second Book, of Sacranus a Chanon of Cracovia, John de Lasco Arch Bishop of Gnesne, and Scarga the Jesuite; who expressly de∣pose that the Russians of whom the Moscovites are a part, do indeed adore the Bread before its consecration, but afterwards shew it no respect nor ve∣neration, scattering the Crums thereof on the ground. It is to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that that which hinders them from giving the Eucha∣rist after consecration an external honour is, that the Consecration is perfor∣med in a place separate from the people, and that 'tis out of respect to the Sacrament that the People are deprived for some time of the sight of this Mystery 'Tis evident these are mere Subter fuges. Did they worship the Sacra∣ment with an internal adoration, they would declare as much themselves, and ease Mr. Arnaud of the trouble of searching their Secret thoughts. They would shew it by some expression of external Reverence, and for this effect ex∣pose the Sacrament to the Eyes of the People, the People would at least make profession of adoring it before they received it, and the Priests would adore it in the Sanctuary when they had consecrated it. Yet do these Authors absolutely say that they give it no adoration. This, says Mr. Arnaud, * 1.44 is not so, for Oderbornus tells us that the Priest comes from the Sanctuary and walking leasurely shows the People that which he has consecrated in secret: that then the People fall down on their Knees the Priest saying to 'em in the Moscovit Language, Behold the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ whom the

Jews unjustly put to death. But we have shewed in the third Book when we treated of the Adoration of the Sacrament that Oderborn is apparently mista∣ken, having taken a Ceremony which is used before the consecration of the Bread, as if it were used after this Consecration. The Moscovites even as the Greeks do but once shew the People the Bread and Wine, taking one turn round the Church before the Consecration, which they call the great Entrance. If Mr. Arnaud knows not this he is ignorant of a Matter well known by others, and if he does know it, he shews little sincerity, in designing to prevail over us by means of Oderborn's mistake.

CHAP. II.

Of the ARMENIANS.

That the Armenians do not believe Transubstantiation: First Proof taken from that the Armenians believe the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ was swallowed up by the Divinity.

WEE shall not here particularly treat of the Melchites or Syrians, * 1.45 as well for that Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, they differ not at all from the Greeks in their Religion; as that likewise what he al∣ledges concerning them out of the Notes of Abraham Echellensis Maronite on the Catalogue of Caldean Books made by Abed-Jesu a Nestorian Bishop, de∣serves not our consideration. The Testimony of Abraham Echellensis is of no credit, and I refer my self thereupon to Gahriel Sionita his Country man who has set him forth as an ignorant and impertinent Fellow, a Lyer and Impostor. These two persons had both of them their Education at Rome in the Semi∣nary of the Maronites, both endeavouring to advance the Roman Interest, but falling out about the Edition of the Bible in Syriack, Gabriel thought himself obliged to tell Abraham his own and publish his defects, he therefore puts forth a small Book which he calls, Commonitorium Apologeticum, wherein he represents him in the aforementioned manner. He reproaches him with his dividing the whole Seminary at Rome, for his treachery to the Patriarch of the Maronites; imposing on Prince Fachraddin, for cheating the Duke of Florence, and with his being banished his own Country, his Imprisonment at Florence for his Crimes, and in fine threatens him for the compleating of his shame to Print those Letters he received from Mount Liban, Rome, and Florence which give an Account of his Life. But besides there is not any thing in these passages but may well agree with the Hypothesis of the Greeks, such as we have shewed it to be in the two fore∣going Books as will appear to him that shall take the pains to read them in Mr. Arnaud's Book, and apply to them the Answers I made to several

other such like passages, which are needless here to be re∣peated.

WEE must come then to the Armenians, I shall insist the longer upon them as well for that Mr. Arnaud has discoursed much about them, as for that they are a great people, and an entire Church by themselves. They are long since separated from the Greek Church, and there is a deadly fewd betwixt them in reference to Religion. Yet are they both extream ig∣norant of the design of Christianity, and the ignorance of the Armenians surpasses that of the Greeks as appears from the Testimony cited in my second Book. I will add that of the Bishop of Heliopolis in his relation printed at Paris 1668. I gave, say's he, a Visit to the Patriarch of the * 1.46 Armenians near the City of Hervian in a famous Monastery of Eutychian Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant. I found there amongst others a certain Person who having been in Poland had some smatterings of Latine, I would have discoursed with him touching the Principal Heresie of Eutichus, but he cunningly avoided it. I left this Monastery little satisfied with these Religious, who show little Piety, although they profess much, and live austerely. So Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople, describing in one of his Letters to Wytenbogard the four Sects of Eastern Christians, with which * 1.47 the Greeks held no communion, to wit, the Armenians, Coptics, Maronites, and Jacobites, say's amongst other things, that they live like Beasts, and are so prodigiously Ignorant that they scarce know what they believe them∣selves.

THE Latins have long since used their utmost power to bring over these Armenians to 'um, and submit them to the See of Rome. They have for this purpose sent Missions which they have renewed, or augmented as Occasion required. They have taken the course of Seminaries, and from time to time accordingly managed the Interests of Princes and Kings of Armenia, and that not seldom with Success. So that as there are at present two sorts of Greeks, the one called the reunited ones, and the other Schismaticks; so there are likewise two sorts of Armenians the one that acknowledges the Authority of the Pope called Frank-Armenians, for in the East they call all the Latins of whatsoever Nation they be Franks; the others those that acknowledge only their own Patriarchs, or Catholicks as they term them, and are called only Armenians.

OUR Question only then concerns these last, and to know whether they do, or do not believe Transubstantiation. The first Argument I offer for the maintaining the Negative which I affirm, is, that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Heresie of Euthyches of which the Armenians make profession. They hold there is but one single Nature in Jesus Christ, which is the Divine, that the humane Nature was mixt or confused in the Essence of the Divinity. How then is it possible that having this Opinion they can at the same time believe the Substance of Bread to be changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ? For if our Saviour Christ has no longer a Body, if the humane Nature do's no longer subsist accor∣ding to them, this would be to charge them with the greatest Absurdity, that is to say, a manifest contradiction, to imagine they believe the change in Question; seeing to believe it, it must be necessarily supposed, not only that our Saviour Christ has a Body, but likewise that his Body is di∣stinct from the Divinity.

MR. Arnaud who saw the Force of this Argument would prevent it * 1.48 by two Answers, which we must distinctly examine one after another. The first amounts to this, That supposing the Armenians were real Eutychiens, yet do's it not thence follow that their Opinion is inconsistent with Transubstan∣tiation, or that they do not admit it after their Fashion. For although they say there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ after the Union, and that the Human Nature was swallowed up by the Divine, yet do they assert that the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men; that the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man, that the Jews took him for a man, that they crucified him as a man. Whence he concludes that this swallowing up of the Humane Nature consisted rather according to the Eutychiens, in the change of all the Natural proprieties which they called Nature, than in the annihilation of Nature it self taken for the Substance and internal being. That this manifestly appears by all their Writings who have undertaken to refute the Eutychiens, and by the Euty∣chiens themselves. For the Gajanites who are Eutychiens at farthest distance from the Catholick, yet acknowledge they receive in the holy Communion the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and who was incarnate, and born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God.

APPLYING this afterwards to the Question of the Eucharist, he say's, that they believe with all other Christians, that this same Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, seen in the World, crucified, and risen, is really present in the Eucharist, that the Bread is really changed into this Jesus Christ. But denying as they do, that the Body of Jesus Christ was a distinct Nature from the Divinity, so they will not allow the Bread which is transubstantiated into Jesus Christ to be any other Nature than the Divinity, that is to say, a deified Body, a Body mixt and confused with the Divinity by the loss of it's natural Proprieties rather than of its Substance. Mr. Arnaud do's likewise pro∣mise us that in the Examination of what Theodoret has written he will more distinctly explain wherein consists this swallowing up of the Humane Na∣ture according to the Eutychiens.

I know not what elucidations he may one day give us, but if they be no better then what he now tells us, they will be of no great use, for 'tis certain there was never a more crude discourse than that which he now gives us: First, What signifies the telling us that the Eutychiens acknowledged the Virgin Mary brought forth a Son that appeared to have a Body like other men, that the Apostles conversed with him, as with a man, and that the Jews took him for a man? what signifies this to the proving that they did not deny the inward substance of the Humanity remained in Jesus Christ, but said only that all the natural Proprieties which they call Nature was changed? There would be more likelyhood in concluding from hence the contrary, viz. that according to the Eutychiens the inward Substance was changed, and the natural Proprieties remained; for if we really di∣stinguish these Proprieties, from the Substance, it is immediately on them and not on the inward Substance, whereon depends ones being a man, and being taken for such. So that Mr. Arnaud in saying the Apostles conversed with our Saviour as a man, and that the Jews took him for a man, establishes a principle which not only concludes nothing of what he pretends but rather the contrary, which does shew in my opinion that he was in great perplexity when he wrote this Chapter. 2. Do's he not know that the Eutychiens, and

especially the Armenians when they are urged by passages of Scripture which attribute to our Saviour Christ all the out-ward Characters of a real Man, that he was born, conversed with his Apostles, eat and drank, was dead and risen again, that his Soul was oppressed with sadness, &c. whence we conclude he had a real humane Nature, answered, that all these things happened only in appearance, and that it was the Divinity it self that assumed all these External Forms, which yet had in themselves no reality. Pope John the second speaking of the Doctrine of the Eutychiens, We * 1.49 confess, say's he, that the Holy Vigin is properly and truly the Mother of God incarnate and born of her. I say properly and truly to the end it may not be imagined that he took of the Virgin a Phantasme or not real Flesh according to the Doctrine of the impious Eutychiens. The followers of Eutyches and * 1.50 Dioscorus, say's Harmenopulus, affirmed the Son of God was made man in appearance, having only one Nature, Nicephorus Callistus confirms the same thing. The wretched Eutyches, say's he, did indeed acknowledge God to be born of the Virgin Mary, and that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and so far his Doctrine is sound and true. But he likewise held that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was feigned, that the Word was changed and made Flesh after an immutable manner, that he feigned in appearance the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation, and that whatsoever of corporeal appeared in him was only a Phan∣tasme and Fiction. The same thing appears in respect of the Armenians from the Information which Pope Benedict the twelfth gives us of their Errors. For the twenty eighth Article has these words. The Armenians know∣ing not what answer to give the passages of the Gospel which assert our Saviour had a real humane Body after his Resurrection, forasmuch as they affirm that at the moment of the Union the Humane Nature was converted into the Divinity, answer that the will of God as it pleased wrought all these things, by which it seemed he had a Humane Body, altho in effect he had none. And in the following Article. Altho the Armenians hold that after the Union there was only in our Saviour Christ the Divine Nature into which the Humane Nature was converted, yet they say, and hold that the Divine Nature so depended on the will of Christ, that he did with it what he pleased. Cyrillus in his Letter to Witembogard relates he held a conference with one of the chief of the Armenian Doctors named Barsabas, in the Temple of Jerusalem, before all the people, and that the Subject of their Dispute was, Whether our Saviour * 1.51 Christ conversed with men, and died in appearance only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because adds he, The Armenians believe he suffered death 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in ap∣pearance and not really. The Jacobites who are Eutychiens as well as the Armenians say likewise the same thing on this Subject according to the Relation of John Cotovic. They affirm, say's he, that the Flesh which * 1.52 Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh but into I know not what seeming and phantastick Flesh, and that he rather seemed to be a man, and born and dye than really to do so. So that they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, his Ascention into Heaven, and his second coming are bare Semblances and Appearances, and by this means make all these Mysteries meer Illusions. This is the true Opinion of the Euty∣chiens. So far are they from giving Mr. Arnaud Reason to conclude that they conserve in Jesus Christ the inward Substance of the Humanity, that on the contrary it appears they have only recourse to these vain appearances to defend themselves against the passages of Scripture by which is proved against them the Reality of the Humane Substance in this Divine Saviour.

III. WERE their Sentiment such as Mr. Arnaud supposes it to be, how comes it to pass they have never declared as much? Whence is it they have ever say'd the humane Nature was swallowed up by the Divine, that it was changed into the Divinity, mixt and confused with the Divinity, without ever minding to clear up this difficulty in saying that by Nature they understood not the inward Substance, but only all the inward Proprieties, and that they confessed this Substance remained intire? How comes it that those who disputed against them, or that have related their Errors never made this pretended Distinction of Mr. Arnaud, nor declared this new Sence in which the word Nature is to be taken, to wit, for all the natural Proprieties, distinct and really separate from the inward Substance? Whence is it that Mr. Arnaud having so sharply inveighed hereto∣fore against the Equivocations of the Greeks and Latins, now thinks fit to admit a perpetual one between the Orthodox and Eutychiens, the one taking the Term of Nature in one Sence, and the other in another, and disputing so many Ages against one another without explaining themselves and understanding one another? For it does not appear from Authors that wrote against the Eutychiens, that they took in this occasion the term of Nature for the Natural propriety in opposition to the inward Substance, as it pleases Mr. Arnaud to suppose without proof. It appears on the contrary that they have taken it for the Substance it self with it's Proprieties. * 1.53 If the humane Substance, say's Gelasius, has ceased to be, the Humanity having been transfused or intirely changed into the Divinity as they imagine, it follows that the humane form having no longer it's proper Subject has ceased to be likewise. And in another place of the same Treatise. If they do not deny, say's he, that Jesus Christ was real man, it follows he remained naturally in the Propriety of his Substance, for otherwise he would not be real man. * 1.54 When you say, say's Vigilius, that the Word and Flesh are but one only Substance it seems that you insinuate there are two Persons in our Saviour Christ. And a little farther, If the Word and the Flesh are one and the same Substance according to your Opinion, there would be two Persons, one of the Word, and the other of the Flesh, who would have one and the same common Nature. Theodoret disputes in the same manner against them by supposing they affirmed that the Humane Substance was swallowed up by the Divinity, and he concludes his Argument taken * 1.55 from the Eucharist in these words, The Body then of Jesus Christ keeps it's first Form, Figure, Circumscription, and, in a word, it has the Substance of a Bo∣dy. * 1.56 Euthymius hereupon relates a passage of St. M••ximus which expresly as∣serts, that Eutyches confessed the Unity of the two Natures, but denyed they differed * 1.57 in Essence, introducing a confusion of Natures. Even Cardinal Perron him∣self altho a great Zealot for Transubstantiation, acknowledged this truth, that the Eutychiens held, the humane Substance ceased to be in our Lord Jesus Christ. For he say's that the Orthodox Christians maintained against the Hereticks that this Substance remained, because the Form, Figure and Circumscription of Body which could not be in our Saviour Christ without the natural Substance was to be found in him. Whosoever believes Mr. Arnaud must acknowledge the World has been grosly mistaken in imagining that the Eutychiens abolished the Humane Substance in our Saviour Christ when they say'd the created Nature was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity, whereas according to him by the term of Nature they meant only the Natural Proprieties. And it must be moreover ac∣knowledged that the Eutychiens have been to this day very blind in not

discovering this mistake in the Orthodox Christians, and very uncharitable in not indeavouring to undeceive them by a means which would cost them so little. But to speak better, It must be acknowledged that Mr. Arnaud is no such great enemy to Equivocations, for when he has need of them, he can well dispence with them, how terrible and dreadful soever he has made them in other occasions, wherein he believed it was his interest to establish there could not be any such between the Latins and Greeks.

IV. AS to what he tells us concerning the Gayanites from the Relation * 1.58 of Anastasius Sinaite, that they did howsoever acknowledge we receive in the Communion, the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate and born of the H. Virgin Mary the Mother of God, there is far greater reason to say that by this Body they meant a Mystery which repre∣sented the Body swallowed up by the Divinity, than to say they meant his very Substance. For if what Mr. Arnaud say's of them be true that they were Eutychiens farthest off from the Catholicks in their Opinions we now saw that the Eutychiens believed not that this Substance subsisted distinct from the Divinity. Why then shall we not expound what Anastasius Sinaite makes the Gayanites say, by what good and considerable Authors relate of the Eutychiens, rather than to give the lye to these Authors, and correct what they say by the Discourse of such an impertinent Person as Anastasius, whom Mr. Arnaud himself has been forced to despise in citing him, as appears by what we have seen in the preceding Book?

THUS have I refuted Mr. Arnaud's first Answer. Let us see whether there be any more Strength in his second. It consists in maintain∣ing * 1.59 that the greatest part of the Armenians were but half Eutychiens; that is to say, they did not in any wise admit the confusion of Natures, that they condemned Eutyches, and that their Error consisted only in their refusing to use the Expression of the two Natures, asserting our Saviour had but one.

THIS is a Question of fact which must be decided by the Testimony of Authors. We shall see hereafter who are those that Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour. We must only here observe that he unjustly exclaims against Euthymius Zigabenius a Greek Monk, and one Isaac a Catholick of Armenia who have attributed plainly and harmlesly the Error of Eutyches to the Armenians; So that at present we shall lay aside the Authority of these two Persons, seeing he is pleased to except against them, and betake our selves to other Witnesses for the ending of this difference. Here are others then which are not to be contemned, whether we regard their number or quality. The first is a Greek Author named St. Nicon who lived in the seventh Century. There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter or a * 1.60 Treatise of his under the Title, De pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione. He exactly enough describes in it the Errors of this Nation, and amongst others mentions this, that they hold the confusion of the two Natures of Jesus Christ, in the Union. Itidem, say's he, & in duarum Christi Naturarum Unione confusionem decernunt. He say's likewise they hold the Divine Nature is passible, that being fallen into the Error of the Aphtartodocites they believe the Trinity has suffered; and altho they durst not openly explain themselves, yet they do plainly intimate it by the things they do, for they take three Crosses, and fastning them to a Stake call this the Holy Trinity. Now here is (according to Mr. Arnaud) a third Impostor, that falsly accuses the Armenians to believe the confusion of Natures. He must be excluded as well as Eutychus

and Isaac; but if Mr. Arnaud continues in this captious humor he will never want exceptions against Authors.

TO Nicon we must add Nicephorus Callistus a famous Historian a∣mongst the Greeks; who speaking of these same Armenians refers the original of their Heresie to one Jacob the Author of the Sect of the Jacobites; and adds, sometimes they say the word assumed an incorruptible Body, uncreated, heavenly, impassible, subtile, which is not of the same Sub∣stance with ours, yet has all the Accidents of Flesh, in appearance and after * 1.61 the manner of a spectrum. Sometimes likewise they affirm the Flesh of the Word was converted into the Nature of the Divinity, and became consubstantial with it. They do for the most part deny the Word assumed a humane Body of the Virgin, and say that having been changed without a Change, and made Flesh he has only passed through the Virgin, and fastned his Divinity to the Cross; and altho it be neither finite nor circumscribed yet he has deposited it in the Sepulchre. They deny the Birth of Christ according to the Flesh, affirming it hapned in appearance only. In the Celebration of the Eucharist they use the Azyme and not Bread. They put no Water in the Chalice, design∣ing to represent thereby that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ; where∣as we by the mixture of Water with Wine, represent the Union of the two Natures. It cannot be more clearly affirmed that the Armenians are real Eutychiens, seeing he not only attributes to them the believing that the humane Nature was converted into the Nature of the Divini∣ty, but made consubstantial with it: But he is too a terrible Calumniator, if we believe Mr. Arnaud. Howsoever let us pro∣ceed.

GUY Carmus who lived about the year 1340. and has exactly reckon∣ed up the Errors of the Armenians in his Book of Heresies; expresly tell us * 1.62 they follow the Opinions of Dioscorus, denying with him the two Natures of Jesus Christ, to wit the Divine and Humane, in the Unity of Person. That they admit only one Nature in Jesus Christ, that is the Divine; one Will, and one Operation. And in the twelfth Error he remarks They held that after the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine; so that as there is but one Person in Jesus Christ, so there is but one Nature in him, to wit the Divine, and that they cruelly persecute those that hold there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and Humane.

IN the year 1341, the then Pope caused this Information to be drawn up, touching the Errors of the Armenians which we have already mentioned, and shall have farther occasion to discourse of hereafter. The second Article has these words, That there was held heretofore a Council in Armenia, wherein assisted the Catholick, that is to say, the Patriarch of the Armenians, with their Bishops, Doctors, and the Patriarch of the Suriens. * 1.63 That in this Council was rejected the Council of Chalcedon, especially because it had determined we must believe there are two Natures in Jesus Christ; to wit the Humane and the Divine, and one only Person subsisting in two Natures. That the Council of the Armenians had on their side determined, that as in our Saviour Christ there is but one only Person, so likewise is there in him but one Nature, to wit the Divine, one only Will, and one Operation; that they anathematised those that affirmed the contrary, and persecuted them not only by imprisonments, and loading them with Chains, but even to the putting them to death. That in this Council they had condemned Pope Leo and his

Letters to the Fathers of Chalcedon, and Flavian the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople, because he asserted therein two Natures and one Person, two Wills and two Operations in our Saviour Christ. That in fine they Canonized Dioscorus whom the Council of Chalcedon had condemned, and the Armenians celebrated his Festival three times in a year as a Saint; and cursed Leo and the Council of Chalcedon which had condemned Dioscorus. The twentieth Article bears, That the Armenians believe and hold, that the Eternal Son of God begotten of the Substance of the Father, has united to himself the Humane Nature, and was made man, yet in such a manner that, in the Union, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine Nature; and as there was after the Union but one Person in Jesus Christ, so is there but one Nature in it, to wit the Divine and not the Humane, That they curse all those who say the contrary; so great∣ly detesting those that hold the two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union, to wit, the Divine and humane, that if any Baptised Armenian amongst them sayd this, they would not communicate with him; but esteem him as a Heathen; and upon his Return to the faith of the Armenians, rebaptise him neither more nor less then if he came from Paganism; and after this second Baptism lay twenty years Pennance on him. And in the twenty first Article. The Armenians believe and hold that because after the Union of Natures in Jesus Christ, the Humane Nature was converted into the Divine, in such a manner that from that very moment there was only the Divine Nature in him,) the Divinity has been passible and impassible, mortal and immortal, according as our Saviour himself pleased, and that thus he has suffered and is dead in the Divine Nature because he would, having no humane Nature when he suffered and dyed. Do's Mr. Arnaud imagine we shall rest contented when he shall tell us, that all these things are meer impo∣stures?

EUGENUS IV. instructing the Armenians in Council of Florence * 1.64 sufficiently shews he takes them for real and perfect Eutychiens; for he chiefly apply's himself to shew them the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and teach them that our Saviour Christ is consubstantial with us, and having took on him a real humane Nature, this Nature has subsisted, and do's still subsist, in the hypostatical Union, without confusion or con∣version. We need but read this Discourse to find that it's drift is to oppose against the Errors of the Armenians, the contrary Doctrines which must be held to be conformable with the Church of Rome; and that one of the principal points he designed to insist on, was that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, against the Heresie of Eutyches. And this is the opinion of * 1.65 Mr. Sponde Bishop of Pamiez. He do's not give them, say's he, in his Decretals, all the Articles of the Christian Faith, but contents himself (as I take it) with those wherein they erred, or of which they doubted. And first he gave them the Symbol of the Councel of Constantinople, with the Addition of the Filioque, to have it sung in Churches, then the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, touching the two Natures of Jesus Christ in Unity of Person. Thirdly, the Definition of the sixth Council touching the two Wills, and two Operations in our Saviour Christ. Fourthly, because the Armenians had acknowledged hitherto only the three first Councils that of Nice, Constantino∣ple, and Ephesus, rejecting those that were held afterwards, he shews them that the Council of Chalcedon which they believed favoured the Nestorian Heresie, did as well condemn Nestorius, as Eutyches, and that they must receive it.

PRATEOLUS who made a Catalogue of all the Sects, say's, * 1.66 that 'tis easie to conjecture by reading of History why the Armenians have separated themselves from the Church. That 'tis because of the Council of Chalcedon, for this Council condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus whose Opini∣ons they followed.

JOHN Cottovic a Famous Traveller that relates what he learnt from * 1.67 the Armenians themselves, tells us, That the Armenians as well as the Jacobites, acknowledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ, one Will and one Operation, and say the Humanity was swallowed up in the Abyss of the Divinity, in such a manner that the Divinity and Flesh became but one and the same thing.

IT is in the same Sense that Pietro Della Valle comparing the Arme∣nians * 1.68 with the Georgians, say's, That 'tis not to be doubted but the Georgians are better Christians then the Armenians, who hold the Errors of Dioscorus whose Opinions are far more Pernicious, gross and numerous, than those of all the other Christian Nations in the East.

IT seems to me likewise that Person must be extreme obstinate that will * 1.69 not acquiesce in the Testimony of Cyrillus the Patriarch of Alexandria, (alrea∣dy mentioned) who lived in the midst of those people, who assures one of their Doctrines is, that all these humane Accidents, which the Gospel denotes in our Saviour Christ, as for Instance, to be born, to have conversed with men, to be dead, &c. did not happen to him really but only in appearance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. How great aversion soever Mr. Arnaud may have to Cyrillus his Person, I do not believe he imagins, that this Patriarch had our Dispute in his mind, nor wrote upon my Account his Conference with the Armenian Doctor Barsabas; we may therefore gather from his Testi∣mony, that the Armenians are perfect Eutychiens; for if they believed there was in our Saviour a real humane Nature, which is to say, that he was real man, and the whole Difficulty consisted only in the Term of Nature, which they would not receive, why should they affirm that his Con∣versation here on Earth, his Death and Resurrection were only in appearance? 'Tis evident they admit these false and deceitful Ap∣pearances, only because they deny the reality of the Substance, or Humane Nature.

HOW willing soever Thomas a Jesu has been to mollify the extrava∣gant * 1.70 Opinions of the Eastern Sects, yet he tells us of the Armenians, That they believe but one Nature, one Will and one Operation of our Lord Jesus Christ. And Barbereau the Jesuit, an Emissary of Constantinople writing to one of the Society testifies the same thing. What shall I say, say's he, of the Armenians that are here (at Constantinople) to the Number of above sixty thousand in a more deplorable condition than the Greeks? For besides that they are as ignorant as them, they have a particular Heresie which distinguishes them from others; for they hold there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ, and keep so firm to this Opinion, that 'tis a crime amongst them, so much as to mention the contrary. He do's not say 'tis a bare Equivocation in the Word Nature, as Mr. Arand would perswade us, but a Heresie, a false Opinion, and an Opinion of which they are so greatly conceited, that they hold the contra∣dicting of it a Crime. But how can this be if they condemn Eutyches and

Dioscorus, and affirm not the Humane Nature was confounded and swal∣lowed up in the Divine: if they grant the Humane Nature as well as the Catholicks, and their Error consists only in refusing to use the expression of the two Natures, as Mr. Arnaud assures us.

BUT after all these Testimonys I think I may re-stablish the Authority of Euthymius Zigabenus the Greek Monk, and that of Isaac an Armenian Catholick, who have both of 'em Written against the Schismatical Arme∣nians, and say the same thing as the rest. Mr Arnaud says, they prevari∣cate and impose on their Readers, but what I now come from relating sufficiently justifies them from this Accusation. After the Councel of Chal∣cedon, says Euthymius, the Armenians at the Instigation of one Hilarius Mandacanus, and other Prophane Priests that were with him, separated them∣selves * 1.71 from the Catholick Church: and having embraced the impious Opinion of Eutyches, Dioscorus and other Monophysical Hereticks that hold only one Nature in our Saviour Christ, they added thereunto several other impious Doctrines, to make their Heresie as it were more Compleat and Famous. For they say our Saviour Christ took on him a Body which was not of the same substance as ours, that his is Incorruptible, Impassible, Subtil, Uncreated, and Heavenly, which seemed to exercise the Humane functions, as to See, Eat, and Drink, and yet did none of all these things. They say moreover that the Flesh of Christ was changed into the Divinity, and made of the same Essence with the Divinity it self. That as a Drop of Honey or Vinegar cast into the Sea is not seen, do's no longer subsist; so the Body of Christ being ingulphed and swallowed up in the Ocean of the Divinity, keeps no longer its own Nature and propriety; and thus there are not two Natures in Christ, but one alone, which is wholly Divine. And there fore they deny the Sacrifice of Bread, which is the flesh of Christ, to be the Body of Christ, but call it the Body of the Divinity. That when they are convinced and constrained by strength of Argument, to acknowledge our Saviour Christ to be both God and Man, they do it by dissimulation, for how can they seriously acknowledge him to be Man, seeing as I already mentioned they affirm his substance to be different from ours. They change, says Isaac, the traditions of the Catholick Church, and the mysteries of Christ according to their blasphemous fancy; they do not call the Communion, or the Sacrifice of Bread which is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Body of Christ as he himself has called it, but the Divinity.

MR. Arnaud may say as long as he pleases that these two Authors misrepre∣sent the Armenians in charging them with believing the Humane Nature to * 1.72 have been ingulphed by the Divine, and to be pure Eutychiens. What reason has he to think the World will be satisfied with this answer, as if it were sufficient for the rejecting of Authors to bring against them bold accusations, without any ground or proof; and humorously maintain that what they affirm is false?

BREEREWOOD, says he, and other modern Authors say as much. * 1.73 As to Breerewood tis true he says, that it seems by their confession touching the Trinity, sent by the Mandate of the Catholick of Armenia to the Patriarck of Armenia about fifty years since, that they have wholly renounced this Fancy. But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia, and not that of this Church. If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head, without any Proof, his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors, whom we have already alledged: that which we have

seen of Cyril, and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People, and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confessi∣on he mentions. And so is that also which Cottovic relates. The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says (as we have already seen,) That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan, in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant, and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches, he cunningly shunned the occasion. This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us, that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error, and have in no wise changed their belief.

BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins, yet would what Euthymius, Isaac, and other Authors say be no less true, on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony. For if it be true as Breere∣wood says, that they have now renounced that Fancy, they had it then here∣tofore, for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held: so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Tran∣substantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past; and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence, is, that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite, without any noise or disturbance; whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless. As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of, when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em, but there's no body but sees, after what I have related, that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done, That other Modern Authors are agreed therein, seeing, John Cottovic, Pietro Della Vallé, Cyrillus, Thomas a Jesu, Barbereau, the Bishop of Heliopolis, are late Authors, and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms.

NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia, and sent to the Emperour Emanuel; nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch; altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions, we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ, not in confounding it, as * 1.74 Eutyches does; nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus, but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius, in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate. But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church. It was the Patriarchs in particular, as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien. For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that, our Saviour had two Natures, two Wills, and two Operations; the Pa∣triarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings. Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour, that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ; The Patriarch answered, that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul, and yet is said to have but one Nature, altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion, and change; and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same. In fine he told him he

would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People? That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John, who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits; which is to say, to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ; and that he had the writings of this John, together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory; who added thereunto these words, I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written, and Anathematise those that do not believe it. It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one, was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church, but the private Opinion of the Patriarch, who disputed with Theorien, and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory.

BUT it will be perhaps here demanded, how this person could in con∣science continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment. To answer this Objection, I need only give the Character of this person, such as it appears to be in this same conference, and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said. This, says he, do I intend to do, I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council. And when met, I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians, and which in effect do seem to favour them. Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me, and at first will take the Armenians part, and dispute against you. But insen∣sibly and by degrees, and with great caution, will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians, which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them. I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book, and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with. In fine, I will declare my self openly for the Greeks (or to speak better) I will contend for the truth against the Armenians. I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me, so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd. If all the Bishops shall be for me, nothing will be more welcome to me: But if not, I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine to∣gether with those on my side; and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops, containing the Orthodox Faith. Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same, That we receive the Holy, and universal Council of Chalcedon, and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd. That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council; espcially, Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus, and Timotheus Aylu∣rus, and in general all those that have opposed this Council. This Discourse plainly shews that this good Patriarch was a little Jesuitical, and did not make it a case of Conscience to Act a Deceitful part in his Council; much less in his Church. But 'tis likewise Easy to gather hence that the sentiment which he in the beginning proposed in his Letter to the Emperour, and which occa∣sioned all this intrigue was not that of his Church, but his own particular, for had the difference between the Armenians and Greeks consisted only in the use of some terms as Mr. Arnaud tells us it did, there would have been no need of Stratagem to effect this design. It would have been sufficient to shew plainly that it was but an Equivocation, a mis-understanding, or at most but a question concerning words, which must not hinder the effects of Christian Charity. Neither was there any Necessity of promising the Emperours Deputy that there should be inserted in this new confession of Faith an express Article containing the Condemnation of Eutyches, and Dioscorus, if in effect the Armenians followed not their Opinions.

IT appears then from what I have said, that Eutymius and Isaac were nei∣ther Impostors, nor Calumniators when they attributed to the Armenians the Heresie of Eutyches; and said their belief was that our Saviour Christ had no real Humane Nature; but that his Humanity was swallowed up or changed into the Divine Nature. After the deposition of those Authors I mentioned, there can be no reason for the calling in question a thing so cer∣tain: now it hence manifestly follows that the Armenians cannot hold the Transubstantiation of the Latins, that is to say, the conversion of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, seeing they hold our Saviour has no longer a Body; and all Mr. Arnauds exceptions are vain and to no purpose.

CHAP. III.

The Testimony of some Authors who expresly say or suppose that the Armenians hold not Transubstantiation.

ALTHO the Proof I already Alledged in the preceding Chapter decides the question, and needs not to be confirmed by others, yet will we here produce the Testimony of several Authors of good credit that unanimously assert the Armenians do not hold Tran∣substantiation nor the real presence.

THE First is Guy Carmus who assures us of it in express terms, The * 1.75 Twenty second Error, says he, of the Armenians consists in their not believing that after the consecration is performed by the words of our Saviour Christ pro∣nounced on the Bread, and Wine, the Body of Jesus Christ is truly, and really contained under the species of Bread and Wine, but they hold they are only so by resemblance and figure, saying that our Saviour Christ did not Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his real Body and Blood, but established them only as a re∣semblance and figure. And in another place Arguing against their Opinion, The Armenians, says he, have no Salvo for the truth of these words which they themselves utter in the Canon of their Mass, to wit, and that they may be made the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They thus expound them, the true Body, that is to say, the true resemblance of the Body, but this exposition will not pass, because the true resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ is not the true Body of Jesus Christ, as the Image of a Man is not a real Man. Man is the true Image and resemblance of God, but he is not true God by Nature; if then this be only the resemblance, and not the truth, or the true Body of Christ as the Armenians falsly say, it cannot be called the true Body. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud reject this testimony, ask e'm why, they can give you no other reason but this, That they believe Guy Carmes was mistaken. 'Tis indeed my Opinion that we must not decide questions of this importance by the Testimony of some particular Persons who may deceive others or be deceiv'd themselves. But as to Guy Carmes what likelyhood is there that a

Religious, who was all his life time devoted to the interests of the Roman Church, and often employed by the Pope upon several Occasions, as a most trusty Servant, and moreover a Person of good parts and considerable Learning in those Days, being Prior General also of his order, Inquisitor General of the faith, and Bishop of Majorca in the Balearian Isles, and wrote of the Armenians in a Book which he made concerning Heresies, what likelyhood is there he should write a thing so positively and clearly that the Armenians deny the real presence, were he not well assured of it? What advantage could he expect by imputing falsly to a whole Church an Opinion which he himself held to be a Damnable Error, and that at the same time wherein the Romans that persecuted in the West those who were in this point of the same judgment, and why would he give this advantage against Truth to those deem'd Hereticks? It is moreover to be observ'd that Guy Carmes flourished under the Popedom of John 22, that is to say, in an Age wherein all the East was overspread with Emissarys, and especially Armenia * 1.76 whose King Ossinius, embraced the Roman Religion, receiv'd the Preachers which the Pope sent him for the Instruction of his People, and set up Schools thoughout all parts of Armenia to teach the Religion and Language of the Latins. It was then no difficult matter for a Person in those circumstances wherein Guy Carmes was who undertook to give an account of divers Heresies to inform himself exactly what were the Opinions of the Armenians.

THE Author of the Perpetuity to get clear from this Testimony be∣thought * 1.77 himself to say that Guy Carmes was the only Author that accused them of not agreeing with the Roman Church in the subject of Transubstan∣tiation. Despensus, & Alphonsus de Castro say'd the same before him, and 'tis likely he grounded himself on their testimony. But so confident an assertion deserved well perhaps to be examined before it be taken up, and the Autho∣rity of two prejudic'd Persons ought not to be of so great weight with him but that he ought to have considered whether what they say be true. Mr. Arnaud has bin a little more circumspect than the Author of the Perpetuity. I will not dissemble, says he, that several Authors as well Catholicks as Hereticks have accused the Armenians for not believing the real presence, Guy Carmes expresly imputes to them this Error. Prateolus says the same thing because he coppys Guy Carmes his Words. We shall soon see that Prateolus is not the only Person that has followed Guy Carmes. It is sufficient to Remark here that Mr. Arnaud has believed the Author of the Perpetuitys Thesis was not justifyable, and therefore has chose rather of his own accord to forsake it than to be forced to it by a considerable number of Authoritys. I confess this acknowledgment of Mr. Arnauds is praise-worthy, but this confident Assertion of the Author of the Perpetuity is not so, for altho a retractation is a vertuous effect, yet methinks a man ought to be sparing in this particular. But to go on with our Proofs.

THE Second shall be taken from the Testimony of Pope John 22. The Historian Raynaldus relates that in his time not only the Armenians which dwelt in Cilicia and Armenia embraced the Doctrines of the Roman Church, but those also that were driven out by the Saracens and were withdrawn into Chersonnesus Taurique submitted themselves to the Bishop of Capha who was a Latin. That he received them in the name of the Roman Church. That the Pope thereupon congratulated them, and shewed them that in the Divine Mysteries the substance of Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood

of Jesus Christ, and that there ought to be mingled some Water with the Wine before it be consecrated. He afterwards produces this Popes Letter to the Arch-Bishop and Armenian Priests which were in the Diocess of Capha. We have receiv'd, says Pope John, great satisfaction in Understanding how the Almighty Creator displaying his virtue in you has enlightned your minds with the Knowledge of his saving Grace, and in that you have vowed to keep the Catholick faith which the Holy Roman Church truly holds, which she faithfully Teaches and Preaches, and that you have promised Obedience to the Roman Prelate and his Church, in the presence of our Reverend Brother Jerome Bishop of Capha. And therefore we earnestly desire that holding the saving Doctrines of this Church you likewise observe its Ceremonies, especially in what relates to the most excellent of the Sacraments, which is the ineffable Sacrament of the Altar. For altho all the other Sacraments confer sanctifying Grace, yet in this is contained intirely Jesus Christ Sacramentally under the species of Bread and Wine, which remain, the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood. Then he tells them they must mingle water with the wine in the Chalice, because this mixture is a Commemoration of our Lords Death, and of the Blood and Water which gush∣ed out from his side. 'Tis evident that this Pope applyes himself only to these two Articles, because the Armenians held neither of them, and that in reference to them it was a new Doctrine and Ceremony in which they had need to be instructed. For to what purpose should Transubstantiation be recommended to them if they before held it for a fundamental point of their Ancient Religion? Why must all the other points of Controversy between the two Churches be laid aside, as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the two Natures of our Saviour Christ, Purgatory, Confirmation, and se∣veral others to stick wholly to Transubstantiation, and the mixture of Water? The thing declares it self.

MR. Arnaud who is of all men in the World the most ready at proofs, makes one of this. The Pope, says he, so little distrusted the Armenians believ∣ed not Transubstantiation, that altho he proposes it to them expresly, yet he * 1.78 does it only occasionally, and by way of principle, to assert the Wine ought to be mixt with Water. And this last particular is that to which he particularly applys himself, and which is the Capital or Summary of his Letter; whereas had he had the least thought that the Armenians believed not Transubstantiation, he would without doubt have set about proving it, and that with more care and earnestness than he does the mixture of Water in the Chalice.

MR. Arnaud must pardon me if I tell him, 'tis not true that the Pope does only occasionally mention Transubstantiation and by way of principle to establish the mixture of Water. Raynaldus who relates this affair gives a better account of it than he, ipsos instruxit, says he, ut in divinis mysteriis substantia panis et vini integris speciebus, cum Christi corpore et sanguine commu∣taretur, et vino consecrando aqua modica affundenda esset. I believe I do not do ill in opposing against Mr. Arnaud's Illusion, a truth attested by an Histo∣rian that faithfully relates the matter, without the least regard to our dis∣pute. Moreover what can be more unreasonable than to say as Mr. Arnaud do's that the Pope proposes Transubstantiation only occasionally and by way of Principle to establish thereby the putting of Water into the Cup? What Relation is there between these two things, it do's not follow from the believing of Transubstantiation that Water must be put in the Chalice, nor that those which do not do it oppose this Doctrine. These are two distinct points

which have their Proofs apart without any Coherence or mutual depen∣dence, and there cannot be perhaps any thing imputed to a Pope less be∣seeming the Dignity and Infallibility of the Head of the Church than to make him argue after this manner. The Bread and Wine are Transubstan∣tiated, therefore you must put Water into the Chalice. Mr. Arnaud ought to be more careful of the Honour of this Prelate, and observe that Transubstantiation and the mixture of Water are not in his Discourse a kind of Principle and Conclusion, (this would be Ridiculous) but a Doctrine, and Practice which the Pope recommends to the Armenians, to the end they may be henceforward conformable to the Roman Church in the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar, and thus Raynaldus understood it, who has been more sincere in this than Mr. Arnaud. As to that minute observation that the Pope do's more insist on the mixture of Water than on Transubstantiation it is not worthconsidering for this proceeds not from the cause Mr. Arnaud imag∣ins, but only from the Popes declaring to the Armenians the mystical significa∣tions of this mixture, which required some Discourse, and which Raynaldus has well observed, whodistinguishesthesethree particulars in the Popes Letter, Transubstantiation, the Mixture of Water, and the mystical significations. Ipsos instruxit ut indivinis mysteriis substantia panis & vini integris speciebus, cum Christi corpore & sanguine commutaretur, & vino consecrando aqua modica affun denda esset, acdivina ea re adumbratra mysteria aperuit, that is to say, he taught 'em the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, the mixture of Water, and shewed them the mysteries represented by this mixture.

MY third Proof is taken from the information which Benedict XII Successor to John the XXII caused to be made touching the Errours of the Armenians, not at Rome (as Mr. Arnaud has asserted through a mistake, of which inadvertency were I guilty how severe would he be upon me?) but at Avignon, where he kept his seat, and whence his Bull is dated. The 67 Ar∣ticle * 1.79 is exprest in these Terms, The Armenians do not say that after the words of Consecration, the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Born of the Virgin who suffered and rose again. But they hold that this Sacrament is a representation, a resemblance or a figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord. And this some of the Armenian Doctors have particularly asserted, to wit, that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are not in the Eucharist, but that it is a representation, and a resemblance of them. They say likewise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament, he did not Tran∣substantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body, but only instituted a representa∣tion or a resemblance of his Body and Blood, and therefore they do not call the Sacrament of the Altar, the Body and Blood of our Lord, but the Host, the Sa∣crifice, or the Communion. One of their Doctors called Darces has written that when the Priest says these words, this is my Body, then the Body of Jesus Christ is Dead, but when he adds, by which Holy Spirit, &c. then the Body of Jesus Christ is alive; yet has he not expressed whether it be the true Body or the resem∣blance of it. The Armenians likewise say we must expound that which is say'd in the Cannon of their Mass, by which Holy Spirit the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ in this sence, that by the real Body of Jesus Christ, we must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And therefore Damascen censuring them for this says that the Armenians have this Two Hundred years abolished all the Sacraments, and that their Sacraments were not given them by the Apostles, nor Greek or Latin Church, but that they had taken them up according to their own Fancy.

MR Arnaud who in looking over his Raynaldus has met with this clear Testimo∣ny

yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 has not been perplexed with it, for his invention never fails of finding out ways to shift the force of the most plain and positive truths, and to turn them to his own advantage. He tells us that after an exact search into the cause which might move Guy Carmes to impute this Error to the Armenians he at length found it in this information which Pope Benedict the XII ordered to be drawn up. He adds, that if this Original has been known to the Ministers, yet they have found greater advantage in standing by the Testimony * 1.80 of Guy Carmes then in ascending up to this Source.

BUT all this Discourse is but a meer Amusement. For when Mr. Arnauds conjecture should be right, it would not thence follow Guy Carmes his Testimony were void, and the Ministers had no right to alledge him, nor that the Information aforementioned do's impute to the Armenians those Doctrines which they have not. There is great likelyhood that Guy Carmes made not this information his rule, for besides that he say's nothing of it, he reckons up but Thirty Errours of the Armenians, whereas the information computes 'em to be about One Hundred and Seventeen. But supposing it were so, all that can be concluded thence is, that in the Fourteenth Century the truth of the things contained in this act was not questioned, but past for such certainties that the Writers of those times scrupled not to make them the Subject of their Books. And this is all the use which can be made of Mr. Arnaud's Remark.

BUT howsoever, what can be said against an act so Authentick as that of Benedict's, which was not grounded on uncertain Reports, but on the Testimonies of several Persons worthy of credit, Armenians or Latins who had been in Armenia, and whom the Pope would hear himself that he might be ascertain'd of the Truth?

TO know of what weight or Authority this piece is, we need but read what the Pope wrote on this Subject, to the Catholick or Patriarch of Armenia. * 1.81 We have long since, says he, been informed by several Persons of good credit, that in both the Armenia's there are held several detestable and abominable Errors, and that they are maintained contrary to the Catholick Faith which the Holy Roman Church holds and teaches, which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful. And altho at first we were unwilling to credit these reports, yet were at length forced to yield to the certain Testimony of Persons who tell us they perfectly understand the state of those Countries. Yet before we gave full credit, we thought our selves Obliged to make exact search of the Truth by way of judiciary and solemn information, both by hearing several witnesses who likewise told us they knew the state of these Countrys, and taking in Writing these their Depositions, and by means of Books which we are informed the Armenians do commonly use wherein are plainly taught these Errors. He says the same in his Letter to the King of Armenia, and in his information 'tis expresly said, that the Pope caused these Witnesses to appear personally before him, and gave * 1.82 them an Oath to speak the truth of what they knew concerning the Doctrines of the Armenians, that these Witnesses were not only Latins that had been in Armenia, but Armenians themselves, and that the Books produced were written in the Armenian tongue, and some of those were such as were in use in both the Armenia's? I think here are as many formalities as can be desired, and all these circumstances will not suffer a man to call in question the truth of those matters of fact which are contained in this act.

YET will not Mr. Arnaud agree herein. He says, that in this monstrous heap of Errors there are several senceless, extravagant and Socinian Opinions. * 1.83 That therein Original Sin, the Immortality of the Soul, the Vision of God, the Existence of Hell, and almost all the points of Religion are denyed. That therein are also contrary Errors, so that 'tis plain this is not the Religion of a People, or Nation, but rather a Rapsody of Opinions of several Sects and Nations. I confess there are in these Articles several absurd Opinions, and some that differ little from Socinianism, but this hinders not but they may be the Opi∣nions of a particular People. The Pope expresly distinguishes in his Bull three sorts of Errors contained in his information, some that are held in both one and the other Armenia, others which are held only in one Armenia, and the third which are only held and taught by some particular Persons. And this distinction is exactly observed in the Articles themselves, in which the Par∣ticular Opinions are Described in these terms, quidam, or aliqui tenent, as in Article CVI. Quidam Catholicon Armenorum dixit & scripsit, quod in ge∣nerali Resurrectione omnes homines consurgent cum Corporibus suis, sed tamen in Corporibus eorum non erit Sexuum discretio. And in the CVIII Article, Aliqui magni Homines Armeni Laici dixerunt quod sicut bestiae in morte expirant, & sic moriuntur, ita & Homines; & sicut bestiae cum semel morte fuerunt, nunquam resurgent, ita nec homines. The Opinions held only in one Armenia are likewise denoted exactly in these Words. In majori Armenia, In minori Armenia, or, Catholicon majoris Armeniae, Catholicon minoris Armeniae. The common Opinions are expressed in these Terms, Armeni dicunt, Armeni tenent. And altho in the Article which respects the real Presence and Transubstantiation we find these words. Et hoc specialiter aliqui magistri Armenorum dixerunt, videlicet quod non erat ibi Corpus Christi verum & Sanguis, sed exemplar, & similitudo ejus; yet is this same sentiment imputed generally to all the Armenians, for the Article begins thus, Item quod Armeni, non dicunt quod post verba consecrationis Panis & Vini sit facta Transubstantiatio Panis & Vini in verum Corpus Christi & San∣guinem. And towards the end of the same Article there is, Quod etiam Ar∣meni illud quod ponitur in eorum Canone Missae, per quem panis Benedictus efficitur verum Corpus Christi, exponunt quia efficitur ibi vera similitudo, & exemplar Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. Unde Damascenus propter hoc reprehen∣dens eos dixit, quod ducenti tunc anni erant quod Armeni perdiderunt omnia Sacramenta, &c. It is then clear that this information attributes this Opinion not to some particular Persons, but to the whole Body of the Armenians, seeing that on one hand this Article bears the Character of Errors, common to the Armenians; and on the other there is applyed to 'em what Damascene say'd of 'um so long before, that they had lost all the Sacraments. Let Mr. Arnaud bestir himself as fiercely as he pleases, he cannot hinder us from per∣ceiving that if this Article related only to Particular Persons; witnesses of the Fourteenth Century, that depose what it contains would never have sought in the eight Century, that is to say, Six Hundred Years before the Authority of Damascen to confirm what they deposed, and even to confirm it by a passage which respects the Church of the Armenians in general, and which accuses it for having no true Sacrament.

MR. Arnaud observes afterwards that in this same Article there is accu∣sed another Armenian Doctor named Narces, for saying when the Priest * 1.84 pronounces these Words, Hoc est Corpus meum, the Body of Jesus Christ is then in a state of Death, and when he adds, perquem, the Body of Jesus Christ is then alive. It is true, says he, the information adds that this Doctor do's not express whether he speaks of the true Body of Jesus Christ, or of the Figure.

But the difference of these two states of Life and Death being to be found in a figure which does not change, sufficiently shews that he spake of the true Body of Jesus Christ. If these two states of Life and Death cannot be found in a figure, much less in the true Body of Jesus Christ, which is no more Subject to Death, nor the Necessity of rising again. Is Mr. Arnaud so greatly prejudic'd that he cannot perceive the sence of this Doctor is, that the Eucharist is a mystery which expresses the whole oeconomy of Jesus Christ, especially his Death, and Resurrection, according to the common Doctrine of the Greeks, from which in this respect the Greeks do not vary?

IN the Seventyeth Error, says he moreover, the same Armenians are * 1.85 charged with believing that when any one receives the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus Christ Descends into his Body, and is converted therein as other aliments, which is a contrary Heresie to that of Berengarius. But as Berengarius would not have scrupled to call the Bread, which is the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ; so neither would he have scrupled to express himself in the same manner, as this Article makes the Armenians do, That the Body of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Bread which is the figure of it, Descends into our Bodies, and is changed into our Bodies. So that this contrariety which Mr. Arnaud imagins, has no Ground. But there is a real Opposition between this Discourse of the Armenians that the Body of Jesus Christ is Changed into our Bodies as other food, and the Opinion of Transubstantiation; for how can it be conceived that the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven should be changed into our Bodies, that an incorruptible substance should be digested, and changed, that a substance which exists after the manner of Spirits, should nourish us and become food to us? It appears then from this very thing that by the Body of Jesus Christ the Armenians mean only the Sacrament or Mystery of this Body, which in respect of its substance is real Bread.

NEITHER is it to any purpose to Remark, as Mr. Arnaud do's, * 1.86 that those to whom was attributed the believing the Eucharist to be only the figure of Christs Body were not wont to call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, and yet commonly the Armenians do thus call it, as appears by their Liturgies. For 'tis evident the sence of this Article is, not that abso∣lutely the Armenians rejected this expression, seeing it immediately after∣wards attributes it to them; but that it was not usual amongst them, espe∣cially since they saw the Latins abused it, and therefore they chose rather to use those of Host, Sacrifice and Communion.

IT is also to no purpose to say the Liturgy of the Armenians is contrary * 1.87 to this Opinion, seeing it contained the Bread is made the real Body of Jesus Christ; for they expounded it in this sence, that the Bread is made the true resemblance, or the representation of the Body of Jesus Christ. This explication, says Mr. Arnaud, is so absurd and ridiculous, that it could not be very common, it being impossible the generality should entertain it. But does Mr. Arnaud believe that Transubstantiation being fully and truly explained, as it is in it self, and consequences and dependencies, can be more easily entertain'd by a People than this sence which the Armenians give to the terms of their Liturgy?

AS to what he adds, that it is say'd, in the Seventyeth Article, that * 1.88

according to the Armenians the Eucharist do's not effect the remission of Sins, nor confer Grace, and that this is contrary to the Words of the Liturgy of the Armenians of Leopolis, and a passage of the Catholick of Armenia in the conference of Theorien, which say's they Sacrifice in the Church the son of God for the Salvation of the whole World. All that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is, That the Armenians residing in Armenia do not well agree in this point with those of Leopolis in Poland, and that the Catholick which conferred with Theorien was of no great consideration amongst them; but it cannot hence follow that the things which these Articles contain are only the Opinions of some particular Persons.

BUT, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, the Armenians justified themselves * 1.89 by acts, decrees, and formal declarations; the King of Armenia, caused a Reli∣gious named Daniel to draw up a Memorial, in which he protested against these Errors, and complains they were unjustly charged on his Nation. The Patriarch and Bishops being assembled condemned them. The Patriarch of the lesser Armenia declared to Clement the Sixth his faith touching the Eucharist in these terms; That the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, Dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven after the Words of the Consecration of the Bread which are, This is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and appearances of Bread.

THERE is a strange Illusion in all this Discourse. 'Tis true the King of Armenia who needed the Popes protection drew up this Memorial men∣tioned by Mr. Arnaud. But seeing he had this Remark from Raynaldus he ought not to have suppressed what the same Raynaldus adds, Caeterum non * 1.90 falso subornata erant haec crimina in Armenos, nec temerè credita à Benedicto, fassosenim Clementi VI. Armeniae Regis Oratoresplures errores in Armenia pullu∣lasse, & Clementem studia sua ut abolerentur applicuisse visurisumus. Moreoverthe Armenians were not falsly accused of these crimes, nor did Benedict believe them without sufficient grounds. For the Ambassadors of the King of Armenia con∣fessed to Clement the Sixth, that several Errors had sprung up in Armenia, and Clement used his utmost endeavours to crush them, as we shall see by what follows. This dis-acknowledgment then of the King, and complaint which Daniel made concerning the imputation of Doctrines to the Armenians which they never own'd, was only a Politick intrigue, which yet does not hinder the information of Benedict from being true. I do not doubt but the King in the extremity of his affairs, threatned by the Saracens, and having no hope but in the protection of the Latins, assembled his Bishops that they might satisfie the Pope in what he desired, and condemn the Errors contained in his Bull. But if Mr. Arnaud will conclude, that then they had them not before, Raynaldus will draw a contrary Consequence, that then they had them. For after having say'd, as I now recited, that these Errors were not falsly charged upon the Armenians, he immediately adds as a rea∣son which confirms his Proposition. Quin etiam commoti pontificiis monitis Armeni praesules coacta solemni Synodo numeratos superiùs Errores Ecclesiastica execratione damnaverunt, ac decreta insigni ad sedem Apostolicam legatione imperiis se pontificiis adhaesuros professi sunt. But moreover the Armenians moved by the Popes remonstrances called a Synod, wherein they Condemned with an Anathema the Errors contained in this information, and sent Embassa∣dours to the Pope to make profession of their Obedience to his Commands. He proves that the Errors contained in the Popes information were really the Armenians, because the Bishops met together to Condemn them. What a

great deal of difference there is between a Person that is prejudiced and one that is not. Raynaldus is naturally no more favourable to us than Mr. Arnaud, the one is a Priest of the Oratory, and the other a Doctor of the Sorbonne, yet they draw from the same matter of fact contrary Conclusions; one hence shews the Armenians were innocent of the things they were accused, and th'other from the same Principle proves they were Culpable. And this because one has the dispute in his Eye, and th'other not, the one Reasons without passion and th'other is in a heat.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud say's touching the Patriarch of the lesser Ar∣menia who so Authentickly declared his faith concerning the Eucharist to Pope Clement VI. I cannot but desire the Readers attention to this sub∣ject; for here he will perceive one of Mr. Arnaud's notorious Sophisms. It is to be observed then that after Benedict the XII. had sent into Ar∣menia the Catalogue of this Peoples Errors, the affairs of the Armenians growing every day worse, they resolved (that they might render the Latins favourable to 'em) to make in a Synod a pretended Decree wherein they feigned to renounce these Errors, and abjure them; which made Pope Clement VI. (who was Benedict's Successor) to send them Anthony Bishop of Gayette, and John Arch-Bishop of Pisa, in quality of Apostolical Legats to finish (if Possible) the Work of their reduction. Raynaldus speaks of this act as of a Piece, not by which they cleared themselves of a false accusation, but whereby they renounced their Opinions, Post habitam, says he, Synodum at que in ea repudiatos Errores. And Clement speaks after * 1.91 the same manner in the Letter he sent them. Vestra Synodo prout per vos commode fieri potuit convocata, Errores abjecistis et condemnastis prae∣dictos, sicut in libello quem nobis transmiststis continetur. Observe these terms repudiatos Eerores, & Errores abjecistis, for they expresly signifie a change of Opinion, a renunciation of their former Errors, and not a bare Condemnation of Errors for which they had been in refe∣rence to their Church in General impertinently accused, as Mr. Arnaud would make us believe. But the King of Armenia urged the Pope to assist him against the Soldan of Babylon, who fell upon his Kingdom; and the Pope pressed him on the other hand, to assist his Legats in the extirpating of those Errors which were so rife in Armenia. He wrote also to the Legats to inform him of their Success, who gave him to understand they lost their Labour, and that whatsoever declarations the Armenians had made, they still persevered in their Opinions. Which appears by a Letter of Clement to the Bishop of Nicosia, ab eorum Erroribus, say's he, iidem * 1.92 Rex, Catholicus, et Populus minime resipuisse dicuntnr, sicut per quasdam litter as missas & Scripturam exhibitam nobisluculenter apparet. They persevered therein, they repented not of them, say's the Pope, and Mr. Arnaud would needs perswade us they were falsly accused.

THE Pope had charged his Legat with some opposite Articles to the Errors of the Armenians to make 'um receive them, and that which re∣spected the Eucharist contain'd these words, That the same Numerical Body * 1.93 of Jesus Christ, idem numero, which was born of the Virgin and nayled to the Cross is contain'd in the Eucharist. One of the Legats, Anthony by name, dyed in the way, and John having performed his Voyage fail'd not to pro∣pose these Articles to the Catholick of Armenia Minor and his Bishops. But the Catholick refused to approve them; he absolutely rejected some of them, and made captious and doubtful answers to others; he never would admit of the Article touching the Eucharist which contained, That after

Consecration it was the same Numerical Body of Jesus Christ which was born of a Virgin and suffered on the Cross. He wrote a Letter in which of fifty three Articles which were offered him he rejected sixteen of them, amongst which was that of the Eucharist; and in the Answers he made to the Popes instructions, he would never admit of Transubstantiation, but barely says, he believed and held that the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven, after the words of the Consecration of the Bread which are, this is my Body, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species, and resemblance of Bread, sub specie & similitudine panis. Now 'tis on this whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds himself concealing all the rest of this History and producing only these last words, and drawing from them his Conclusion after his usual Manner in these terms, I see no * 1.94 reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch considering this his declaration, that is to say, it plainly appeared hence that he believed Transubstantiation, and the Substantial presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

BUT Mr. Arnaud is too quick at drawing of Consequences. For I. he ought not to have dissembled that in all this affair the question is not whe∣ther the Armenians held, or did not hold the things contain'd in the infor∣mation of Benedict, but whether they sincerely renounced them; and whether the act of their renunciation sent to the Pope was feigned or real. II. He ought not to have dissembled likewise that the whole conduct of the Amenians was in this respect but a mere cheat, invented only to remedy the disorders of their State, and procure assistance from the Western Princes. That the Pope laid hold on this Occasion to make them receive the Roman Religion, and they on their side endeavoured to deceive the Pope and draw from him what they desired, in eluding his pursuits. Which is justified by the Letter sent by Clement himself to the Catholick of Armenia. Moreover, says he, we have bin several times informed by divers * 1.95 Persons worthy of credit, and even by Armenians, that you and your Predecessors the Catholicks of Armenia, and the Armenians under your jurisdiction do not in any manner observe, what you promised us and our Predecessors the. Roman Prelates touching the Faith. And that which is yet worse and more deplorable, is, that you have contemned and utterly rejected the wholesome Instructions of our Apostolical Legats sent you in regard to your Souls, but have after a Damna∣ble manner despised the Faith of the Roman Church, out of which there is neither Grace nor Salvation. The same thing appears by Clement's Letter to the King of Armenia, in which having exhorted him earnestly to endeavour to make his Patriarch receive the Roman Doctrine sincerely and purely * 1.96 without duplicity of heart, to the end his Clergy and People may be reunited to the La∣tin Church, he adds, that by this means the mouths of several Catholicks and Armenians too will be stopt who stick not to affirm, That the Patriarch and other Armenians proceeded not in this affair with faithfulness and simplicity, but with dissimulation; and that which is yet worse and more deplorable, they affirm the Armenians have turn'd into derision and contempt the saving Doctrine which the Legats of the Holy See have communicated to them.

III. HE ought not to have conceal'd that the Patriarch of Armenia, who would save himself by ambiguous Answers, rejected the Article of the Eucharist which contain'd, that it was the same Numerical Body which * 1.97 was Born of the Virgin and crucified; and that he neither would admit of the Article of Transubstantiation, because both one and the other so mani∣festly contradicted his faith, and left no room for his Equivocations.

In fine, he ought not to have concluded so briskly as he has done from the terms of his Answer, that after this declaration, there could be no Reason to doubt whether this Patriarch had the same faith as the Church of Rome. For notwithstanding this declaration Clement VI. still doubted of it, as also the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Doctors with whom the Pope consulted about it. Observe here the Contents of * 1.98 Clement's Letter to this Catholick of Armenia. We have kindly re∣ceiv'd your answers, and those of the Church of Armenia minor, reduced to certain heads; and having deliberately considered them, together with my Reve∣rend Brethren the Cardinals of the Roman Church, some Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Prelates, we could not, nor cannot now gather from these answers, till such time as you give us a more clear Discovery, what you and the Church of Armenia minor do truely and sincerely hold and believe. He afterwards adds this obliged him to make interrogations on Each Article, and desired plain and direct answers. In effect he proposes 'em to him, and coming to the Article of the Eucharist having set down the first answer of the Patriarch in the terms I already recited, he adds, upon this we demand * 1.99 first of all whether you believe the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. Then coming to speak of a certain Letter which the Pa∣triarch wrote wherein he rejected sixteen Articles, of the fifty three which were offered him, and amongst the sixteen this. Quod Corpus Christi post * 1.100 verba Consecrationis sit idem numero, quod Corpus natum de virgine & immolatum in cruce, he says to him, the terms of your Letter wherein you write that you have taken away sixteen Articles of the fifty three which were given you by our Arch-Bishop and Bishops are confused and obscure, as also the particular answers you returned by Writing. Therefore we desire to know of you plainly, and truely, whether you have rejected these sixteen Articles because you do not believe 'em to be true and sound, or for what other reason you have retrenched them from the rest. But Mr. Arnaud being better inform'd than this Pope with his Car∣dinals, Prelates and Doctors, and better instructed in the intentions of the Ar∣menian Patriarch than all the People then in the World, comes and confident∣ly tells us, that he sees no reason to doubt of the faith of this Patriarch, and thinks Mr. Claude himself will acknowledge as much. And suppressing all these matters of fact related by the very Historian he makes use of, he proclaims his Victories; and confidently affirms, the Armenians have ever believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

BUT Raynaldus is of a contrary Opinion, for having related the whole story of what passed between Clement the VI. and the Armenian Patriarch which was only the Sequel of Benedict's information, he adds, That we may thence plainly see into how many filthy Errors thy fall who separate from the * 1.101 Church of Rome. That innovators howsoever have no reason to glory in the An∣tiquity of their Heresies, nor bragg, (for the seducing of the weak) that the Armenians and other Eastern People have the same sentiments with them. For altho they hold some of these Errors, yet do they not admit them all, but differ from the Armenians in very considerable matters. That the Divine justice is rather to be admired which has permitted the Armenians infected with these Errors to fall under the power of the Barbarians. This is not a proper place to Answer Raynaldus in, 'tis sufficient he acknowledges the Armenians did in effect hold, all these Doctrines which are attributed to them in the act of Benedict, in the instructions of Clement, and consequently that they de∣ny'd Transubstantiation and the real Presence.

WE may then reckon as a IV Proof, the testimony of Raynaldus together with that of Pope Clement's, and the Catholick of Armenia's. The 5th. shall be taken from Pope Eugenius IV. who in the instructions he gave to the Armenians, in the Council of Florence, forgot not the Article of Tran∣substantiation, the form, says he, of this Sacrament consists in our Saviours words by which he compleated this Sacrament. The Priest speaking in the * 1.102 Person of our Saviour Christ do's the same. For by the virtue of these words the substance of Bread is changed into his Body, and the substance of Wine into his Blood, so that Jesus Christ is intirely contain'd under the species of Bread, and Wine, and is intire under each part whether of the Consecrated Host or Con∣secrated Wine, even when the species are separate. Mr. Arnaud say's, 'tis not usual to propose Capital Points of Controversie in this manner. That they are not tackt to the Tail of other Articles, nor are so lightly passed over, but considered established and strengthened. But Mr. Arnaud forgets how the Pope esta∣blished and strengthened the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol; which he injoyn'd them to receive, altho a controverted Point. How did he con∣firm the Article of the two Natures in Jesus Christ but by giving them the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo? Upon what Reasons did he ground the Article of the Remission of Original sin in Baptism when the Armenians were guilty in this Point of a Capital Error, as appears by the information of Benedict XII? What Proofs did he bring to shew 'em that the Consecration of the Eucharist is made by the words of our Saviour, when the Armenians believ'd the contrary, as we may see in the same information? These kind of Remarks which are usual with Mr. Arnaud have neither light nor Solidity in them. Eugenius is excusable let Mr. Arnaud say what he will; he thought it no wise necessary, to insert common Places in his Decretal, nor to be so scrupulous in observing Heads or Tails, like such as view the Dragon in the Firmament. He design'd only to give the Armenians the form of Doctrine which they ought hencefor∣ward to hold in reference to the Points wherein he believed they erred according to the report of the Bishop of Pamiez in the Passage I have related. Now the Article of Transubstantiation being expresly mention'd therein, 'tis a sign the Armenians did not believe it.

CHAP. IV.

Testimony of several other Authors that affirm the Armenians deny Transubstantiation, and the real Presence.

THE Sixth Proof which I bring to confirm the Truth of the Proposi∣tion I defend, is taken out of Authors of the Roman Communion, who have bin so far from questioning Guy Carmes's Testimony, that they have on the contrary followed and confirmed it by their suffrages. We may reckon in this number Thomas Waldensis a famous Author of the fifteenth Century, and a zealous Defender of Transubstan∣tiation, who writing against Wicliff, calls the Armenians, Nepotes Beren∣garii, Berengarius his Children or Disciples. I mention 'em, says he, to the end we may have a care of 'em. And therefore also Guy Carmes speaking of them, says, that the Twenty Second of their Errors is, that after the Conse∣cration, * 1.103 the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread, and Wine, but only in Representation and Figure. That Jesus Christ did not really Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood, but only in Resemblance and Figure.

PRATEOLUS a Dr. of Divinity that lived about an Hundred * 1.104 years since, testifies the same thing, They deny, says he, (speaking of the Armenians) the true Body of Jesus Christ to be contain'd really in the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and Wine.

BZOVIUS an Historian of our time and a continuer of Baronius, has * 1.105 not scrupled to follow Prateolus in this Point. He observes as well as he for the Twelv'th of their Heresies, That the true Body of Jesus Christ is not under the species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist.

IODOCUS Coccius a Cannon of Juliers, in that confused heap of * 1.106 Collections he has made of passages out of the Fathers touching controverted Points, follows Guy Carmes; and relying on his Testimony assures us, That the Armenians deny the Eucharist to be the real Body and Blood of Christ, affirming it to be only a sign thereof.

THOMAS à Jesu who has made strict inquiry into the Opinions of the Schismatical Eastern Churches, has thought (as well as others) he * 1.107 ought not to deviate from the sentiment of Guy Carmes, nor that any man has Reason to doubt of the Truth of his Testimony. He relates and approves it, and says, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ, to be really contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine. * 1.108

DR. Avily in his computation of Heresies both Modern and Ancient, has likewise follow'd Guy Carmes, and assured us from his Testimony

That the Armenians teach Christ's Body is not really under the Bread, nor his Blood under the Wine.

HOW comes it that these Authors who appear otherwise so zealous for the Interests of the Roman Church have not found out this pretended mistake of Guy Carmes? Why should they suffer themselves to be so grosly imposed on? or, to speak better, whence has Mr. Arnaud this extraordinary Revelation? how comes he to be better informed than o∣ther People?

WE shall in the following Chapter search into the Grounds of his Opinion, and the Proofs he brings, only mentioning here several Protestants, whose Testimony is the less to be suspected, in asmuch as, what they wrote was not all design'd for our controversie. We have already seen in the Discourse about the Moscovites, that Lasicius a Polander writing of the Armenians of Leopolis say's, they believe the Bread and Wine retain their first Nature. They deny, say's he, that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist * 1.109 the Elements lose their Nature. They administer the Sacrament with Wheaten Bread dipt in the Cup. They mingle no water with the Wine. They shew a greater respect to the Sacrament than the Russians, believing our Saviour Christ is therein such as he was Born of the Virgin, and after the Incarnation there was such a Conjunction, and affinity, between the Divine and Humane Nature, that they were not separated in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ nor ever can be. They have this Opinion from St. Chrysostom that Jesus Christ suffers something more in the Eucharist than he suffered on the Cross, because in the Eucharist he suffers the Sacramental fraction. And when I demanded of them how this could be, seeing the Nature of Bread and Wine remains without being changed after the Consecration, they answered me, This was effected by the Divine virtue, to which we ought to give credit. And these are Lasicius his words, according to the Original, but different from Mr. Arnaud's Version. It now concerns us to inquire into the advantage or prejudice which hence accrue to the cause I defend, for if on one hand I pretend to prove by what has bin abovesaid that the Armenians belive not Transubstantiation; Mr. Arnaud undertakes to prove by it also that they believe the real Presence. But as to my pretention I think 'tis well grounded and beyond all Question, seeing this Author say's expresly they deny the Elements lose their Na∣ture.

HE has had his informations, say's Mr. Arnaud, only from some Ignorant * 1.110 Persons in Leopolis. If this be a sufficient ground for rejecting the Testi∣mony of Lasicius in reference to Transubstantiation, why do's Mr. Arnaud cite the same Testimony to shew the Armenians believe the real Presence? Has this Author met with ignorant persons for the informing him in one Point, and knowing ones for the other? perhaps, say's he, he did not comprehend that by the word Nature, they meant only the Mass of external Acci∣dents. But he ought to assert things more likely to be probable. Where will * 1.111 he find the Armenians ever took the term Nature, for the Mass of external accidents seperate from their substance? The existence of accidents without a subject is one of those Difficulties of which (he himself tells us in another place) the Greeks, the Armenians and Copticks of our times make no men∣tion. Why then would he have 'em to use in a familiar Discourse the * 1.112 word Nature to signify a thing which is unknown to 'em, or of which at least they make no mention? Mr. Arnaud makes and marrs these Principles

according as his occasions require, Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadrata rotundis. Which shews his Answers mere Evasions, and in effect there's no Body that reads these words of Lasicius, but will immediately comprehend they mean the Armenians deny Transubstantiation. Now this is precisely the Point in question between the Author of the Perpetuity and me. Hitherto our Disputes has not concern'd the real Presence.

BUT seeing he is desirous to treat of it, I must tell him there is a great deal of difference between his pretension and mine, that mine is grounded on clear expressions which are not capable of any other sence; whereas on the contrary his are established on obscure and Ambiguous Terms, of which he has not comprehended the sence. For these Persons say only That our Saviour Christ is in the Eucharist such as he was born of the Vir∣gin Mary. Now we have already seen that according to them, Mary only brought forth the Divine Nature, which had only a Body in appear∣ance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not really. Upon this Hypothesis their sence will be, that the Divinity being every where, it must of Consequence be in the Eucharist. And with this agrees what they add, that after the Incarnation, there was such a conjunction and society between the Divine and Humane Natures, that they were not seperate even in the Sufferings of Christ. For by this Conjunction they understood not a Union which leaves the two Na∣tures distinct, for in so saying they would not contradict the Orthodox sence, but they meant a Confusion of the Humane Nature with the Divine, a swallowing up of this Humane Nature into the Abyss of the Divi∣nity, as we have already seen they commonly held. So that all the real Presence which they Understand in the Sacrament, is no other than the presence of the Divinity, which is every where, but more especially in the Eucharist. 'Tis very probable 'twas under this Equivocation the Pa∣triarch of Armenia Minor sheltred himself in the answer he made to the Articles of Pope Clement VI. which we have related in the preceeding Chapter. The Body of Jesus Christ, say's he, Born of the Virgin, dead on the Cross, and which is now alive in Heaven, is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species and representation of Bread. The Body Born of the Vir∣gin and Dead on the Cross, which was to say, according to them, the Divinity, which in being Born of the Virgin had the appearance of a Body and Dyed in appearance on the Cross. But when he was urged to acknowledge 'twas the same Numerical Body, he would not grant it, because he believed the term Number reduc'd the Body of Christ into the same Rank with other Humane Bodies, and consequently made it a real Body. Mr. Arnaud will reply, this is one of my Conjectures which has no surer foundation than his may be so's. But he has no other Grounds for his may be's than his own Imagination, whereas I lay my Conjectures on the very Hypothe∣sis of the Armenians, having first solidly shewn 'tis such as I de∣scribe it.

WE may add to the Testimony of Lasicius that of Breerewood, in his * 1.113 Treatise of Religions. For he say's expresly, That the Armenians deny the true Body of Jesus Christ to be really in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the species of Bread and Wine. I confess indeed he grounds himself on the Authority of Guy Carmes, but this shews he takes it for an unquestiona∣ble truth.

MR. Alexander Ross in his view of Religions likewise tells us, that the

Armenians do not hold the Body of Christ is really present under the form * 1.114 of Bread and Wine.

MR. De Vicqfort a Gentleman whose name is almost known thro out all Europe, for his skill in Languages and other exquisit qualifications, has obliged the publick with a Translation into French of Herbert's Voyages, in which are found these words, The Armenians administer the Sacrament * 1.115 of our Lords Supper under the two Species of Bread and Wine, and deny the real presence of the Body of Christ, acknowledging only the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper. There has hapned upon the Account of this Translation a very Remarkable circumstance. You must know then that Mr. Arnaud in the first edition of his Book having made an Ob∣jection to himself concerning this Passage of Herbert, and heightened it as∣much as he could to the saying, he marvelled Mr. Claude never offered it, being so considerable as to startle most People, that he thought there could * 1.116 be nothing replyed to such an express passage, and that this Author seemed to speak no more than what he had learnt from the Armenians themselves. Having I say proposed this Objection, he Answers, that this was a Remarkable forgery of the Calvinistical Translator. That having desired some of his Friends to Translate from the Original English, whatsoever related to the Armenians in that Book, he found by their Translation that not only he does in no wise speak of the real Presence, but that almost all the discourses contained in the 249^th. and 250^th. page were foysted in by the Translator, who made his Dreams and Fancies pass for the Relations of a Traveller. That 'tis likely he has done the same in several other places, so that this whole Book is rather the Translators Romance than the true account of a Voyage. This Discourse being very disingenuous and reflecting on the reputation of a worthy Gentleman, who has ever manifested in his Writings and Conversation an exemplary sincerity, it has happened that Mr. Vicqfort having seen this charge in Mr. Arnaud's Book has publickly justifyed himself from it. And for this effect has produced before Mr. Pompone the French Kings Embassadour into Holland Mr. Arnaud's Nephew, Herbert's Book in English Printed at London. 1638. by Rich. Bishop, wherein is precisely these words, They administer the Lords Supper in both kinds, Bread and Wine, and deny a real Presence. They allow but our two Sacraments. Having produced this Ori∣ginal, he caused a Letter to be Printed and directed to me, in which he complains of the injustice Mr. Arnaud has done him, and protests, he is not of that Temper to make use of Frauds to uphold the Truth of that Religion heprofesses, as knowing it abhors them, and makes no difference between the cheats which the Mo∣dern Divinity of some call pious, and the falshood that destroys the Soul of him that utters it. He then recites Mr. Arnaud's Expressions, and refutes his Calumnies, and offers for his justification the very words contained in Herbert in the man ner I related 'um. Afterwards he says he does not believe Mr. Arnaud dares now justify, that in the Original English there is no mention of the real Pre∣sence, nor affirm 'tis a mere imposture of the Calvinistical Translator. That he also affirms whatsoever is to be met with in page 249 and 250, concerning the Baptism of the Armenians, their Proselytes, Fasts, Images, Priests, their Belief touching Purgatory, their Superstitions, and Efforts which the Jesuits have made to subject them to the See of Rome, is really contained in the Original English, there being nothing of his Invention in all this. And to justifye it relates at length Herbert's own words in that Lan∣guage.

THIS so well grounded defence, has obliged Mr. Arnaud to retract in the Second Edition of his Book this accusation Printed in the First. He has retrenched all those Injurious Discourses against the Reputation, and sincerity of Mr. Vicqfort, and acknowledged his Translation to be faithful and exactly according to the Original. He has at the same time discovered to us the cause of his mistake, to wit, that there having bin two Editions of Herbert's Book one in 1634, th'other in 1635. in which the Author contained himself within the Relation of his Voyage; and the Second in 1638, wherein he had added several particulars relating to Reli∣gion and History, those whom he consulted had seen only the first Edition, but that Mr. Vicqfort Translated from the Second in which was found the Passage in question.

I am far from being of that Humour to insult over Mr. Arnaud in this Occasion, nor draw advantage from his precipitous way of falling foul on Authors, who mean not the least hurt to him. I do not doubt but he is troubled at his own rashness in grounding a charge of this importance on a supposition, he has found to be false, without considering whether there might not be more Editions of Herbert than one. But he must suffer me to tell him that what he has inserted in his Marginal Notes is not a sufficient excuse for him, the French Translation, says he, making no mention of two different Editions of this English Book, we could not Divine it. Much less could * 1.117 the Translator Divine he would be accus'd for an Impostour, for not having declared there were two Editions of this Book. These kind of Accusations pronounced with such confidence do suppose a Man to have made an exact Inquiry before he utters them, whereas had Mr. Arnaud taken the least pains in this respect he might have easily discovered there was a Second Edition of Herbert's Book, and found what he has bin since shewed. He needed not divine but certainly inform himself, for this Book being Printed at London in 1638, and being moreover famous in that kind, he might have been soon satisfyed concerning it. But supposing he could not, he ought not presently to call a Person a Deceiver: But rather to have proposed his doubts, and require a solution of Mr. Vicqfort himself, and not thus rashly charge a Gentleman that never offended him. I could willingly forbear mentioning this particular, Mr. Vicqfort having no need of my Apology, did not the interest of my cause oblige me to declare to the World how little confidence we ought to have in Mr. Arnaud's Discourses, if they be not upheld by solid and convincing Proofs, which they never are, as appears from this whole dispute.

BUT laying aside this contest see we what Mr. Arnaud offers against the Authority of Herbert, who expresly affirms the Armenians deny the real Presence. We matter not, says he, the advantage which the Calvinists * 1.118 would make of this Testimony of Herbert, who to enlarge the Second Edition of his Book, has added what he pleased, touching the Religion of those People through whose Countrys he travelled, without telling us from whom he learnt what he Relates of them, for he only says what he has taken out of Authors of his own Sect, who have treated of them, as Breerewood has done. Those Authentick Proofs which we have produced touching the faith of the Arme∣nians do fully solve this Point. And not to mention others, there is no comparison between a Calvinist who speaks in his own cause, and accord∣ing to his interests, without Authority and proofs, and a Lutheran, such a

one as Mr. Olearius is, who speaks against himself and his own interest, and cites the Persons from whom he learnt what he tells us.

MR. Arnaud has soon forgotten what he wrote on this same subject * 1.119 in his first Edition, We may well admire, say's he, that Mr. Claude, who is wont to propose slight Objections, should omit one, which is very considerable in appearance, and enough to startle People, because the solution of it is so hard to be found, that we cannot justly reproach him, if he be ignorant of it. The Objection is, that we meet with this passage in a Translation of Herbert's Voyages, That the Armenians deny the real presence of the Body of Christ. It seems there can be nothing replyed to so clear a passage, and that this Author who tells us what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves of those Countrys, as well as Mr. Olearius, may at least weaken his Au∣thority.

WHENCE I pray comes this so manifest a contrariety of judgment? As long as the pretended Imposture of the Translator continues in Mr. Arnaud's thoughts, Herbert's Authority is weighty and sufficient to startle People, the solution of it is difficult, and it seems there can be nothing replyed to so plain a passage. But so soon as this pretended Imposture vanishes, then 'tis, we matter not the Testimony of Herbert, and judicious Persons ought not to credit it. Before he was an Author who speaks what he learnt from the Inhabitants themselves thro whose Countrys he passed. Now he is a Person that to enlarge his Book has in his Second Edition added what he pleases. Before he was an Author, who may well weaken the Authority of Mr. Olearius, now he is a Calvinist in no wise comparable with a Lutheran, such as Mr. Olearius. What is this but a sporting with Authors, extolling 'um, depressing them, and making 'um good or bad according as Mr. Arnaud's Occasions require. 'Tis plain he wants an object to exercise his w••ath on; if it be not the Translator, it must then be the Author; and when the living escapes him, then the Dead must pay for't. Who told Mr. Arnaud that what Mr. Herbert relates in his Second Edition is not what he Learnt from the Inha∣bitants themselves thro whose Countrys he travelled, but Excerptions from Breerewood? He dared not mention, say's he, from whom he learnt what he relates. If this be sufficient to invalidate the Testimony of Travellers, we can be certain in nothing they tell us touching the manners of People, and their Religions; for it seldom happens that Travellers denote the Persons from whom they have bin inform'd, and if they be unfaithful in respect of the things they tell us, they may be as well so in reference to the naming of Persons.

MR. Herbert was a Person of Quality, deservedly Honourable both for his Learning and Integrity. He has viewed whatsoever was worth his Observation both in Asia and Affrica, and carefully denoted the manners and Religions of People, writing nothing till such time as he was well informed of the Truth of it. What means Mr. Arnaud then thus to attack his Memory, and tells us that a Person thus qualifyed has copyed out from Breerewood, that is to say, from a Scholar who perhaps never travelled farther than his own Country?

CHAP. V.

Mr. Arnaud's Proofs touching the Armenians examin'd.

BUT here are, say's Mr. Arnaud, certain and positive Proofs which shew that the Armenians have ever effectually believed both one * 1.120 and the other Point, and that there is no reason to accuse them of denying the real Presence or Transubstantiation. Which we shall now Examine in this Chapter.

HIS first Proof is taken from the Testimony of Lanfranc, who disputing against Berengarius say's, that the Greeks and Armenians, and generally all Christians hold the same faith as the Roman Church. But Mr. * 1.121 Arnaud has not considered that Lanfranc do's not directly impute Tran∣substantiation either to the Armenians, or Greeks, he imputes it to 'um only by a Consequence drawn from their glorying all of 'um that they receive in the Sacrament, the real Body and real Blood of Jesus Christ taken from the Virgin. Now we have seen as well by the Relation of Carmes, as from the Information of Benedict, that the Armenians gave this expression a sence wholly contrary to Lanfranc's Consequence, so that this Proof has bin already invalidated by the Testimony of the Armenians themselves.

THE Second is taken from the Berengarians never alledging they were of the sentiment of the Armenians, or any other Eastern Church. Yet was it impossible but they must know what was their Opinion, seeing that Persons Voyaged from all parts of Europe into the East, and this would have bin a specious pretence to the Henricians and Albingen∣ses to avoid the rigour of those punishments they underwent. But to discover the weakness of this reasoning we need only remember that in the 14 Century under John XXII. Benedict XII. and Clement VI. it was held in the West for an undoubted truth that the Armenians denyed Transubstantiation, and the real Presence, as we have already seen in the foregoing Chapter. That 'twas the unanimous Report of the Armenians themselves who were in the Court of Rome, and of the Latins which had bin in Armenia. Yet altho the Disciples of Berengarius were rigo∣rously persecuted in that age, we do not find they ever justifyed themselves by the example of the Armenians, nor that the Court of Rome handled them less severely upon the account of this conformity. We find on the contrary, their adversaries have reproached them with following the Heresie of these Eastern People, as appears by what I have already related concerning the disputes of Thomas Waldensis against Wicliff, so that that was objected against them as a Crime which Mr. Arnaud would have them make use of for an Apology.

THE III. and IV. Proof are no more conclusive than the two first. * 1.122 They contain that Gregory VII marking in particular the Errors which

the Armenians ought to condemn to the end they might be received into the Communion of the Church, makes no mention of any Error against the real Presence and Transubstantiation. That in the year 1145. The Patriarch and Bishops of Armenia sent Embassadors to Pope Eugenius II. to render him all kind of Submission, and make him judge of the di∣fferences which they had with the Greeks. That if this Pope had believed they were in the Error of Berengarius, he would not have bin contented to instruct them in the Ceremonies of the Church and manner of Celebra∣ting the Sacrifice. That Othon of Frisinga who relate this History would never have concealed so important a circumstance. I answer that Gregory VII. * 1.123 particularizes only four Errors, for which he Censures the Armenians. I. That they mix no water with their Wine in the Chalice. II. That they compound the Chream with Butter, and not with Balm. III. That they reverence Dioscorus as a Saint, altho he was condemned. In fine, that they added the (sign) of the Cross to the Triasagios after the manner of Hereticks. How many other Doctrines and Customs have the Armeuians besides these four Articles, which the Roman Church do's not approve of? They hold the Opinions of Eutyches. They do not hold the Doctrine of the Propagation of Original sin. They deny Purgatory. They still offer Sa∣crifices after the manner of the Jews. They condemn third Marriages, for as bad as Fornication. They deny the Sacrament of Confirmation. They do not hold the Consecration of the Bread is made by the only words of Jesus Christ. They believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and several other Points which seperate 'um from the Latins, and of which neither Gregory VII. Eugenius III. nor Othon of Trisinga make any mention. Which shews there can be drawn no Conclusion from their silence, and that Mr. Arnaud may better employ his time than in collecting these kind of Proofs.

THE V. is taken from some expressions of a Catholick of Armenia, * 1.124 who say's, in the conference of Theorien, that the Wine becomes by Con∣secration the Blood of Jesus Christ, and that the Son of God is Sacrificed with∣in the Church for the Salvation of the World. But this Proof is too weak to confirm what Mr. Arnaud pretends. For first we have already shewed him that this Catholick spake of his own head, and not from his Church. And moreover, what he say's do's neither conclude the real Presence, nor Transubstantiation. The Wine becomes by its Consecration the Blood of Jesus Christ in representation and mystery, according to the exposition which the Armenians themselves give to these ways of speaking, as we have seen in the foregoing Chapter, and the Son of God is Sacrificed in the Church in Commemortion, inasmuch as the action of the Eucharist is a Mystery which represents his death. Let Mr. Arnaud consult (if he pleases) the Marginal Note which is on the side of this last passage, and he will find the solution of his Difficulty. The Greek Text has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latin, Mactatur intus * 1.125 Dei filius pro totius mundi salute, and the Marginal Note, hoc est, representa∣tur in sacra caena mactatio Christi.

THE VI. Proof is taken from that during the Croisado's the Popes * 1.126 held a lasting and strict Union with the Church of Armenia. That the Catholick of Armenia, yielded obedience to Pope Eugenius III. That this Union was confirmed under Innocent III. who sent a Crown to Leo King of Armenia, and that as well this King, as Gregory the Patriarch

of Armenia, sent an Ambassador to Innocent to acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman Church. That there were Alliances made between the Latin Princes and those of Armenia. That Pope Innocent excommuni∣cated the King of Armenia at the request of the Templars, and some time after gave him Absolution. That this Union lasted during Gregory IX. his time, and Clement VI.

BUT what is this but a telling of Stories, and copying out of Raynadus at any rate. If the proof which Mr. Arnaud pretends to draw from this Union be sufficient to conclude the Armenians were conformable to the Church of Rome in the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, 'twill be sufficient to conclude likewise that they were conformable to her in all the other Points concerning which we do not find the Popes ever troubled themselves to correct them, or make the least inquiries a∣bout them. They were satisfyed in the Kings and Patriachs of Ar∣menia's acknowledging their Authority, hoping by this means to intro∣duce hereafter quietly amongst them the Religion and Ceremonies of the Latins, and in the mean time made use of 'em in other occasions. The Kings of Armenia on the other hand were very ready to give the Popes encouragement to believe they would reduce their Kingdoms to the o∣beysance of the Roman See, and in the mean time procured the assistance and protection of the Latins, whose power was then Formidable through∣out the whole East. But this did not hinder the Armenians from keep∣ing still their Doctrines and Customs, as appears by what we have seen in the preceeding Chapter of John XXII, Benedict XII and Clement VI. The 79 Article of the information of Benedict expresly mentions, That the Priests and Bishops of Armenia enjoyned a pennance during some years to those that had bin Baptized by the Latins, and condemned them to undergo a 5 years pennance who had received from them the other Sacrament. And the 86 Article. That the Armenians say, and hold, that since the Council of Chalcedon, the Roman Prelate has no more Authority over them which are under him then the Patriarch of the Nestorians over the Nestorians, or the Greek Patriarch over the Greeks, that the Pope knows his own power and the Armenians likewise theirs. And the 99^th Article; that the Armenians persecute those amongst them who have been Baptised according to the form of the Latins, and hold the Faith of the Roman Church, and that they say the Roman Church Errs, and that they Armenians keep the true and Catholick Faith. And the 117^th. Article. That the Armenians keep not the true Faith which the Roman Church holds, nor its Sacraments, and Blasphemes against the Roman Church the Pope and his Cardinals, saying they are Hereticks. That the Ca∣tholick of Armenia minor say'd, the Pope and Cardinals destroyed more Men every day than they had Hairs on their heads. And altho they preach against Simony, yet do they grant no favour without committing it; that as to them Armenians they had all of 'um kept themselves undefiled in Armenia minor, except the King and some Persons of Quality who held the Roman Faith. 'Tis then to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to tell us that Innocent III. and the other Popes would not have held so strict a Union with the Armenian Church had they believed the Armenians were Berengarians, seeing they did at the same time stir up all France against the Albingenses, and caused 'um to be exterminated with Fire and Sword. These excellent Reasons do not hinder, but that the Armenians held still all their Opinions contrary to the Doctrines of the Roman Church under the Popedom of Benedict XII. And II. that amongst those Opinions, that which denys Transubstantiation

and the real Presence is plainly remarked. III. That altho the Kings and some Persons of Quality embraced the Roman Religion, yet the Body of the Armenian Church kept to their Ancient Religion, even to the blasphem∣ing the Roman Church, the Pope, and his Cardinals, according to the Terms of the Article which I now mention'd. IV. In fine it will not be found, that Innocent III. or any other Pope required of the Arme∣nians any particular Renunciation of their Errors, be they what they will. It seems either these Popes supposed the Armenians had absolutely the same Faith as the Roman Church, or dissembled these Errors, in hopes, as I already say'd, that in establishing their Authority in Armenia, they might introduce amongst them the Religion of the Latins, by means of their Emissaries which the Kings favoured, and to whom some Bishops gave liberty to preach, as appears by the 78 Article of the Information of Benedict. The Catholick of Armenia minor, say's this Article, Conse∣crating Six Bishops has drawn from them a Publick Act, in which they solemnly promise, to suffer no longer their Youth to learn the Latin Tongue, and to give no more liberty to the Latin Preachers, who Preach the Faith of the Holy Roman Church in their Diocess, or Province. Moreover he obliges every Bishop he Consecrates, to Anathematise the Armenians that desire to become true Catholicks, and obey the Roman Church. He forbids them to Preach that the Pope of Rome is the Head of the Eastern Church, and calls himself Pope, acting in this quality in the Eastern Countrys from the Sea to Tartaria.

AS to what Mr. Arnaud tells us concerning James de Vitry, and Bro∣card's * 1.127 silence who impute not to the Armenians the denying of Transubstan∣tiation, we may answer him that their silence ought not to come in compe∣tition with the Testimony of so many Authors, who expresly affirm they deny it. Moreover Brocard speaks not of their Opinions, and James de Vitry takes notice only of the Ceremonies and Rites which appertain to the external part of their Religion, without mentioning any thing of their Doctrines. But Mr. Arnaud who comes and offers us as a Demonstrative Proof of the Union of the Armenians with the Popes in the time of the Croisado's, ought not to conceal what James de Vitry has written on this Subject; altho the Armenians, say's he, promised obedience to the Soveraign Prelate * 1.128 and Roman Church, when their King receiv'd the Kingdom from the Em∣perour Henry, and the Regal Crown from the hands of the Arch-Bishop of Mayence, yet would they not part with any of their Ancient Cere∣monies or Customs. And these were their Reunions with the Roman Church.

'TIS true there was in those Times one of their Kings named Hayton, who marvellously favoured the Latins, and perhaps 'twas he of whom Mr. Arnaud speaks, who took on him at last the Habit of St. Francis. But be it as it will, this King did all he could to introduce the Roman Religion into Armenia, but in vain. Observe here the words of the Information of Benedict Art. 116. A King of Armenia called Hayton assembled all the Doctours and Bishops of his Kingdom together with the Patriarch to unite 'um to the Roman Church, and dispute with the Legat which the Roman Church had sent; But the dispute being ended the King acknowledged the Truth was on the Romanists side, and that the Armenians were in an Error, and therefore ever since, the Kings of Armenia minor have embrac'd the faith of the Roman Church. Yet were not the Bishops Doctours and Princes satisfied with this, and

after the departure of the Legat a Doctor named Vartan wrote a Book against the Pope and his Legat, and against the Roman Church, in which he calls the Pope a Proud Pharaoh who with all his Subjects are drowned in the Sea of Heresy. He says that Pharaoh's Embassadour, meaning the Legat, return∣ed home with shame. &c. 'Tis to be observed that this Book of Dr. Vartan's altho full of passionate Invectives against the Pope and his Church, yet was receiv'd in Armenia, as if it had bin the Canons of the Apostles.

WHICH considered, I see no reason to prize so much these feign'd Submissi∣ons which the Kings of Armenia have sometimes yielded to the Pope by their Embassadors, as for instance such as was that of King Osinius paid to John XXII. by a Bishop who in the name of the King, and his Kingdom, made such a profession of faith as they desired. To make this a proof, as Mr. Arnaud do's, is either to be ignorant, or dissemble the Genius of this Nation. The Armenians in the exigency of their affairs, made no scruple to send to the Pope Persons, that promised him whatsoever he desired, but as soon as ever the danger was over, and they had obtain'd of the Latins what they desired, they made a mock at their promises, as Clement VI. reproaches them in his Letters to the King, and Catho∣lick of Armenia, as we have already observed in the preceding Chapter.

WHICH has bin well observed by the Author of the Book called the Ambassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa. The Religion, say's he, * 1.129 of the Inhabitants of the new Zulpha, who are Armenians by birth, is the Christian, together with the Opinions which the Pope suffers them to retain. But to speak the truth there are very few that reverence, or acknowledge the Pope; almost all of 'um obstinately retaining their own ancient Religion. For altho several of the Bishops and Priests of their Nation that have passed over into Europe, (moved thereunto by their extream poverty, their expences in travelling, and intollerable persecutions of the Turks, during the continual Wars between them and the Persians,) have often offered to obey the Roman Church, yet when this was to be concluded, they have still fallen off, and refused to acknowledg any other Authority than that of their Patriarch, obstinately retaining their ancient Ceremonies and Liturgys. This has bin the perpetual complaint of the Latins. But Mr. Arnaud has imagined this a secret to us.

THERE is perhaps more heed to be given to what he alledges touch∣ing a certain Person named Gerlac, who belonged to the Ambassador sent from the Emperour to Constantinople, about an hundred years since. This Gerlac relates in one of his Letters a Discourse he had in matters of Religion with the Patriarch of the Armenians at Constantinople, and amongst other things he tells us, They hold that the real Body of Jesus Christ is present in the Sacrament in its proper Substance (He means the same as they of the Ausbourg Confession) In caena Domini verum & Substantiale Corpus & Sanguinem Christi adesse dicunt, sed videntur Transubstantiationem probare. But upon the reading of this Letter, it will soon appear that, this Patriarch with whom he discoursed, gave him his own private sentiments, and not the Doctrines of the Armenian Religion. For he tells him, that he believ∣ed and confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, contrary to what the Greeks hold. Yet do's it appear from the constant

testimony of Authors, who treated of the Opinions of the Armenians, that they hold the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and are in this particular at accord with the Greeks against the Latins. So say's Guy Carmes, the information of Benedict XII. Prateolus, Breerewood and several others, and therefore the first thing Eugenius IV. did in the Council of Florence, when he gave his instructions to the Armenians, was to oblige them to receive the Symbol with the addition of the Filioque. Besides this Gerlac's Patriarch expresly declares he holds the Doctrine of the Ubiquity, that is to say, of the presence of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, wheresoever the Divinity is, which is not the real belief of the Armenians, as we have already sufficiently proved. Gerlac adds, That they acknowledge the Roman Prelate to be the Head of the Universal Church, which is not true, as appears as well by the information of Benedict, as by the Testimony of several other Authors. 'Tis moreover apparent that his affirming them to believe the Substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament is only grounded on this pretended Doc∣trine of the Ubiquity, which grants this Body to be every where, and by Con∣sequence in the Sacrament. And as to Transubstantiation, he do's not absolutely impute it to 'em, but say's they seem to admit of it, videntur, say's he, Transubstantiationem probare. Let the reader judge whether this Translation be faithful. It appears, is an expression which gives the idea of a thing clear and evident, whereas every one knows that the videtur of the Latins which Answers our English word It seems, gives the Idea of a thing which has the likelyhood and colour, but which is not absolutely out of doubt, of a thing which we may think to be true, but of which we have no certainty. 'Tis likely Gerlac grounded his videntur on the General Term to change, which the Armenian Patriarch made use of, but in effect this Term do's not signify a Transubstan∣tiation, and 'twas only Gerlac's prejudice which perswaded him it did.

THE same prejudice may be observed in Mr. Olearius as appears from his own words, I was informed, say's he, by the Patriarch of Armenia who visited us at Schamachia a City of Media, that the Armenians, held Transubstantiation. Now believing Transubstantiation, that is to say, the change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 'tis not to be questioned but they hold the true and real Presence. His Au∣thority in reference to the Armenians is only grounded on a that is to say, as it was in respect of the Moscovites: If you deny his explanation, his Testimony signifies nothing.

AS to the attestations which Mr. Arnaud produces of Hacciadour the Patriarch of the Armenians reunited to the Roman Church, and who is now at Rome where Mr. Arnaud tells us he has taken care to have him consulted, and of Uscanus Vardapet an Armenian Bishop who was not long since at Amsterdam, we know very well there's little heed to be given to these sort of People testimony; who never come into the Western parts but upon the Account of some Temporal interest; and never fail to Answer as you would have them. The Latins and the Popes themselves have bin often deceiv'd, and if I may not be believed, let Anthony de Goureau an Emissary of the Mission of Hispaham be consulted, who in the History he wrote concerning the reduction of the Armenians of Persia tells us, that altho in the Union made in the Council of Florence,

the Armenians reunited themselves, and the greatest part of the Greek Church * 1.130 likewise, yet these People proceeded not with that fervour and diligence which was requisit in a matter of that importance; on the contrary they were so little mindfull of it, thro the malice or negligence of their Prelats, that I do not find amongst them the least sign of this reduction, nor any thing which this Council decreed, nor Obedience thereunto recommended. There is no mention of it in their Books and Traditions. And I wonder that John Laurens of Anania in his Universal Fabrick should say, that the Armenians almost in General have lately received the determinations of the Trent Council, seeing not so much as the name of it was scarce ever heard by the Bishops or Patriarch, nor have they altered any of their Customs either good or bad, for this many Ages. But perhaps this Author was informed of this by some Armenians passing throughout Europe, or that dwell therein upon the account of Trade, who for the most part return answers according to the desires of those that ask 'um, and that they may not fail therein, do very often speak contrary to truth, which the Bishops and Prelates of these Schismaticks who come to Rome often do to gratifie the Pope, promising their Flocks shall yield Obedience to him, but at their return home, they soon forget their engagements. Let any one then judge of what weight the attestations of these People are, and whe∣ther the Discourses of Hacciadour and Vardapet, are to be preferred before so many other convincing Testimonies which assert the contrary of what they affirm.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Nestorians, Maronites, Jacobites, Copticks, and Aethiopians. That they hold not Transubstantiation.

WEE shall treat in this Chapter of the other Eastern Sects that profess the Christian Religion. Mr. Arnaud * 1.131 pretends they all of 'um hold the real Presence and Transubstantiation.

AS to the Nestorians he grounds his Opinion concerning them on the silence of Ancient and Modern Authors, who never told us the Nestorians differ from the Church of Rome in this particular. He adds that the Emissaries sent by the Pope into these countrys to endeavour their reduction to the Obedience of the Roman See, never discovered any thing to make 'um suspect the Faith of the Nestorians touching the Eucharist. He say's in fine, that when the Nestorians reunited themselves to the Church of Rome, they were never required to make any particular declaration of their belief in reference to the Eucharist.

BUT as to what respects the silence of Authors, we have already answer'd in the case of the Moscovits, that they do only chiefly observe

those points which are expresly controverted between the other Churches and the Roman, descending not so far as to particularize all other matters, which these Churches do or do not hold.

THE same may be said touching the silence of the Emissaries. The Emissaries have contented themselves in mentioning those Errors from which they have freed the Nestorians, without mentioning the new Do∣ctrines which they have taught 'um; and this indeed concludes they have not bin obliged to introduce Transubstantiation amongst these People by way of dispute, being a Point, against which the Nestorians were pre∣judic'd; but this do's not hinder them from being oblig'd to bring it in by way of instruction, as being a Doctrine not comprised in their Ancient Religion, and which they ought now to receive, to the end they may become conformable to the Roman Church.

WHICH justifies it self by the conduct of the Popes themselves, who have sent the Emissaries, for they ever recommended to them this profession of Faith which we have so often already mention'd, and which expresly contains the Article of Transubstantiation in these terms, Sacra∣mentum Eucharistiae ex azymo conficit Romana Ecclesia, tenens et docens, quod in ipso Sacramento, Panis verè Transubstantiatur in Corpus, & Vinum in Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. The Roman Church Celebrates the Sacrament with Unleavened Bread, holding and teaching, that in this Sacrament the Bread is really Transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

THE Popes have ever earnestly recommended to the Missionaries the instructing of the Nestorians, and other Eastern Christians according to this Formulary. They have sent it to the Nestorian Proselyte Bishops, enjoyning 'um to have it continually in their minds, and to teach it their People, as we may see in Raynaldus. In the profession of Faith which * 1.132 Timotheus a Nestorian Arch-Bishop of the Isle of Cyprus made in the year 1445. not long after the Council of Florence, he was made to say that he confessed and approved of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Church, and * 1.133 of the manner after which she holds, teaches, and Preaches them. And in the Reunion made in the year 1583. of certain Nestorian Christians of St. Thomas whom the Portugaises found in the Kingdoms of Cochin, Coulan, and Cranganor, Du Jarric observes their Arch-Bishop was * 1.134 caused to profess what the Council of Florence had decreed touching the Doctrine which must be held concerning the Sacraments. He means without doubt that which was set down in the Instruction given to the Armenians, in which we see the Article of Transubstantiation. All which shews us they well knew the Necessity there was of introducing Transubstantiation into the Nestorian Church, to make it conformable to the Roman; whence 'tis not difficult to conclude that this Doctrine was not establisht in it before.

IN effect had the Emissaries and other travellers into these Countrys found the belief of the Substantial Conversion established in them, 'tis not to be doubted but they would have proclaimed it to the World, and made this a Proof of the Antiquity of that Article. Mr. Arnaud would not have bin reduced to the Necessity of drawing a Proof from their si∣lence, seeing they would have positively declared they found these People

imbued with this sentiment, that the substance of Bread is changed into the proper Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ. The Popes would have loudly Gloryed in it, and certainly there would have bin some Body or other that would have taken Notice of the contradictions of the Protestants in Europe: but instead of this neither the Popes nor Emissaries make mention of this pretended conformity, and Mr. Arnaud Philosophises upon their not charging the Nestorians with their being Calvinists, and upon some passages of their Liturgies which are very uncertain, and which at bottom are of no consideration in respect of our difference.

LEONTIUS of Byzanejus recites a Discourse concerning these Nestorians from whence we may easily gather their Opinion touching the Bread of the Eucharist. They were very earnest (according to his Relation) * 1.135 with an Orthodox Christian to communicate with them, and this Person telling them he could not have Communion at the same time with the Catholick Church and theirs, they answered him, that this need not trouble him because the Bread which is proposed as a Type of the Body of Jesus Christ contains a greater blessing than that sold in the market, or the Bread which the Philomarianites offered in the name of Mary. 'Tis appa∣rently seen these are not the expressions of Persons that believe the real Presence which the Roman Church holds. This shews they acknowledged no other effect from the Consecration than that of a Vertue of Benediction, or Grace, and 'tis also very Remarkable that in this Discourse they do not give any other title to the Bread of the Sacrament than that of the Type of the Body of Jesus Christ, in which they follow the expression of * 1.136 Nestorius himself the Author of their Sect, who speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist say's, that the Body of Jesus Christ is the Original of it, which is as much as to say that the Bread is a figure which represents this Body. And thus far concerning the Nestorians.

AS to the Maronites their profession of Obedience, since so long a time, to the See of Rome, receiving their Patriarchs from the Pope, do's evidently exclude them from this dispute. Yet we cannot but observe how little exact Mr. Arnaud is, when designing to shew that the Maronites believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence even before their Reunion to the Roman Church, say's, that Thomas a Jesu mentions an extract made by the Popes Legats of the bad Propositions they found in the Books of the Maronites, amongst which they comprehend the different Ceremonys, such as Comunicating of both kinds, giving the Communion to Children. Yet in this Catalogue of suspected Propositions, there's not one relating to the Eucharist. 'Tis certain Mr. Arnaud is mistaken, having perused this extract a little carelesly, for otherwise he would have observed three Propositions which evidently shew that these People did not believe Transubstantiation, nor yet the Substantial Presence. The first is, That our Saviour Christ dipt the Bread he gave to Judas, to 'the end he might thereby take off the Conse∣cration. Christus intinxit Panem quem erat Judae porrecturus ad Conse∣crationem tollendam. We have already observed that this Errour must be grounded on this Principle, that the Bread is a Subject that receives Grace as a quality, which imprints its self in its Substance, and which may be effaced in washing the Bread. For what likelyhood is there had they believed that the effect of the Consecration was to change the Sub∣stance of Bread into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, that in dipping the Bread the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ would be washed off?

THE II. Proposition which the Legats expunged out of the Maronites Books was, That when we receive the Eucharist, it Descends not into the Stomach, but immediately disperses it self to every member of our Body. This Proposition was deem'd Heretical, and in effect, we cannot believe that the matter of the Sacrament disperses its self to all the Members of our Body without supposing it to be the Substance of Bread, there being too many absurdities to make the proper Substance of Christs Body pass into the Substance of our Flesh. Yet this Sentiment is grounded on the Doctrine of Damascene who expresly asserts, That the Sacrament passes * 1.137 into the Substance of our Souls and Bodys, that 'tis neither Consumed or Corrupted, nor passes into excrements, but into our Substance and for our Conservation. We made use of this Passage of Damascene to shew he believed the Eucharist to be a real Substance of Bread, seeing it passes into that of our Bodies. Mr. Arnaud derides this Consequence. Do's Mr. Claude, say's he, pretend that Damascene believed the Eucharistical * 1.138 Bread passed into our Souls to become a part of them? Surely he will not proceed so far. How then will he conclude it enters into our Bodies to become a part of their Substance? And why do's he not conclude on the contrary, that as these words, in Consistentiam animae vadit, do signify nothing else in respect of the Soul, but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites its self to the Soul, to conserve, fortify and operate in it his Graces; so this expression, in Consistentiam Corporis vadit, do's signify nothing else, but that the Body of Jesus Christ unites it self to our Bodys to preserve and sow on them according to the Fathers the seeds of a Glorious immortality.

BUT Mr. Arnaud deceives himself, not comprehending that according to Damascene and the Greeks, there are two things in the Eucharist, the Substance, and the Spiritual and divine vertue, which is imparted to it by means of the Consecration, so that Damascene making a distribution of these two things, attributes one of 'um to the Soul, to wit the Divine Vertue, and th'other to the Body, to wit the Substance, and 'tis in respect of this latter that he say's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not consuming nor Corrupt∣ing it self, nor passing into Excrements, God forbid, but passing into our Substance and preservation. He say's expresly it passes into our Substance. Why will not Mr. Arnaud suffer me to say it after Damascene himself? Had he well examined the Doctrine of the Fathers, he would have found in 'um this distinction of two things whereof the Sacrament consists, one of which respects immediately the Body and th'other immediately the Soul. Under the new Law, say's Cyrill of Jerusalem, the Heavenly Bread and Cup of Salva∣tion Sanctify the Soul and Body, for as the Bread respects the Body, so the word (that * 1.139 is to say the Consecration performed by the word) relates to the Soul. The Bread, say's Epiphanius, is an aliment, but there is in it a quickning Vertue. And Origen before 'um distinguished the Bread from the Eucharist, in respect of what it has material, and in reference of the Prayer say'd over * 1.140 it.

THE III. Proposition, censured in the Books of the Maronites is contained in an Article of the extract, which has for its title, Nonnulla loca sacrae Scripturae pravè intellecta, some places of Scripture misunderstood, and is thus described, Asserunt Legendum esse, hoc est Sacramentum Corporis, &c. They affirm we must read, this is the Sacrament of my Body, &c. Would

Mr. Arnaud without Prejudice or Passion but consider a while the importance of this Proposition. For whether these People pretended we must read the Text, not, this is my Body, but, this is the Sacrament of my Body, or meant only that this was the sence we must give to the words of Christ, as the title of the Article insinuates. Is it possible that Persons who believed the substantial Presence and Transubstantiation of the Roman Church, should either make this correction, or seek this ex∣plication? Was there ever a one of the Latins that ever had such a thought in his mind, that we must not read, this is my Body, but this is the Sacrament of my Body? Do they not all on the contrary affirm that we must keep strictly to the literal sence? Let Mr. Arnaud consult him∣self hereupon, and tell us whether he could offer such a Proposition and whether he would not esteem it Scandalous and Heretical should any other propose it.

YET must we observe that Thomas a Jesu who recites the Extract which the Popes Legats made, say's expresly that these Propositions which they found in proper terms in the Books of the Maronites, or received by the Publick Consent, and by Tradition, and which they condemned as manifestly Heretical, or Erroneous, or Superstitious, were Errors common to the other Eastern Nations, so that what we now Rehearsed con∣cerning the Maronites must be extended in general to all the Schisma∣tical Churches.

AS to the passages related by Abraham Echellensis a Maronite, who was of the Seminary at Rome, Mr. Arnaud must bear with me if I tell him, (that considering the Character which Gabriel Sionita gives us of this Person, whom he perfectly knew, being both of the same Country, and having passed over a great part of their Lifes together) he ought to be ashamed to offer any thing grounded on these kind of Testi∣monies, and to suppose us such Fools to give credit to the Relation of a Man so cryed down.

COME we now to the Jacobites, Copticks and Ethiopians, Mr. Arnaud brings again upon the Subject of these three Churches the same Negative Arguments drawn from the silence of Authors and Emissaries, which he used in reference to the Moscovites, and Nestorians; so that we need do no more than to return the same answers already made, and tell him that, if these People had the same belief as the Roman Church touch∣ing the Substance of the Sacrament, several Authors and Emissaries, would without doubt, have informed the World thereof; and make advantage of this conformity which they discovered between the La∣tins and them.

I shall tell him here again what he has bin told elsewhere that, when the Emissaries were sent to these People to instruct them, they ever carried along with them the profession of faith of Clement VI. which contained expressly the Article of Transubstantiation; that the Popes have sent it to their Patriarchs and Proselyte Bishops; and that when Eugenius IV. * 1.141 reunited to the Latin Church John the Patriarch of the Jacobites, he made him accept the decreee of the Reunion of the Armenians which contains in proper Terms the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

BUT after all we may tell him it cannot be supposed the Jacobites, Copticks or Ethiopians were conformable to the Roman Church in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, holding as they do, that there is but one Nature in our Saviour Christ which is the Divine, according to the Opinions of Eutiches and Dioscorus. We cannot without charging them with the greatest Absurdity suppose they believe the Substance of Bread is really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, seeing they hold that Jesus Christ has not a Body, there being only the Divine Nature in him. Now that they hold this last Error, may be proved by infinite Testimonies.

NICEPHORUS a Greek Historian affirms the Jacobites assert, * 1.142 that after the Union there was only one Nature in Jesus Christ.

BROTHER Bieul, of the Order of Preachers, affirms the same in the Relation of his Travels, The Jacobites, say's he, are Hereticks and Schismaticks. They say there is in Christ but one Substance, one Ope∣ration, and one Will, which is the Divine. This is false and contrary to our Catholick Faith. For in Christ with the Divinity is a true Substance, Operation and Humane Will. For the true Faith is, that God was real God, and real Man. And a little further speaking of a Dispute which he had with them. We shewed them, say's he, wherein they erred, when they denyed our Saviour Christ to be real God and Man, and yet would still retain and affirm that in Jesus Christ there was only one Substance, one Operation, one Nature and one Will which according to them is the Divine.

POPE John XXII. writing to Raymund the Patriarch of Jerusalem * 1.143 complains to him of the Jacobites being tolerated in the Kingdom of Cyprus, and grounds his complaint on that these Hereticks dared main∣tain against the truth of the Orthodox Faith that there was but one Nature in our Saviour Christ.

GUY Carmes expresly observes this amongst the rest of their Errors, * 1.144 that they affirm there is in Jesus Christ but one Nature, no more than one Person, and therefore they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger.

THE same may be seen in Barthol. Salignac's Voyages into the Holy Land. They hold, say's he, (speaking of the Jacobites) that there is but only one Nature in Jesus Christ which is the Divine.

THEY profess to believe but one Nature in Jesus Christ, say's Prateolus.

THEY are corrupted by several Errors, say's Cottovic, and especially in reference to our Saviour Christ. For they confound our Saviours Divine and Humane Nature, and make thereof but one Will and one Operation. They deny there was in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Word with the Flesh two Natures intire and perfect without confusion of Person. Moreover they maintain that the Flesh which our Saviour Christ took was not of the same Nature as ours, and that the Word was not changed into true Flesh, but into I

know not what kind of Phantastical and apparent Flesh, and that he rather seemed to be a Man, to be born and dye than really to do and be so. Thus do they teach that all the Mysteries of our Salvation, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of our Saviour, his Ascension into Heaven, and his Second Coming, are only things feigned and appearances, and by this means make invalid all these Mysteries. And to confirm their Heresy by an external Testimony, * 1.145 they make the sign of the Cross only with one finger thereby representing that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ.

HE tells us the same thing of the Copticks. They follow, say's he, the Heresy of Dioscorus and Eutiches, which is common to them with the Jacobites.

THE Copticks are Schismatical Christians, say's the Sieur Boulay le Goux, and hold the same Errors as the Armenians, Jacobites, and Aethiopians following in every thing the Opinion of Dioscorus and Eu∣tyches.

THE Copticks, say's Mr. Thevenot, are Christians but Jacobites, * 1.146 that is to say, followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus.

IT will be needless to produce any more Testimonies for the confirming a thing so well known that Mr. Arnaud cannot but ac∣knowledge it: neither need we say much concerning the Ethiopians who are in all particulars like to the Copticks, and receive from them their Abuna, that is to say, their Patriarch, as Mr. Arnaud acknowledges. Yet will I here relate the Answers which an Abyssin Priest named Thecla Maria returned to the questions offered him at Rome by some Cardinals who Colloquy'd with him by order of Pope Sixtus V. in the year 1594. as we find them set down by Thomas a Jesu. Being askt, say's he, how many na∣tures, * 1.147 wills and operations the Aethiopians held to be in our Lord Jesus Christ, He answered that the Aethiopians professed to believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union, one Will, and one Operation, yet without confusion, and he added he knew well that the Aethiopians, Copticks and other Eastern Christians that hold this Opinion deviated greatly from the truth. Being askt whether the Aethiopians believe one Nature in Jesus Christ resulting from two. He answered that the Aethiopians do not say so, but profess to believe that there is only one Nature in our Saviour without mixture or con∣fusion, which they affirm to be the Divine. Being moreover demanded whether the Aethiopians received the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. He an∣swered they condemned this Council, because therein was confirmed the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and that therein was Condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Relations of Ethiopia confirm the same thing.

IT now concerns us to know whether all these Nations, to wit, the Jacobits, Copticks, and Ethiopians can hold Transubstantiation, that is to say, the question is whether they be People indued with common sence. For what can be more contradictory than to maintain on one hand that our Saviour Christ has no real Body, that there is nothing in him but the Divine Nature, that his whole converse in the World, his Birth, Death and Resurrection, were only bare Appearances without any Reality. And to believe on the other, that the Substance of Bread is really changed

into the proper Substance of his Body, into the same Substance he took of the Virgin, and which he retains still in Heaven. Mr. Arnaud will tell us they hold Transubstantiation after their manner. But let him shew us then what this manner is. Will he have 'um believe the Substance of Bread is inwardly changed into the Substance of these Appearances with which they say the Divinity heretofore clothed it self? Besides that it would be ridiculous to attribute a Substance to simple Appearances which are nothing, and that according to them these appearances are no longer in being having ceased with the Oeconomy; will not this be excellent sence to say that the Substance of Bread changes it self into the Appearances which do not appear? for they will be concealed under the Vail of the Accidents of Bread, that is to say, they will be invisible Appearances lying hid under other Appearances.

WILL Mr. Arnaud, say they, hold the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Nature of the Divinity, which is to say that the Substance of Bread becomes it self the Divine Essence? But if it be true that these People hold so monstrous an Opinion, whence comes it that both Ancient and Modern Authors make no mention of it; never examined the Consequences of such a Conversion; have vehemently argued against the conversion of the Humane Nature into the Divine to shew that 'tis impossible, and not mentioned a word of this conversion of Bread into the Divinity? How happens it the Emissaries never discovered to the World so important a secret, never disputed against them on this point, nor the Popes ever made them abjure such an absurd Opinion in the reunions made between these People and the Church of Rome? Whence comes it the Greeks who have bin mixtwith them, since so many ages never reproached 'um with this kind of Tran∣substantiation about which there may be great Volumes written? Mr. Ar∣naud who is so ready at arguing from the silence of all these People, Authors, Travellers, Emissaries, Popes, Greeks, &c. ought to inform us of the rea∣son why not one of 'um has mentioned a word of this pretended change of Bread into the nature of the Divinity.

ALL this I think should oblige Mr. Arnaud to suspend a while his judg∣ment touching Mr. Picquet's Letter which say's, that all the Levantine Christians, who are Hereticks, and consequently such as have entred into a Confederacy against the Roman Church, yet hold as an Article of Faith, the real Presence of Jesus Christ, and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. He ought at least to desire him * 1.148 to consult what they mean in saying there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ, and that the Divine one, and yet the Substance of Bread to be really chang∣ed into the Substance of Christ's Body.

BUT this ought to oblige him likewise not to draw so lightly his Con∣sequences from several Passages of the Liturgies which are attributed to these People, wherein the Eucharist is called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and said to be truely this Body and this Blood. For be∣sides that these Expressions import not Transubstantiation, as I have often proved, and shall farther prove in what follows, 'tis to be considered that we have no certainty that these pieces are real or faithfully Translated, seeing that in those few Passages which Mr. Arnaud produces, there may be observed a Remarkable difference. The Liturgy which is in the Biblictheca Patrum under the Title of Canon generalis Aethiopum, mentions that the People say after the Priest has Consecrated, Amen, Amen,

Amen, credimus & confidimus, & laudamus te Deus noster, hoc verè Corpus tuum est, We believe it, We trust in thee and praise thee O Lord our God, this is really thy Body; but Athanasius Kircher otherwise relates these words, Amen, Amen, Amen, credimus, & confidimus, & laudamus te, * 1.149 O Domine Deus noster, hoc est in veritate credimus caro tua. We believe thee, we trust in thee, we praise thee O our God, this, we believe is thy Flesh in truth. In one place the People are made to say they believe, that 'tis truely the Body of Jesus Christ, and here, that they believe 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ in truth. Now there is a difference between these two Propositions, for in one the Adverb truely, refers to the Body, and in th'other to the Faith of the People. This alteration is not so inconsiderable but that we may see by this Example that those who have given us this Liturgy which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum have not scrupled to accommodate their Translation as much as in them lay to the sence of the Roman Church, and to wrest for this effect the Terms of the Original. I never say'd this whole Piece was absolutely fictitious as Mr. Arnaud wou'd make the World believe. But only that that passage which speaks of the Elevation of the Host is * 1.150 a mere Forgery, and this we have proved by the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo, one of which positively denies the Ethiopians elevate the Sacrament, and th'other declares they do not expose it. 'Tis to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to endeavour to justify this alteration in saying perhaps there be different Ceremonies in Ethiopia, that they elevate the Sacrament in some places, and not in others, that they elevate it in a manner so little Remarkable that it has given Occasion to Alvarez and Zaga Zabo in com∣paring it with the elevation of the Roman Church to say they elevated it not at all, that is, they do not elevate it so high as to make it be seen, as is usual amongst the Latins. 'Tis plainly seen these are mere Subterfuges and vain Conjectures: Had Alvarez and Zaga thus meant they would have so explain'd themselves, and distinguished the Places, or the manner of the Elevation, whereas they speak absolutely. Mr. Arnand do's not know more than these two Authors, and were he to correct or expound them he ought at least to offer something that might justify his Correction or Exposition. We may confirm the Testimony of Alvarez and Zaga Zabo by that of Montconies a Traveller into those parts, who describing the Mass of the Copticks, who, as every Body knows are of the same Religion, and observe the same Ceremonies as the Abyssins, say's expresly that they use no Elevation.

IT is then certain that this Liturgy such as it is in the Bibliotheca Patrum is an altered Piece, and therefore 'tis inserted in it without any mention whence 'twas taken, or who Translated it, as I already observed in my answer to the Perpetuity. Yet forasmuch as the Almighty taketh the crafty in their own Nets, there are several things left untouch'd which do not well agree with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, such as for Instance is this Prayer which the Priest makes after the Consecration, commemorating, say's he, thy Death, and Resurrection, we offer thee this Bread and * 1.151 Cup, and give thee thanks inasmuch as that by this Sacrifice thou hast made us worthy to appear in thy Presence, and exercise this office of Priesthood before thee. Wee most earnestly beseech thee O Lord to send thy Holy Spirit on this Bread and Cup, which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour for ever. Did they understand the Bread and Wine were the Body and Blood of the Son of God in proper Substance, would they say to him himself that they offer to him the Bread and Cup in Commemoration of his Death

and Resurrection, and would it not likewise be impious to desire him to send on this Bread and Cup his Holy Spirit? 'Tis not to Jesus Christ himself that the Latins do offer his Body and Blood; those that believe the Roman reality do not express themselves in such a manner, much less can they desire of him to send down his Holy Spirit on them; for as soon as ever 'tis conceived to be the proper Body and Blood of our Lord in the sence wherein the Latins understand it, 'tis believed there is a fulness of the Holy Spirit in them.

I cannot but here relate what Mr. Faucheur has observed touching the Egyptian Liturgy commonly called St. Gregory's, by which will appear that the complaints we make concerning these pieces are not without cause. The Egyptian Liturgy, say's he, attributed to St. Gregory imports, I offer to thee O Lord the SYMBOLS OF MY RANSOM. For * 1.152 there is in the Egyptian NICYMBOLON, that is to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as I have bin informed by Mr. Saumaise, who has an ancient Manuscript of it, and not as Victor Scialach a Maronite of Mount Libanus has Translated it, (who being of the Seminary at Rome, designed by a Notorions falsity to favour the cause of our Adversaries,) praecepta libera∣tionis meae.

BUT besides this way of corrupting the Liturgies by false Translations, it is moreover true that, when these Levantine Christians were Reunited as they often have bin with the Latins, the Latins never fail'd to examine their Books, and take out of 'um whatsoever they found therein contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; for example, there has bin inserted in the Bi∣bliotheca Patrum the Liturgy of the Nestorian Christians of Mallabar, but un∣der this title corrected and cleansed from the Errors and Blasphemies of the Nesto∣rians, by the Illustrious and Reverend My Lord Alexius Menenses Arch-Bishop of * 1.153 Goa. Victor Scialach in his Letter to Velserus on the Egyptian Liturgies called St. Basil's, Gregorie's, and Cyril's, say's, that the new Manuscripts have bin cor∣rected by the order of the Holy Roman Church, into whose Bosom, as into that of a real Mother, the Church of Alexandria has lately returned under the Pope∣dom of Clement VIII.

THERE's all the likelyhood in the World that this Clause which appears in the Egyptian Liturgies of St. Basil, and Gregory, of Victor Schialch's Translation, and from which Mr. Arnaud pretends to make advantage, is an Addition made thereunto by the Latins, in some one of these Reunions; for if we examine it well we shall easily find that 'tis a confession of the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, which is a confession directly opposite to the Error of the Copticks who only acknow∣ledge the Divine Nature.

OBSERVE here the terms, It is the sacred and everlasting Body, and the real Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Amen, it is really the Body of the Em∣manuel * 1.154 our God. Amen. I Believe, I Believe, I Believe, and will confess till the last breath of my Life that this is the living Body which thy only Son our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from the most holy and most pure Mary the Mother of God, our common Lady, and which he joyned to his Divinity without conversion, mixture or confusion. I make the pure confession which he made before Pontius Pilate, he gave his Body for us on the Cross by his own will. He has really assumed this Body for us. I believe that the Humanity was never seperate from the Divinity, no not a Moment, and that he gave his Body to purchase Salvation, Remission of Sins

and eternal life for all those that shall believe in him. There needs no great study to find that the design of this whole Prayer is to confess the Truth of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the reality of the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and that these words, without conversion, mixture or confusion, are precisely those which have bin ever opposed against the Heresy of the Eutichiens with which the Copticks are tainted. Whereupon we cannot doubt but that this is an addition of the Latins, who in reuniting these People to themselves have inserted in their very Liturgy, several Clauses expresly contrary to their old Error, that they might the more absolutely bring them off from it.

LET not Mr. Arnaud then any longer glory in these Eastern Liturgies, for if we had 'um pure and sincere, I do not question but we should find several things in 'um that do not well agree with the Belief of the Substan∣tial Presence, nor with that of Transubstantiation. Neither has he reason to brag of the general Consent of all the Churches call'd Schismatical, with which pretence he would dazle the Eyes of the World. Upon a thro consi∣deration of what we have so farrepresented to him whether in respect of the Greeks, or other Christian Churches, he must acknowledge he has over∣shot himself, and bin too rash in his Affirmations on this Subject. Which I believe I have evidently discover'd, and in such a manner as nothing can be alledged against it. I dare assure him he will find in this dispute no Sophisms on my part. Having proceeded faithfully and sincerely in it. I have taken things as they lye in their Natural order. I have offered nothing but upon good grounds, from Testimonies for the most part taken out of Authors that are Roman Catholicks. I have never taken Mr. Arnaud's words (as I know of) in any other sence than in that wherein he meant them. I have followed him step by step as far as good order would permit me. I have exactly answered him without weakning his Arguments, or Proofs, or passing by any thing considerable. In fine, I have not offered any thing but what I my self before was convinced and perswaded to be true, and I am much mistaken if I have not reduced matters to that clearness that others will be no less perswaded of what I say than my self.

CHAP. VII.

Mr. Arnaud's 8^th. Book touching the Sentiment of the Latins on the Mystery of the Eucharist since the year 700. till Paschasius's time, examined.

THE order of the dispute requires, that having refuted as I have done the pretended Consent of all the Eastern Churches with the Latin in the Doctrines of the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation, I should now apply my self to the examination of what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching the Latins themselves from the 7^th. Century till Paschasius's time exclusively, that is to say, till towards the beginning of the Ninth. And this is the design of the greatest part of his 8^th. Book; and which shall be the greatest part of this of mine.

BUT not to amuse the Reader with fruitless matters, 'tis necessary to lay aside the first of his Proofs, which is only a Consequence drawn from the belief of the Greek Church with which the Latin remain'd United during those Centuries, whence Mr. Arnaud would infer that the Latin Church has believed Transubstantiation and the real Presence seeing the Greek Church has held these Doctrines as he pretends to have proved. We may reply in general that there can be nothing of solidity or certainty concluded from either of these Churches, whether we consider them since their separation, or during their Reunion. The Latins believed the pro∣cession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and they ad∣ded the filioque to the Symbol long before the Separation of Photius, and yet the Churches continued United without disputing on these Articles, as they did afterwards. 'Tis the same in reference to several other points, and had not the interest as well of the Popes as of Photius bin concerned in this affair, 'tis likely both of 'um had continued a long time in the same state of communion together notwithstanding all these diffe∣rences. 'Tis then a mere abuse to establish the Doctrine of the Latin Church by that of the Greek one, or that of the Greek one by that of the Latin, whatsoever Union there might have bin betwixt them. He that would be certain of their sentiments must consider each of 'um apart, and search for the belief of the Western Church in the West, and that of the Eastern in the East. Not but that I believe the Latins as well as the Greeks knew nothing of these admirable Doctrines of Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence in the Ages now in question; but because I cannot see how there can be reasonably drawn a Consequence from the one to the other. And yet supposing the Consequence were good, it cannot but be in my favour, having shewed so clearly as I have done that the Greeks have not the same belief touching the Sacrament as the Roman Church has at this Day.

LET us lay aside for this time the Greeks, seeing we have discoursed sufficiently on them, and come we to the Latins themselves. I will under∣take, * 1.155 say's Mr. Arnaud, positively to shew from Authors of these Centuries, that the Body of the Latin Church has had no other Faith touching this Mystery than that of the real Presence, and Transubstantiation. I confess the under∣taking is considerable and worth Mr. Arnaud's pains, but we must see how he acquits himself therein. For this purpose he has a long Chapter of pre∣paratives whose title is, supposing the real Presence and Transubstantiation were constantly and universally believed during the seventh, eigth and ninth Century, how men ought to speak of the Mystery of the Eucharist accord∣ing to Reason and Nature, and the ordinary way of their expressing them∣selves. This Chapter is full of long discourses, whose drift is to perswade us that provided we suppose the Latin Church firmly believed Transub∣stantiation, there being then no dispute about this Article we shall not be offended at several expressions arsing from Sence which caused the Eucharist to be called Bread and Wine, the Substance of Bread and Wine, that it would be even contrary to Nature not to find in the Writings of these Ages any Traces of this Language of sense, and that a too great care to avoid it, would not at all agree with the state of those times. Moreover all which can be expected is that the Writers of those times have explain'd themselves in terms which plainly and naturally denote the Faith of this Mystery, and imprint the idea of it in the minds of all those which hear them litterally. That the firm belief which they had of the Reality should only have hindred them from ever proposing any of the Opinions of the Sacramentaries. That as to the doubts which arise from this Mystery they have not wholly dissembled them, but endeavoured to satisfie 'um after a prudent manner, in saying the Eucharist is truely and properly the Body of Jesus Christ. That this expression explains and determines the simple expressions which affirm the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ. That they abridged their words and left something to be supplyed by the minds of those they spake to. That the Mystery of the Eucharist being composed of two parts, th'one visible and th'other invisible, th'one sensible, and th'other intelligible, that is to say, of the outward vail which is the Sacrament, and of the Body of Jesus Christ covered with this vail, it may be considered in three manners. The first is to respect it directly, and the Body of Jesus Christ in∣directly. The second is to respect directly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament indirectly. And the third is to consider equally the Sacrament and the Body of Jesus Christ. That from these three ways of considering this Mystery there arise several different expressions; for according to the first it may be call'd the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Figure of the Body; and according to the second be said that the Body of Jesus Christ is contained in the Mystery, in the Sacrament, under the Figure of Bread and Wine, and according to the third that the Eucharist is both the Reality and the Figure. That 'tis Natural for a mans mind to apply it self to one of these particulars without denying the other. In fine, that as this Mystery comprehends several Relations, Customs, Benefits, and Senses which are ingraved and represented in the Symbols, it must needs be very common with Authors of those times to apply themselves to the shewing the faithful these mysterious Significations, without concerning themselves about the explanation of the essential part of the mystery seeing 'twas known of all the World.

AND this is the sum of this confused heap of Arguments with which Mr. Arnaud has stuft the Second Chapter of his 8th Book. 'Tis evident he design'd by these Circuits propofed with such a prodigious Perplexity of Words, to throw himself into a Labyrinth, and draw insensibly his Readers after him. For to what end is this heap of Suppositions, Propositions, Reflections, Distinctions, different Respects, Ways of Ex∣pression &c. with which this Chapter is crammed? Is Transubstantiation so deep sunk into the 7th and following Centuries, that we cannot get at it unless we pass thro as many Turnings and Windings, as there were Porches and Doors in the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem before a man could come to the Sanctuary? Methinks this alone is sufficient to prejudice ones Mind against Mr. Arnaud's Cause; for had the Latin Church then believed the Conversion of the Substances, would she not have clearly explain'd her self? should we not have seen it appear in the Expressions of its Doctors, without giving a mans self all this trouble to find it?

MOREOVER how can Mr. Arnaud desire a man, before he judges of his Reasonings, and the Expressions of Authors in question, to suppose the Church then believed constantly and universally the real Presence and Transubstantiation, altho she never had seen any Controversy to arise touch∣ing these Articles? Is it fitting for those who are to decide a Question to prepossess themselves with Prejudices by Suppositions which do in them∣selves determine the Difference, or which at least must byass a mans Judg∣ment towards those things which are afterwards offered? If I for my share desired a man to suppose a Church which never heard any men∣tion of the Substantial Presence, nor Conversion of Substances; that never believed these Doctrines, and were ignorant of all the Subtilties of the Schools on that point, my request would be more reasonable than that of Mr. Arnaud's: for till we are shew'd Transubstantiation has bin receiv'd in a Church, we may suppose this Church in a state of Nature in this respect. Now we know 'tis contrary to Nature to believe it. I know Mr. Arnaud would not fail to tell me we must not thus fill mens Minds with Prejudices, but leave 'um at liberty to judge of things alledged on both sides. This Supposition then which Mr. Arnaud would have us make is captious, far from being sincere, and tending to surprize mens minds, by making 'um take a part beforehand, without any ground or reason, that being thus prejudic'd, they may see what is not, and not see what is. For it is certain according to these two different Suppositions, the one, that a Church believed Transubstantiation, but never disputed about it. Th'other that a Church did not believe Transubstantiation, nor ever heard it, a man shall differently judge of the same Expressions. Upon one of these Prejudices a man will say, here's one of these defective Expressions men∣tion'd by Mr. Arnaud, which leaves something to be supplyed by the Hearer; and on the other, a man will say, here's an Expression which comprehends the whole Faith of the Mystery. In effect, hence proceed the different Judgments which the Catholicks and Protestants make on several Passages of the ancient Fathers, the one, believe they see Transub∣stantiation in 'um, because they read the Passages with this Prejudice, that the ancient Church held it, and the places considered in this respect confirm them in the thoughts which they have already entertain'd; the others do not find it in 'um, because they consider the same Passages with this contrary Prejudice, that the ancient Church did not believe it, and

these Passages considered in this regard make no Impression upon them. On the other hand there are Passages which appear very considerable for the Protestants against the Conversion of Substances, and which yet appear but weak and inconsiderable to the Roman Catholicks.

TO deal fairly in a matter of this Importance, it seems to me a man ought to compare these two Prejudices one with the other, and examine solidly which of the two is most just and reasonable. For this effect we must consider the Church, either as a Society of men, or as a Society of Christians. In the first respect it will be the greatest Absurdity imaginable to attribute to it the belief of Transubstantiation. If she held it, it would be in the second respect, I would say inasmuch as she is a Christian Society that has such Articles of Divine Faith, and particular Sentiments touching Religion which Nature do's not give. Now in this quality a man cannot reasonably prejudicate that the Church of the 7th. and following Centuries believed the Substantial Presence and Transubstantiation but by one of these two motives, either because he sees these Doctrines contain'd in the first and fundamental Rule of Christian Religion, which is the Word of God, or sees 'um already established in the preceding Centuries. If then Mr. Arnaud would establish his Supposition, he must begin by Inquiries into the Scriptures, and Tradition of the first Six Centuries, and shew therein the Doctrines in question; which done, he should descend to the Seventh and Eighth Ages, and make his Discussion on this Principle, that the Church at that time was in Possession of believing the real Presence and Transub∣stantiation. But he do's neither the one nor the other of these things. He begins his Discussion from the Seventh Century, and would have his Reader Judge beforehand from thence that the Church at that time held the Doctrines now in dispute. This is a plain Deviation and Illusion. For till such time as the contrary appears to us, we must always prede∣termine on Natures side. Now the order of Nature is neither to believe the Substantial Presence, nor the Conversion of the Substance of Bread, so that unless the establishment of these Doctrines in the Church appears elsewhere, we cannot but suppose the Church, in what time and place soever we consider it, in a State purely Natural in this respect.

WEE can never, reasonably predetermine, without some considerable motive, contrary to that common Light which regulates the judgments of men, nor contrary to Universal Notions, and general Customs. Now 'tis certain that these three things oppose the Doctrines in question. For our Senses give in their Testimony against them, and Reason carry us rather away from 'um than to 'um. Universal Notions give us quite different idea's than those which these Doctrines constrain us to have, and the common Custom is to judge of sensible things according to their Natural Characters.

WEE ought never to prejudicate, without exceeding great reason, against an example, I mean against the usual manner of proceeding, acting, thinking, or speaking, in such like matters as is this in question. Now the Example of all People and especially of Christians shews, they conceive the Mysteries or Sacraments, without imagining any Conversion of Substance in 'um, that they give to signs the names of the things which they represent, to distinguish Mysteries from Miracles properly so called,

not to offer Miracles wrought on sensible things, and which are yet not only imperceptible to the Senses, but also contrary to their Depo∣sition.

WHEN the Question concerns a particular Doctrine which goes to the making up of a part of the Body of a Religion, a man ought never to prejudicate lightly against that which we call the Analogy, that is to say, the Relation, Coherence and just Proportion which ought to be Naturally between the Doctrines, Maxims, and Customs of the same Religion. For 'tis with Religion as with the several Parts of a Building, or Aedifices of the same City, or Members of the same Body, or if you will, as with Children of the same Family. They are known by one another, because they all do in some sort resemble each other; now if we consider the Christian Religion in the State wherein it was in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, we shall find it full of Explications and Mystical Ex∣pressions; for this is the true Character of the Divinity of those Days. We shall find perpetual Discourses of that Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ, and immediate Manducation of his flesh as an Act of the Soul, and of a thing that belongs only to the Faithful. We shall not find they considered any more than two States in our Saviour Christ, to wit, that of his Abasement, and that of his Exaltation, without ever mentioning this third State call'd Sacramental.

WE shall not find 'um applying to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, several Passages of the Old Testament, which might be easily made to point at it, and which several Doctors of the Roman Church at this day do in effect make to relate unto Transubstantiation. It will not be found they have taken several Terms in the Sence wherein they must be taken upon the Supposition of Species; for Accidents without a Subject, of Spiri∣tually to denote an Existence after the manner of a Spirit, of the Vail of the Sacrament or Figure of Bread to signifie a bare Appearance of Bread that covers the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, of Corporeal Presence, for a Presence after the manner of a Body, by Opposition to the Presence of this same Body after the manner of a Spirit. It is plainly seen they have forced and exaggerated the Expressions of the Scripture on the Subject of Baptism, the Church, the Poor, the Gospel, at least as vehem ently as those that are to be met with in the Scripture touching the Eucharist. We shall not find they have made on the Subject of the Sacrament either the Distinctions, Observations or Questions, which Persons prepossessed with the belief of the Conversion of Substances ought necessarily to have made, without being obliged thereunto by Disputes. Nor, in a word, the proper and inseparable Consequences of this Doctrine, but on the contrary several things exactly contrary to it. Now this is what I call Analogy or Relation which the parts of a Religion have with one another, and against which I say 'tis not Rational to prejudicate.

'TIS certain we ought not only not to prejudicate against all these things, but on the contrary predetermine in their favour, seeing the prejudice which all these things form is so strong that we must have on the other side a very great Evidence to surmount it. Especially if we examine the Centuries that preceded the seventh, whereunto likewise may be applied the same Observations which I now made, whence arise the like Prejudices in respect of those Ages, and this Pejudice joyning it

self to that which we have established touching the Seventh and Eighth Centuries do only fortify it yet more.

TO all which we may add that there is, to speak morally, a kind of Contradiction between the parts of Mr. Arnaud's Supposition. He would have us imagine the Church of the Seventh and following Ages firmly believed the real Presence and Conversion of Substances, altho these Doctrines were never disputed of therein, nor so much as questioned. But 'tis very improbable the Church remain'd Seven or Eight hundred years with∣out any Contest touching this Article, supposing she held it. There have bin in this Interval of time several Controversies touching the principal Points of the Christian Religion, on Articles against which Nature do's less rise than against that of which we speak, and which moreover are found clearly established in the Word of God. How comes it to pass there has bin none on this? There have bin even several Disputes in which there has bin occasion of mentioning the Doctrines of the real Presence and Transubstantiation, which could not be without some Contest on this Subject. Such were the Controversies of the Valentinians, Marcionites, Manichees, Millenaries, Encratites, Arians, Originists, Eutychiens, Asco∣drupites, and of I know not how many others, which must una∣voidably produce Debates on the Eucharist had the Belief which the Roman Church has at this day bin then introduced into Christianity. It being then certain as it is, that the Church was in peace in this respect during all these Centuries, 'tis a token that the Doctrines in question were therein unknown, and this very Consideration overthrows Mr. Arnaud's Prejudice, and confirms ours.

MR. Arnaud will say, without doubt, we must suppose the Church of the seventh and eighth Centuries to be in the same Condition wherein lay that of the eleventh, which condemned the Doctrine of Berenger. But besides, that there are several things which may be alledged concerning this Condemnation, it not being true then men believed constantly and universally Transubstantiation, nor the real Presence, as may be justified by several Inductions, there being no likelyhood in the first Condemnations of Berenger, Transubstantiation was established, seeing 'twas established in the Council of Rome held under Nicolas II. wherein he was condemned for the fifth time, according to the Authors of the Office of the Holy Sacrament, as we have already observed; 'tis an apparent Illusion to design the grounding of any Prejudication on this, seeing we find in the ninth Century a formal Contest which arose on this Subject; and that even this makes the principal Point of ou•• Difference, to wit, whether there has hapned any change therein. Before then the Condition of the eleventh Century can be made to serve for a Principle to conclude from thence the Condition of the seventh and eigth, the Question concerning the Change must be first decided, for whilst we be in this Contest, there can be no Consequence drawn hence. It would be a very pleasant thing for a man to prejudicate against the Change which we pretend, by the seventh and eighth Century as believing Transubstantiation, and at the same time to pre∣judicate for Transubstantiation in the seventh and eighth Centuries, because 'twas believed in the eleventh, which is to say, to draw the Principle from the Conclusion, and then the Conclusion from the Principle, in saying on one hand that Transubstantiation was believed in the eleventh Cen∣tury, because 'twas believed in the Seventh and in the Eigth, and on

the other that 'twas believed in the seventh and in the eighth, because 'twas believed in the Eleventh.

LET Mr. Arnaud then if he pleases make another System, for all this great preparation of Observations and Propositious falls to the ground assoon as ever we deny him the Supposition he made, and shewed him the injustice and unreasonableness of it. As to this pretended contrariety of the Language of Sence with that of Faith, 'tis a thing we have already confuted. Should our Senses take upon 'um to tell us the Eucharist was only Bread and Wine, or mere Bread and Wine, our Faith would not bear this Language. This is not the Language of the Church. But when our Senses only tell us 'tis Bread and Wine, this Language is in truth different from that of Faith, which tells us 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ, but 'tis not contrary to it; for Faith receives and approves it in the manner wherein the Senses conceive it, which is to say, 'tis real Bread and real Wine in a litteral sence, and without a figure. That which you have seen on the Altar, say's St. Augustin, and after him Bede an Author of the eighth Contury is Bread and * 1.156 Wine, and this your Eyes tell you, but the instruction which your Faith requires is, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. So that here, we have the two Languages both of Sense and of Faith, but that of Faith do's not contradict that of Sense, on the contrary Faith receives the Language of Sense without Explication and Figure. For whosoever say's the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, which our Eyes likewise shew us, means 'tis real Bread and Wine in Substance, for this our Eyes shew us in a most proper and litteral sense. If St. Augustin and Bede find some Appearance of contrariety between the Language of Sense, which bears 'tis Bread, and that of Faith which will have this Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ, the difficulty lyes not in the Testimony of Sense, as if we need call its truth in question, but in the Body of Jesus Christ, which being Flesh assumed of the Virgin, which suffered the Death of the Cross, and was exalted up into Heaven, that Bread should be say'd to be this Body. This thought may arise, say's St. Augustin, and Bede after him, in the mind of some Persons, we know whence our Lord Jesus Christ has taken his Flesh, to wit, of the Virgin Mary, we know he was suckled in his Infancy, educated, grew up in years, suffered the Persecution of the Jews, was nayl'd to the Cross, put to Death, Buried, rose the third Day, and Ascended into Heaven when he pleased, whence he is to Descend to judge both the living and dead, and that he is now sat down at the right hand of the Father. How then is the Bread his Body, and the Cup his Blood? They do not say, how shall we not believe what our Senses assure us? Shall we doubt of the truth of their Testimony? On the contrary they suppose this Testimony to be certain, and ground the difficulty on the Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be Bread. The Explication of the difficulty and the reconciliation of the two Propositions are not built on the Error of the senses, nor the Interpretation which ought be given to their Language, in saying the Eucharist is called Bread because it appears to be so, or because 'twas Bread before its Consecration. But from the Nature of the Sacraments, wherein there are two Ideas both of 'um true, the one of our Senses, and the other of our Understanding. My Brethren, say they, these things are called Sacraments because we see therein one thing, and understand ano∣ther. That which we see, has a Corporeal Species, that which we understand, has a Spiritual Fruit. As if they had say'd, as to what concerns our Eye∣sight 'tis really Bread and Wine, but in respect of our Understanding 'tis

the Body of Jesus Christ. So that if there must be any thing figura∣tive in either of the two Propositions, it must be in the Language of Faith, and not in that of Sense, which bears neither Difficulty nor Exposition.

ALL that we can expect from them, say's Mr. Arnaud (that is to say, from Authors of the seventh and eighth Century,) is that, when they speak of this Mystery according to Faith and Truth, they should explain themselves * 1.157 according to those Terms which plainly and naturally express it, and which im∣print the Idea of it in all those which hear them litterally. That which may be expected from Persons believing and teaching the Conversion of the Substance of Bread, whether it has bin disputed on or no, is, that they declare it in precise and formal Terms. Which I have already shew'd on the Subject of the Greeks by this reason, that the Doctrine of the Con∣version of Substances determins the general Sence of these Expressions, the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that it gives them a particular Sense, and forms of it self a distinct, and precise Idea; whence it follows that when the question is about teaching of it, and a man has directly this Intention, he cannot but express it in clear and plain Terms, which answer the Idea he has of it, and makes thence the same to spring up in the Minds of the Hearers. It cannot be denyed but this Conversion, and Substantial Presence are of themselves very difficult to be conceived and hard to be believed, because all the lights of Nature are contrary to 'um, and there is nothing convictive in Holy Scripture to establish 'um. How then can a man conceive that a Church which holds 'um, or designs to Preach 'um to its People, do's not explain it self about 'um at least in precise and formal Expressions? Reason forces us to say she ought to endeavor to establish them by the strongest Proofs she was able; for supposing the Schools had never disputed concerning 'um, and no Person had ever declared against 'um, yet Nature itself which is common to all men, do's sufficiently enough oppose them to oblige the Church, he speaks of, to defend them from their Attacks, and fortify them against their Oppositions. But granting Mr. Arnaud the Authors of the seventh and eighth Centuries were in this respect extremely negligent; who can imagine they really intended to teach the Substance of Bread was really converted into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, when they express themselves only by general and ambiguous Terms which need so many Commentaries and Supplements?

BUT, say's Mr. Arnaud, we have reason to believe that being Men and indued with Humane Inclinations, they had that also of abridging their * 1.158 Words, and leaving something to be supplyed by them to whom they spake. I know several People of a contrary Humour, and yet are men, as appears by other Humours they have. But this Proposition has no other foundation but Mr. Arnaud's Imagination. He offers it without any Proof, and I may reject it without farther examining it. Yet let me tell him that in the Explication of Mysteries of Religion, Men are not wont to use these half Sentences, unless when they treat of a Point indirectly and occasionally, and not when they expresly and designedly fall upon the explaining of what we must know and believe. What strange kind of ways then had they in those Times, to express themselves only in half Sentences, when they design'd to explain the Mystery of the Eucharist? This Custom lasted a

great while, seeing it was so for near two hundred years; and who told Mr. Arnaud the Ministers were not now and then tempted to assert things clearly and speak what they thought, or at least that the People were not wearyed with continual supplying what was wanting in the Expressions of their Ministers, or in fine that none of these Customs were lost? Mr. Arnaud complains we make use of Raillery sometimes to refute him, but why do's he not then tell us things less ridiculous? For to speak soberly, to undertake to prove Transubstantiation and the real Presence by the silence of him that teaches on one side, and by the Suppliment of him that hearkens on the other is not very rational. Yet to this pass may be reduced his manner of arguing should his Maxim take place, the Fathers of the seventh and eigth Centuries have say'd such and such a thing with Reticency. Now the People have understood them in such and such a manner by a supplement. Therefore they taught and believed the real Presence and Transubstantiation. How can a man consider this seriously? Mr. Arnaud will tell us there's nothing more common in Humane Speech than to use half Sentences; nor any thing more usual than to supply what is wanting to 'um. We are wont to say, a Man, a House, a City, the Air, the Earth, the Sun, and not the Substance of a Man, the Substance of a House, &c. But here is a great deal of difference. For here we use these Expressions because we suppose those to whom we speak have eyes and the use of their reason, and that these easily supply what is wanting in words. Nay when we use these terms even in a figurative sense, we do not explain them, because we know that sense and reason which are common lights to those that speak, and hear, will sufficiently explain them. But 'tis not the same in reference to the Eucharist, for supposing there's made in it a real Conversion of the inward Substance of the Bread into the inward Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, Sense and Reason lead us not to understand this Change, seeing 'tis imperceptible, and contrary to the order of Nature; and we cannot supply by their means what is imperfect in the Words. Neither can this Suppliment come from the Word of God, for it is pretended these terms which our Saviour used in the institution of the Sacrament have themselves need of being explained and determined by that which is called the sence of the Church. Neither can it come from the Tradition of the preceding Ages, for besides that the People have little knowledge of this Tradition, we shall not find any thing more precise in the in∣structions of the first Six Ages, than in those of the seventh and eighth. Whence then must this Suppliment come? Must we here suppose secret and immediate Inspirations, or imagine there were certain short forms of speech then in use, and which served as a key for the understanding of the Publick teachings? Unless 'twere so I cannot see how Mr. Arnaud's System can hold. For to say that by a Prophetick Spirit they of the seventh and eighth Centuries knew what would be determin'd in the eleventh, and supplyed what was wanting by means of this Prescience, this is something hard to be believed, and I know not whether Mr. Arnaud is willing to go so far; 'tis then clear that this pretended Suppliment is a mere Whimsy, and as ill contrived and maintained as ever any thing was.

AS to those two parts which compose the Mystery of the Eucharist, the one the external Vail which is the Sacrament, and th'other the Body of Jesus Christ which is covered with this Vail, this is not a place for a

thro-examination of this Hypothesis. Yet methinks Mr. Arnaud advances something singular enough when he adds, that 'tis fruitless to enquire into the * 1.159 Nature of this vail, it being sufficient to know that it is Bread and Wine according to Appearance, which is to say, if I be not mistaken, that 'tis needless to enquire whether this Appearance of Bread which covers the Body of Jesus Christ is a mere Phantasm, a pure Illusion which our Senses suffer, or whether they be really the Accidents of Bread which subsist separate from their Substance. Let the Gentlemen of the Roman Church determine whether this Doctrine be according to their Councils, especially that of Constance. As to my part I shall only tell Mr. Ar∣naud he will not find this Appearance of Bread and Wine, in what sort * 1.160 soever he Understands it, in the Fathers of the seventh and eighth Centuries, nor that the Body of Jesus Christ is hid under the Vail of this Appearance. The instance he gives us of a Man that is composed of Body and Soul, is vastly different; the Soul is not an invisible and impalpable Body, 'tis a real Spirit; and the Body is not an appearance of a Body, that has nothing of reality in it; it is a Body in Propriety of Nature and Substance. When then we say of a Man that he is an immortal and spiritual Being in respect of his Soul, or that he is a mortal and corpo∣real Being, in respect of his Body; or that he is mortal and immortal, considering him as a Body and Soul joyned together, this Language is Natural and easie to be understood without any Explication; because the Principles on which it is established, are obvious to Reason; and we may well suppose that those to whom we direct our Discourse are not Ignorant of them. But if Mr. Arnaud will have the Expressions of the Fathers of the seventh or eighth Centuries to be grounded on these Principles of the Apperance of Bread, which in truth is not Bread and the Body of Jesus Christ concealed invisibly under this Vail, he must without any more ado shew us that these Principles were known to the People; for it cannot be supposed they knew 'um Naturally. And thus his Instance is not at all to the purpose.

CHAP. VIII.

An Examination of these Expressions of the Fathers, That the Eucha∣rist is the Body of Jesus Christ, the proper Body of Jesus Christ, properly the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ.

IT is now easie to perceive that all these preparations, with which Mr. Arnaud would clog his Readers mind, is only a handsom excuse for the weakness of his proofs; and an authentick declaration that he could not find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries: for had he any thing to alledg that was considerable, 'tis evident he would never have taken so many circuits; and this is a certain sign, that these Doctrines were neither established nor known in the Church, during those ages; and this will appear more clearly if we cast our eyes on the passages he has produc'd, there being never a one of 'em that precisely contains the Conversion of the substance of Bread, or substantial Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, nor from whence they can be necessarily inferred.

FIRST, They cannot be infer'd from all those clauses of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist, the Body of Jesus Christ; and Mr. Arnaud could * 1.161 not busie himself to less purpose than to collect, as he has done, all these passages drawn from the Roman Order, the Liturgy called The Mass of Illy∣ricus, The Book of the Sacraments, which Menard a Benedictin Monk pub∣lished. Not to say the Book of the Roman Order, as we have it at this day is a Treatise made by an Author of the 11th. Century, as appears by the Testimony of Honorius D' Autun, who attributes it to Bernoldus, or Ber∣toldus * 1.162 a Priest of Constance that lived in the time of Henry IV. which was towards the end of the 11th. Century. This Bernoldus is he that conti∣nued the Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus to the Year 1100. and wrote several Tracts in defence of Pope Gregory VII. which shews us that his Book cannot be alledged in this Dispute. So likewise Morin acknowledges 'twas written after the Year 1000. And Menard who will not have Bernoldus to be the Author, yet grants he was the Corrector of it; and that he put in and * 1.163 out, what he thought good, to make it more according to the relish of the Church in his time. Neither shall I insist upon the Liturgy published by Illyricus, being a very uncertain piece, either as to its antiquity, or purity, as Menard has observed.

BUT not to enter into this discussion, it suffices me to say that the name of the Body of Jesus Christ attributed to the Eucharist, does no wise con∣clude what Mr. Arnaud pretends, which is, that 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ in proper substance. Does he think we have forgot so many illustrations which the Fathers, even those of the 7th. and 8th. Century have given us * 1.164 touching this way of speaking: as for instance what S. Isidor says, That by the command of Christ himself, we call Body and Blood that, which being the Fruits of the Earth, are sanctified and become a Sacrament. And elsewhere, The Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it strengthens the Body; and that the Wine refers to the Blood of Jesus Christ, because it makes the

Blood in the Veins. Bede holds the same language, The Bread and Wine do mystically represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because the Bread strengthens the Body, and the Wine produces Blood in the Flesh. The same Author, on the 6th. of the Romans, teaches after S. Augustin, That if the Sacraments had no resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments; that 'tis by reason of this resemblance we give them the names of those very things which they signifie; and that as the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacarment of his Blood, his Blood, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. One of these passages is a thousand times more considerable and decisive of our Question, than whatsoever Mr. Arnaud can produce from the Liturgies; be∣cause these passages are formal explications of these other expressions which attribute to the Eucharist the name of the Body of Jesus Christ; and any man of sence will never be prevail'd on by this confused heap of Citations wherein the name of the Body of Jesus Christ, or of the Body of our Lord is given to the Sacrament, as soon as he shall hear Isidor, Bede, or some other famous Author of those Ages in question, who explains to him these ways of speaking. We must rather believe those Authors when they ex∣pound themselves, than Mr. Arnaud who heats himself to little purpose, and would prepossess the world with his own notions and fancies.

MOREOVER, Can Mr. Arnaud imagine the world takes no notice of so many other expressions so frequent in the Liturgies, and Authors of these same Centuries, mentioned by us, which call the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, the mystery of our Lords Body, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacrament of his Humanity, the mystery of his Humi∣liation, the Sacrament of his Passion, the image of his Sacrifice, which the Church Celebrates in remembrance of his Sufferings. It is certain that these passages wherein we find these expressions, are as so many Commentaries that help us to a right understanding of the others, whence Mr. Arnaud would draw advantage; because 'tis very ordinary and natural to give to a Sacrament, which is a sign, a memorial, and an image, the name of the thing which it represents, according to the observation of S. Isidor himself, We are wont, says he, to give to Images the names of those things which they * 1.165 represent. Thus are Pictures called by the name of the things themselves; and we stick not to attribute to them the proper name. As for instance, We say this is Cicero, that Salust, that Achilles, this Hector, this the River Si∣mois, this Rome; altho these are only the Effigies or Pictures of them: The Cherubins are heavenly powers, and yet these Figures which God commanded to be made on the Ark of the Testament to represent such great things were not otherwise called than Cherubins. If a man sees in a dream a person, he does not say I saw the Image of Augustin, but I saw Augustin, altho Augustin in this moment, knows nothing of this Vision; and Pharaoh said he saw ears of Corn, and Kine, and not the images of these things.

'TIS easie to comprehend the meaning of the terms of Sacrament, and * 1.166 Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, for they signifie, that the Bread and Wine are signs or figures that represent the Body and Blood which Jesus Christ assumed for our sakes; abasing himself so far as to be our Brother, and suffering the Death of the Cross to Redeem us. Thus must we un∣derstand the title which Bede gives very often to the Sacrament, calling it the mystery or the Sacrament of our Lords Incarnation; for he means 'tis an action wherein by mystical Symbols men represent his Incarnation. We

cannot give another sense to that which he calls several times, the Sacra∣ment, or mystery of his Passion; for his passion is only therein figured or repre∣sented. We must then understand by the Sacrament or the mystery of his Body, the figure or representation of his Body. And in effect what S. Austin said on the third Psalm, That Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body. Isidor expresses in this sort, That Jesus Christ gave to * 1.167 his Disciples the mystery of his Body. And Bede in two places of his works expresses himself in the same manner as S. Austin, that he gave the figure of his Body, which shews they took these terms, the Mystery of the Body, the Sacrament of the Body, the Figure of the Body for one and the same thing. Now these expressions give us easily to understand what the Church of those Ages pretended, when she applyed to the Eucharist the term of the Body of Jesus Christ; for she designed only to attribute the name of the thing it self to the sacred sign it represents: and there's no likelihood, that Authors of those times that made so scrupulous a profession to follow S. Austin, even to the copying out his Writings to insert them in their own in proper terms, as appears from Isidor's Books, Bede's, Alcuinus; I say there's no likelihood they would forget what their Master had said touching this Mystery, the Lord scrupled not to say, This is my Body, when he gave the * 1.168 sign of his Body.

'TIS to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to urge the words of the Liturgy of Illyricus, Proesta Domine Jesu Christe fili Dei vivi, ut qui corpus & sangui∣nem * 1.169 proprium pro nobis datum edimus & bibimus fiat nobis ad salutem, & ad redemptionis remedium sempiternum omnium criminum nostrorum. Which he thus translates, O Lord Jesus Christ grant to us, that having eaten thy proper Body, and drank thy proper Blood which have been given for us howsoever un∣worthy, that this Communion may be to us a spring of Salvation, an eternal re∣medy for the redemption of us from all our crimes. Corpus & sanguinem pro∣prium do only signifie Corpus & sanguinem tuum, thy Body and Blood, not the Body and Blood of another, as the ancient Priests caused to be caten the Body of a Sacrifice different from their own Body. For the Son of God who gave his own Body and Blood for us, gives us them to eat and drink in this Sacrament; nor that our mouths receive their proper substance, the Liturgy does not say so, but because they receive the signs and tokens of 'um, whilst our souls receive this Body it self and Blood spiritually.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud would persuade us these passa∣ges of the Liturgies which term the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, do naturally imprint the Idea of a Real Presence. To prevent, says he, * 1.170 the peoples mistakes by all these terms of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Priests must have continually warn'd them to take notice that by the words of the Body of Jesus Christ, the proper Body of Jesus Christ, they meant only its figure. This sense must have been expresly explained in all the Liturgies, and an Offi∣cer appointed to make it thus understood by the people; for otherwise 'tis impos∣sible but they must fall into the opinion of the Real Presence. And this effect being necessary and inevitable, it ought to have been the chiefest care and bu∣siness of the Fathers to hinder it, had they not themselves been of this opinion.

ALL this discourse has nothing in it but what may be easily answered. We have already sufficiently replyed to it. 'Tis true this term of the Body of Jesus Christ taken separately imprints immediately the Idea of the na∣tural Body of Jesus Christ, but this same term applyed to the Eucharist,

(which both sense and reason shew us to be Bread, which Religion makes us comprehend as a mystery that represents the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour) does not naturally from any other I dea than that of the Sacra∣ment of the Body of Jesus Christ. There needs no Officer appointed on purpose to give notice of this to the people, nor sound of Trumpet to publish it, (as Mr. Arnaud speaks in another place.) Sense, Reason and the common notions of Religion were Officers sufficient to give this Idea, and pub∣lish this to be the sense of this term when applyed to the Eucharist. When the Scripture in an hundred places has called our Saviour the Sun, the day Star from on High, the light of the World, the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world, I do not find that it setled Officers on purpose to give notice, that it meant not a corporal Light, or Sun, but a Mystical one. I do not find the Jews employed an Officer to give no∣tice to the people, that that Lamb commonly called the Passover, that is to say, the passage, was not really a passage but only the commemoration of a passage. S. Paul did not make use of one when he wrote, that we are bu∣ried with Christ by Baptism, that we are made the same plant with him by the conformity of his Death and Resurrection, that we are new Creatures, that there is a new man formed in us; and I know not how many other expressi∣ons which are easily understood by the bare consideration of the matter to which they are applyed. The Fathers have not employ'd an Officer when they called the poor, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ himself, the same Jesus Christ that shed his Blood for us, who was delivered and put to death for us, not his Prophets but he himself. Neither have they employed one when they cal∣led the Church, the Body of Jesus Christ, the very Body of Jesus Christ, the real Body of Jesus Christ, properly the Body of Jesus Christ, the undoubted Body of Jesus Christ, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ himself, not his Vestment, but himself; nor when they said, that we are one and the same person with him, the same Body, the same substance by Faith, that we are transformed into him, changed into his Flesh, changed into his Body. Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place the world must have a great many Offi∣cers; for there's nothing more common than not only the metaphorical use of these terms, but even the exaggeration of them.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud has painfully collected into a Chapter for that purpose whatsoever passages he could find here and there not only amongst the Latines now in question, but likewise from amongst the Greeks, Copticks, Ethiopians, Armenians, Nestorians, which bear that the Eucharist is the very Body of Jesus Christ, his proper Body, or properly his Body, his real Body, his true Body. I shall reply to this heap of passages in two manners, first in general, and secondly in particular.

IN general, I say, there is not one of these expressions which is sufficient from whence solidly to conclude that those which have made use of them be∣lieved the substantial Presence which the Roman Church teaches, either be∣cause there is not one of 'um but is used on other subjects wherein evident∣ly there's neither Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, because they are all capable of another sense, and that they may have been employed in other respects than that which Mr. Arnaud attributes to them.

To begin by that of the Body it self of Jesus Christ, we now see the Fathers have used this term on occasion of the poor, God, says Chrysostom, * 1.171 has given his Son, and you refuse to give bread to HIM HIMSELF

who was given for you, who was slain for you; the Father has not spared him for your sakes, altho he was his only Son, and you neglect him altho he dies with hunger. And in another place, When we give Alms let us give it as to * 1.172 Jesus Christ himself, for his Word is more sure than our sight. When then you see a poor body, remember what he has said, that 'tis HIMSELF whom you feed. For altho that which appears be not Christ, yet is it HE HIMSELF that receives and asks under this shape. And moreover in another place, Somebody perhaps will say to me, bring me a Prophet and I will willingly entertain him; promise me then this and I will bring you a Prophet: what say I a Prophet? I will bring you the Master HIMSELF * 1.173 of the Prophets Jesus Christ our God, our common Lord. Know, says Vale∣rian, that he whom you see naked, blind, and crooked is Jesus Christ HIM∣SELF. We have already likewise shewed that this expression is used by the Fathers in the subject of the Church. We are not enjoyned, says * 1.174 Chrysostom, to distribute our Corn, or Oats, nor to take care of Sheep or Oxen, or such like things, but to take care of the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ; for the Church of Jesus Christ, according to the words of S. Paul, is the Body of Jesus Christ. S. Austin speaks often to the same effect, The Body IT * 1.175 SELF of Jesus Christ, says he, cries out in a Psalm, They have assaulted me even from my youth. And in another place, Behold the charity of our Lord, He is now in Heaven, and yet is in labour here below when the Church is in affliction. Jesus Christ is an hungred and a thirst, he is naked, a stranger, sick, a prisoner; for he has said, he suffers whatsoever his Body suffers, and at the end of the world when he shall gather together his Body IT SELF at his right hand, &c. And again in another place, You hold an eminent * 1.176 rank in the Body IT SELF of Jesus Christ, not by your Merits, but by his Grace. Jesus Christ HIMSELF, says he in another place, that is * 1.177 to say, his Body dispersed through the whole world preaches Christ. They cease not, says Sedulius, to rend by their Schisms the Lord Jesus Christ HIM∣SELF. Let us worship, says Damascen, the sign of the Cross, for HE HIM∣SELF * 1.178 is there where the sign is. His Body IT SELF, says Alcuinus, in the midst of the afflictions of this world glories and says, now my head is ex∣alted above mine enemies. The Son is man, says Etherius and Beatus, he is the Head of his Church which is joyned to this Head, and so becomes whole Christ, that is to say, the Head and the Body one only person.

AS to the terms of proper and properly, we shall find them likewise ap∣plied to several subjects wherein we cannot literally understand them. Ori∣gen expounding those words of our Saviour concerning the Eucharist, This is my Body, Jesus Christ, says he, receiving always of his Father this Bread, * 1.179 and breaking it gives it to his Disciples, according to what every one of them is able to receive, saying to 'um, Take, eat; and when he fed them with this Bread, he shewed that 'twas his PROPER BODY. SO Hesychius ex∣pounding these words of Moses, If any one has vowed and consecrated to * 1.180 God the Field of his possession, it shall be valued according to the measure of the seed: No body doubts, says he, but the Field is the holy Scripture. Jesus Christ is PROPERLY the Vine of this Field, and the Father is the Vine dresser. Despise not the poor whom you behold on the ground, says * 1.181 Gregory of Nysse, as if they were vile and abject persons; consider rather who they are to know their worth. They are cloathed with the person of Jesus Christ. For this gracious Lord hath given them his PROPER person. Good people, says S, Austin, are properly the Body of Jesus Christ. We might produce * 1.182 a thousand such like instances, for there's nothing more common in the

Fathers than the use of these expressions in passages wherein there is no li∣teral sense.

THE term proper has several significations. 'Tis true that sometimes it is opposed against metaphorical or figurative, an improper or abusive sense; as when we say of an expression that it must be understood, in a proper sense, that is to say, in a literal; but it is opposed sometimes to that which is foreign to us, which is not ours, which belongs not to us; as when we say, every man takes care of his proper business, proper house, proper fami∣ly, proper person, in opposition to the affairs, house, and family of others. And then we scruple not to joyn this term to other metaphorical ones. We say for example of a man that misuses his Children, that he tears his own * 1.183 proper bowels; of a Husband that hates his Wife, that he hates his own proper flesh. It is in this sense Clement Alexander said, The Church was the pro∣per Spouse of Jesus Christ. And Gregory of Nysse, That God formed our bodies with his proper hand. And S. Isidor, That the Law baptized with simple wa∣ter, but our Saviour Christ iniates or consecrates us by his proper Blood. Sometimes this term is opposed to that of common; as when we say to a man that 'tis of him we properly speak, that 'tis properly to him to do such a thing: or when we say that 'twas properly in such a place, or in such a time wherein such a thing hap'ned. And then moreover we do not scruple to joyn this term to other figurative terms, as when Origen said, That God * 1.184 the Father is called properly the fountain of life. And Gregory of Nysse, That those who at this day take upon 'um the office of Prophets in the body of the Church are properly called the eyes. It is certain then Mr. Arnaud can con∣clude nothing from these expressions, unless he shews that these two last significations cannot take place in the passages which he alledges, and that we must unavoidably take them in the first sense; that is to say, for that which is literal and not figurative.

THE terms of true and truly are likewise often used in occasions where∣in they cannot signifie either a literal verity, or a reality of substance; and Mr. Arnaud does himself acknowledg that we find in the Fathers, That Je∣sus * 1.185 Christ is truly the gate and house of Refuge, that he is truly the Rock and the Fire, that he is truly Bread, truly a Shepherd, truly an Altar; that his Incar∣nation is truly a flame, that he which imitates the works of Abraham, is truly the Son of Abraham, that the knowledg of God is truly a fountain; that he that meditates on the Law of God is truly a tree planted by the waters side, that Jesus Christ is properly and truly the light, that he is Noah in truth.

TO hinder us from making advantage of these examples, Mr, Arnaud says, That when of two things, the one stands for a figurative truth, and the * 1.186 other serves only for a figure, men commonly use the word true and proper when even the term to which 'tis joyned is metaphorical. Thus, adds he, We say the Christians be the true Israelites, that Jesus Christ is the true Melchise∣dec, that the Church is the true Spouse of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the true Sun, the true light, the true Vine, because that the carnal Israelites were but the figure in respect of the Christians, that Melchisedec was the figure of Jesus Christ, that the visible Sun is only the image of the invisible Sun, which is Jesus Christ, that the terrestial Vines represent to us the coelestial one, that humane Marriages are the figure of the union of Jesus Christ with the Church. And the reason of these expressions is moreover the same as that of others. For 'tis clear the thing figured contains more truly the quality denoted by the figure,

which has it only in representation. Let a man but read, says he moreover, the other examples, and he'l find that 'tis always the figure which is affirm'd of the thing figured, and that the word verè, which is thereunto added, signifies that this thing figurated does really contain the quality which the figure possesses only in representation: and therefore it is that these expressions cannot be chan∣ged. 'Tis said that Jesus Christ is truly a stone, that he is truly a door, truly the light, the true Noah. But we do not say the stones, the doors, the light, &c. are truly Jesus Christ. We say the Apostles are the true Israelites, but we do not say the Israelites are truly Apostles. 'Tis said that a good man is truly a Tree planted by the Rivers side; but not that a Tree planted by the River side is a good man. We may say then according to this sense, that Jesus Christ is truly Bread, truly Wine, because he possesses by way of exeellency the qua∣lities figured by the Bread and Wine; but we cannot say in this sense that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; because the Bread and Wine do not stand here for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure.

THE first reflection to be made on this discourse is, that he refutes and overthrows the Argument which the Doctors of the Roman Church do commonly draw from our Saviours words in the 6th. of S. John, My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink: For if the term of truly may be applied to the thing figured, to signifie that it contains by way of excel∣lency the qualities of the figure, the meat and drink standing for a figure, and the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ standing for the thing figured, there's no longer any reason to conclude from these words that the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are meat and drink properly in a literal sense, than there would be to conclude from thence that Jesus Christ is literally a Door and a Sun, Noah, and Melchisedec; that a good man is really a Tree, and that the Christians are literally Israelites under pretence there's used in 'um the term of truly. When then we shall be offered this expression of our Saviour, My flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, we need only desire that Mr. Arnaud may be the judg of this difference; for what he now said decides clearly the question in our favour.

IN the second place, supposing what he offers were absolutely true, yet the consequence which we draw from these examples would for all that be good and solid; for 'tis sufficient for us to shew that the terms of true and truly comprehend not always a reality of substance, and that very often they only signifie a reality of virtue or quality. Now this is what apears clearly by these examples. 'Tis said of Jesus Christ that he is truly a Sun, a Stone, a Door, because the qualities of the Sun, of a Stone and a Door are in Jesus Christ, and that he has in our respect the vittue of all these things. Mr. Arnaud confesses it, why may we not then as well say, that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, by supposing that this Bread hath the virtue and efficacy of it? I grant it cannot be said of a figure that 'tis truly the original; this cannot be unless when we consi∣der it as a meer figure under the respect of a representation only; but what hinders us from applying this term to a thing which has all the virtue of another, and which will make us feel all the effects of it, whether it be otherwise the figure of it or not? The Gospel does not contain the sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only its virtue; and yet Etherius and Beatus assert, that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ. What is this * 1.187 Bread, say they, which we every day pray for, which is ours, and which yet

we do not receive, unless we ask it? 'Tis truly the Body, know ye, 'tis he himself that is our daily bread. Ask it, receive it, eat it every day. Read we the holy Scriptures, and we shall find therein this Bread. I believe that the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, are the Body of Je∣sus Christ. For when our Lord says, He that eateth not my Flesh, nor drinketh my Blood, &c. Altho these words may be understood spiritually and mystically, yet the daily bread which we ask corporally, and which is TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Blood, is the word of the Scriptures, the Di∣vine Doctrine; and when we read it, we eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ and drink his Blood. The Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attribu∣ted to S. Jerom, has so little believed that, the term of truly applyed to the Eucharist, when 'tis said that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ, ought to be understood of a truth of substance, that he has not scrupled, compa∣ring the Eucharist with the words of the Gospel, to affirm that its words are more truly this Body. I believe, says he, that the Gospel is the Body of * 1.188 Jesus Christ, his holy Scriptures I say and his Doctrine. And when he says, he that eateth not my Flesh, nor driuketh my Blood; altho this may be un∣derstood of the mystery, yet the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine is MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ.

THIS term of truly applies it self not only to a thing which hath the virtue of another, and which communicates it to us spiritually such as is the word of the Gospel in respect of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it ap∣plies it self likewise to a thing which is not another, but only by imputati∣on. Chrysostom speaking of a poor body, and calling him a man, corrects * 1.189 immediately his expression, as if it were not just. A man, says he, or to speak better Jesus Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which his interpre∣ter Brixius has thus rendred, Hominem autem, seu verius dicam Christum ipsum. In effect this correction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, denotes the sence of Chrysostom is, that a poor body is more truly Jesus Christ than a man, and yet it can∣not be said he is truly Jesus Christ in verity of substance. He is only so by imputation; inasmuch as Christ our Saviour accepts whatsoever is done to the poor as done to himself. S. Hierom in his Commentary on the Epi∣stle to the Galatians uses the same term of truly on the subject of the Church, altho it be not the Body of Jesus Christ but mystically and mo∣rally. The Church, says he, is taken in two respects, either for that which has neither spot nor wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jesus Christ, or that which is assembled in the name of Christ without the fulness or perfe∣ction of vertues, which Claud Bishop of Auxerrus, or rather of Turin, who was an Author of the 8th. Century, has inserted word for word in his ex∣position of the same Epistle, The Church, says he, which has neither spot nor * 1.190 wrinkle, and which is TRƲLY the Body of Jesus Christ. The same ex∣pression may be met with in Bede, As our Lord, says he, is the Head of his Church, and the Church is TRƲLY his Body, so the Devil is the head of all the wicked, and the wicked are his body and members.

IN all these examples I now alledged, concerning the Gospel, the Poor, and the Church, Mr. Arnaud cannot say that Jesus Christ, or his Body stand for a figure; nor that these things, stand for figured truths. For the Body of Jesus Christ is not the figure of the Gospel, nor our Saviour the figure of a poor man; and the Church, to speak properly, is not the truth figured by the Body of our Lord. Yet do the Fathers assure us that this Gospel, and this Church are truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Poor

are truly Jesus Christ. Whence it follows, there's nothing more vain than Mr. Arnauds remark, That we cannot say the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because the Bread and Wine stand not for a thing figured, nor the Body of Jesus Christ for a figure. On this Maxim the Fathers could not say the Church is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel truly this Body; nor that the Poor are truly the Lord himself; and yet they have said it as well as that the Eucharist is truly the Body. Granting Mr. Arnaud one cannot say a figure, as a figure, is really the thing it self which it represents, he can hence conclude no more but this, that what the Fathers have said of the Bread of the Eucharist, viz. that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, they did not say this in respect of the Bread being a figure; but this does not hinder 'um from saying it on other accounts, either inasmuch as that the Bread is accompanied with the whole virtue of the Body, or inasmuch as it communicates this virtue spiritually to our souls.

THERE are so many several respects wherein we may say the Sacrament is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ, without any regard to its substance, that 'tis matter of real wonder to me Mr. Arnaud should so ve∣hemently urge those terms, and pretend 'um to be such a great argument. For example, those that consider the Heresie of the Marcionites, and Ma∣nichees who denied our Saviour Christ assumed a true Body, and allowed only a phantasm, might not they say of the Eucharist that 'tis our Lords true Body, to signifie it to be the mystery of a true Body, and not the mystery of a false and imaginary one, such as these Hereticks attributed to him, in the same sense as a Roman Catholick who has regard to the false Idea which the Jews form to themselves of a temporal Messias may well say of a Crucifix, or another image of our Saviour, that this is the true Messias who was to come into the world, in opposition to the fantastical Messias of the Unbelievers.

THOSE that respect the truth of the words of our Saviour, who called the Bread his Body, might not they likewise say, 'tis truly his Body, not to determine the sense of these words, but to establish only the certainty of them, and represent 'um true beyond all question, in the same sense in refe∣rence to prophane persons who scoff at the words of S. Paul, who tells us that we are buried with Christ in Baptism, and made one and the same plant with him through the conformity of his Death and Resurrection, I would not scruple to say that Baptism is truby our death, our Burial and Resurre∣ction with Jesus Christ, to signifie only that the words of the Apostle are very true, being rightly understood.

SUCH as consider the figures and legal shadows which represented the Body of Christ very imperfectly, which gave only a confused and obscure Idea of it, and communicated only faintly the virtue of it, might not they say, in comparing them with our Eucharist, that this here is the true Body of Jesus Christ, to signifie that it gives us a true, lively, distinct and perfect Idea of it, that it fully communicates it to the hearts of the faithful, and makes it fell all the virtues of it, in the same sense as Cyril of Jerusalem comparing the ancient figures with our Baptism, did not stick to call this here the truth in opposition to the figure. Pass we, says he, from * 1.191 old things to new, and from the figure to the TRƲTH. There Moses was sent from God into Egypt, here Jesus Christ who was sent from the Fa∣ther,

is come into the world. There Moses was sent to deliver the people from the oppression of Egypt; here Jesus Christ was sent to deliver us from the bondage of sin. There the Blood of a Lamb stopt the destroying Angel, here the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot or wrinkle, protects us against the Devils. There the tyrant pursued the people to the Red Sea, here the Devil pursues us as far as the salutiferous waters. There the Tyrant was drowned in the Sea, here the Devil is suffocated in the water of Salvation.

THOSE that considered the effect of the consecration of the Bread which makes it to be really, and not by a simple imagination, the mystery of our Lord's Body, might they not say that 'tis truly the Body of Jesus Christ, the Body of Jesus Christ in truth, not to insinuate it to be so in proper sub∣stance, but to signifie its being the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, is not a thing which has no other foundation than our own imagination, but that which is grounded on the things themselves, either because our Saviour Christ has thus ordained it in instituting his Holy Sacrament in the Church, or forasmuch as the Eternal Father has ratifi'd this Institution, or that the Holy Spirit really descends on the Bread to consecrate it. An adopted Son con∣sidering his adoption was real, and not illusory or conceited, may rightly say that he is truly the Son of such a one; and in this sense every faithful person may say with assurance, he is truly the Son of God. 'Tis in this same sense that S. Basil tells us, That if our flesh be worthy of God, it be∣comes * 1.192 truly his Tabernacle. And Theophylact, That the Jews were truly blind in respect of the Soul. And Cyril of Jerusalem. That we have been truly anointed by the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus Christ is truly the Primitiae, and we the mass or lump, And S. Hierom, That we be all truly one Bread in Jesus Christ. For they would say, not that these titles of Tabernacle, and Blind, this Unction, these Primitioe, this Mass, and this Bread, ought to be understood in a literal sense; but that their metaphorical signification was grounded on the things themselves, and may be found entirely true.

THOSE in fine who consider the opinion of the Greeks, that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by an union with the natural body; and by way of growth and augmentation, may not they likewise say that 'tis truly this body, and yet not establish 'tis the same numerical substance which our Saviour has in Heaven; but to signifie that this substance here, and that there, are not two different Bodies, but one and the same Body; as we have already more than once explained; in the same sense as the augmentations which are made to a House or Ground become truly this House, or this ground, or the Kings Conquests added to his Kingdom be∣come truly his Kingdom, by virtue of their union.

ALL which clearly shews that Mr. Arnaud has much misreckoned himself when he believed there were but two occasions wherein men used these terms of true and truly, the one when they affirm the figure of the Original; as when we say that our Saviour Christ is the true Melchisedec, the true Son, the true Vine; and the other when we would prevent any kind * 1.193 of doubt or contest; as when we say of a suspicious piece of Gold that 'tis true Gold, or a Pope that has an Anti-Pope for his rival, that he is the true Pope. This enumeration is defective, and the conclusion which he pre∣tends to draw hence is void, and refuted by what I now offer'd. The Fa∣thers might say that the Bread of the Eucharist is truly the Body of Jesus Christ without intending the prevention of any doubt.

BUT supposing they designed to prevent a doubt; can there arise no other from the subject of the Eucharist, but what relates to Transubstan∣tiation, or the substantial Presence? May not a man doubt of the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ considered in it self, and in reference to the Incar∣nation? All those ancient Hereticks, Marcionites, Manichees, have not on∣ly doubted of it, but boldly affirmed that 'twas only a Phantasm. The Eutychiens have affirm'd, and do still affirm, that this Body was swallowed up in the abyss of the Divinity. Cannot a man doubt of the truth of Je∣sus Christ his words? The Jews and Pagans do not only doubt of them, their impudence proceeds so far as to make a mock at 'um; and how many impious and prophane wretches are there amongst such as profess Chri∣stianity that mock at 'um in their hearts? Cannot a man doubt of the effi∣cacy and spiritual virtue of this Bread? We have already observed from Palladius that this was precisely the doubt that possessed the mind of a Re∣ligious. And how many weak persons are there, who seeing only Bread and Wine, cannot imagine we ought to attribute to them so great an efficacy. There is nothing, says Tertullian, that more perplexes mens minds, * 1.194 than to see the simplicity of the Divine operations when they are celebrated, and to hear the magnificent effects issuing from them.

THIS doubt, says Mr. Arnaud, must have two qualities. For first, As this expression has been generally received by all people; this must therefore be a general doubt, and must naurally arise in the minds of all men. Secondly, As no body ever made use of this expression, but only on the subject of the Eu∣charist, this must be a particular doubt belonging to the Eucharist, and which cannot be extended to all the other Sacraments. How excellent is Mr. Arnaud at engrossing of objects. He has gathered here and there, from several Au∣thors that lived in sundry Churches, and at divers times some thirty passa∣ges taken in a counter sense that speak differently, one in one manner, others in another, in different significations, and this he makes to be the language * 1.195 of all people, In another place, he assures us this is the language of all Nations and all Ages. A man cannot say an expression has been generally received by all people, and in all ages, unless he has run over the Authors of all Ages, and shew'd that this expression was received by the greatest part amongst 'um; for which purpose thirty passages gathered at random are not sufficient. Moreover the expression in question should appear in all the passages, and not one in some of 'em, and another in others. Besides the expression must be used every where in the same sense. But we find no such thing here. We have only about some thirty passages, in one of which there's the term of same, in another that of proper, or properly, in another that of true, or truly, and they are used in different senses too, as will appear from the par∣ticular examination we shall make of them. How can this then be called an expression generally received by all people, the language of all Nations, and that of all ages? For my part I call it an illusion.

BUT supposing the expression of true, or truly to have been generally received by all people, as Mr. Arnaud supposes it was, why must it needs proceed from a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men? May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects, and yet have been used for different ends, and on different occasions. 'Tis not good reasoning to con∣clude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst

all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used. For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use, altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists? The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough, and sufficiently subject to change, either in regard of divers People, or Ages, and the occasions, the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccount∣able too.

SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a ge∣neral reason, why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men? Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ, and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation, I mean in the Eucha∣rist, for so the Fathers have called it? Is it not sufficient 'twas a general in∣terest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a pro∣found respect the words of Jesus Christ, who has said of the Bread, This is my Body, and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them? These two in∣terests are general, belong to all times, and all Nations, and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question, were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was.

BUT in fine, supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly, I say 'tis sufficient 'twas a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons, and not necessarily in those of all men. For there have been weak Christians at all times, and in all places, the Church having never been without 'um, and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken. Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucha∣rist, that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ, that it procures us the remission of our Sins, the Grace of Sanctification, the hope of Everlasting life, that by it we obtain the Communion of our Sa∣viour; this doubt, I say, easily arises in the minds of weak persons, who, as I have already said, are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sa∣crament, wherein there only appears Bread and Wine. Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ, or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ, were only used to prevent this doubt, to strength∣en the weak in this regard, and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament, what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable, and conformable to the sense of the Church.

WERE there any body now, says he, tempted with this doubt, and * 1.196 needed to be strengthened against it, does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood, and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it. He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucha∣rist, and whether he fills it with his efficacy. He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ; but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms, I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ, nor of rejecting it in these here, I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ.

LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters (whom he introduces without any occasion, or reason) would not consult

common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms, suppo∣sing they doubted of Transubstantiation, or the substantial presence. Why should they not say, We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, or we doubt whether the sub∣stance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appea∣rances of Bread. Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts, do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them, We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ? Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found, had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ, and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite ex∣pressions. Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repel∣led in formal terms, by saying, We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body. Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it, and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous sta∣ted according to my sense in Palladius, How are the gifts, said a Religious * 1.197 person, able to sanctifie me? I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented, as appears by Cyril of Alex∣andria; God, says he, changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh, * 1.198 AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE: and by Elias of Crete, God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh, * 1.199 AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE. Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body, or truly the Body of Jesus Christ, in reference to the question of the Conversion, and the sub∣stantial Presence, and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue. For Walafridus Strabo, an Author of the 9th. Century, having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book, De Virtute Sacramentorum, says afterwards in the Text of the same Cha∣pter, * 1.200 by way of confirmation, That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert, altho he lived in the 12th. Century, that is to say, in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church, yet said, That the Bread is rightly called and is TRƲLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ, because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ, Crucified, Dead and Buried. Moreover Mr. Ar∣naud has no reason to be so positive in affirming that the doubt was rejected in these terms, I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ, nor to make the world believe that all Nations and Ages spake in this sort. The term of true may be met with in some passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges, and that of proper in others, and both of these are therein used in senses far different from that which he gives them; but he must not un∣der this pretence form this proposition, That the Eucharist is the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ, for there's a great deal of difference between these terms being separate, (which offer themselves in divers passages, and in divers Authors) and these same terms joyned together by way of exage∣ration. I confess that Nicephorus according to Allatius's relation joyns together the two terms of properly and truly; but besides that Nicephorus is not all Ages, nor all Nations; we have already shew'd that he speaks on∣ly thus upon an Hypothesis far different from that of Transubstantiation, or the substantial Presence; and therefore Mr. Arnaud cannot make any ad∣vantage of what he says.

AND these are my general answers to Mr. Arnaud's passages. Should we descend at present to the particular examination of these passages, we must first lay aside those of Anastasius Sinait, of Damascen, of the second Coun∣cil of Nice, of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople, the profession of Faith made by the Saracens that were Converts of the 12th. Century, and that of the Horologium of the Greeks; for they have been all of 'em al∣ready sufficiently answer'd: 'tis only needful to remember what I have al∣ready established touching the real Belief of the Greek Church. There must likewise be retrenched those that be taken from the Liturgies of the Copticks and Ethiopians, seeing we have already answered them. We have also answer'd that taken out of the common Liturgy of the Armeni∣ans, or to speak better, the Armenians themselves have answer'd it.

IF those of Leopolis call the Bread and Wine the true Body and the true Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, there is no likelihood for all this that they have another Belief than that of the rest of the Armenians, who formally declare, as we have already seen, that they mean nothing else by these terms, than a true mystery of this Body and Blood, and in ef∣fect it is said in the same Liturgy whence Mr. Arnaud has taken his Quota∣tion, that the Priest says in Communicating, I eat by Faith, O Lord Jesus * 1.201 Christ thy holy living and saving Body. I drink by Faith thy holy and pure Blood.

THE passage of Adam the Arch-deacon of the Nestorians, mention'd by Strozza, is impertinently alledg'd, for two reasons: First, That these are the words of a man that reconciled himself with the Church of Rome, who in embracing its Religion, wrote in Rome it self under the inspection of Pope Paul V. and from whose words by consequence there can be nothing concluded touching the Nestorian Church. Secondly, That what he says concerning our eating the true Body of God, but of God Incarnate; that we drink truly the Blood of a Man, but of a Man that is God, relates not to our question, nor is not said in this respect, but in regard of the Error of the Nestorians, who will have the Body of Jesus Christ to be the Body of a mere man, and not the true Body of God Incarnate. What's this to the question, to wit, Whether that which we receive with the mouths of our bodies be the substance it self of the Body of Jesus Christ?

WHAT he alledges touching the Liturgy of the Indian Christians that added to the saying of our Saviour these words, In veritate, saying, Hoc est in veritate corpus, hic est in veritate sanguis meus is a thing very doubt∣ful. 'Tis not likely Alexis Menesez the Arch-bishop of Goa who laboured to reduce these Indians to the Faith of the Roman Church would have re∣trenched from their Liturgy these words in veritate, had he in truth found them in it. Those that wrote the actions of this Arch bishop, say, this ad∣dition was made by a Bishop that came from Babylon. Mr. Arnaud tells us we must not much heed what they relate. This is a mere Chaos wherein a * 1.202 man can comprehend nothing. The Deacon, says he, sings still in their Mass, Fratres mei suscipite corpus ipsius filii Dei dicit Ecclesia. But what consequence can be drawn from these words. 'Tis certain that this corpus ipsius filii Dei, is a clause added by Menesez against the Error of the Ne∣storians, who would have it to be no more than the Body of a mere man; for every one knows this was the Heresie of the Nestorians. There remains

still in this Liturgy (as correct as 'tis) several passages that do not well agree with the Doctrine of the Roman Church, as what the Priest says, Jesus * 1.203 Christ our Lord the Son of God that was offer'd for our salvation, and who commanded us to Sacrifice in remembrance of his Passion, Death, Burial, and Resurrection, receive this Sacrifice from our hands. Were the Sacrifice Jesus Christ in his proper substance, there's no likelihood they would offer it to Jesus Christ himself. Having read the passage of S. Paul, That whilst we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord, that we desire to be out of the body, to have his presence, that we desire to please him whether present or absent, &c. rehearsed the Creed, the Priest says, This Sacrifice is in remembrance of the Passion, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Then praying for the Consecration, O Lord God, says he, look not upon the multitude of my sins', and be not angry with us for the number of our Crimes, but by thy ineffable Grace Consecrate this Sa∣crifice, AND INDUE IT WITH THAT VIRTUE AND EFFICACY THAT IT MAY ABOLISH THE MULTITUDE OF OUR SINS, to the end that when thou shalt at last appear in that humane form which thou hast been pleased to take on thee, we may find acceptance with thee. On one hand he restrains the Consecration to the virtue or efficacy which God gives to the Sacrament for the abolishing of our sins; and on the other formally distinguishes the Sacrament from the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, in which he will appear ar the last day. Immediately after he calls the gifts, the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And then beseeches God, they may be made worthy to obtain the remission of their sins by means of the Holy Body which they shall receive by Faith. Again, he says, That he Sacrifices the Mystery of the Passion, Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and prays to God, That his Holy Spirit may come down, and rest on this Oblation, and sanctifie it, to the end it may procure them the remission of their sins. He says not to the end it may change the substance of it, and convert it into that of the Body of Jesus Christ, which yet must have been said, or something equivalent thereunto, were this the formal effect of the Consecration. Having recited our Lords words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, he adds, This shall be a pledg to us to the end of the world. And a little further, Esay touched a live coal, his lips were not burnt with it, but his iniquity pardon'd. Mortal men receive a fire IN THE BREAD IT self; and this fire preserves their bodies, and consumes only their sins. 'Tis easie to perceive that by this fire which is in the Bread it self, he means the Holy Spirit which he had already prayed for to come down and rest on the Oblation. Explaining afterwards what this Mystery is, Approach we all of us, says he, with fear and respect to the Mystery of the precious Body and Blood of our Saviour, and with a pure heart, and a true Faith call we to remembrance his Passion and Resurrection; and let us clearly comprehend them. For, for our sakes the only Son of God has assu∣med a mortal Body, a spiritual reasonable and immortal Soul, and by his holy Law has reduced us from error to the knowledg of the truth, and at the end of his Oeconomy, offered on the Cross the first fruits of our nature, he is risen from the Dead, ascended up into Heaven, and has left us his Holy Sa∣craments as pledges to put us in mind of all the favours which he has bestowed on us. Was not here a fitting place to make some mention of his corporeal Presence in the Eucharist; and having said that he is ascended up into Hea∣ven, does it not seem, that instead of adding, he has left us his Holy Sa∣craments, he should have said, he yet presents himself on the Altars, in the substance of his Body. Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether this Liturgy favours him.

AS to the ancient Liturgy of France, which bears that Jesus Christ gives us his proper Body, I have already answer'd that these terms of proper Body, signifie only his Body; and I apply the same answer to the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges of S. Ireneus, Juvencus, Gaudencius, and of S. Chrysostom, who likewise use the same term of proper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proprium corpus, signifies suum corpus, his Body, not that of another, but his own; for this is often the sense of this term, as we have already shew'd.

S. Hilary says, There's no reason to doubt of the truth of the Flesh, and Blood of our Lord. I acknowledg he speaks of this Flesh inasmuch as 'tis communicated to us in the Sacrament; but I say also he means the spiritual Communication which Jesus Christ hath given us in the act it self of the Sacramental Communion: and that Hilary's sense is, we must not doubt but this Flesh is really communicated to us, inasmuch as our Souls are made really partakers of it.

EPHRAM of Edesse speaks likewise of the Spiritual Communion which we have with Jesus Christ God and Man, when he says, that we eat the Lamb himself entire.

WE may return the same answer to the passages of Gelazius of Cizique, Hesychius, and the History of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew.

GELAZIƲS of Cizique says very well, That we truly receive the precious Body and the precious Blood of Jesus Christ; not only because the Spiritual Communion is a real reception of this Body and Blood, but like∣wise because this Communion consider'd in opposition to the Sacramental Communion, is the only true one.

HESTCHIƲS says, That the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Jesus Chhist, secundum veritatem, according to truth, because that in ef∣fect the mystical object represented, and communicated to our Souls, in this holy action is the Body and Blood of our Lord; and this is what he understands by the truth or virtue of the Mystery, as we have already ob∣served elsewhere.

The Author of the relation of the Martyrdom of S. Andrew, makes this Saint say, not what Mr. Arnaud imputes to him, That he Sacrific'd every * 1.204 day to God the immaculate Lamb, but, that he Sacrificed every day to God ON THE ALTAR OF THE CROSS, the Immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Arnaud's fidelity thus to eclipse these words, on the Altar of the Cross, to make the world believe this Author means the Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist; whereas he means only that every day he Immolates Jesus Christ on the Cross, to wit, in meditating on this Cross, and preaching it to the people. He adds, That all the people who are Believers eat the Flesh of this Lamb, and drink his Blood, and yet the Lamb which was sacrific'd remains whole and alive; and altho he be truly sacrific'd, and his Flesh truly eaten and drank, yet he remains whole and alive. This is an allusion to the ancient Lamb of the Jews, which was first sacrific'd, and afterwards eaten by the people, which was a figure of our Saviour, the true Lamb of God that was sacrific'd on the Cross; and whose Flesh was eaten, and Blood spiritually drank by those that believe in

him by Faith. The Lamb being divided, and not rising again after he was slain, our Saviour Christ has this advantage over him that he is alive after his being sacrific'd and eaten, without suffering any division. But whe∣ther we consider this manducation absolutely in it self, or by comparing it to that of the ancient Lamb, it is true. For on one hand it is neither false nor illusory, and on the other it is the truth figured by the manducation of the Lamb of the Jews.

THE passage of S. Leo, which says, We must in such a manner draw near to the Divine Table, as not to doubt, in any wise, of the truth of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Jesus Christ, is very impertinently alledged. Mr. Arnaud is not to learn that Leo discourses against the Eutychiens, who denied our Saviour had a real Body; and his sense to be, that when we partake in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we must not doubt but our Saviour has in himself, in his proper person, a real Body and Blood, and is real man.

'TIS now plainly seen, that this heap of passages which Mr. Arnaud has pretended to make of the consent of all Nations and Ages, is but a meer illusion, and that his design in wand'ring thus ftom his subject, was only to colour over the weakness of his proofs touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries now in debate. He had so little to say concerning these Centu∣ries, that he thought it necessary to take the field, and circuit about to amuse his Readers, and fill up his Chapters. But his subject matter is so little favourable to him on what side soever he turns himself, and howsoever he uses it, that we may well say he loses both his time and his pains.

WOULD we really know what has been the sentiment of the ancients, the way to be informed, is not to take passages in a counter sense, and captiously heapt up one upon another: but to apply our selves to the testi∣mony of the Ancients themselve••, produced sincerely, and faithfully, some of which are these.

TERTULLIAN. Those of Capernaum having found our Saviours * 1.205 discourse hard and insupportable, as if he design'd to give them TRƲLY his Flesh to eat. To manifest to 'em the means he uses for the procuring us salva∣tion were spiritual, he tells them, 'tis the Spirit that quickens.

ORIGEN. There is in the New Testament, a letter which kills him that * 1.206 does not understand spiritually the meaning of it: For if we take these words in a literal sense, if you eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, THIS LETTER KILLS.

S. ATHANASIUS. The words of our Saviour Christ were not car∣nal, * 1.207 but spiritual. For to how few persons would his Body have been sufficient, and how could he be the food of the whole world? Therefore he mentions his Ascension into Heaven, to take them off from all carnal thoughts, and to shew them he gave his Flesh as meat from above, heavenly food, a spiritual nou∣rishment.

EUSEBIUS of Cesarea. Our Saviour taught his Disciples that they must understand SPIRITƲALLY what he told them concerning his Flesh * 1.208 and Blood. Think not, says he to 'em, that I speak of this Flesh which I now

have on, as if ye were to eat it, nor imagin that I enjoyn you to drink this sen∣sible and corporeal Blood, know that the words I speak to you are spirit and life.

THE Author of an imperfect Book on S. Matthew, under the name of * 1.209 S. Chrysostom, If it be a dangerous thing to transfer to common uses the sacred Vessels wherein THE TRUE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST is not con∣tained, but the MYSTERY of his Body, how much more the vessels of our body, which God has prepared as an habitation for himself?

S. AMBROSE. The shadow was in the Law, the IMAGE is in the * 1.210 Gospel, THE TRUTH IS IN HEAVEN. The Jews offer'd anciently a Lamb, an Heifer; now Jesus Christ is offer'd, he is offer'd as a man, as capa∣ble of suffering, and he offers himself as a Priest. HERE IS THIS DONE IN A FIGURE; but at the Fathers right hand where he intercedes for us as our advocate, THIS IS PERFORMED IN TRUTH.

S. AUSTIN. Before the coming of Christ, the Flesh of this Sacrifice * 1.211 was promised by Victims of Resemblance. In the Passion of Jesus Christ this Flesh was given BY THE TRUTH IT SELF. After his Ascension it is celebrated BY A SACRAMENT OF COMMEMORATION.

IN another place, You shall not eat THIS BODY WHICH YOU * 1.212 SEE, nor drink this Blood which those that are to crucifie me will shed. I have recommended to you A SACRAMENT, if ye receive it spiritually it will quicken you.

AGAIN elsewhere, The Body and Blood will be the life of every one * 1.213 of us if we eat and drink SPIRITUALLY IN THE TRUTH IT SELF that which we take VISIBLY IN THE SACRAMENT, si quod in Sa∣cramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, Spi∣ritualiter bibatur.

THE Author of the Commentary on the Psalms attributed to S. Je∣rom. * 1.214 Altho what Jesus Christ says, (He that eateth not my Flesh nor drinks my Blood) may be understood in reference to the Mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures, the Divine Doctrine IS MORE TRULY the Body of Jesus Christ.

FACUNDUS. The Bread is not PROPERLY the Body of Jesus * 1.215 Christ, nor the Cup his Blood; but they are so called because they contain the mystery of them.

RABAN. Of late some (that HAVE NOT A RIGHT SENTI∣MENT) * 1.216 have said of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, that 'TIS THE BODY it self and Blood of our Saviour born of the Virgin Mary.

OECUMENIUS. The servants of the Christians had heard their * 1.217 Masters say that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and they imagin'd that 'twas INDEED flesh and blood.

CHAP. IX.

That the Fathers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries held not Tran∣substantiation, nor the Substantial Presence.

WE may judg by these passages which I now alledged, as from a sampler, what has been the Doctrine of the ancient Church in General. That of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries in particular will soon discover it self upon the least observation.

WE shall not find therein either substantial Presence, or conversion of substance, nor existence of a Body in several places at once, nor accidents without a subject, nor presence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit, nor concomitancy, nor adoration of the Eucharist, nor any of those things by which we may comprehend that the Church in those times believed what the Roman Church believes in these.

WE shall find, on the contrary, as I have already observed, that the * 1.218 Authors of those Ages commonly called the Eucharist, The mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the figure of Christ's Body, which Bede calls the image of his Oblation which the Church celebrates in remembrance of his Passion. Who in another place assures us, That the Lord gave and recommended to his Disciples, the figure of his Body and Blood. And Charlemain to the same effect, That he broke the Bread, and delivered the Cup, as a figure of his Body and Blood.

WE shall therein find that this Sacrament, or figure, is Bread and Wine properly so called, without any equivocation. The Sacrament, says Isidor, of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Oblation of Bread and Wine which is offered throughout the whole world. Elsewhere, Melchi∣sedeck made a difference between the Sacraments of the Law and the Gospel; inasmuch as he offered in sacrifice the Oblation of Bread and Wine. Again in another place, Jesus Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck, by reason of the Sacrament which he has enjoyned Christians to celebrate; to wit, the Oblation of Bread and Wine: that is to say the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. The multitude of Corn and Wine, says he in another place, is the multitude which Jesus Christ gathered to the Sacrament of his Body and Blood.

BEDE explaining how the Church has every day our Saviour with * 1.219 her, says, 'Tis because she has the Mysteries of his Flesh and Blood in the Wine and Bread: elsewhere applying to the Church what Solomon says of the virtuous woman, that she eats not her bread in idleness. She eats not, says he, her bread in idleness, because receiving the Sacrifice of our Lords Body, she carefully imitates in her actions what she celebrates in his Ministry; taking care lest she eat our Lords Bread, and drink of his Cup unworthily. The ancients, says he moreover, celebrated our Lords Passion, by which, both they and we have been redeemed by the blood and flesh of Sacrifices; and we celebrate it by an Oblation of Bread and Wine. Elsewhere he assures us, That our Saviour has established under the New Testament the same kind of Sacri∣fice,

idem sacrificii genus; as that of Melchisedeck, to be the Mystery of his Body and Blood. In his Homily on the Epiphany, he says, that our Savi∣our * 1.220 having abolished the Paschal Lamb, has changed the Mystery of his Pas∣sion into the creatures of Bread and Wine. In his Commentary on the 33d. Psalm he applies what is said of David, that he changed his countenance, * 1.221 and he expresses himself in this sort, He changed his countenance before the Jews, because he converted the Sacrifices of the Law, which were according to the Order of Aaron, into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, according to the Order of Melchisedeck. In the same place he says, That our Saviour car∣ried himself (in some sort) in his own hands, at his last Supper, when he gave to his Disciples the Bread, which he blessed, and which his mouth recommen∣ded to them. In his Commentary on S. Luke, explaining the words of * 1.222 our Saviour, This is my Body, this my Blood. Instead of the flesh and blood of the Lamb, says he, he has substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood, IN THE FIGURE OF BREAD AND WINE. And to shew wherein consists this mystical figuration, he adds, That our Saviour did himself break the Bread, to signifie the fraction he was voluntarily to make of his own Body. And a little further, The Bread strengthens the Flesh, and the Wine creates Blood in our Bodies; and therefore the Bread mystically alludes to the Body, and the Wine to the Blood.

WE find in truth, says Mr. Arnaud, the language of sense in the Au∣thors * 1.223 of these Ages, as well as in those of the following. They could not ex∣empt themselves from using it, whatsoever their opinion was otherwise. But to judg of that which they had in effect, we must consider what they tell us of the Eucharist, when they explain to us what they believe of its nature and essence, when they do not design it, but teach what it is, when they do not only denote to us the matter which God has chosen, but tell us what God does in this matter, when they do not speak of it according to the impressions of sense, but ac∣cording to the sentiments of Faith.

To make in the sense of the Authors in question a solid opposition be∣tween the language of sense, and that of Faith, it ought to be made appear, that according to them, these two languages justle one another; that they cannot be both of 'em true in the main, and that that of sense is deceitful and illusory, if taken according to the letter. But this is that which Mr. Arnaud does not demonstrate. We know our senses tell us, that 'tis bread, we know their deposition is literal, for 'tis literally and without a figure that our senses tell us that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine. As often then as we find the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries speaking according to sense, reason will guide us to the understanding of their language according to the letter, unless we are shew'd that according to these same Fathers, our Faith must correct this language; that she declares it to be false, being taken according to the letter, and does not allow of it unless under the favour of an interpretation and a figure. Were this shew'd us, I confess then we ought to lay aside this language of sense, as being very improper for the discover∣ing to us the true opinion of Authors. But till then, we have liberty to take it according to the purport of the senses themselves, which is to declare to us that the Eucharist is real Bread and Wine. For unless it be shew'd us that those who have used it, had an intention contrary to that of their sen∣ses, we ought to suppose they have had even no other than that, for we must ever suppose in favour of nature and the general rule. That if after∣wards there be met with in the expressions of Faith something that seems

contrary to those of sense, 'tis more reasonable to attribute a figure to the language of Faith which can well bear it, than to that of sense which natu∣rally cannot suffer it. So that comparing these two kinds of expressions, Bread, and Wine, Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, one with the other, we must ever take the first in a literal sense, and the second in a figurative one, unless as I said, we are shew'd the contrary by some express declaration.

TO make likewise an exact opposition, between the matter of the Eu∣charist, and its essence or nature, it must first be shew'd that this matter does no longer subsist, but ceases to be in the very moment wherein the Eucharist is made. For if it subsists, it makes one part of the essence, or nature of the Sacrament; to wit, the material part, and we shall always have right to use for our advantage the passages which call the Sacrament Bread and Wine, altho they design the marter of it, seeing this matter subsists. Now of these two suppositions, either that the matter subsists, or does not subsist, that which affirms it subsits, is natural, in favour of which by consequence we must always prejudicate, till such time as the contrary is establisht by good proofs. I say, that the supposition that the matter subsists is the natural one. First, Because that in all the changes which happen in the world, there is ever a common subject which subsists, it be∣ing never heard of that there was ever made a change of one thing into an∣other, where the whole substance of this first thing has absolutely ceased to be. Philosophy can give us no instance of this, and even miracles wrought by the Almighty Power of God furnish us not with any. Secondly, All the changes wrought by Grace leave the matter still subsisting. There's made according to the Scriptures and Fathers, a new Heaven, and a new Earth, a new Creature, and a new Man. A Temple is made of a House, an ordinary Man is made a Bishop, a Stone an Altar, Wood or Metal a Cross, Water, and common Oyl Sacraments, without the matters ceasing to be.

IT subsists on the contrary in all these instances. If then we may not draw advantage from the expressions of the Fathers which call the Eucharist Bread and Wine, under pretence they design thereby the matter of it, we must be shewed that according to these Fathers themselves this matter sub∣sists not after the Consecration; for otherwise we shall still naturally sup∣pose that the Fathers delivering themselves with an honest plainness, and far from the prospect of our Controversie have regarded this matter as sub∣sisting.

BUT supposing what I now said signifies nothing, 'tis certain the passa∣ges which I produced which design the matter of the Sacrament, do of themselves establish the subsistence of it, for they all consider it after the Consecration, and speak of it as being still the same as it was before, to wit, Bread and Wine. They say that 'tis an Oblation of Bread and Wine, an Oblation of the same kind as that of Melchisedeck, Bread and Wine, which are the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Bread which the Church eats, Bread with which is celebrated our Lords Passion, as the Ancients Celebrated it by the flesh of Victims, Bread that came in the room of the Pas∣chal Lamb to be the mystery of Christ's Passion, Bread which has succeeded Aarons Sacrifices, Bread which our Lord held in his hands after he had blessed it, and by means of which he did in some sort carry himself; to wit, inasmuch as he held in his hands his own Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud's Re∣mark

might take place, did they only say that the Body of Jesus Christ is made of Bread, or that the Bread becomes, and is made this Body; for then one might dispute whether the Bread be made this Body, either in ceasing to be Bread, or in remaining so. But speaking in the manner I now men∣tion'd, calling it Bread after the Consecration, according to the language of sense, which naturally admits not a figure, and without correcting or ex∣plaining themselves, is a sufficient evidence they meant 'twas real Bread in substance.

YET let us see what they say of the Eucharist, when according to Mr. Arnaud they design not the matter, but expound the nature and essence of it. Besides what I already said, that they commonly call it the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of this Body, the Figure of this Bo∣dy, the Image of his Sacrifice, the Sacrament of his Incarnation, the Sacra∣ment of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Humanity, the Mystery of his Hu∣miliation. Besides this I say, 'tis certain they often explain themselves in such a manner that they establish a formal distinction between the Sacrament, and Jesus Christ himself represented by it, and leave it to be plainly con∣cluded they held not this substantial Presence which the Church of Rome teaches.

IT is in this sense that Gregory the first Bishop of Rome, who lived to∣wards the end of the 6th. Century, and about the beginning of the 7th. wrote, That this Mystery reiterates the Death of Christ, and altho since his * 1.224 Resurrection he dies no more, Death having no more dominion over him, yet being IN HIMSELF alive, immortal, and incorruptible, he is still Sacrifi∣ced for us in the MYSTERY of the Sacred Oblation.

ISIDOR recites a prayer inserted in the Liturgy of his time, which de∣sires of God, That the OBLATION being sanctified, may be made CON∣FORMABLE * 1.225 to the Body and Blood of Christ. Brevil's Edition has these words, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum cor∣pori Christi & sanguini confirmetur; but this has no sense: and 'tis evident we must read conformetur, as Cassander rightly observes, who thus recites it, Ʋt oblatio quae Domino offertur sanctificata per spiritum sanctum corpori Christi & sanguini conformetur.

NOW howsoever we understand this conformity, 'tis certain it sup∣poses a formal distinction between the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Oblation of the Eucharist; whence it appears, that the sense of the then Church was, not to desire of God that the substance of Bread might be∣come the proper substance of the Body; for this would be, not a confor∣mity, but an intire and perfect identity.

IT is in the same sense that Bede expounding these words of the 21th. Psalm, The poor shall eat and be satisfied, makes a difference between the * 1.226 Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, and the true Body or Blood of Christ; for he introduces our Saviour Christ speaking thus, The poor, that is to say, those who despise the world shall eat of my Vows. They shall really eat of them, in reference to the SACRAMENT; and shall be eternally satis∣fied: for by this BREAD AND WINE which are visibly offer'd to 'em, they will understand ANOTHER INVISIBLE THING, to wit the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of our Lord, which are really meat and drink, not

such as fill the belly, but which nourishes the mind. And in his allegorical expressions on Esdras, speaking of the Passover which the Israelites cele∣brated * 1.227 after their return from the Babylonish Captivity, The immolation, says he, of this Passover represents the glory of our Resurrection, when we shall eat altogether the Flesh of the immaculate Lamb, I mean of him who is our God and our Lord, no more IN A SACRAMENT, as Believers, but IN THE THING IT SELF AND IN THE TRUTH, as Spectators.

SHOULD we proceed further, we shall find, that these same Authors acknowledg but one true manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ; to wit, that which is particular to the Faithful, and which necessarily and only communicates Life and Salvation: whence it follows they knew not of this oral manducation of the substance of this Body, which is common as well to the wicked as the good, and will not be necessarily attended with Salvation. It is on this ground Isidor says, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the food of the Saints, of which if any one eats he shall never die. And in another place, It is the Living and Celestial Bread, the food of Angels with which the Word nourishes corruptible men after an incorruptible manner. He was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, to the end men might eat him, * 1.228 and that such as do it may live spiritually.

WE read the same words in Bede, who has without doubt taken 'em from Isidor; for 'twas the common custom of the Authors of those days to copy out one from another. He says moreover in another place expresly, That no Infidel can eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ, and that all those whom he has redeem'd by his Blood must be his slaves circumcised in reference to Vice, and so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ. And as Bede and Alcuinus made a particular profession to be S. Austin's Disciples, so they have not scrupled to transcribe into their Books several passages taken word for word out of the Writings of this great man, which confirm the same thing. Bede amongst others has taken this out of the Book of Sentences, collected by Prosper, He that is not of the same mind as Jesus Christ, neither eats his Flesh, nor drinks his Blood; altho for the condemnation of his presumption he receives every day the Sacrament of so great a thing. And he and Al∣cuinus * 1.229 have borrow'd from his Treatise on S. John these words, Jesus said to them, this is the work of God that you believe in him whom he has sent. This is then what is meant by eating the meat which perishes not, but re∣mains to life everlasting. Why prepare ye your teeth and belly, believe, and ye have eaten it: this is the Bread which came down from Heaven, to the end that he which eats of it may not die. This is meant of the virtue of the visible Sacrament. He that eateth internally, not externally, that eateth with the heart, not with the teeth. And a little further, our Saviour explains what 'tis to eat his Body and drink his Blood; He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him. To eat then this meat and drink this drink is to dwell in Jesus Christ, and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us. So that he that dwells not in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ in him, does not eat spiritually his Flesh, altho he sensibly bites with the teeth the Sacrament of his Body and Blood; but rather eats and drinks to his condemnation the Sa∣crament of so great a thing. And again, The mark by which a man may know he has eaten and drank, is, that he dwells in Jesus Christ, and has Jesus Christ dwelling in him. We dwell in him when we are the Members of his Body, and he dwells in us when we are his Temple. And a little lower, The words which I tell ye are spirit and life. What is the meaning of that, They

are spirit and life? That is, they must be understood spiritually. If ye un∣derstand them spiritually, they are spirit and life, if carnally this hinders not but they are spirit and life, but not to you.

IN short, we find these Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries acknow∣ledg no other Presence of Jesus Christ on Earth than that of his Divinity, of his Grace, or Providence, and in no wise that of the substance of his Body. Jesus Christ ascending up into Heaven, says Isidor, has absented him∣self * 1.230 as to the flesh, but is ever present in respect of his Majesty, according to what he has said, I am with you to the end of the world.

THE passages of Bede on this subject, are too many to be mentioned * 1.231 here. I shall only relate some of 'em. The Lord, says he, having perfor∣med the duties of his Oeconomy, returned into Heaven, where he is ascended in respect of his Body, but visits us every day by his Divine Presence, by which he is always every where, and quietly governs all things. There is his Flesh, which he has assumed, and glorified for our sakes. Because he is God and man, says he again, he was raised up into Heaven, where he sits (as to his Humanity which he assumed on Earth.) Yet does he remain with the Saints on Earth in his Divinity, by which he fills both Heaven and Earth. Elsewhere he says that the man mention'd in the Parable of the Gospel, who leaving his house went a journey into a far Country, is our Saviour Christ, who after his Re∣surrection * 1.232 ascended up to his Father, having left (as to his bodily Presence) his Church, altho he never suffered it to want the assistance of his Divine Pre∣sence. Interpreting mystically in another place the words concerning Ann the Daughter of Phanuel, who was a Widow and aged 84. years. This Ann, * 1.233 says he, signifies the Church which is (as it were) a Widow, since the Death of her Lord and Spouse. The years of her widowhood represent the time in which the Church, which is still burthened with this body, is absent from the Lord, expecting every day with the greatest impatience that coming concerning which it is said, We will come to him, and make our abode with him. 'Twas to the same effect that expounding these words of Job, I have comforted the heart * 1.234 of the Widow, he says, that this Widow is the Church our Mother, which our Saviour comforts, and that she is called a Widow, because her Spouse has absented himself from her; as to his corporeal Presence, according to what himself tells his Disciples, The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.

IN one of his Homilies he acknowledges no other presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist than a Presence of Divinity, and Grace. For ha∣ving exactly denoted how many times the Lord appeared to his Disciples after his Resurrection. He designed, says he, to shew by these frequent ap∣pearances * 1.235 that he would be spiritually present in all places at the desire of the faithful. He appeared to the women that wept at the Sepulchre, he will be likewise present with us when we grieve at the remembrance of his absence. He appeared (whilst they broke bread) to those who taking him for a stranger gave him entertainment, he will be likewise with us, when we liberally relieve the poor and strangers. He will be likewise with us in the fraction of Bread, when we receive the Sacraments of his Body, (which is the living Bread) with a pure and chast heart. We find here no mention of any other presence in the Sacrament, but that of the Divinity.

ALCƲINƲS teaches the same Doctrine, for expounding these words

of our Saviour, The poor ye have ever with you, but me not always. He shews, says he, we must not blame those that communicated to him their good * 1.236 things, whilst he conversed amongst 'em, seeing he was to remain so short a a time with the Church bodily. He introduces our Saviour elsewhere thus, saying to his Church, If I go away in respect of the absence of my Flesh, I will * 1.237 come by the presence of my Divinity, by which I shall be with you to the end of the world, He retired from them, says he again, as to his manhood: * 1.238 but as God, he did not leave them. For the same Christ who is man, is like∣wise God. He left them then as to his manhood, but remained with 'em as to his Godhead. He went away in reference to that by which he is but in one place, yet tarried with 'em by his Divinity which is every where.

LET Mr. Arnaud reflect, if he pleases, on these passages, and, on I know not how many others like 'em with which his reading will furnish him, and tell us faithfully (seeing on one hand there's not to be found in Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, either Transubstantiation, or a presence of substance, or any natural consequences of these Doctrines; and seeing on the other so many things to be met with in them contrary thereunto, as those I now mention'd) whether he believes 'tis likely we shall by the force of his preparations, suppositions, reticencies, and supplements, acquiesce in his Assertion, that the then Church held constantly and universally, as he speaks, the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. 'Tis certain we must of∣fer great violence to our minds, and after all when we have endeavoured to imagin what Mr. Arnaud would have us, we shall never be able to ac∣complish it. We must imagin, says he, Christians persuaded that by the * 1.239 words of the Consecration the Bread and Wine were effectually changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This Doctrine was known distinctly by all the faithful. I know not where Mr. Arnaud has found any of these fanciful people, that are able to persuade themselves what they list. As to our parts, we are not such masters of our imaginations; and in an affair of this nature he must pardon us if we tell him that we cannot fancy a thing to be true, when it appears so plainly to us to be false.

BUT lest he should again accuse us as indocible, we'l see what he has to offer us from these Authors of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, when they expound the nature and essence of the Eucharist. S. Isidor, says he, calls * 1.240 the Eucharist the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and if we desire to know in what manner 'tis the Sacrament of it, he'l tell us, That the Bread we break is the Body of him who says, I am the living Bread. He further adds, That the Wine is his Blood, and is the same meant by these words, I am the true Vine. But he should not suppress what he likewise immediately adds, But the * 1.241 Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it strengthens the body, and the Wine alludes to the Blood of Christ, because it produces blood in our flesh. These two things are visible, yet being sanctifi'd by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacrament of this Divine Body. Is this the language of a man that believes a real conversion of substance.

HE expresly asserts, says moreover M. Arnaud, that this Body of Christ * 1.242 which we receive in the Eucharist, and of which we are deprived when 'tis ta∣ken from us is the Flesh of Christ, concerning which 'tis said, If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye have no life in you; and that this is the Body, the truth, the original represented by the shadows and types in the Old Testament. I answer, that S. Isidor supposes we eat the Flesh of

Christ in the Eucharist, which is true. He likewise supposes that if we eat not this Flesh we remain deprived of Salvation, and this is moreover true. From whence he concludes men ought not to abstain long from the use of the Sacrament, because a total neglect of this means which Christ has ordained for the eating of his Flesh and drinking his Blood, will put us in danger of being wholly deprived of them, for without eating and drinking this Flesh and Blood, there is no hope of salvation. This is Isidor's sense, whence there can be nothing concluded in favour of the Thesis which Mr. Arnaud defends. For we spiritually eat our Lord's Flesh in the due use of the Sacrament; and 'tis this manducation which S. Isidor speaks of, as appears from what he there says. Manifestrum est eos vivere qui corpus ejus attin∣gunt. And as to what he asserts, that this is the Body, the Truth, the Ori∣ginal, represented by the ancient Figures, we grant it; but deny it ought to be hence concluded, that the Sacrament is the Body it self of Jesus Christ in substance. I have sufficiently elsewhere discoursed in what manner the ancient types related to our Sacraments, and those that please to take the pains to read the first Chapter of the third part of my Answer to Father Nouet, will find there, if I be not mistaken, enough to satisfie 'em in that particular.

BEDE, adds Mr. Arnaud, says, that the creatures of Bread and Wine * 1.243 are changed through an ineffable virtue, into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood. This is one of the expressions which arises from the nature of the Sa∣crament. But what does it signifie in this Author? He tells us in these fol∣lowing words. And thus, says he, the Blood of Christ is no more shed, by the hands of Infidels for their ruine, but received into the mouths of the faith∣ful for their salvation. But this is a very weak objection. The sense of Bede is, that the Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the mouths of the Faithful, because they receive the Wine which is the Sacrament of it. Which is the meaning of this term. And thus sicque, for he shews in what man∣ner the mouths of the Faithful receive the Blood, to wit, inasmuch as they receive the Sacrament of it. Gregory the Great said before Bede in the same sense, That we drink the Blood of the Lamb, not only with the mouths of our bodies, but with the mouths of our hearts. Quando sacramentum pas∣sionis * 1.244 illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur, ad imitationem quoque interna mente cogitatur, When we receive with our mouths the Sacrament of his Pas∣sion, and inwardly apply our selves to imitate his great Saviour.

I shall elsewhere in its due place examine what Mr. Arnaud alledges touching Amalarius, Florus, Drutmar, and some other Authors of the 9th. Century, Contemporaries with Paschasus. It only remains for the finishing of the discussion of the 7th. and 8th. to answer some slight Observations which he has made on a passage in the Book of Images, which goes under the name of Charlemain's, The Author of this Book will not have the Eucharist be called an Image, but the Mystery or Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud pretends that by this Mystery or Sacrament, we must under∣stand the Body it self in substance: his reasons are, First, That 'tis the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ which is represented by the types in the Old Testament. Now this Sacrament is according to the Author of the Book in question, that which was represented by these ancient figures. Secondly, That 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ which is the truth opposed to Images. Now ac∣cording to this Author this Sacrament is not the image of it, but the truth in opposition to the image. Thirdly, That the reason why he will not have

it to be an image is, that our Saviour did not say, This is the image of my Body, but this is my Body. Fourthly, That 'tis of the Eucharist we must understand what he says, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image but himself.

BUT 'tis no hard matter to answer these objections. The Sacrament of the Eucharist may be considered in two respects, either in opposition to the thing it self, of which 'tis the Sacrament, or in conjunction with this same thing. In the first respect, 'tis a sign or a figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Charlemain himself calls it so in one of his Epistles to Alcui∣nus, as we have already seen, and Bede gives it several times this title. But in the second respect Charlemain denies we ought to give it the name of image or figure, because he would distinguish it from the legal figures which were only bare representations and shadows which did communicate the Body, or reality of that which they represented; whereas our Eucharist communicates the Body and Blood it self of Jesus Christ sacrificed for us on the Cross, and represented by the ancient figures. He would have us call it then the Mystery or Sacrament of this Body, and the reason which he al∣ledges for it is, that 'tis not a bare representation of a thing to come, as were those of the ancient Law, 'tis the Mystery of the Death of Jesus Christ, of a Death I say that was really consummated; and moreover, 'tis not a bare re∣presentation of this Death, but a Mystery which communicates it to us. This is the sence of the Author of the Book of Images, from whence it does not follow that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ in substance, as Mr. Arnaud would hence conclude. For, for to consider the Sacrament, in conjunction with the thing of which it is the Sacrament, 'tis not neces∣sary that the thing be locally and substantially therein contained. It is sufficient that it be really and truly communicated therein to us in a my∣stical and moral manner. Now 'tis certain that this communication is made therein to the Faithful; and altho the manner of it be spiritual and mystical, yet is it real and true. This is sufficient for a man to say as the Author of that Book does, That the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is called now, not an image, but the truth, not a shadow but a body, not a figure of things to come, but the thing represented by the figures. Because that in effect we receive therein the body and truth of the legal shadows. For this reason a man may say that this mystery is the truth in opposition to the images of the ancient Testament; because that in effect God gives us actually in it that which the Law contained only in types. This is sufficient whereon to ground this remark, That our Saviour did not say, this is the image of my Body, but this is my Body that is given for you. Because that in instituting this Sacrament he never design'd to communicate to us only a prefiguration, but his Body. In fine, this is sufficient for a man to say with reason and good sense, and with respect too to the Eucharist, That our Saviour did not offer for us an image, but himself in sacrifice; because that which he offer'd once for us to God his Father on the Cross, he offers, and gives it us in the Eucharist. In a word, Mr. Arnaud's perpetual error is, in imagining that our Saviour Christ and his Body and Blood cannot be communicated to us, unless we receive corporeally in our hands and mouths the proper substance of them. I say, this is a mistake exceedingly distant from the Doctrine of the Fathers, who tell us we receive Jesus Christ himself, eat his Body and drink his Blood in the word of the Gospel, in Baptism, as well as in the Eucharist.

CHAP. X.

An Examination of the Consequences which Mr. Arnaud draws, from the pretended Consent of all the Christian Churches, in the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence.

Reflections on the 1. 2. 3. and 4. Consequences.

WE may justly lay aside Mr. Arnaud's tenth Book, seeing it con∣sists only of Consequences, which he draws from the consent of all Churches, in the Doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, by supposing he has proved this consent since the 7th. Century to this present. For having overthrown as we have done his Principle, we need not much trouble our selves about its consequences. Yet that we may not neglect any thing, I shall make some Reflections on the principal things contained in this Book, and that as briefly as I am able.

The first Consequence.

THE first Consequence bears, That the consent of all Churches in the * 1.245 Faith of the Real Presence, explains and determines the sense of our Saviours words. To establish this Proposition, he says that the Ministers endeavour to stretch these words, This is my Body, to their sense, by an infinite num∣ber of metaphysical Arguments, which have only obscure and abstracted principles. That they use long discourses to expound separately each word as the term this, the word is, and the word Body. That by this means that which yields no trouble (when a man follows simply the course of na∣ture and common sense) becomes obscure, and unintelligible. That sup∣posing in like manner a man should philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth, it's no hard matter for a man to entangle himself with 'em; for this Lazarus will be neither the Soul nor the Body separately, nor the Soul and Body together, but a mere nothing. Now a mere nothing cannot come out of the Grave. That our Saviour did not speak to be only understood by Philosophers and Metaphysicians, seeing he intended his Religion should be followed by an infinite number of simple people, women and children, persons ignorant of humane learning. That we must then judg of the sense of these words by the general and common impression which all these per∣sons receiv'd without so many reflections. That to find this simple and na∣tural impression we must consult the sense wherein they have been effectu∣ally taken for the space of a thousand years, by all Christians in the world which never had any part in our Disputes. That our Saviours intention was rather to express by these words the sense in which they have been ef∣fectually taken by all Christians in the world, which was not unknown to him; than that in which they have been understood in these latter days by a few Berengarian & Calvinistical Philosophers. That he has right to sup∣pose as a thing certain, that since the 7th. Century, all Christians through∣out the whole earth have held the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Tran∣substantiation, and that this consent of all people for a thousand years is suf∣ficient to shew what the simple impression is, and consequently the real sense of Christs words. This is the summary of his first Chapter.

The first Reflection.

THE design of this whole discourse tends to cast men into horri∣ble confusions. I grant our Saviour intended not to speak so as to be un∣derstood only by Philosophers, but on the contrary, that his Religion should be embraced by infinite numbers of ignorant people, women, and children, and persons uncapable of deep reasoning. But if the sense of these words must be sought in the consent of all Churches, these women and children, and ignorant people will be hard put to it to find it. How few persons are there capable of themselves to make this inquisition, for which they must have skill in Languages, read two hundred Volumes, or more, attentively examine 'em, distinguish the times, places and occasions, consider the cir∣cumstances of passages and drift of Authors, compare the various interpre∣tations, and do in a word a thousand things necessary to prevent their ta∣king one thing for another? And as for those that shall take this task upon 'em under the guidance of another, how many cheats are they to beware of? How shall they be certain that they shall have no false Authors imposed up∣on 'em for true ones, forged Writings attributed to Authors, or false Passa∣ges, corrupt Translations, and false Explications to give them another sense than the natural one, that they shall not be imposed on by captious Arguings or frivolous Answers, yet well coloured; that they shall not be ti∣red with fruitless discourses to wear out their patience, and attention, and by this means make 'em fall into the Net. All this has been hitherto done, and I do not find such as be guilty of this do amend whatsoever complaints have been made. I grant one may find the true sense of our Saviour's words in the consent of all Churches: But is it not a more short, sure, and easie way to seek it by considering the words themselves, by comparing them with other Sacramental Expressions, by the nature of the Ordinance which our Saviour instituted, by the circumstances that accompanied it, the design he proposed in it, by his ordinary ways of expressing himself, by the other words he added, by the sense wherein, according to all probability his Dis∣ciples understood him, by the explanations which S. Paul gives of it, and in short by the genius and universal Spirit of the Christian Religion. Whe∣ther a man makes this inquisition by himself, or under the direction of an∣other, 'tis certain that the way which we offer is far less troublesome and dangerous, easier and better accommodated to the capacity of the common people, than that of the consent of all Churches. Mr. Arnaud supposes this consent from the 7th. Century to this present, because he believes he has proved it. But were this supposition as certain and true in the main, as 'tis false and imaginary, it can reside no where but in the imagination of those that have read his Book. And how many are there in the rank of the sim∣ple people that never read it? Of those amongst 'em that have read it, how few have been capable to understand and Judg of it? Are they able to discern whether his citations be true or no, whether his Passages be faithfully tran∣slated, his Arguments conclusive, his Attestations allowable; and whether he has not concealed several things which ought to be known on this subject, for a man to be throughly informed in it? After all, reason requires 'em to suspend their judgments till such time as they have seen my Answer. And supposing my Answer does not satisfie 'em, how know they but that my weakness or ignorance has prejudiced the Cause I defend? In the mean time what will become of the Faith of these simple persons, if they will make it depend on the consent of all Churches, touching the sense of our Saviours

words. Mr. Arnaud under pretence of searching short ways, throws men into such labyrinths out of which 'tis impossible to get out.

Second Reflection.

I grant that the true sense of our Saviours words must be the simple and natural one. We dispute touching this simple and natural sense. Mr. Ar∣naud will needs have it to be that of Transubstantiation, and the Real Pre∣sence, we affirm 'tis the Sacramental or figurative one. Supposing we could not on either side find out this simple and natural impression which these words do of themselves make in the minds of men, by reason of our Di∣spute, and that we must go search it amongst those that be free from these prejudices, it is not reasonable we should stop at those that lived since the 7th. Century till now, to the prejudice of the first six ages. We must on the contrary begin from the six first. Tradition, said one, not long since, * 1.246 whose word ought to be regarded, must begin from the Apostles, and pass on till this present by an uninterrupted succession. The first then that are to be consulted, for the finding this simple impression, must be the Apostles that heard immediately these words from our Lords own mouth. We must search the History of the Gospel to see whether there be any thing that dis∣covers they took 'em in the sense of Transubstantiation, whether they have been surpriz'd by any astonishment, or ravished with admiration, or trou∣bled with some doubt, whether 'tis likely they were imbued with principles on which this sense is established; as that a body should be in several places at once, and accidents subsist without their substance, &c. And whether they were not on the contrary imbued with some maxims very opposite to this sense: as for instance, that to drink Blood was a crime strictly forbidden by Moses's Law, that the signs were called after the name of the things which they signifi'd, and whether it appears from any of their words or acti∣ons, that they adored the Eucharist. And 'tis here I think we ought to be∣gin, and afterwards come to S. Paul, and examine whether in what he has said on this subject, or any others, there be any thing that shews he belie∣ved Transubstantiation. We must afterwards discuss age after age, what the Fathers of the six first Centuries have written on it, consult the Com∣mentaries which they have expresly made on these words, and in short en∣deavour by an attentive meditation throughly to discover their sense. But to lay aside the Apostles, and the first six Centuries, to begin this enqui∣ry after the simple and natural impression which these words have made in mens minds by the 7th. and 8th. following ones. 'Tis as if a man should go out of Paris to learn the news of France, in the furthermost parts of that Kingdom. But 'twill be reply'd, these Centuries were not prepossessed by our Disputes: I grant it. But they may have had other prejudices which have disturbed this simple and natural impression which we seek. What likelihood is there of finding it pure, according as we desire it, in Greece, since the fancies of Damascen have been in vogue, whom the Greeks esteem as another S. Thomas, according to Mr. Arnaud; but whom Mr. Arnaud durst not follow himself no more than we, whether Damascen believed the assum∣ption of the Bread, or only the union of it to the Body of Christ in the manner I have proved and explained? How can it be expected to be found pure amongst the Copticks, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Egyptians, since these people have fallen into ignorance, gross Errors and Superstiti∣ons wherein they still remain. A man that is acquainted with the History of the Emissaries sent from the Latins into all these Countries since the 11th.

Century till this time without intermission, may not he justly suspect that the Emissaries have troubled the purity of this Impression? Howsoever it cannot be denied but it was more pure in the six first Ages than in the fol∣lowing ones, and consequently that we ought not to begin our inquiries since that time.

The third Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD unjustly accuses the Ministers for embroiling the sense of these words, This is my Body: But we may with greater reason charge the Scholasticks and Controvertists of the Roman Church with it, who have made I know not how many glosses, and formed I know not how ma∣ny opinions on the word This. We know what Ambrose Catarin has written of it, Let the Reader consider, says he, the labour and anguish which * 1.247 almost all Writers have undergone, when we demand of 'em the signification of this Pronoun, This; for they write such a multitude of things, and those so contrary to one another, that they are enough to make a man at his wits end that too closely considers 'em. The Ministers give these words a sense very plain and natural, which neither depends on obscure and abstracted Princi∣ples, nor metaphysical notions. If they argue either to establish their sense, or shew that these words can suffer no other, their arguings lie in ob∣servations which are clear and intelligible: as for instance, the word this cannot signifie any thing else but this Bread, and that the whole propositi∣on must be taken as if our Saviour had said, this Bread is my Body; and to make this proposition intelligible, we must necessarily give it a figurative sense, for one and the same subject cannot be literally both Bread and Body. I grant we must not Philosophise on these words, Lazarus come forth. Neither is there ever a one of us that sets himself to Philosophise on 'em; we under∣stand simply by Lazarus a person whom our Saviour raised from the dead in the very moment he called him, as God made light at that very instant wherein he said, Let there be light. The difficulties which Mr. Arnaud finds in our Saviours expressions are affected difficulties. But those which arise from the sense of Transubstantiation attributed to our Saviour's words are real ones, not by abstracted and metaphysical arguments, but because never man said, this is such a thing, to signifie that the substance of the thing which he held was imperceptibly changed into the substance of another, hu∣mane language will not suffer it.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD in vain opposes the sense of Philosophers and Doctors to that of simple persons, and such as are not capable of any deep reasoning, to find out the true natural impression which our Saviours words make on the minds of men, without study and reflection. This natural impression since a thousand years to judg thereof only by History is a thing absolutely un∣known and undiscernable to us for two reasons; the first, that the simple are not guided by the most natural impression, they are led by that which their Doctors and Philosophers give them, for we know very well that in mat∣ters of Religion the people usually believe what their guides teach 'em, and not what their first sense dictates to 'em. The other reason is, that whatso∣ever we can know of the belief of Churches since a thousand years de∣pends on the Writings which are come to our hands. Now these Books were wrote by Doctors and Philosophers, who may have given us their Spe∣culations,

and those of the same opinion with them, what they have learn'd in the Schools, or what they themselves have imagin'd, rather than the sim∣ple and natural impression of people.

The fifth Reflection.

'TIS ill reasoning to say that the sense which seems to have prevail'd since the 7th. Century, be it what it will, (for I examine not at present what that is) must necessarily be the true sense of our Saviour, under pretence that he was not ignorant of the manner in which they would take his words, in this Century, and in the following ones. The mysteries of his prescience, and those of his providence touching the errors wherein he suf∣fers men to fall are unknown to us. Neither is it permitted us to pry into them. He has suffered men to understand in the three first Centuries what is said in the Revelations touching his reign of a thousand years, in the sense of a terrestial Kingdom. He has permitted men in the 4th. and 5th. Centuries to understand commonly these words, If ye eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, ye will have no life in you, of the necessity there is of receiving the Eucharist to be saved. The ways of God are beyond our reach, and we must never judg of the true sense of his word, by the opinions which are prevalent amongst men.

Second Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's second Consequence is, That the consent of all the * 1.248 Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence during the eleven last Ages be∣ing proved, determines the sense of the words of the Fathers of the six first Ages. His Arguments are the same which the Author of the perpetuity already offer'd. That 'Tis against nature, sense, and reason to suppose the same expressions were used for six hundred years space in a certain sense by all the Christian Churches, and that in all the other ensuing Centuries, they have been used in another sense, without any bodies perceiving this equivo∣cation. That 'tis contrary to nature to suppose all the masters of one opi∣nion, and all the Disciples to be of another, and yet still to suppose they followed the sentiments of their Masters.

The first Reflection.

THE Author of the Perpetuity will have the state of the Latin Church in the 11th. Century (when the contests of Berengarius hapned) to deter∣mine that of the whole Church since the Apostles time. Here Mr. Arnaud pretends that the Churches consent since the 7th. Century determines the sense of the Fathers of the six first. We have likewise seen in the 7th. Cha∣pter of his Book that he asserts that to judg rightly of the expressions of the Fathers of the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, we must suppose they constantly and universally believed Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, and that this supposition must determine the sense of their words. What can we think of all these circuits, but that they are illusions, which plainly enough shew that these Gentlemen find but small satisfaction in their inquiries into the first six ages. Were Transubstantiation and the Real Presence apparently taught in them, what occasion would they have of making them enter by machins, and mount up to them from the later Ages. It is then certain that these ways of reasoning, these suppositions and arguments from the bottom

to the top, are so far from persuading us what Mr. Arnaud desires, that on the contrary they do but more confirm us in our opinion, which is, that these Doctrines were unknown to the ancient Church.

The second Reflection.

'TIS consonant to reason to imagin, that in the last Ages the question whether the Eucharist be the substance it self of our Saviour's Body, or not, having been agitated with great heat, those who held the affirmative have abused the general expressions of the ancient Fathers, and endeavoured to turn them to their sense. This is a thing that happens every day in the smallest contests, in which every one desires to set off his sentiments and con∣firm them by passages taken out of the Fathers to shelter himself thereby from the reproach of innovation. It is likewise easie to imagine that those who but slightly apply themselves to the study of Theological Points are soon cheated by false appearances. We see but too many examples of this. It is in short easie to conceive that Disciples may deviate from the Doctrine and sense of their Masters under divers pretences. The Divisions of Chri∣stians in points of Religion have almost all of 'em hapned in this manner, the Disciples were not content to keep pace with their Masters but have went beyond 'em, and often overrhrown their real sentiments under pretence of explaining and illustrating what they said with less perspicuity. When Scholars are become Masters, they no longer look upon themselves as Scho∣lars, but Doctors, and in this quality 'tis no hard matter to comprehend they may have new notions, which they endeavour to establish on the te∣stimony of those that preeeded them; and for this effect take their words in a contrary sense: The people easily receive what their Doctors teach 'em; and as to the Doctors, there needs no great number of them in an ignorant age to introduce a novelty. One single person may sometimes impose on a whole assembly, and engage them into his opinions, which afterwards shall pass for the true Doctrine of the Church.

The third Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's third proposition is conceived in these terms, * 1.249 That all the several instances of expressions produced by Aubertin to shew that a man may take in a metaphorical sense the passages by which the Catho∣licks establish the Real Presence and Transubstantiation are in no wise alike. To establish this proposition, he says, there are two ways by which we may know whether the expressions which appear at first alike are in effect dif∣ferent. The first is to mark precisely by reasoning the difference of these expressions, and to shew they are not alike. The second is to discern them by opinion, by a simple view of the mind, and by an impression which makes it self felt altho it cannot be expressed. Applying afterwards this remark to his subject, he says, that the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist having been taken in the ten last Centuries in a sense of Tran∣substantiation and reality, and the others having never been taken but in a metaphorical sense, there must of necessity be a great difference between them seeing they have made such different impressions, and that opinion has so well distinguished them. This is the summary of his third Chapter.

The first Reflection.

WE are agreed concerning this manner of discerning the expressions, and the things themselves, by opinion, as well as by an exact remark of the differences which distinguish them. But if Mr. Arnaud will make a maxim of this which may serve as a principle to draw thence certain conclusions, he must suppose that this sentiment or opinion can never be corrupted by false prejudices, nor ever be deceived by establishing imaginary differences, where there are no real ones. I grant that in the last Ages the expressions of the Fathers have been taken in a sense of Transubstantiation, whereas never any man understood those which we say are alike but in a meta∣phorical sense; this is a sign they were regarded in those Ages as diffe∣rent expressions; but it does not follow that they be different in effect, un∣less it be said that the sentiment of those Centuries is infallible. It is no hard matter to believe that men may judg rightly in respect of one thing, and at the same time fall into error in respect of another whatsoever con∣formity there may be between them. A man may be sometimes mistaken by confounding, as if they were alike such expressions as are not so, and then again take for different expressions such as be alike. As we never pre∣tended that the men of these later ages are mistaken in all things, so Mr. Ar∣naud must not pretend they are right in every thing.

The second Reflection.

THE method which Mr. Arnaud proposes for the discerning the diffe∣rent expressions of the Fathers from those which are alike, is deceitful. For if we must for this end rather follow the way of sentiment than that of rea∣son, 'twill be then at least just to consult the sentiment of those Ages where∣in the Fathers lived, and that of persons to whom they spake, and not the sentiment of later Ages which might perhaps have been disturb'd by new notions. Let Mr. Arnaud then shew us if he pleases that in the first six Ages the expressions of the Fathers touching the Eucharist were taken in a sense of reality and Transubstantiation, and the others which we produce as being alike, in a metaphorical sense, and we will see what use we must make of his Rule. But to seek this difference of impression or sentiment in Ages wherein we believe this Doctrine was changed, will be an apparent de∣ceiving of our selves, seeing 'tis not possible but what he calls the sentiment or impression has been altered by the change of Doctrine.

The fourth Consequence.

THESE three first consequences are attended by a fourth, which is, * 1.250 That most of the expressions which the Ministers pervert against the Real Pre∣sence and Transubstantiation are naturally of kin to this Doctrine. The equi∣ty, says Mr. Arnaud, of this Consequence is apparently visible. For why must these terms subsisting, in Authors that lived since the seventh Century, with the persuasion of the Real Presence, be inconsistent with this Doctrine in the six preceding Ages? And why must not nature which has put later Authors upon making use of them without prejudice to their sentiment produce the same effect in the first Ages? And in fine, what difficulty is there in understanding these terms of the Fathers of the first Ages, in a sense that contradicts not the Catholick Doctrine, provided this sense be found authoriz'd by the consent and practice of the ten following Ages.

Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD seeming to forget the distinction which the Author of the Perpetuity made, and which he himself has sometimes used, con∣cerning a natural language, and one that is forced, will not I suppose take it ill if I remember him of it, and use it against his pretended Consequence. There is a difference between the expressions which the Fathers use on the subject of the Eucharist, and the same expressions in Authors of later Ages. The last borrowing sometimes the expressions of the Fathers have at the same time declared themselves in favour of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence; the former have done nothing like this. The first have left their expressions in the full extent of their natural sense without any mistrust of their being abused. The last have commonly restrained and mollified them by violent expositions, and such as are contrary to their natural sense, as well knowing they may be used against themselves. The first have used them indifferently in all occasions, because they contained their real opini∣on, but the last have used 'em only accidentally as the necessity of their discourse required. The first have likewise used without any difficulty other emphatical expressions which the last dared not use, for, dare they say for example what Theodoret and Gelasius have said, that the Bread lo∣ses not its nature or substance: dared they say what Facundus said, that, the Bread is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ, but is so called because it contains the mystery of it? whence it appears that when they use any of the Fathers expressions, 'tis by constraint, because they must endeavour to accommodate, as much as in them lies, their stile to the stile of the Ancients, whereas the Ancients delivered themselves in a natural manner. We must then make another judgment of these expressions when we find them in the Fathers, than when we meet with 'em in Authors of later Ages since Transubstantiation has been established. There they explain the real Be∣lief of the Church, here they are expressions which are endeavoured to be linked with another Belief, which is expounded in another manner. There they must be taken in their natural signification, here in a forced and forein one.

THE natural sense of these words of Justin, Ireneus, Cyril of Jerusalem and some others, that the Eucharist, is not mere Bread, common Bread, is, that it is in truth Bread, but Bread that is Consecrated. The strained sense of these words is, that 'tis only Bread in appearance, and in respect of its accidents.

THE natural sense of these words which are frequently used by the Fathers, that our Lord called the Bread his Body, that he gave to the Bread the name of his Body, that he honored the Bread with the name of his Body. That our Saviour made an exchange of names, giving to the Bread the name of his Body, and to his Body that of the Bread. Their natural sense is, I say, that the Bread without ceasing to be Bread, has assumed the name of Christ's Body; the forced sense is, that the Bread takes the name of it, because the substance is really changed into the substance of this Body.

THE natural sense of the passages of the Fathers which assert the Bread and Wine are symbols, signs, figures, images of our Lords Body and Blood, is, that by the consecration the Bread and Wine are exalted to the glory of be∣ing

the mystical signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, without losing their own nature. The forced sense is either that the Body of Jesus Christ is the sign of it self, or that the accidents, that is to say, the appearances of Bread and Wine, are signs.

IT is the same in respect of other expressions of the Fathers which the modern Doctors have endeavoured to accommodate to their stile, in giving 'em strained senses and forced explanations which were unknown to the Ancients. To take from us the liberty of making use of them, we must first be shew'd that the Fathers themselves have taken them in this extraor∣dinary and distorted sense. Otherwise we shall still have reason to use them according to their natural and ordinary one.

CHAP. XI.

Other Reflections on Mr. Arnaud's Consequences.

The fifth Consequence.

HITHERTO we have not found Mr. Arnaud's pretensions very equitable, but we may truly say that that which we are now about examining, and which is contained in his fifth Consequence, is less reasonable than the rest. He proposes it in these terms, That the Ca∣tholicks have right to suppose without any other proofs that the passages of the Fathers are to be understood in the sense wherein they take 'em, and that all the Answers of the Calvinists in which they establish not theirs by evident de∣monstrations are ridiculous and unreasonable.

THIS proposition being very surprizing and contrary to the true rules of Disputation which do not allow any other right or liberty than what reason and truth afford; Mr. Arnaud therefore endeavours to confirm it by a long train of big words and censures full of Authority, and with which he has enriched his 5th. and 6th. Chapters. The result of all which amounts only to this, That the Dispute being reduced to the expounding of certain terms which the Catholicks take in one sense, and the Ministers endeavour to turn into another, the Catholicks stopping at the literal signification of these expressions, that they take the Body of Jesus Christ, for the Body of Jesus Christ, and the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, for the change of the Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ. But that the Ministers hereto apply one of their two general solutions, or famous keys of virtue and figure so often used by them. That in this contest 'tis evident that the right of the supposition belongs to the Catholicks. The other thing is, that the expressions which the Catholicks alledg for themselves have been taken in the sense wherein they use them this thousand years by all Christians in the world. That these two qualities reduce this sense into such a point of evidence, that nothing but demonstrations can counterpoise them, and hin∣der our reason from acquiescing in them.

The first Reflection.

THE first of these two reasons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pre∣tension is invalid, and the second resides only in his own imagination. I say the first is invalid; for if the Doctors of the Roman Church do propose several passages wherein they stop at the literal signification of the terms, as be those which call the Eucharist the Body of Jesus Christ, and some few others that say the Bread is changed: we also on our parts alledg an infinite of others, wherein we likewise stop at the literal signification of the terms, such as be all those that call the Eucharist after the Consecration, Bread and Wine, and which say that this Bread and Wine are made the signs, the sym∣bols, the figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So far matters are equal, and the prejudice cannot favour either side.

MOREOVER, who told Mr. Arnaud, we must ever prejudicate in favour of the literal signification of terms? We oft prejudicate on the con∣trary in behalf of the metaphorical signification by considering the matter to which the terms are applied when 'tis likely they are used figuratively; as when in matter of Books we speak of Plato and Aristotle, or in refe∣rence to Images we speak of S. Stephen and S. Christopher. It is not enough to say the Catholicks stop at the literal signification of terms. This is not enough to establish a prejudice, nor for the obtaining a right to suppose without proof; it must be moreover shew'd that the subject or matter in question does not oppose it self against this prejudice. Mr. Arnaud must proceed farther, and shew that there's not any thing absolutely that is able to form a contrary prejudice. But Mr. Arnaud was unwilling to enter in∣to this discussion, because of its difficulty; and difficulties are not proper for a man to meddle withal that writes in a domineering stile.

THE second reason has less strength than the first. For first 'tis not true that the expressions which those of the Roman Church alledg in their own favour have been taken in the sense wherein they employ 'em for near a thousand years by all the Christians in the world. Mr. Arnaud must not be so hasty to make us receive this proposition till he has heard what I have to say. Now that things are cleared up in this respect, every man may judg of 'em, and I hope they will make a just judgment of them. Secondly, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Fathers of the first six Centu∣ries, and those of the later Ages, who take these expressions we are speaking of in a sense of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. We find in these last other expressions which clearly manifest their thoughts. They plainly say that the substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Bo∣dy, and that this Body is substantially present under the vail of accidents; but we do not find any thing like this in the Fathers. Now this difference overthrows Mr. Arnauds prejudice, for had the Fathers meant by their ge∣neral expressions the same thing which these last do, they would have spoke like them, but this they have not done. 'Tis not then likely they had the same sense; and it will signifie nothing to say that that which has hindred them from doing so was because there was no contest in the Church all that time touching this point; for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does of it self form, without the help of any contest, the distinct idea of a real conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of our Lords Body and Blood. This Doctrine naturally makes a particular and de∣terminate

sense, where the term of substance enters. There's no need of a disputation for this. Whence it follows that had the Fathers thus meant it, they would have explained themselves in the same manner as these last. It does not appear to us they have done it. It is not then reasonable to pre∣judicate they held this Doctrine.

THE better to acknowledg the unreasonableness of Mr. Arnaud's pre∣tensions, who will suppose at any rate; oppose we against him a contrary pretension, which is, that we have right to suppose without any other proof, that the passages of the Fathers which are offered us, must not be under∣stood in a sense of Transubstantiation nor Real Presence; and that if Mr. Arnaud will establish the affirmative, he is obliged to do it by evident de∣monstrations sufficient to vanquish this prejudication. This here is our pretension; it remains only now to be observed how we prove it: and ha∣ving seeen how Mr. Arnaud has proved his, it will be easie to compare proof with proof, and judg which of the two propositions is the most just and reasonable.

FIRST, there ought to be remembred here what I said in the 7th. Cha∣pter of this Book touching the 7th. and 8th. Centuries, that we must ever prejudicate in favour of nature and common sense, which regulate the judgments of men, till the contrary does evidently appear. Now the state of nature is, not to believe the Doctrines we speak of, and it must be gran∣ted me that common sense does not teach 'em. We have then right to sup∣pose without proof, that the Fathers did not believe them, and consequent∣ly that their expressions must not be taken in this sense: And 'tis Mr. Ar∣naud's part to shew so clearly the contrary, that his proof may surmount the prejudication. Which if he does not do, reason obliges us to let the Fa∣thers alone in the state of nature and common sense.

SECONDLY, The matter in debate does of it self form our preju∣dice. The point in hand is touching a Sacrament, and in Sacramental ex∣pressions we commonly give to the signs the names of the things which they represent; as may be verified by numberless instances. We then have right to suppose without any other proof, that those of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist being of this number must be taken in the same sense as the others, till it be shew'd us ftom the Fathers themselves that they otherwise under∣stood them.

IN the third place, our right is grounded on the nature of the Doctrine it self, about which we dispute. For the substantial conversion makes of it self a particular sense, it answers to a very distinct question, which is, whether the change which happens in the Eucharist be a change of substance or not; it says, that 'tis a change of substance. It is impossible but those that have this Doctrine in their thoughts must conceive it in this determi∣nation, that is to say, in applying their conceptions precisely to the sub∣stance; and 'tis not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themselves sometimes in a manner that answers exactly to their opini∣on. It is then reasonable to suppose without any other proof, that they have not thus conceived it till such time as it shall please Mr. Arnaud to convince us of the contrary from their own declarations, not from general expressions, but by expressions which are formal and particular, or such equivalent ones as may prevent a mans being mistaken in them.

MOREOVER, It cannot be denied that Transubstantiation of it self is a hard matter to be believed, and that humane nature is naturally averse to the belief of it. What likelihood is there then if the Fathers designed to teach it they should be content with these general expressions which six not the mind being as they are, capable of several senses? Had they no rea∣son to fear lest humane inclinations would be apt to turn peoples minds on the other side, and carry 'em off from the true sense of their words.

IN fine, we need only consider the greatest part of those expressions themselves which are proposed, to prejudicate according to appearance that they signifie nothing less than Transubstantiation or the Real Presence. For they can no sooner have this sense given 'em but they become immediately difficult and perplexed, whereas in taking them otherwise they become easie and intelligible. What can there be for example more perplexing than this usual proposition of the Fathers, That the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, if a man takes it in a sense of Transubstantiation? For what must we conceive by this Bread and Wine? Is it real Bread, and real Wine? They are not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Are they the appearances of Bread and Wine? How can these appearances be this Body and Blood? Is it that which appears to be Bread and yet is not so? But why must not that be Bread which appears to be Bread? Why if it be not Bread is it called Bread? Is it that which was before Bread and Wine? But how is that which was before Bread and Wine now the Body and Blood, seeing there is no common subject of which we can rationally say, that it was before Bread and Wine, but now Body and Blood. After this rate a man knows not on which side to turn himself, whereas if you under∣stand that the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of Christ's Body, you'l meet with no difficulty; for the Sacraments usually assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments: and these ways of speaking create no trouble to amans mind. Now when we contend about two senses, our reason will lead us to prejudicate in favour of that which is the most easie, and less intricate, and make us suppose it without proof, till such time as it evidently appears that the other, (altho more difficult) yet is the truest.

COMPARE now (I pray) our pretension with that of Mr. Arnaud, and judg which of the two is the most just and natural. He grounds his on two reasons whose strength and truth we question, and have already over∣thrown; and I ground mine on Principles which must be granted by both parties, and which are apparently conclusive. For it cannot be denied but we must prejudicate in behalf of nature, of common lights which regulate the judgments of men, the manner of the Sacramental expressions, and the most easie and least perplexed sense. Neither can it be denied that the na∣ture of the Doctrine in question guiding men of it self to explain themselves about it in precise terms, and indeed necessarily obliging them by reason of the natural repugnancies of mens minds, does not entirely favour this preju∣dication. It is then a thousand times more rational than the other.

Mr. ARNAƲD grounds his pretension on an advantage which we are in possession of as well as he. For he says he understands the expressions of the Fathers which are alledged, in a literal sense; we say the same in respect of those which we alledg: but I ground mine on particular advantages to which he cannot pretend. Now 'tis far more reasonable to establish a par∣ticular right on particular advantages, than to establish it on a common

thing. For from that which is common to both parties, there can arise no particular privilege.

The third Reflection.

ALTHO we have this right to suppose without any other proof that the expressions of the Fathers which the Roman Church alledges in her own favour must be taken in a Sacramental sense, and not in a sense of Transub∣stantiation or Real Presence; yet in the answers we make, we do not ab∣solutely make use of this right. For before we return our answers we esta∣blish the real sentiment of the Fathers by authentick passages taken out of their Books, so that our Answers be only an application of that which the Fathers themselves have taught us. Thus has Mr. Aubertin used them, and thus have I used them against the Author of the Perpetuity. There is then a great deal of injustice in Mr. Arnaud's proceeding, when he produces some of my Answers, and offers 'em to be considered dislocated from my proofs; whereas they ought only be considered in their reference to these proofs, from which they draw their light and strength.

FOR example, when I answered the passage of S. Ignatius taken from Theodoret's Collections, which bears, That Hereticks receive not the Eu∣charist * 1.251 and the Oblations, because they do not acknowledg the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Lord that suffered for our sins, I said that Ignatius's sense was, That our Saviour did not adopt the Bread to be his Body, as if he had no real Body, which was the foolish imagination of those Hereticks; as appears by Tertullian's Disputes against Marcion, but that the Bread is the Sacra∣ment of this true Body, which died and rose again. This Answer is grounded on the express Declarations of the Fathers, which I had already produced, and which shew they meant by the term of Flesh, or Body of Jesus Christ applied to the Eucharist, not the substance of this Flesh, but the Sacrament or Symbol of it, which is in it self Bread. To take this Answer alone sepa∣rate from the proof which authorises it to declaim afterwards, that I return Answers without grounding them on proofs, is a thing that is neither ho∣nest nor ingenuous. Moreover, what I said touching these Hereticks be∣lieving our Saviour Christ adopted the Bread for to be his Body, as having no true Body of his own, is grounded on Tertullian's attributing this opini∣on to Marcion, who (as every one knows) follow'd in this the ancient He∣reticks; and 'tis to no purpose to say, That those that taught this ridiculous adoption of the Bread received the Eucharist, and that S. Ignatius speaks on the contrary of Hereticks that did not receive it. For 'tis certain that these ancient Hereticks still retained some use of the Eucharist, celebrating it in their manner, but did not receive it according to the just and true design of its institution, which is to represent and communicate to us the true Flesh of Jesus Christ, who suffered death and is risen again, because they denied our Saviour assumed real Flesh, affirming he appeared in the world only in a phantasm. If Mr. Arnaud will contest hereupon, besides that I can tell him my Answer will be no less good, in the main, when he shall shew that the Hereticks mention'd by Ignatius did absolutely reject the Eucharist, I may moreover oppose against him Cardinal Bellarmin, who expresly says touching this passage, That these ancient Hereticks combated not so much the * 1.252 Sacrament of the Eucharist, as the mystery of the Incarnation; for as Ignatius himself insinuates the reason of their denial of the Eucharist to be our Lords Flesh, was, because they disown'd our Lord assumed true Flesh; Mr. Arnaud

will not I hope pretend to understand more of this matter than Bellar∣min.

THE same thing may be said touching the Answer I return'd to a pas∣sage * 1.253 of Justin, which says, That we take not these things as mere Bread and Drink, but that this meat being made the Eucharist, with which our flesh and blood are nourished, by means of the change becomes the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate. I answer'd not barely what Mr. Arnaud makes me answer, That this food is made the Body of Christ by a Sacramental union to the Body of Christ, but that in effect the Eucharist is not common Bread and Drink, but a great Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, which is celebra∣ted in remembrance of his taking on him our nature, it being honored with the name of Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to the very form of our Lords own expressions. I at the same time grounded this Answer on Justin's very words, and 'tis moreover established on the proofs which I had already alledged touching the sense of the Fathers, when they call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Yet has Mr. Arnaud been pleased to say, That my sence is without proof and Authority, contrary to the Letter and Ex∣perience, * 1.254 and consequently not worth considering. And this is Mr. Arnaud's way of solving matters.

HE does the same in reference to the answers I returned to the passages of Gelazus, Cyzique, and Cyril of Jerusalem; for whereas I have backt them with arguments drawn from the passages themselves, and that they have moreover their foundation on the proofs I offer'd in the beginning of my Book. Mr. Arnaud recites of 'em what he pleases, and separates that which he relates of 'em from their true Principle. Whosoever shall take the pains to read only what I wrote touching these two passages in the second Chapter of my Answer to the second Treatise, and the second Part, and especially touching that of Cyril in the sixth Chapter of the aforesaid second Part, and compare it with all these Discourses which Mr. Arnaud here gives us, that is to say in the fifth Chapter of his tenth Book, I am certain, will not like his proceedings, finding so much passion and so little solidity in his Discourses.

The fourth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD's passion does yet more discover it self in his sixth Chapter. Wherein he makes a very bad use of his Maxim. He would extend it so far as to hinder us from supposing there is no express de∣claration of the Doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in the Scripture, and that they are not distinctly asserted therein. He says every * 1.255 body knows that the first notion of the Evangelists words concerning the insti∣tution of the Eucharist is most favourable to the Catholicks, that the evidence of it ever appeared so considerable to Luther, that notwithstanding his great desire to vex the Pope, he could never resist the perspicuity of them. That Zuinglius could not immediately find the solution of these words of our Savi∣our, and needed to be instructed in them by the revelation which a Spirit made to him of them, of whom he himself writes, that he knew not whether he was a black or a white one, which has, says he, all the lineaments of a diabolical Revelation, whatsoever passages out of Cicero and Catullus are alledged to justifie this expression. He adds, That these words, This is my Body, do far more naturally signifie that the Eucharist is effectually the Body of Jesus Christ,

than that 'tis the figure of it; and this the consent of all Nations, who have taken them in this sense, shews us in a convincing manner. He adds to this the sixth Chapter of S. John, wherein there's mention of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood, and what S. Paul says in the 11th. Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, that those that eat and drink thereof unworthily are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood. Whence he con∣cludes, That if it be lawful to make suppositions without any proof the right thereof belongs to the Catholicks, that it appertains to them to say their Do∣ctrine is clearly apparent in the Scripture, in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel, in the three Evangelists, and in S. Paul's Epistles. But that equity and reason oblige the Calvinists to be very scrupulous and modest on this point.

SEEING Mr. Arnaud is so kind to people as to prescribe 'em after what manner they shall present themselves before him, without doubt he expects they will henceforward obey him in this particular. Yet must I tell him, I have reason to suppose without any other proof, that there is not in the Holy Scripture any formal declaration touching the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence; nor are they distinctly asserted in them. Every body knows in what terms formal declarations must be conceived, and in what manner Doctrines must be clearly and distinctly exprest. If Mr. Arnaud has discovered in the Scripture any particular matter in relation to this subject, let him communicate it to us. But if he knows no more than we have seen hitherto, we shall still have reason to say that the Doctrines in question are not formally declared in them.

IT cannot be denied but these words, This is my Body are capable of the sense which we give them. Whether it be the true one or no I will not here dis∣pute; 'tis sufficient the words will bear it, to conclude they are not a formal distinct declaration of Transubstantiation nor the Real Presence, seeing what we call a formal declaration cannot be capable of a sense contrary to that which we pretend it formally establishes. 'Tis to no purpose for Mr. Arnaud to say that Luther found them evident; for besides that he found no evi∣dence in them for Transubstantiation, but only for the Real Presence, with which he was much prepossessed. One may oppose against Luther's preju∣dice, the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no * 1.256 evidence in them, neither for the one nor th'other of these Doctrines, but only by adding to 'em the declaration of the Church. Neither I suppose is Mr. Arnaud ignorant that the most able Divines of his own Communion as well ancient as modern do freely acknowledg that Transubstantiation can∣not be inferred thence, and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to be∣lieve it but the Churches determination.

AS to the words of the 6th. Chapter of S. John, so far are they from being formal declarations touching Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, that a great many of the Doctors in the Roman Church have not stuck to affirm that these words do not at all relate to the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist. Bellarmin reckons up six besides others, namely, Biel, Cusanus, Caje∣tan, * 1.257 Tapper, Hesselius, and Jansemius, but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three, which is in my mind sufficient to make Mr. Ar∣naud comprehend, that this Chapter is not so formal, nor evident for these Doctrines as he imagines. I shall not here take notice of what he alledges concerning those words of S. Paul, That such as eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup unworthily, are guilty of our Lords Body and Blood.

If he takes these words for an evident declaration, it is yet more evident that he is mistaken. To be guilty of our Lords Body and Blood signifies ac∣cording to the Fathers to be a murderer of our Saviour, to be of consent with the Jews, that crucifi'd him. This is not very formal for Transubstan∣tiation.

WHAT he says touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpose, Zuin∣glius was not ignorant of the sense of our Saviours words, but he was igno∣rant of the examples of like phrases which are in Scripture. Mr. Arnaud mentions this only that he might bring in again this black or white Spirit, of which we have already discoursed, not only from passages out of Cicero and Catullus, but also out of Apuleus, and S. Jerom himself; so that this must be lookt upon as impertinent and tiresome. Mr. Arnaud's passion here∣in appears in that Zuinglius having only said that some body appear'd to him in a dream to advertise him, visus est monitor adesse, he will needs have this monitor to be a Spirit. Neither is there less ignorance in raising from a proverbial way of speaking in the Latin tongue, ater fuerit an albus nihil memini, which signifies that we know not a man, we never saw his face, rhis proposition, That he knew not whether 'twas a white Spirit or a black one. Cannot Mr. Arnaud better spend his time than in hunting after these trifles?

BUT says he, The first idea of our Saviours words touching the Eucharist is very favourable to the Catholicks. It is favourable by an effect of preju∣dice, I grant. But let a man take off this vail from his mind, and repre∣sent to himself our Saviour in his natural Body on one side, and the Eucha∣ristical Bread on the other, two visible objects really distinct and locally se∣parate from one another, and judg in this case whether the first idea of these words rather refers to a Transubstantiation of one of these objects into the other, or to a Sacramental sense. The first idea from words does not always arise from the literal signification of them, but from the mat∣ter in question, and circumstances of a discourse. And this is that which forms the first idea, as may be justified by infinite instances, should Mr. Ar∣naud question it. Now 'tis certain that in respect of our Saviours words all these things do joyntly concur to give them naturally a mystical or figu∣rative sense.

ALL Nations, says he, have taken them in this sense. All Nations, that is to say, the Latins since Gregory VII. and Innocent III. and yet not all of them neither. This is a supposition which Mr. Arnaud will have right to make when he can better prove it. But supposing it were true as he would make the world believe, that since a thousand years all Nations took them in this sense, it will not hence follow that this was the first idea of these words, nor that the Roman Church has right to suppose without any other proof, that her Doctrine is clearly contained in the Scripture. For it is possible for all Nations to fall into an error touching the sense of certain words, be engaged in it through surprizal, and afterwards remain therein by prejudice and interest. And in this case every man sees that this pretended clearness which Mr. Arnaud boasts of cannot be justly supposed.

IN fine, supposing 'twere true the first idea of these words was very fa∣vourable to the Church of Rome, and that all Nations since a thousand years followed this first idea, Mr. Arnaud could not hinder me from saying there is not in the Scripture any formal declaration touching Transubstantia∣tion

and the Real Presence. And this he well knew himself. But that he might take his full carier, he imagin'd 'twas his best way in reciting the passage of my Answer, on which he grounds his invective to eclipse these expressions from it, by some formal declaration of his word, because 'twould appear that my sense in 'em is that the Doctrines of the conversion and sub∣stantial Presence are not taught in express terms in the Holy Scripture, nor are to be drawn thence by necessary consequences, which is most true. Who * 1.258 will believe, said I, if they be of God, that he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection by some formal declara∣tion of his word. Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. And here observe how Mr. Arnaud cites them, Who will believe that if they be of God, he would leave them as a prey to the contradictions of reason and sense, which he himself has armed against them, without strengthening them with his protection? Who will believe that the Divine Wisdom, &c. Mr. Arnaud has not only the right of supposing without proof what he pleases, but that of maiming such passages as seems good to him, to alledg that which precedes, and that which follows, and suppress betwixt both, whole clauses, because they take from him all pretence of declaiming. 'Tis by virtue of the same right that he thought he might lay aside that which I added to∣wards the end of this passage. Say what you will of it, I cannot believe but this silence disquiets you, especially if you consider that there is in the New Testament four different occasions wherein according to all appearances Tran∣substantiation and the Real Presence were to be found DISTINCTLY AS∣SERTED. This distinctly asserted not well relishing with Mr. Arnaud, he has ended his citation in these words, Say what you will of it, I cannot be∣lieve but this silence sufficiently perplexes you. This privilege of curtailing and suppressing is insupportable in another. But what ought we not to yield to Mr. Arnaud, especially considering how well he has copied out from Allatius and Raynaldus, and proved that the Greeks believe Transubstan∣tiation? Had he not maim'd and suppressed that which perplexed him in my Book, I never should have had the pleasure of seeing my self brought into his Chapter by an excellent figure of Rheotorick, speaking in this manner. All Christians in the world are persuaded that Transubstantiation is contained * 1.259 in the words of the Evangelists, and those of S. Paul. But I Claud declare 'tis not contained in them, and confirm my assertion by my own authority. This deserves the name of eloquence and ingenuity.

The fifth Reflection.

Mr. ARNAƲD is not content to gather for himself alone the fruits of his victories, he is willing to bring in the Sociniens for a share with him, and his conceptions on this subject are remarkable. I brought some proofs drawn from Scripture touching the Trinity to shew in what manner this mystery is asserted in the word of God. These, says he, are only suppositi∣ons without proof. This is certainly absurd enough to call proofs, and such * 1.260 proofs too as are drawn from Scripture suppositions without proof. They would be, says he again, very rational in the mouth of a Catholick, because be accompanies these proofs, with the publick sense of the whole Church and all Tradition; but these same proofs are extremely weak in the mouth of a Calvi∣nist, without authority and possession, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. This proposition surprizes me. The proofs of Scri∣pture touching the mystery of the Trinity will be of no validity, but weak

proofs in their own nature without the benefit of Tradition, and all their evidence and strength must depend on the publick sense of the Church; Hoc magno mercentur Atridae. The Arians and Sociniens are much obliged to Mr. Arnaud. But this was not S. Austins sentiment, when disputing against Maximus an Arian Bishop, he told him, I must not alledg to you the Council * 1.261 of Nice, nor you to me that of Ariminis. For as I am not obliged to acquiesce in the authority of this last, so neither are you bound to be guided by the au∣thority of the first. But proceed we on the authority of Holy Scripture which is a common witness for us both, oppose we Cause to Cause, and Reason to Rea∣son. Should Mr. Arnaud's Principle take place, S. Austin would have been guilty of a great imprudence thus to lay aside the publick sense and Tradi∣tion, and wholly betake himself to the Holy Scripture, seeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity, are weak, yea even infinitely weak, se∣parated from Tradition and the Churches Authority. What answer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he shall say we must not value this pub∣lick sense, and Tradition, which is in it self grounded on weak proofs. For after all, why has the publick intelligence taken the passages of Scripture in this sense, if the proofs of this sense are so slight in themselves. 'Tis nei∣ther rashly nor enthusiastically, nor without just grounds that Tradition is to be found on this side. But what are the reasons of it, if the proofs drawn from Holy Scripture, to ground this sense on, are in themselves ex∣treme weak? Mr. Arnaud does not consider that he not only gives the So∣ciniens an unjust advantage, but likewise ruines himself his own Princi∣ple, as fast as he thinks he establishes it.

HE says, that I suppose my passages concerning the Trinity are unanswer∣able. When a Socinien shall reply thereunto, we shall have enough to shew that his answers are vain, and yet I shall have right to suppose the solidity of my proofs till these pretended replies come. He adds, That I suppose the Sociniens object not any contrary passage. Which is what I do not suppose, but I suppose they cannot object any, that can prevail over those I offer'd. I have reason to suppose it without being obliged to discuss either their an∣swers or objections. If Mr. Arnaud's observations must be a rule, why has he contrary thereunto wrote this 10th. Book, which is only grounded on a supposition. He supposes the consent of all Christian Churches in the Do∣ctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, imagining he has well proved them. But I need only mind him of his own remarks, and tell him he supposes. 1. That his proofs are unanswerable. 2. That we will not offer contrary ones against them, and consequently his supposition is faulty. If he answers it belongs to me to make my replies, and produce my obje∣ctions, and that till then his supposition holds good, let him take the same answer from me on the subject here in question.

HE says in fine, That I suppose reason remains neuter, contenting it self without teaching the Trinity, and approving on the contrary certain truths which have a natural coheherence with that particular one, that I suppress this infinite crowd of difficulties, wherewith reason furnishes those against this Ar∣ticle, who take this dangerous way whereby to judg of the mysteries of Faith. A man that so confidently blames suppositions ought not to make such a ter∣rible one as this is, without grounding it at least on some proofs, That rea∣son furnishes us with an infinite crowd of difficulties against the Article of the Trinity. The objections made against this mystery proceed either from the weakness or corruption of reason, rather than from reason it self; and I

confess there are of this kind, not a crowd of difficulties as Mr. Arnaud ex∣aggerates it, but some, that may perplex a mans mind. So likewise did I never suppose this Article was wholly exempt from 'em; I have on the con∣trary formally acknowledged them. But to say no more, there needs on∣ly be read what I wrote on this subject to find, that Mr. Arnaud could not worse disengage himself from this part of my answer, having left it untoucht in its full strength. Especially let any one read the places wherein I establish by Scripture the Divinity of the three persons, and especially that of our Lord and Saviour, and judg whether 'tis wisely said, That I ruin the Soci∣niens without redemption, but 'tis by such a way, as will rather make them laugh, than change their minds. This discourse is not very edifying, and is perhaps capable of a sense which will not be to Mr. Arnaud's advantage. But 'tis better to pass on to his sixth Consequence.

The sixth Consequence.

THAT the consent of all the Christian Churches in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, helps us to distinguish the necessary con∣sequences of these Doctrines from those which are not so, and by this means shews the falsity of several of the Ministers Arguments.

The first Reflection.

WE grant there is a difference between the necessary consequences of a Doctrine and that which we call the consequences of congruity, which are not of absolute necessity. But to make a good use of this distinction, it must be attended by these following observations. 1. That the arguments drawn from the consequences of congruity, have more or less force, ac∣cording as the consequences themselves have more or less natural coherence with the Doctrine in question. 2. That when a consequence seems to be natural, and is confirmed moreover by experience, it is not enough for the refuting the Argument drawn thence barely to say that 'tis only a conse∣quence of congruity, which has not an absolute necessity. We must either oppose against it contrary proofs that are stronger, and which cannot be con∣futed by these sort of Arguments taken from consequences, how natural soever they may appear to be, or oppose against them a contrary experience, or give a reason why these consequences cannot take place, and by this means discover the obstacles which have impeded them. 3. That the Ar∣gument becomes very strong when 'tis drawn from a great number of these consequences, it being very unlikely but nature has produced her effect in respect of some of 'em. 4. That when the natural consequences of a Do∣ctrine do not appear at certain times, or in certain places, there must there∣in at least appear other equivalent ones which are instead of those, it being scarcely possible for nature to remain absolutely without effect.

TO apply now these observations to the Ministers way of arguing, I I say that 'tis a natural consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to find contradictions in mens minds, and produce Disputes and Contro∣versies amongst them, experience confirms it since the 11th. Century to this present. We may then draw a great proof that the ancient Church held not this Doctrine, in that she remained in peace concerning this sub∣ject, till Paschasius's time, altho there were otherwise, Controversies touch∣ing almost all the Articles of the Creed. 'Tis not sufficient for the relating

of this Argument to answer as Mr. Arnaud does, that this is only a conse∣quence of congruity, and that 'tis natural enough for people not to rise up against this Doctrine when the custom of Faith has suppled mens minds into do∣cility towards this mystery. I will answer him that 'tis not at all natural to suppose this docility in all mens minds for eight hundred years together in relation to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that 'tis on the contrary very natural not to suppose it to be in all, and that that which he calls the custom of Faith, does not usually incline mens minds to this docility till af∣ter several contradictions and repugnancies, as appears by the example of all the Articles of the Christian Religion which have this difficulty. He must then offer against this Argument strong and convincing proofs, by which it may appear that the ancient Church held this Doctrine, or instance in some Doctrines as difficult as Transubstantiation, that were never controverted; or in fine give a reason why this consequence which seems to be such a natu∣ral one, yet has had no place during eight hundred years.

'TIS also a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, that 'tis endeavoured to be established by sensible Miracles; for Miracles are one of of the chief instruments by which mens minds may be mollified towards this docility of Faith which Mr. Arnaud mentions. Experience confirms this since Paschasius his time to this present. We may then very well argue in this manner, and conclude that these Miracles appearing only since the 9th. Century, 'tis most probable that was the time wherein Transubstantiation came into the world. And 'tis not sufficient for the confuting of this Argu∣ment to say this is not a consequence absolutely necessary; for altho this be true, yet that is a consequence natural enough, being grounded on expe∣rience.

IT is moreover a consequence natural enough of Transubstantiation, and confirm'd by experience not to expose the proper substance of Christ's Blood to the inconveniencies which attend the custom of communicating of both kinds, and consequently not to admit people indifferently to the par∣ticipation of the Cup. As we find not this consequence in the first Cen∣turies, and it appearing in the latter, we may make hence a probable conje∣cture concerning the change that has been introduced in respect of this Do∣ctrine. For 'tis not likely that during so long a time men were not troubled with these inconveniencies which are so ordinary, and resolved at length to remedy them. To say, hereupon, that they communicated of both kinds to imprint more deeply the Death of Christ in the minds of the Communicants by the representation of the separation of the Body and Blood, is as much as amounts to nothing; for the reason of the inconveniencies is far stronger than this other contrary reason: as appears by the example of the Roman Church since the Council of Constance.

A MAN may likewise strongly argue from the common practices of the Roman Church, by which she shews that she adores the Sacrament with an adoration of latria, hereby to declare that the Greek Church does not adore it, seeing she has none of these customs. For altho each of these practices had only a link of simple congruity with the Doctrine of the Ado∣ration, yet is it no ways likely but the Greek Church would practise some of 'em, or at least others equivalent to 'em, that are as significant to testi∣fie openly the acts of Adoration. This then is no satisfactory answer, but a mere evasion to say that these are only consequences of congruity.

The second Reflection.

AS fast as we establish the solidity of these Arguments drawn from con∣sequences, it will not be amiss to observe Mr. Arnaud's illusion. We make use of these proofs on the question, Whether the ancient Church believed Transubstantiation, to shew she did not believe it; or on the question which respects the Schismatical Churches, to shew that they hold not Transubstantiation neither, nor adore the Sacrament. Mr. Arnaud has shun∣ned to touch on these proofs whilst he treated on these questions, he has reserved himself to refute them by way of consequence in his 10th. Book, wherein he supposes the consent of all Nations since the 7th. Century to this present. Whereas we say for instance, That the Greeks do not believe Transubstantiation, because we find not among them the consequences of this Doctrine. Mr. Arnaud perverts this order, and says, That our Argu∣ments drawn from these consequences are invalid, because the Greeks who believe Transubstantiation according to the supposition which he makes of 'em admit not these consequences. I confess this circuit is a very dexterous one, but by how much the greater art there is in it, by so much the more plainly does he discover the strength of our Arguments, seeing Mr. Arnaud is forced to elude them in this manner.

The seventh Consequence.

Mr. ARNAƲD's seventh Consequence is, That the Doctrine of the * 1.262 Real Presence and Transubstantiation does not of it self lead a man to the dis∣coursing of Philosophical Consequences, nor upon explaining the difficulties of this Mystery; and therefore 'tis no marvel that the Fathers never took notice of 'em.

Reflection.

WE have already refuted this opposition, and it only remains that we observe here again Mr. Arnaud's illusion, who to answer the proof drawn from the Consequences which he calls Philosophical ones, such as are the existence of accidents without a subject, the existence of a body in divers places at once, the concomitance, &c. which were unknown to the ancient Church, as well as to the Schismatical Churches, supposes first that these Churches do firmly believe Transubstantiation, and concludes afterwards that our proof mus•• needs be invalid, seeing here are the Greeks, Armeni∣ans and Copticks, &c. who make no mention of these difficulties. So that by this means there are no Arguments which Mr. Arnaud cannot easily answer.

WE have likewise refuted particularly what he offers touching the ado∣ration of the Eucharist in his 9th. Chapter. And as to what he alledges in the 10th. touching the impossibility of the change which we maintain, we will treat thereof in this following Book.

BOOK VI.

Concerning the Change which has hapned in the Doctrin of the Latin Church in respect of the Eucharist. That this Change was not impossible, and that it has effectu∣ally hapned.

CHAP. I.

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

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

BUT before we enter into this matter, it is necessary to state the questi∣on clearly, and for this effect I shall propose some remarks which will plain∣ly discover wherein consists the point of our difference. First, I grant Mr. Arnaud that the Author of the Perpetuity has not offer'd his Argument drawn from the distinct knowledg, but only in respect of the Real Presence, and not in reference to Transubstantiation. But Mr. Arnaud likewise must grant that this proof does not fully answer the design which the Author of the Perpetuity proposed to himself at the entrance of his Treatise, To make * 1.263 us confess from the evidence of truth it self, that the Belief of the Roman Church touching the Mystery of the Eucharist is the same with that of all anti∣quity. For the Roman Church does not simply stop at the Real Presence,

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

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

BUT our difference begins from the complaint I make against the Au∣thor of the Perpetuity, in that he would establish the state of this question in an illusory manner. It concerns us, says he, to know whether the faithful * 1.264 could remain for the space of a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct and determinate notion, whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ. Mr. Arnaud maintains this state of the question, * 1.265 and I affirm 'tis wholly captious, and that the question does not at all con∣cern this matter. Which we shall illustrate by a third remark. I say then the question is properly to know whether during a thousand years the peo∣ple that were in the Church ever formed a distinct and determinate notion, whether what they saw was or was not the Body of Jesus Christ in pro∣per substance, without ever ceasing during all this time to have this same no∣tion thus distinct and determinate. The Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud are obliged to prove the affirmative, because in their respect 'tis a necessary proposition which they offer in form of a Principle, wirhout which their Argument touching the impossibility of the change concludes nothing. I must defend the negative, but this negative consists not in affirming that during a thousand years the faithful could remain without forming this di∣stinct and determinate notion here in question, it consists in affirming only that during a certain time comprehended within the extent of these thou∣sand years the people have not formed this distinct notion. These Gentle∣mens affirmation must be general for the thousand years, and if there be wanting but one, or less than one Age, their supposition will be ineffectual, seeing 'tis only by this they can prove that the change we dispute about was impossible during these thousand years. But as to my own part, 'tis sufficient I affirm their supposition to be false during a certain time wherein the change will be made. It will do these Gentlemen no harm, perhaps, who scoff at that Philosophy which they call School-boys Exercise, to consult it sometimes; for it will teach them to distinguish between a contrary opposi∣tion, and a contradictory one. Two contrary propositions may be both of 'em false, and are never very proper to form a just state of a question between rational persons who dispute to find a Verity, and not to discover two fal∣sities. For example these two propositions, Men are lyars. Men are always lyars, are opposite by an opposition called contrary. They are both false and cannot form a just question. To form it there must be made this con∣tradictory opposition. Men are not always lyars, men are sometimes lyars; or, men are always lyars, men are not always lyars, they are sometimes true. That man will justly render himself ridiculous, who having offer'd this proposition, That during a thousand years men always spake the truth; and attempting to maintain it, shall afterwards give an exchange, and say

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

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

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

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

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

MOREOVER, Mr. Arnaud shews he has but little to say, when he sets himself on reproaching me, that I suppressed some words of my fifth Observation; 'tis not likely I would on purpose suppress words contained in my Book, which might be easily found in turning over some leafs. If I passed over 'em 'twas because they made no more to the subject than those which I recite, which contain the whole substance of my discourse, and which are no less significant than the others. But I know not whether he can so well justifie the Author of the Perpetuity in his making me say, That the Church remained in this ignorance till Berenger's time, altho there's no such * 1.266 thing in my Book. Mr. Arnaud's answer is, that the Author of the Perpe∣tuity represents my sense, and not my words; and because that this propo∣sition which this Author imputes to me is set down in Italick letters, which are those which are used for Quotations in proper terms. Mr. Arnaud says that 'tis the Printers fault who ought to Print them in a Roman letter. I will believe it because he says so, but yet my sense ought to be faithfully re∣lated, and for this effect plain dealing requires it to be drawn from my ex∣press declarations, contained in several passages of my first and second An∣swer, rather than from a discourse that is maim'd and which cannot repre∣sent in this condition but half of that which I would say. Whatsoever pains the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have taken to disguise my sense, Father Maimbourg the Jesuite, who wrote since Mr. Arnaud, in∣genuously perceived and related it as it is in truth. Mr. Claude, says he, as∣serts * 1.267 there was A CERTAIN TIME wherein through the neglect of the Pa∣stors, Christians had no more than a confused knowledg of this mystery, without positively believing or rejecting either the Real Presence, or absence, because they studied not the point. This is in effect my meaning, and not that which the Author of the Perpetuity imputes to me, that the Faithful could remain a thousand years in the Church without forming a distinct notion, whether what they saw was or was not the true Body of Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO believe, says he, the Real Absence is to believe that the Eucharist is not * 1.268 the Body of Jesus Christ, or that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really present in the Eucharist. Now a man may distinctly believe or know that one thing is not another, or that 'tis not in another in three different manners. The first by an express and formal reflection, but general when a man generally denies one thing to be another, or affirms that 'tis absent but without specifying any par∣ticular manner. Thus in denying the King to be at Paris, we say he is not there in any real manner, altho we specifie not any one. The second by a distinct re∣flection on all the different manners of being a thing, or being really present in a place. Which is as if a man should say that the King is not at Paris neither visibly nor invisibly; and 'tis in this manner the Sacramentaries deny the pre∣sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. And the third without any reflection, and by a simple view of the nature of things which does so comprehend the ex∣clusion of whatsoever belongeth not to their being, that the mind knows as well what they are not, as if it had made an hundred positive judgments on 'em. Ap∣plying afterwards this distinction he assures us first, That the Author of the Perpetuity never pretended to prove that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence, they then believed the Real Absence in the second manner, which is to say, that they positively excluded, by a formal reflection, all the several kinds of presence, 2. That the greatest part of his Arguments conclude, that if the Faithful believed not the Real Presence they would have rejected it in the first manner, and by a general reflection which denies the thing with∣out considering the different species. 3. That altho a man may draw this con∣sequence from several of his Arguments, yet 'tis sufficient for his design to shew that these Faithful would have rejected the Real Presence in the third manner, that is to say, without reflection, and by a distinct knowledg of certain verities which include it according to the ordinary manner of conceiving things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Tis in vain, Mr. Arnaud tells us, that supposing the Faithful had no other * 1.269 than these simple notions, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, which represent to us the Body of Jesus Christ, supposing they conceiv'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be in no wise therein, that they imagin'd this Body to be only present in Heaven, and that all the usual expressions form'd only in their minds the idea of a figurative Presence, they would immediately have judg'd that the belief of the Real Presence was false and impertinent; as we would immediately judg that man who would persuade us that Paris is Rome, or that the Popes Picture is the Pope himself, or that the seven stalks of Corn which Pharaoh dreamed of were really seven years, or the Paschal Lamb a real passage, and Sacrifices for Sins real Sins, to be mad and sensless. When a man judges of these things he simply judges of them according to the light of nature, and 'tis certain the light of nature will render that man im∣pertinent who shall say what Mr. Arnaud makes him say. It would be the same concerning the real invisible Presence, should a man judg of it on this ground. But those that offer it in any age oppose against the light of Nature the splendid name of the Churches Faith. They endeavour to in∣sinuate it under the pretence of its being a mystery of the Christian Reli∣gion, which has been always believed, and for this purpose they spare no colours. By which means they stop the course of nature, and hinder men from judging according to its Principles, reducing the question to know whether it be true that this be the Faith and perpetual sense of the Church, by which means 'tis no hard matter t' impose on the ignorant.

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

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

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

Mr. ARNAƲD may here again call to mind the solidity of the distin∣ction which I made touching the two expressions which are very like one another, as to terms, but very different in sense, not to believe, or not to know that a thing is, and to believe, or know that a thing is not. The first denotes a bare negation of Knowledg, and the second a positive act of Knowledg and Faith, which formally denies the existence of a thing. Not to believe the Real Presence, barely signifies that this presence is not held for an Article of Faith; but to believe that the Real Presence is not, signifies something more, which is, that a man reckons it among the Articles which he rejects. The Author of the Perpetuity having said that there's no me∣dium * 1.270 between having a distinct knowledg of the Real Presence, and ha∣ving a distinct knowledg of the Real Absence, I had reason to tell him, that to make in this matter an immediate opposition, he must make it con∣tradictory, and not contrary, that is to say, he ought to bring in an affir∣mation, or the negation of the same thing, and not the affirmation, or po∣sitive

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

Mr. ARNAƲD calls this School-boys Philosophy. But this School-boys * 1.271 Philosophy, seeing he pleases to give it this name, is grounded on common sense. For common sense shews us that to make an immediate opposition we must set the negative on one side, and the affirmative on the other. We grant, says he, to Mr. Claude, that to speak logically we ought to oppose be∣lieving the Real Presence, and not believing the Real Presence, and not belie∣ving the Real Absence. But I affirm, that to speak rationally we may well op∣pose believing the Real Presence, and believing the Real Absence; which is to say, that not to believe the Real Absence, and to believe the Real Absence, may and ought to pass for the same thing in the point in question, because these two dispositions of mind have all the same effects.

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

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

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

CHAP. II.

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

SAINT Austin describing the humor and carriage of some persons in his time with whom he was concern'd, observes they were very co∣pious and eloquentin censuring the sentiments of others, but flat and dull in establishing their own opinions. Ipsos, says he, animadvertebam plus * 1.272 in refellendis aliis disertos & copiosos esse, quam in suis probandis certos & fir∣mos manere. Methinks the same may be said of Mr, Arnaud. For he trou∣bles not himself with proving either the propositions he advances, nor those of the Author of the Perpetuity, and is never more busied than in censuring the opinions of others. So greatly is he in love with this kind of proceed∣ing, that he scruples not many times to quit his principal subject, and fall upon any accidental one, provided 'twill but furnish him with a pretence to make objections; nay, sometimes he shall start fancies of his own on purpose to give himself this divertisement. Yet we must needs confess he has some reason to do thus, having a peculiar tallent of ridicu∣ling the most solid mattters; for sometimes he tells me of having private Dictionaries to my self, other times of Keys, and Machines, rhetorical En∣thusiasms, and a thousand other pretty fancies, which take with his Readers, and give him, together with the benefit of some slight objections and decla∣mations thereupon, the liberty of breaking loose through the strongest Ar∣guments.

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

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

FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self. He says, That * 1.273 if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages, if I inclu∣ded it in the 9th. and 10th. it follows that I knew that during eight Centu∣ries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist. I ac∣knowledg this Consequence to be just enough. But, adds he, Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 'tis more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity, and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence. Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self? What contrariety is there between these two things? Not, says he, but that there's an equivoca∣tion in all this. If there be any equivocation, Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it, nor say I am at discord with my self. But the truth is, there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it; for we have already told him, that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist, is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence, nor Real Absence, and that there's a difference in these things. To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute, is to reject formally, and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error. But to know di∣stinctly the mystery of the Eucharist, is according to us, to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, as to the substance of it, that by Con∣secration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Jesus Christ, that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devoti∣on towards Jesus Christ who died for us, and rose again, and is reigning in Heaven, they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood, that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech, because they do both represent them to our Faith, or because there's a great conformity between them, and the things which they repre∣sent, or because they communicate them to us, and several other like Ar∣ticles. In a word, to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament, which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Pre∣sence, or Real invisible Absence. I acknowledg 'tis not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity, nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church, especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest, who acquit themselves of their Duty, and watch diligently over their Flocks. But howsoever this is not to understand di∣stinctly the Real Absence in question.

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

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

IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things, which would be strange enough were they true: the one, that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment, and th'other that I gran∣ted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to. He grounds these two re∣proaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity, That if * 1.274 he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a meta∣phorical sense, believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since, that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth, there after the manner of a Body, here after the manner of a Spirit, I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence, which is to say, they did not at all believe that he was sub∣stantially present in the Sacrament, applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit, setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love, &c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance, invented of late by the Roman Church. But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence, that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar, in multiplying his Presence in several places, I affirm'd they had it not at all.

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

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

Mr. ARNAƲD is no less mistaken when he accused me for making an illusory answer to the Author of the Perpetuity. The business is, that this Author said, that if the change which we pretend were true, There * 1.275 must have been of necessity a time wherein the belief of the Real Presence has been so mixt with that of the Real Absence, that there were half of the Bi∣shops, Priests, and People, who held the one, and the other half that held the other. To this I answer'd, That in the times of the greatest ignorance, even * 1.276 in the 11th. Century, I doubted not but there were four or five ranks of per∣sons in the Body of the visible Church, the one profane and worldly persons who kept themselves at a distance from these Disputes; others ignorant ones, who contented themselves with knowing in general, the Eucharist to be the memo∣rial of Christs Passion, and that they receive therein his Body and Blood, these holding the true Faith in a degree of confused knowledg. The third, of those that held the true Faith in a degree of distinct knowledg, and rejected the substan∣tial Presence. And the fourth, of those that had embraced the Opinion of this Presence. And this is what Mr. Arnaud calls an illusion. Whereas I affirm this answer is pertinent; for if there have been four ranks of men in the Church, 'tis ill done of the Author of the Perpetuity to reduce them to two. But, says Mr. Arnaud, the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time before Berenger, and you speak of the time that followed him. I an∣swer that the Author of the Perpetuity speaks of the time of the chimerical * 1.277 growth through which the belief of the Real Presence hath necessarily passed according to the imagination of the Calvinists: And thus doth he formally explain himself. And I speak of the time wherein Error made its greatest progress, in the greatest progress of error. These are my words. So far there's nothing mis-understood, we speak both of us concerning the same time. But this time according to us is that in which Berenger began to oppose the Real Presence. But, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, the whole Church * 1.278 had already passed over into the belief of the Real Presence before Berenger's time, and Aubertin himself acknowledges as much. Which is what I deny, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to affirm it without proof. The greatest progress of the Real Presence was then when Berenger declaring himself against it, Paschasius his Disciples maintain'd it by Disputes; so that this is precisely the time about which the Author of the Perpetuity and I debated.

THESE are the first objections of Mr. Arnaud, after which he divides what he calls my System into three parts or times. The first, says he, com∣prehends * 1.279 the first eight Ages, and the five ranks whereof it consists. The se∣cond contains two Centuries and an half, which a man cannot better name than the unaccountable time of the Ministers, And the third contains the time which follow'd Berenger. 'Tis certain that of these three times there was only the second (as I already said to speak properly) necessary to be exa∣min'd touching the question, Whether the change which we pretend was possible or impossible. For altho I do not grant that all the Faithful of the eight first Centuries have had a distinct knowledg either of the Real Pre∣sence,

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

I THEN reckon'd in the Church five sorts of persons, who had no di∣stinct * 1.280 knowledg of the Real Presence, neither to reject nor admit it, with∣out comprehending therein the prophane or worldly minded persons, and grounded my division on this reason. That 'tis not possible in this great diversity of conditions and humors of men, to reduce them all either to one and the same measure of knowledg, or to the same form of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERE'S, says Mr. Arnaud, what Mr. Claude calls the happy days of the * 1.281 Church, and the time of the distinct knowledg. And yet of these five ranks there are three who knew not what the Eucharist was, and understood not the sense of the expressions which form this Doctrin. The fourth sought and hap∣pily found it, says he, after a long search, and the fifth found it without searching it.

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

AFTER this first remark Mr. Arnaud makes another, which is, that I do not prove what I offer touching these five orders, This is, says he, an * 1.282 History no where extant. These are news which he alone knows, and for which he can bring no more proof than for worlds in the Moon. But this is Mr. Ar∣naud's usual course, when he cannot answer an Argument he requires proofs for it, and so when he cannot invalidate an Answer he bethinks himself of saying, prove it. The Author of the Perpetuity affirms that the change which we pretend is impossible, I affirm 'tis possible, and to shew that it is so, I suppose by way of explication and illustration five ranks of persons in the Church during the time which preceded the change. If I suppose a thing impossible or absurd, it lies upon Mr. Arnaud to shew the impossibility or absurdity thereof, and not to require proofs of me. I suppose nothing but what lies within the terms of probability, and is conformable to the man∣ner of mens thoughts, which appears by their every days actions in like occasions as this, altho not recorded in History. Howsoever if Mr. Ar∣naud will have the Authors Argument of the Perpetuity to remain in force,

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

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

BUT laying aside these fine words, let us come to things. The Author of the Perpetuity intending to prove that the Faithful ever had a distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence, offer'd the formulary of Com∣munion * 1.283 Corpus Christi, which was used in the ancient Church, saying that these terms represented the Body of Jesus Christ present on the Altar; and thence he concluded they had a distinct belief that it was thereon, if they follow'd the sense of these words, or if they rejected them, they had a di∣stinct belief of the Real Absence.

TO this I answer'd, that the first impression which things make on our minds, and words design'd to any use, is that of their use, that 'tis thus every morning that we conceive of the light, not as being under the notion * 1.284 of a body or accident, or motion of air, but under the notion of a thing which is useful to us, and serves to lead us to our labors, which I farther il∣lustrated by several other examples. Then applying this remark to my sub∣ject, I said that this formulary Corpus Christi, was a formulary of use, design'd according to the intention of the Church to raise up the minds of Commu∣nicants to the meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ dead and risen for them. Whence I concluded there were several persons who contented them∣selves with doing that to which these words excited them, without proceed∣ing any farther, their minds being sufficiently taken up with that. And this is that which Mr. Arnaud calls extravagant and fantastical, and wherein he meets with such ridiculous Hypothesises, sensless suppositions, and absurdities. 'Tis impossible, says he, for a discourse to be more faulty than this, altho it be the foundation of the first order of this system. First, 'twill not serve the end whereunto 'tis design'd. Secondly, 'tis laid on a false foundation. Thirdly, it concludes nothing this false foundation being supposed. These three re∣marks are essential, and need only proving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS discourse has all the characters of a person that finds himself in∣tangled. What means he by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto? Is it meditating on his Death, Resurrection, and sitting on the right hand of the Father? 'Tis certain that this was the intention of these words according to the design of the Gospel, as appears by the testimonies which I alledged from the Author of the Commentaries attributed to S. Hierom, Primasus an African Bishop, and S. Basil; and this may be con∣firm'd by several other passages, and by these words of S. Augustin, We call * 1.285 Bread and Wine that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by the mystical Prayer, is received by us for the Salvation of

of our souls in remembrance of the Death which our Lord has suffered for our sakes: And by these of Tatianus, Jesus Christ having taken the Bread and * 1.286 Wine, testified they were his Body and Blood, and commanded his Disciples to eat and drink thereof, in remembrance of his approaching Sufferings and Death. But for this purpose 'twere better to read the words of S. Paul. Every time ye eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye declare * 1.287 the Lords Death till he comes. If by meditating on the Body of Jesus Christ in abstracto, he means the meditating on it without conceiving it present on the Altar, 'tis not sufficient to say 'tis false, that this was the design of this formulary, Corpus Christi, according to the intention of the Church, he must prove that the Church meant by these words to represent this Body present in its proper substance in the Eucharist, which is what he must prove if he designs to uphold the Author of the Perpetuity's Argument, and does not think it sufficient, to say, This is most false.

THIS formulary, says he, was design'd to instruct them in the truth of the mystery: Who doubts it? It was a formulary of use, and instruction both together, as I plainly intimated in my answer to the Author of the Perpe∣tuity; It behoves us only to know what is this truth of the mystery in which it instructs men. 'Twas, says he, moreover a formulary and profes∣sion of Faith, and not of Practice and Action. And I say 'twas both the one and the other. I have proved 'twas a formulary of Practice, I acknowledg 'twas a formulary of profession of Faith. But that this Faith of which it required the profession was the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, is what I deny and what Mr. Arnaud ought to prove. I prove it, says he, by the word Amen which the Communicants answered. The Amen which the Communicants pronounced, signifies nothing less than this Pre∣sence of substance. The Book of the Initiated attributed to S. Ambrose draws thence only this conclusion vere carnis illius Sacramentum est; It is * 1.288 truly the Sacrament of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. The Author of the Book of Sacraments, wrongly cited by Mr. Arnaud, under the name of S. Ambrose, refers it to the Spiritual Communion of Jesus Christ himself, which we have in the Sacrament. S. Austin refers it to our selves, being made the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members. The Author of the Treatise of Dressing the Lords Field, refers it to the Faith of the Death of Jesus Christ, and effusi∣sion of his Blood. Pope Leo refers it to the reality of the humane Nature of Jesus Christ, against the Error of the Eutichiens. And it signifies no∣thing for Mr. Arnaud to offer so earnestly what this Pope says, Hoc ore su∣mitur quod fide creditur, & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur à quibus contra id quod accipitur disputatur, for 'tis clear enough that these terms signifie no∣thing else but that the Sacrament which we receive with our mouths, is a declaration and confirmation of what we ought to believe, to wit, that Jesus Christ has assumed a real humane Nature, because 'tis the Sacrament of his real Body which we receive, and that the Amen which is answered is the Seal of this truth, so that when the Hereticks dispute against it, they dispute against the very Amen which they pronounce. And this is the sense of Leo, in all which there's no substantial Presence.

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

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

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

IT affirms I conclude nothing tho the false Principle on which I ground * 1.289 my Arguments were supposed a true one. Altho, says he, 'twere true that these words Corpus Christi were not designed by the Church to instruct the Faithful, but only to excite in them certain inward motions, and set them on meditating upon the Body of Jesus Christ; yet this intention of the Church hindred 'em from understanding the sense of these words: and 'twould be still ridiculous to suppose, that these ignorant persons should so immediately enter upon the practice of these inward motions, that they could not understand the terms which the Church made use of to excite them.

I ANSWER, Mr. Arnaud charges me with two things unjustly, the first, That I affirm this Formulary was not design'd by the Church to in∣struct the Faithful, but only to excite internal motions in them, which I never imagin'd: I affirm'd expresly rhe contrary, as may be seen by whoso∣ever shall consult that part of my answer noted in the Margin. There's * 1.290 little sincerity in this imputation; and as little in charging me with a con∣clusion which I do not draw, and in suppressing that which I do. I do not conclude the intention of the Church which design'd these terms, Corpus Christi to excite inward motions in the Souls of the Communicants, should hinder them from understanding the sense of these words. I know that as the use which is made of things does not hinder but we may consider the nature of 'em if we will, so that which is made of words does not hinder a man from examining their sense. But, I say, there are several persons who stop at the bare notion of use without going farther, and thence I concluded it may be well supposed that in the ancient Church there were several persons who hearing the words Corpus Christi when they Communicated, applied them∣selves only to the practice of the inward affections of devotion, which these terms excited, without going any farther, and making reflection on what the terms, being applied to the Sacrament signifi'd. Let any man now judg, whether my supposition be ridiculous, extravagant and sensless, as Mr. Ar∣naud would make people believe; or whether 'tis not rather by a spirit of contradiction that Mr. Arnaud has taken upon him to refute it.

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

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 * 1.291 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 * 1.292 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? * 1.293 The same difficulty is proposed by Theophylact, Let no body be troubled, says * 1.294 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 * 1.295 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 * 1.296 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 * 1.297 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, * 1.298 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 * 1.299 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 * 1.300 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. * 1.301 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 * 1.302 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 * 1.303 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, * 1.304 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 * 1.305 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.

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, * 1.306 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; * 1.307 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.

CHAP. V.

General Considerations on Mr. Arnaud's Ninth Book. An Examina∣tion of the Objections which he proposes against what he calls Machins of Abridgment, and Machins of Preparation.

HAVING consider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th. Book, we must now in or∣der pass on to the 9th. whose running Title is, The impossibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Mystery of the Eucharist. 'Tis certain the genuine state of the question is only, whether this change has really hapned; this other, whether 'twas possible or impos∣sible, is a frivolous question tending to fruitless Speculations and tedious Debates; which is what I clearly shew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity. And which likewise several Roman Catholicks have acknow∣ledg'd, who have written on this Subject since the Author of the Perpetui∣ty, Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aside all this part of the * 1.308 Dispute, and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates where∣in the Church of Rome is not concerned, nor ought to be mention'd. Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publish'd under the name of an Ecclesiastick to one of his Friends, distinguishes likewise two quarrels where∣in he says I have engaged my self, the one against the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and the other against the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith: and he adds, that in this latter I only encounter with a particular person. Mr. Pavillon, a Priest and Almoner to his Majesty speaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Eucharist. The question is not t'examine whether * 1.309 the Church could change her belief, and how this change could happen; for this is a going about the bust, and running upon whimsies. The question is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned. He calls all these pretensions of impossibility frivolous questions, and mere whimsies; for these Gentlemen do one another right now and then. But howsoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart, and he obliges us to distinguish on this subject two questions; the one, whether the change before us has been pos∣sible; and the other whether it has really hapned. 'Tis certain that the first appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence, as we lately observed: for al∣tho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight first Centu∣ries, without troubling himself with the following; yet 'tis easie to per∣ceive that if it could not have place in those Centuries, wherein there was greater light, it could not by stronger reason in the others, wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance. Yet for better informa∣tion

in this matter, we must see what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impossibility of the change. We shall here then discuss again the question, whether in supposing that Paschasus an Author of the ninth Century was the first that proposed the Doctrin of the substantial invisible Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, it might happen that this opinion in succession of time has been receiv'd and establish'd amongst Christians. For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th. Book, and which we shall now examine. We shall not in truth find he has made use therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion, for he seldom troubles himself about that; nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the possibility which I alledged, nor defended the Answers of the Author of the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud does not care to take so much pains. But we shall find he has taken care to collect here and there seven or eight passages out of my Book, and of them joyn'd together made a body, which he calls my Machins, and divided them into five orders, with titles according to his own fancy. He calls the first, The Machins of Abridgment; the second, The Machins of Preparation; the third, The Machins of Mollifications; the fourth, The Machins of Execution; and the fifth, The Machins of Forget∣fulness. Now altho we may say in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleasant fancies, by which he can easily find out odd names to make serious matters look ridiculous; yet t'excuse him, we may say that in this occasion he has follow'd, not his own natural inclination, but that of the Cartesian Philosophy, with which his mind is said to be extremely taken up; for you must know this Philosophy makes Machins of every thing. But howsoever let's see what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine.

THE first which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my passages; the first of which bears, That the question is not of the * 1.310 whole world, but of the West, on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name, That is to say, says he, I will not have the question concern it, I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has introduc'd it self into the East, into the Patriarchats of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, into the Churches of the Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobits. I do not care to trouble my self with guessing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia, Moscovia, Mesopotamia, Geor∣gia, Mingrelia, Moldavia, Tartaria and the Indies. 'Tis better to say, 'tis not there, this is sooner done; and by this means I shall free my self out of a great perplexity. But, says he, Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him, that he is a man and not God; so that neither his words nor his will are always effectual. He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Presence to be in all these great Provinces. But it is there, and will be maugre him. The matter depends not on him, and we have demonstrated it by proofs which I hope he will not question. He fills five great pages with this kind of discourse, saying over and over again the same thing.

Mr. ARNAƲD must pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high. Is he so possess'd with the charms of his own Eloquence, and force of these illusions touching the Greeks, Armenians, and other Eastern Chri∣stians to imagin a man must be a God to cope with him? I think consider∣ing what we have observed, a man need neither be an Angel nor an extra∣ordinary person to demonstrate again clearly that the question concerns not these Churches, because they do not at all believe the Roman Transubstan∣tiation: and supposing they did believe it, which they do not, 'twould be

no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croisado's, Seminaries, and Missions, which is sufficient t' exclude them from this Dispute.

THE second passage from whence Mr. Arnaud has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment, is this, The question concerns not all those in the * 1.311 West, who profess themselves Christians, but only one party that have grown prevalent, and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themselves, thereby to be∣come Rulers over the whole Church. Whereupon he cries out, Did ever any * 1.312 body affirm that the common people of the 11th. Century held not the Real Pre∣sence, and had only a confused knowledg of this Mystery? But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes. We speak of the first fifty years of the 10th. Century, and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th. Century. 'Tis sufficient we tell him, says the Author of the Perpetuity, that * 1.313 this change cannot be attributed to the first fifty years of this Century, to wit, of the 10th. seeing 'tis incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been instructed in the distinct belief of the Real Absence, should have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their first sentiments, and without this change's having made any noise. These are the very words I recited, and on which having said, that the question concerned not a change begun, and fi∣nished in the 10th. Century, but the progress of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th. Century, and finished by the Popes towards the end of the 11th. I added, that our Debate was not about all those in the West that profes∣sed themselves Christians, but only about one party that strengthned themselves, and endeavour'd to become masters of the Pulpit, that they might afterwards be masters of the whole Church. It evidently appears the question was about the first fifty years of the 10th. Century. And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation, Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th. Century held not the Real Presence, and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Mystery? No, Berenger himself acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people, sententia vulgi, and in maintaining the Church was perished. It must be acknowledg'd there's a strange disorder in this kind of disputing. I will grant that the common people of the 11th. Century held the opinion of the Real Presence, thro the labours of Pascha∣sus his Disciples; but it does not follow 'twas the same in the first fifty years of the 10th. for when a new Doctrin disperses it self in a Church, an hun∣dred and fifty years make great alterations in it. When we speak of the time in which Paschasus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Christ, 'tis not likely we suppose the people to be in the same state they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Presence had made considerable progresses. Neither will we suppose 'em to be in the same state the first fifty years of the 10th. Century; for when we speak of a change which was made in the space of near three hundred years, common sense will shew there was more or less of it according to the diversity of the time. It is then reasonable on my hypothesis to consider in the beginning of the 10th. Century those that held the Real Presence, only as a party that strengthened themselves, and endeavour'd to make 'emselves most considerable in the Church, but 'tis in no sort reasonable t' oppose against this the common people of the 11th. Century, seeing that in eighty, or an hundred years the face of things might be easily changed.

'TIS moreover less reasonable to ofter us the discourses of Lanfranc, * 1.314 who bragg'd, that in his time all the Christians in the world believed they

receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin. For supposing what Lanfranc says were true, the sence he gave to these words, the true Flesh, and the true Blood of Jesus Christ, understanding them in a sense of Transubstantiation was false, as we have sufficiently shew'd. Has any body charged this testimony to be false? says Mr. Arnaud, No; there's no one but Mr. Claude who does it six hundred years after without any ground. But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger answer'd, and those that adher'd to him? And supposing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches separate from the Latin, does it hence follow that in effect they believed Transubstantiation, and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good?

DOES Reason, adds he, shew that in this point, the Faith of the Pa∣stors * 1.315 was not that of the People? No; it proves the quite contrary, it being incredible that Ministers who are persuaded of the truth of the Real Presence should not take care t' instruct them in it, whom they exhorted to receive the Communion, to whom they ought to judg this belief to be absolutely necessary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions. Mr. Arnaud fights with his own shadow. We never told him that those who believe the Real Presence did not endeavour t' insinuate it into the peoples minds, according as they were more or less prejudiced, or zealous in the propagation of this belief, and more or less qualifi'd to teach it, and more or less again according to the circumstances of times, occasions, persons. But how does this hinder me from saying that during the first fifty years of the 10th. Century it was not all them that made profession of Christianity in the West, but a party that strengthened themselves, and endeavour'd to render themselves the most considerable.

IS this, says Mr. Arnaud again, a sufficient reason to shew that the peo∣ple were not persuaded of the Real Presence, because some Historians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Heresie, do at the same time likewise inform us that he perverted several persons with his novelties? But we did not offer this alone as a sufficient reason to persuade him the peo∣ple did not believe the Real Presence in the beginning of the 10th. Century. I confess that upon this alone one may justly say either that those who fol∣low'd Berenger, follow'd him in leaving their first Belief, and embracing a new Opinion, or that they follow'd him because he Preach'd only what they believ'd before, or that they adher'd to him because they were further in∣structed in a mystery of which they had but small knowledg, or little cer∣tainty. So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he shall judg the most reasonable: but should I say there were several that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin, I shall say nothing but what's very probable, having shew'd, as I have done in my answer to the Perpetuity, that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th. Century; for it follows hence probably enough, that this Do∣ctrin was not then wholly extinct, that is to say, in the beginning of the 11th. Century, when Berenger appear'd.

THESE are Mr. Arnaud's first objections, which as is plainly seen, are not over demonstrative, that the change we suppose is impossible. Those which follow are not much better, as will appear from the reflections we shall make on 'em. The second order of these pretended Machins which he attributes to me, is what he calls Machins of Preparations, and he draws

these from two passages, the one of my first answer, and th'other from my second. The first is contain'd in these terms; In this dark Age, that is to say in the 10th. the distinct knowledg of the true Doctrin was lost, not only in reference to the Sacrament, but almost all other Points of the Christian Religi∣on. The second speaks of the Ages which followed the first eight in these terms. The first light which was taken from the people to keep 'em in igno∣rance * 1.316 was God's Word. The second was the clear and solid Expositions of the Writings of the Holy Fathers in reference to the Sacrament. The third, the knowledg of other Mysteries of Christianity which might strengthen mens minds, and encourage their zeal for the truth. The fourth was suffering natural rea∣son to decay and fall into a kind of languishment. And as to their senses they had open War declar'd against 'em.

THOSE that shall take the pains to read the 4th. Chapter of Mr. Ar∣naud's * 1.317 9th. Book, which has for its title, The Machins of Preparation Exa∣min'd, will find therein a prodigious profusion of words, much heat and ve∣hement declamations, but very few things worth regarding; wherefore passing by, as I shall do whatsoever is useless and redundant, the rest will not take up much time. First he charges me with offering things without any foundation, proof, or reason. I answer then Mr. Arnaud has forgot the proofs * 1.318 we brought touching the disorders of the 10th. Century, and according to his reckoning the testimonies of Guitmond, Verner Rollevink, Marc Antony Sa∣bellic, John Stella, Polydor Virgil, Elfric Arch bishop of Canterbury, Edgar King of England, Genebrard, Bellarmin, Baronius, Nicolas Vignier, and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the defenders of the Doctrin of Divine Grace, shall be esteem'd as nothing. The one tells us, That the truths of Religion were vanish'd away in this Age from men. The other, That therein was a total neglect of all ingenious Arts. The third, That all per∣sons in general so greatly indulged 'emselves in idleness, that all kinds of Vir∣tues seem'd to be laid asleep with 'em. The fourth, That the Monks and Priests minded only th' enriching 'emselves. The fifth, That the Bishops and Priests neglected the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and instructing the peo∣ple out of 'em. The sixth, That the Church-men spent their lives in Debau∣ches, Drunkenness, and Ʋncleanness. The seventh, That 'twas an unhappy Age, an Age void of excelling men either in Wit or Learning. The eighth, That there were no famous Writers in it, nor Councils, nor Popes that took care of any thing. The ninth, That Barbarism and ignorance of Learning and Sciences either Divine or Human reigned more in it than in the former Ages. The tenth, That 'twas an iron and leaden Age, an obscure and dark Age. And the eleventh, That 'twas an Age of Darkness and Ignorance, where∣in excepting some few Historians, there were no famous Writers on the My∣steries of Faith. Mr. Arnaud knows all this, and that we might increase the number of these Testimonies with several others, were it necessary, yet tells me with the greatest transport, That I offer things without any ground, proof, or reason, things which I know to be false, and mere imaginations.

HE says, adds he speaking of me, that the distinct knowledg of almost all * 1.319 the other Mysteries but that of the Eucharist was lost in the 10th. Age. Now he knows the contrary of this, and is persuaded of it, seeing that as to the com∣mon Mysteries, and such as are believed by both Parties, and contained in the ancient Symbol, it cannot be said they of the 10th. Age were ignorant of 'em; and yet as to the points controverted between the Calvinists, and the Roman Church, excepting that of the Eucharist, all the Ministers his Brethren do

frankly acknowledg, that long before the 9th. and 10th. Century the whole Church believed what the Roman Church does believe at present of 'em. Let him tell us then what are these truths of Faith, the distinct knowledg of which were lost in the 10th. Century.

'TIS no hard matter to satisfie Mr. Arnaud. These truths the di∣stinct knowledg of which was lost in the 10th. Century are the same which are contained in the Symbols. Does he imagin that if a man be not igno∣rant of the Symbols, that therefore he must know distinctly the Mysteries therein contained; and does he put no difference between being ignorant of a thing, consusedly knowing it, and distinctly knowing it? Do all those that know the Creed, distinctly understand the Mysteries contained there∣in? Certainly a mans mind must be strangely benighted that reasons after this manner. They were not ignorant of the Mysteries contain'd in the ancient Symbols, they had then a distinct knowledg of 'em. If this Argument holds good we may attribute the distinct knowledg of the principal Points of Christia∣nity almost to all kinds of persons, to Artificers, Husbandmen, Women, yea Children; for there are few in either Communion but have heard of them, and know something in 'em, and yet it must be granted there are few of these who can be properly said to know them distinctly. I pretend not to treat here on the common place of the confused knowledg, and the distinct know∣less. This is needless. 'Tis sufficient to observe that the term of distinct knowledg is equivocal; for 'tis sometimes taken for the formal and express knowledg of a thing, in opposition to the ignorance of this same thing, or to what the Schools call an implicit knowledg; and sometimes 'tis taken for a clear and full knowledg, in opposition to a confused and perplex'd one. When the Author of the Perpetuity said that all the Faithful ought always to have a distinct knowledg of the Presence, or Real Absence, he took the term distinct knowledg in the first sense; for he did not mean that all the Faithful must know clearly and fully the Doctrin of the Real Presence in every re∣spect, but that they had a formal, express and determinate thought of re∣jecting or admitting it. But when I said that the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist, and almost all the other Mysteries of Christian Religion was lost in the 10th. Century, I took this term in the second sense, meaning not that there was no more formal knowledg of these Mysteries; that is to say, that they form'd no more any express and determined thought on the Articles of the Christian Faith, and that Jesus Christ is God and Man, that he was born of a Virgin, died for us, rose again and ascended up into Heaven, and that there is an Eucharist; but meaning that they had only a very small knowledg of them, such as is common to persons unlearned, and who rarely apply themselves to meditate on matters of Religion; who go indeed for Christians, but trouble themselves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed, and receive some other general Instructions. 'Tis easily perceived that this was my sense, and that the ignorance I attribute to these persons of the 10th. Century, from the concurrent Testimony of all Historians, was not so great as to keep 'em absolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Christian Religion, as if they were become Pagans, or Atheists, or bruit Beasts, but that it hindred them from having that clear∣ness of apprehension and distinct knowledg, which comes by study and pains, and the hearing of able Preachers. Which will evidently appear up∣on consulting the particular places of my Answer, wherein I treat of the 10th. Century; for I attribute to it a confused knowledg of the Mysteries of Religion. Now a confused knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg.

Elsewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to see * 1.320 his Nurse, ill drest, lean and sick, which still supposes he sees her, altho he sees her not in her usual condition. In another place I say the Pastors grew * 1.321 careless of instructing the People, and the People likewise of informing them∣selves in matters of Religion; that there were few persons that applied them∣selves to the meditating on the Christian Mysteries; that the Pastors extreme∣ly neglected th' instructing of the People, and that the People grew as careless as they in matters of their salvation. Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly lost all kind of knowledg, but that it was very scanty. In fine, 'twill appear this is my sense to him that shall cast his eyes on the use I pretend to make of the obscurity of the 10th. Age, which was to shew that the people of it had not light enough to discern whether the Doctrin of the Real Presence was an innovation in the Christian Religion, or whe∣ther 'twas a Doctrin of the Fathers. Now this does not oblige a man to suppose an absolute ignorance of the Christian Mysteries, but that the know∣ledg of them was very confused. Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough seen, if he pleased; but he thought 'twere better to betake himself to So∣phisms, imagining they would not be laid open, and that he might so dis∣guise the subject that few persons should be able to understand it. And 'tis on this Principle which is neither true, nor sincere, that he has grounded this reasoning, the common Mysteries held at this day by both Parties, and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th. Century; therefore they of that Age had a distinct knowledg of the truths of the Chri∣stian Doctrin.

WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the same equivocation. Did they leave off, says he, reading the Holy Scripture * 1.322 in the Churches and Cloisters? Did they give over explaining of it to the Peo∣ple and teaching it in the Schools? Do not the writings of those Authors which we have that lived in that Century, such as those of S. Odon and Raterius Bishop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were studied. Why does he say that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and solid expositions of the Fathers. Was not the Eucharist therein called the Sacrament of the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ, the Mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ, Bread and Wine? But all these interrogations are needless. A man may say they did not ab∣solutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture, and expounding it. Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little studious. Perhaps the Eucharist was called a Sacrament, a Mystery, Bread and Wine; and yet it may not follow the People had a distinct knowledg of the points of Religion. The Greeks, Armenians, Moscovites, Ethiopians, Jacobites, Nestorians did not wholly lay aside the reading of the Holy Scripture, and of some Fathers in their Church, and Cloisters; and yet is it true that all these people, yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel.

WHAT he adds touching some Historians, and Bishops that wrote Books, is built on the same foundation. Besides that there appears not any thing in these Authors but what is very mean, their small number does well warrant our saying this Age was void of Learned men, and that people had but a very confused knowledg of the mysteries of the Gospel.

'TIS false, saith he, that in this Age open War was denounced against the senses. If this be false, how does he himself understand they taught Tran∣substantiation

in it? For can this Doctrin be taught without opposing the te∣stimony of our senses, seeing they shew us it is Bread and Wine?

BUT these small objections are very inconsiderable in comparison of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretension, which is, that this confused knowledg which I attribute to the 10th. Century, is but a mere empty sound, whose sense I my self do not understand. In searching his Book, says he, in what sense he took it, I found that confused knowledg and distinct knowledg are one and the same thing in his language, which is to say, that the knowledg which he calls confused is every whit as clear as that which he calls distinct. This disco∣very would be a very fine one indeed, were it not merely imaginary. 'Tis grounded on that describing some-where the instructions of the Fathers of the eight first Centuries, I say, that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine, that this Bread and Wine were the signs and Figures of the Body of Jesus Christ, that they lost not their natural substance, but were called the Body and Blood of Christ, because they were the Sacraments of 'em. He hence concludes that 'tis in these Articles wherein consists according to my way the distinct knowledg of the Mystery of the Eucharist. He after∣wards observes that in another place speaking of the trurh of the Eucharist which have been always popular, I say, That the Mystery of the Eucharist has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration, and in the general acts which Christians ought to perform in it. To take Bread, to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, to receive these things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained, to raise up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour, to find therein the consolation of our Souls; this without doubt is popular. It is popular to hearken to the testimony of sense which tells us that 'tis Bread, and yet to hear that 'tis the Body of Christ, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, its pledg, its memorial. It is popular to know that Jesus Christ is in Heaven, and that from thence he shall come to judg both the quick and dead. Whence he concludes with Authority that the distinct knowledg which I give to the first Ages, and the confused one which I at∣tribute to the 10th, are but one and the same thing.

IT must be allowed that never any consequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's. First, It is not true that the Articles which I give of the distinct knowledg, are the same with those of the popular knowledg. Among the first is found, That the Bread and Wine lose not their natural substance. That they are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they are the Sacraments of 'em, which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg. How will he have this to be then one and the same thing. There is a great deal of difference between hark∣ning to the testimony of ones proper senses which shew the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine, and learning from the instructions of Pastors that the Eu∣charist is Bread and Wine. The first induces a man to believe that to judg of it by sense 'tis real Bread and Wine, but the second goes farther; for it shews this very thing which the senses depose, to be the true belief of the Church. Now these two things are wholly different as any man may see. The first does not dispose men to reject Transubstantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church, for it remains still to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the testimony of sense. The se∣cond does dispose 'em to it; for it shews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the deposition of the senses. Now the first is according to my

rule belonging to the popular knowledg; and the second belongs to the di∣stinct knowledg. What reason is there then in having these two know∣ledges to be the same. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud has not observed that when I spake of the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries, I did not pre∣tend exactly to denote all the Articles of it, this was not my business in that place. But only t' observe some of the principal ones which were suf∣ficient to make known the sense of these Propositions, The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ. But it does not hence follow but that there were therein some others very considerable ones, which may be gathered from the passages of the Fathers, which I produc'd in my first part, as that the change which happens in the Eucharist is not a change of Nature, but an addition of Grace to Nature; that Jesus Christ, as to his human Body, or human Nature, is so in Heaven that he is no more on Earth; that the manducation of the Body of Jesus Christ is spiritual and my∣stical; that we must not understand it literally, it being a figurative expression; that the Sacrament and the verity represented by the Sacrament are two distinct things: and several others which are not necessary to be related. Suppo∣sing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the same with those I mark'd of the distinct knowledg, which is evidently false, yet would it not follow that these two knowledges according to my sense would be the same thing, seeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the distinct knowledg, nor exclude them which I now denoted, which are no wise popular. In fine, Mr. Arnaud has not considered that of the same Articles, whether popular, or not popular, a man may have a distinct knowledg and a confused one, according as he makes a greater or lesser reflection on them, according as they are respected with more or less application, according as each of those that has the knowledg of 'em has more or less understanding, natural or acquired; so that supposing we at∣tributed to the distinct knowledg of the eight first Centuries only the Ar∣ticles which I specifi'd, supposing these Articles were the same as those I at∣tribute to the popular knowledg, which is not true; supposing again there were no difference in 'em, as there is in respect of some of these Articles, be∣tween the knowing of 'em popularly, that is to say, either by the help of the Senses, or by the natural motion of the Conscience; and to know them by the instruction of the Pastors, as a thing which the Church believes, and from which a man must not vary, it would in no wise thence follow that the confused knowledg were according to what I laid down, the same thing; the object of these two knowledges would be the same, but the knowledges would be distinct. And thus have we shewed Mr. Arnaud's subtilties.

CHAP. VI.

Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he calls the Machins of Mollifi∣cation, and the Machins of Execution Examin'd. The state of the Twelfth Century.

MR. ARNAƲD will not suffer me to say in my Answer to the * 1.323 Author of the Perpetuity, That Error does not insinuate it self by way of opposition, or a formal contradiction of the truth, but by way of addition, explication, and confirmation, and that it endeavours to al∣ly it self with the ancient Faith to prevent its immediate opposition. And this is what he calls my Machins of Mollification, which he pretends to over∣throw in his fifth Chapter. The inventions, says he, of Mr. Claude are * 1.324 usually attended with very considerable defects. To which I have no more to say but this, that the pretensions of Mr. Arnaud are commonly very high, but generally very ill grounded; well offer'd, but ill defended.

'TIS false, says he, that Paschasus did not teach his Doctrin, by expresly condemning those that were of a contrary Opinion. Mr. Arnaud hides himself under a thin vail, pretending not to understand what he does very well. We do not say that Paschasus did not propose his Doctrin by condemning those of a contrary Opinion. This is not the point in question. The question is, Whether he did not propose his Doctrin as the Doctrin of the Church, which was not sufficiently understood, and which he therefore more clearly explain'd? Now Paschasus himself decides this difference, as I have shewed in my Answer to the Perpetuity. For speaking in the beginning of his Book touching his design, he says, That all the Faithful ought to understand the * 1.325 Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, which is every day celebrated in the Church, and what they ought to believe and know of it. That we must seek the virtue of it, and instruct our Faith under the Discipline of Jesus Christ, lest we be esteem'd unworthy, if we do not discern it enough, not understanding what is the dignity, and the virtue of the mystical Body and Blood of our Sa∣viour. And lest it should be imagin'd this was only a way of speaking to excite the Faithful to instruct themselves in this Mystery (yet without sup∣posing that in effect they were ignorant of the exposition he was going to make of it) we need only call to mind what he says in his Letter to Frude∣gard, wherein speaking of the success his Book met with, I am informed, says he, that I have moved several to understand this mystery, which shews, * 1.326 that according to him his Book was a more clear and express exposition of the Churches sentiment, and that he had actually brought over several per∣sons from an obscure, to a clear knowledg of this Mystery. But without going any further, we need only read a passage of Odon Abbot of Clugny, which Mr. Arnaud himself has produc'd; for it expresly justifies what I say, Paschasus, says he, has wrote these things, and several others to learn us * 1.327 the reverence we owe to this mystery, and make us know the majesty of it: and if those who pretend to be knowing would take the pains to read his Book, they will find such great things in it, as will make 'em acknowledg they understood little of this mystery before. After this testimony of one of Paschasus his principal Disciples, who lived in the 10th. Century, I think it cannot be deny'd that Paschasus proposed his Doctrin by way of explication. He

wrote, says he, to teach us what reverence we owe to this mystery, and to make us know the majesty of it. He will have also the learned before the reading of this Book to be in a manner ignorant of this mystery, and seeing he is pleased the learned should be no better qualified, I hope he will pardon the ignorant by a stronger reason.

AND thus do we see on what design Paschasus and his Disciples taught their Opinion, to wit, as an illustration of the common Faith, an explicati∣on of what was known before but obscurely, and not as a Doctrin directly opposite to an Error with which men were imbued. I acknowledg that this design proved not successful to 'em in respect of all, and there being several who regarded this opinion as a novelty which ought to be rejected; and as to them I doubt not but Paschasus and his Disciples proceeded with 'em by way of opposition and contradiction, as we are wont to do against profest enemies: but how does this hinder them from proposing their Doctrin by way of explication, and even this, to wit, whether it was an exposition of the ancient Doctrin or not, was in part the subject of the contradiction.

IT is not possible, says Mr. Arnaud, that a Doctrin should be approv'd of * 1.328 immediately by all those to whom it was proposed. There must certainly be some who reject it, and warn others against it. I grant it, but that it hence follows as Mr. Arnaud would have it believed, that my pretension is impossi∣ble, is what I deny, and that with reason; for a man may well propose a new opinion by way of an explication of the ancient Faith, and defend it after∣wards by way of contradiction against adversaries who reject it, and respect it as a novelty.

IN fine, adds Mr. Arnaud, this means will not serve the end for which * 1.329 Mr. Claude designs it, which is to hinder men from rising up against this Do∣ctrin, and make the change insensible to those which suffered it. We never told Mr. Arnaud that this means absolutely hindred the insurrection he mentions, but in effect the contrary; to wit, that several did rise up against Paschasus; but we pretend likewise 'twas easie to cheat several by making 'em receive this novelty, under the title of an explication, and that in their respect, they conceiv'd therein no other change than that which ignorant people do conceive, when they imagin a greater illustration of the Faith of the Church, and what those learned persons could conceive of it, mention'd by Odon, who by reading Paschasus his Book, acknowledg'd they had hi∣therto but small knowledg of this mystery. All the effect which this could produce was, to excite them against their former ignorance, and to esteem themselves obliged to Paschasus for his good instructions. Now we know that these kind of insurrections make no great noise.

BUT, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, others must be surpriz'd in a contrary * 1.330 manner, they must needs deride the absurdity of this new Doctrin. They must be astonish'd at the boldness of Paschasus and his Disciples proposing of it as the Faith of the Church. They must be mightily offended at their being accu∣sed of ignorance, and infidelity for not believing that which no Body ever did believe. Who told Mr. Aruaud there were not in effect several in Pa∣schasus his time, who had these kind of sentiments touching his Opinion. Pa∣scasus himself acknowledges that several called in question his Doctrin, he says he was reprehended for taking our Saviour's words in a wrong sense; he endeavours to answer some of their objections, seems to intimate he was

accused for writing his Book by an Enthusiastic rashness and pretended Re∣velation. And in effect John Scot, Raban, and Bertram wrote against his novel∣ties and opposed them. But this does not hinder its being true, that he pro∣posed his Doctrin as an explication of the common Faith, and that this way might procure him many followers. And so far concerning the Machins of Mollification.

I come now to the pretended Machins of Execution. Mr. Arnaud im∣mediately complains that I sometimes make the Real Presence to be esta∣blished by the noise of Disputes, and otherwhiles acknowledg there was no Dispute in the 10th. Century, wherein I pretend this was effected: I think, * 1.331 says he, we had best leave him to his choice, and that by choosing one of these chimerical means, he may acknowledg he has rashly and falsly offer'd the other. Were Mr. Arnaud's request reasonable, we would not stick to grant it, not∣withstanding the sharpness of his expressions. But 'tis unjust and unwar∣rantable: for 'tis certain that the change in question has hapned, and that with and without Disputes. There was a contest in the 9th. Century du∣ring the time wherein Paschasus lived, as I now said. We do not find there was any in the 10th. but in the 11th 'twas very hot. So that any man may see there is no contradiction in what I offered, let Mr. Arnaud say what he pleases. Which I hope he will grant me, when he considers, First, That what I said concerning the senses that were attackt by the noise of the Dis∣pute, and th' Authority of the Court of Rome, must be referred to the 11th, Century, and that 'twill not be found I attributed it to the 10th. Se∣condly, That when I spoke precisely of the 10th. I did not suppose any Disputes in it, but on the contrary a gross ignorance, which hindred 'em from disputing.

Mr. ARNAƲD cannot comprehend that there were, or that there were not any Disputes. The means, says he, that they proposed the Doctrin of the Real Presence to so many persons that never heard of it, or had an aversation to it, and that they have been persuaded immediately, so that they made no resistance. And so far for the Disputes. The means likewise that so many Disputes should produce no Writings, that the Paschasits should pub∣lish nothing to satisfie the doubts proposed to 'em. That the Bertramits in rejecting the Doctrin of the Real Presence should never publish the reasons for it. And here we have something against the Disputes.

BUT people must never argue against matters of fact. 'Tis certain there were Disputes against Paschasus his Doctrin in the 9th. Century, we learn as much from Paschasus himself; 'tis also certain there were likewise in the 11th. on the same subject. We are informed of this by the History of Berenger. It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram had likewise its course in the 10th. We learn this from the Paschal Homilies and Sermons of that time which are extant. 'Tis also certain the Real Presence was taught therein. We know this by th' example of Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury who made use of Miracles to persuade the world of the truth of it. Yet does it not appear there were any Disputes rais'd on this point, nor Wri∣tings on either side. It seems to me we ought to stop here, and argue not against these matters of fact, seeing they cannot be denied, but on these facts to draw notices thence which may clear our principal Question, which is whether Paschasus was the Innovator, or whether th' innovation must be attributed to John Scot, to Bertram, to Raban, or any other adversaries of Paschasus his Doctrin.

THIS is the Point to be dispatched, for what signifies the marking one by one of the Authors that have written the lives of the Saints of the 10th. Century. What matter is it to us who wrote the life of S. Radbodus, or that of S. Godart, or S. Remacle? We do not see, says Mr. Arnaud, in any of these * 1.332 lives that either of 'em busied himself to instruct the people in the Doctrin of the Real Presence, and to refute the contrary opinion. Were this observation true what good would redound from it? Did these Historians design to learn the world the sentiments of their Saints on every particular Article of Religion, or to inform us what was the subject of their Sermons and in∣structions which they gave their people? Moreover, who supposes all these Bishops were Preachers of the Real Presence? It is sufficient there were some that have authoris'd this Doctrin, William of Malmsbury, as Mr. Ar∣naud himself acknowledges, relates of Odon th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury, That he confirm'd several in the Faith that doubted of the truth of our Lords * 1.333 Body, having shewed them by a miracle, the Bread of the Altar changed in∣to Flesh, and the Wine of the Chalice changed into Blood. Whether these doubters were the Disciples of John Scot, or not, 'tis not necessary to en∣quire; 'tis sufficient that this relation shews us there were several persons that withstood the Doctrin of the Real Presence, and that these persons were neither inconsiderable for their number, nor fame; seeing a Primate of Eng∣land, th' Arch-bishop of Canterbury was forced to make use of a Miracle for their Conversion. Mr. Arnaud likewise tells us from the Life of S. Dun¦stan * 1.334 that he preached the Real Presence; and we have seen already what he himself alledges touching Oden the Abbot of Clugny, who exhorted those that thought themselves learned to read Paschasus his Book, telling 'em they might learn such great things in it, as would make 'em acknowledg they had hitherto but small knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist. This methinks is sufficient to shew there were endeavours in the 10th. Century to establish the Real Presence. For what could these great things be which the Learned had no knowledg of, and in which they were to be instructed by Paschasus his Book, but the mysteries of the Real Presence? 'Twould be absurd to say, that by these great things we must understand only the Devo∣tion and Piety with which we ought to receive the Sacrament. For 'tis to be supposed, these Learned folks, mention'd by Odon were not ignorant that Jesus Christ is on the Altar by the proper substance of his Body, neither could be ignorant that it ought to be received with all the Respect and Devo∣tion we are able; and therefore there was no need to send 'em to Paschasus his Book to discover therein this consequence, seeing it discovers it self suffici∣ently enough by the bare idea which the Gospel gives us of Jesus Christ.

MOREOVER, he that desires to see the strange effects of prejudice, need but read the 7th. Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's 9th. Book. He pretends to shew therein, as the title of the Chapter bears, That the mixture of the * 1.335 two Doctrines which Mr. Claude is obliged to admit in the 10th. Century, is a thing the most contrary imaginable to common sense. He exerts all his parts, to shew this mixture is impossible, he cannot endure there should be therein ei∣ther ignorant or prophane persons, nor Paschasists, nor Bertramists, and ar∣gues thereupon till he has lost both himself and his Readers.

YET is this a real matter of fact against which all Mr, Arnaud's subtil∣ties will not prevail, That the two Doctrines have been mixt in this Century. I already proved it in my Answer to the Perpetuity, but Mr. Arnaud has thought good to suppress my proofs, and pass 'em over in silence, to make

way for his reasonings. But let him argue as long as he will, he cannot hin∣der its being true, that in the 10th. Century th'English were taught this Do∣ctrin, that as we consider two things in the same creature, as for instance in the * 1.336 water of Baptism, the one that it is naturally true 'tis corruptible Water; and th'other that according to the spiritual mystery, it has a saving virtue; so likewise if we consider th' Eucharist according to our natural understanding, we see it to be a corporeal and elementary creature; but if we regard the spiritual virtue, then we understand there is life in it, and that 'twill give immortality to those that shall partake of it with Faith. That there is a great deal of dif∣ference between the invisible virtue of this holy Eucharist, and the visible species of nature; that in respect of its nature it is corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine, and that by the virtue of the Divine Word it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, yet not corporeally, but spiritually. That there is a great deal of difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered, and that Body which is Consecrated in the Eucharist: For the Body with which our Sa∣viour has suffered was born of the Virgin, has Blood, Bones, Skin, Sinews, and is indued with a reasonable Soul. But his spiritual Body which we call the Eucharist is composed of several grains, without Blood, Bones, Members, and Soul; and therefore we must not understand any thing of it corporeally, but spiritually.

II. Mr. ARNAƲD cannot hinder it from being true, that the * 1.337 people were instructed in this manner. The heavenly food with which the Jews were nourished by the space of forty years, and the Water which ran from the Rock, represented the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which we now every day offer in the Church. They were the same things which we offer at this day, not corporeally, but spiritually. We have already told you that our Sa∣viour Christ before his Passion Consecrated Bread and Wine to be his Eucharist, and said, This is my Body and Blood. He had not yet suffered, and yet he changed by his invisible virtue this Bread into his own Body, and this Wine into his own Blood, in the same manner as he had already done in the Wilder∣ness before he was incarnate, when he changed the heavenly Manna into his Flesh, and the Water which ran from the Rock into his own Blood. He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has Eternal Life. He does not command us to eat that Body which he assum'd, nor drink that Blood which he spilt for us, but by this he means the holy Eucharist, which is spiritually his Body and Blood, which whosoever shall taste with a pure heart shall live eternally. Ʋn∣der the ancient Law the Faithful offered to God several Sacrifices, which sig∣nified the Body of Jesus Christ to come; this Body I say which he offered to God his Father as a Sacrifice for our Sins. But this Eucharist which we now Consecrate on Gods Altar is the Commemoration of the Body of Jesus Christ of∣fered for us, and Blood shed for us, according as he himself has commanded, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.

III. Mr. ARNAƲD must be remembred that Elfric Abbat of * 1.338 Malm••sbury, and who was afterwards (as 'tis thought) Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and lived in the same time, wrote, That the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally, but spiritually; not the Body in which Jesus Christ has suffered, but the Body in which he spake the night before his Passi∣on, when he Consecrated the Bread and Wine, and said of the Consecrated Bread, This is my Body, and of the Consecrated Wine, This is my Blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.—The Lord who before his Passion Consecrated the Eucharist, and said, the Bread was his Body, and the Wine

truly his Blood, does himself every day Consecrate by the hands of the Priest the Bread into his Body, and the Wine into his Blood, by a spiritual mystery, as we find it written. This enlivening Bread is not in any sort the same Body in which our Lord suffered, and the Consecrated Wine is not the Blood of our Lord, which was shed as to the corporeal matter, but it is as to the spiritual. The Bread was his Body, and the Wine his Blood, as the Bread of Heaven which we call the Manna with which the people of God were nourished during forty years, and the water which ran from the Rock in the Desart was his Blood, as says the Apostle in one of his Epistles, they ate of the same spiritual food, and drank of the same spiritual drink. The Apostle does not say corporally but spiritually. For Jesus Christ was not then born, nor his Blood spilt, when the people ate of this food, and drank of this Rock.

IV. Mr. ARNAƲD cannot hinder Wulstin Bishop of Salisbury in * 1.339 his Sermon which he made to his Clergy, from speaking in this manner; This Sacrifice is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered, nor his Blood which was shed for us; but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood, as the Manna which fell from Heaven, and the water which gushed out of the Rock, according to the saying of S. Paul, I will not have you Brethren to be ignorant, that our Fathers have been all under a Cloud, and pass'd the Sea, and all of 'em baptiz'd by Moses, in the Cloud and in the Sea, and that they have all eaten the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank out of the spiritual Rock which followed them. Now this Rock was Christ: and therefore the Psalmist says, he gave them the Bread of Hea∣ven, Man has eaten the Angels food. We likewise without doubt eat the Bread of Angels, and drink of this Rock which signifies Christ, every time we ap∣proach with Faith to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

V. Mr. ARNAƲD must know that the people were publickly * 1.340 taught, That Jesus Christ brake the Bread to represent the fraction of his Body, that he bless'd the Bread and brake it, because it pleased him so to submit the human nature which he had taken to death, that he has also added that he had in it a treasure of Divine immortality.—And because Bread strengthens the body, and the Wine begets blood in the flesh, therefore the Bread relates mystically to the Body, and the Wine to the Blood.

VI. He must know that Heriger Abbot of Lobbs in the County of * 1.341 Liege, publickly condemned Paschasus his Doctrin as new, and contrary to the Faith of the Church. Which we learn by Sigibert and the continuer of the Acts of the Abbots of Lobbs; for both of 'em say, That he produc'd against Rabbert a great many passages of the Fathers Writings touching the Bo∣dy and Blood of our Lord.

VIII. Mr. ARNAƲD himself confesses that John Scot, who with∣drew * 1.342 into England about the end of the preceding Century, made perhaps some Disciples of his Doctrin. 'Tis true he would have these Disciples to be secret. But why secret? John Scot kept not himself private, Bertran and Raban were neither of 'em in private, Those that disliked Paschasus his Novelties hid not themselves in the 9th. Century. Why then must the Disciples of John Scot lie secret in the 10th. wherein were Homilies that were filled with Doctrins contrary to that of Paschasus publickly read? Besides, as I have already said, there's no likelihood that Odon Arch-bishop of Canterbury should think himself oblig'd to have recourse to such a famous

miracle as is that related by William of Malmsbury, to confute those that durst not shew themselves.

SEEING therefore on one hand the Doctrin of the Real Presence taught in the 10th. Century, and on the other the contrary Doctrin prea∣ched, and publickly held, it seems to me we may say with boldness that this Century was mix'd; and Mr. Arnaud cannot give us a greater prejudice against his way of arguing by pretended moral impossibilities than to use them in a case wherein the matter of fact so plainly appears.

'TIS moreover very strange that Mr. Arnaud should endeavour to per∣suade us 'twas not possible there could be in this Century ignorant people that had no other than a confused knowledg of Gospel Mysteries; after the testimonies we have brought him of so many Authors who unanimously de∣pose the contrary. Does he expect we will believe him sooner than Wil∣liam of Tyr an Historian of the 12th. Century, who tells us, speaking of the 10th. and 11th. That the Christian Faith was decayed amongst those who * 1.343 called themselves Christians, that there were therein no more justice, equity, or any other virtue, that the world seem'd to draw towards an end, and was about returning to its former Chaos, that the lives of Church-men were no better than the peoples, for the Bishops grew negligent of their charge, were dumb dogs that could not bark. Does he hope we shall give a greater deference to his rea∣sons than to the testimony of Hérivé Arch bishop of Rheims, an Author of the 10th. Century, who assures us, that Christian Religion was nigh decayed, * 1.344 and standing as it were on the edg of a precipice. We have, says he, in the Council of Trosly, scarcely any good order observed amongst us, the whole state of the Church is overthrown and corrupted, and not to spare our selves, we that ought to correct the faults of others, are as bad as the rest; we are cal∣led Bishops, but do we do the office of a Bishop? We leave off Preaching, we behold those committed to us forsake God, and plunge themselves in all man∣ner of lewdness, and yet are silent; we reach not forth to 'em the hand of cor∣rection. If at any time we tell 'em that which does not please 'em, they an∣swer us in the words of our Saviour, the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses his seat, &c. So that in this manner are we struck dumb, and the Lords flock is lost, are drowned in vices, and exposed to the cruel teeth of wolves. There being no body to shew 'em the way of life, how can it be but they must wander into the paths of error? Thus in them is accomplished what is said by the Prophet, This ignorant people shall be struck with jealousie; and again, My people are gone into captivity, because they had no knowledg. Where are they who are converted by our Preaching and have brought forth fruits worthy of repentance? Who is the man that by hearing us has left his luxury, covetous∣ness, or pride?

This good Bishop who deserves without doubt for his zeal not to be * 1.345 comprehended amongst the number of others, describing in a decretal of his Council assembled at Trosly the condition of the Monasteries of his time, says, That as well the Monks as the Nuns lived without Rule, and Discipline, applying themselves to worldly affairs; that some of 'em were constrained by necessity to return into the world again, that the Monasteries were possess'd by Lay-Abbots who lived therein with their Wives, Children, Soldiers and Dogs; that the Abbots were not in a capacity t'examine the Rules of their Convents, to read, or understand 'em; and if at any time the Book was offered 'em, their reply was, Nescio literas. He afterwards represents the violence of those

that ravish'd the goods of the Church, persecuted, and put to death the Priests, forcibly took away their Neighbors Estates, laying snares for the innocent, putting 'em to death and plundering their houses, and says the number of these latter was infinite, and that they imagin'd 'twas a gentile thing to live by Rapine. Afterwards he turns his discourse to the Ravishers of Virgins, and Women, and those that contracted clandestine and incestu∣ous Marriages, and shews the number of these was not small. Thence he comes to the scandalous conversation of Priests with Women, to perjured Persons, Quarrels, Murthers; and in fine, concludes by an exhortation to the Bishops his Suffragans to do henceforward their duty. Alas, says he, * 1.346 alas! thro our negligence, and ignorance, and by the neglect and ignorance of our Predecessors, and that of our Brethren who are still living, several do pe∣rish in their Vices, and at this time there are an infinite number of people of both Sexes, Ages, and Conditions, ignorant of the Faith, know not their Creed, or Pater noster. How can these people, supposing they were of honest conversa∣tion, do good Works, having not the foundation of Faith? And what excuse can we make for our selves? when they die they enter not into life, for they are unacquainted with it, but they enter into eternal death, which they cannot avoid, being without Faith; for the just live by Faith. We are then, as Gregory says, the murtherers of these people that perish, whereas we should be their guides to save them. For 'tis for our sins this multitude are degenerated, because we carelesly neglect the giving them the instructions of life. Will Mr. Arnaud now persuade us 'twas impossible there should be persons in the 10th. Century that had only a confused knowledg of Christianity?

THE ignorance, says he, of the mystery of the Eucharist cannot subsist with * 1.347 a million of Preachers of the Real Presence, and a million of people that reje∣cted it. When Mr. Arnaud is in his Closet, a million of Preachers costs him no more than thirty; and his Commission is as soon given to a great number as a small. But what is most admirable, is, that when we come to count these Preachers of the Real Presence, we do not find 'em to be above four or five at most; one of which, as I already observed, plainly tells us, that those of his time that personated learned men had small knowledg of this mystery, till they read Paschasus his Book, which must be according to him the fountain of their light. 'Tis moreover to be observed that what I now alledged of Hérivé in the Council of Trosly, is of the year 909 that is to say, in the beginning of the 10th. Century. Now it is certain the darkness waxed greater after this Century, but we see to what degree it ar∣rived then. Most of the Abbats knew not how to read. The Pastors left off Preaching to and instructing of the people; and an infinite number of peo∣ple of either Sex, both young and old, could not say their Creed, nor the Lords Prayer during their whole lives. Methinks it cannot be well con∣cluded hence there were at that time in the Church neither ignorant nor prophane persons; much less can it be concluded hence, there were then but three sorts of persons, the Paschasists, the Bertramists, and those that pass'd from one opinion to another. 'Tis sufficient, says Mr. Arnaud, to tell * 1.348 Mr. Claude in a word, that to act as he must suppose they have done, they must not have been men, but some other kind of Animals, and such creatures as we never heard of. To which I answer, that if he will not allow 'em to be Men, he shall make Satyrs, or Centaurs of 'em if he will: for as to my part I must suppose 'em to be what they are. If he does not find the Pas∣chasists had zeal enough for the Real Presence, he ought to impart more to 'em if he can. And if the Bertramists have not well discharged their duty,

we for our share must deplore their stupidity, seeing we cannot help it. But howsoever 'tis certain there were Paschasists, and that there were Ber∣tramists; and 'tis likewise as certain that the Pastors carelessness, and the People ignorance were both very great. These are matters of fact, against which 'tis in vain to dispute. All that can be rationally said, is, that the ig∣norance of the one, and the carelessness of the others made 'em agree in the subject of the Real Presence. I mean they disputed not about it, because they wanted ability to do it, as well as zeal and industry.

Mr. ARNAƲD endeavours in vain to persuade us that the disorders * 1.349 of the 10th. Century were no greater than those of the others, and that the state of the Church in this world is to include in the same external Society both living and dead Members, Stubble and Wheat; 'tis a necessary conse∣sequence of this state, that a man may reproach every Age with several disor∣ders, and that each time of the Church may be respected as having two different faces, according as a man casts his eyes upon the good that credit it, or the wicked that dishonour it.

WHAT he says is but too true, and so 'tis too true that the 10th. Century has improved the former errors; for besides that the common dis∣orders have appeared in it in a different degree, there were particular ones in it which the preceding Ages were not acquainted with. Never was there such an ignorance before which the Council of Trosly then denoted. The neglect of the Bishops and Priests was never so great as that Council, El∣fric Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and William of Tyre describe it. Cove∣tousness never reigned so much amongst the Monks and Priests, as Polydor Virgil testifies it did then. Such an universal degeneracy, as we find attri∣buted by Authors to those times, we never yet heard of. There were ne∣ver seen in the Church of Rome the like disorders as those that were obser∣vable throughout this whole Century. Such a relaxation of Discipline in the Cathedral Churches (the superintendency of which was committed to Children of 5, 10, 12, and 14 years) was never before known. Most Writers that have mention'd it are Historians that design'd not to pass cen∣sures, or aggravate in general the degeneracy of men, but to remark the particular characters of this Century which distinguish them from the rest. And therefore they call it the unhappy Age, an Age of lead, the iron Age, an obscure and dark Age, an Age of darkness and ignorance, a most wretched time wherein the just were not to be found, and wherein truth had for saken the earth, an Age, in short, wherein hapned a general decay of all virtues.

'TIS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say again, 'twas an Age of Zeal, Fervour, * 1.350 Conversions, Reformations in Princes, in Princesses, in Bishops, in Religious Persons, and in the People. For first, 'tis certain that in respect of those which Mr. Arnaud speaks of, that their Zeal, their Fervour, their Conver∣sions, their Reformations, such as they were had not that prevalency as to make 'em dispute amongst themselves of the Real Presence. On one hand was taught, as we have already observed, That there's a great difference between this Body in which Jesus Christ suffered, and that which is Consecra∣ted in the Eucharist; that the one is born of the Virgin, has Blood, Bones, Skin, Nerves, and is endued with a reasonable Soul; but that the other which is his spiritual Body consists of several grains, without Blood, Bones, Members, and Soul. That as in the Water of Baptism there are two things to be consi∣dered, one that according to nature 'tis corruptible water, and the other ac∣cording

to the spiritual mystery, this water has a salutary virtue; so the Eu∣charist according to the natural understanding is a corporeal and corruptive creature, and according to the spiritual virtue, life is in it, it gives immor∣tality to the Faithful. 'Twas taught, that the Bread and Wine are spiritu∣ally changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as the Manna was chan∣ged into his Flesh, and the water of the Rock into his Blood. That the Bread is not in any wise the same Body in which our Saviour suffered, nor the Wine the Blood which he shed for us, but his Body and Blood spiritually. In this Age were several passages of the Fathers collected and urged against Pascha∣sus touching the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. On the other hand the Pastors were exhorted to come and learn in Paschasus his Book what they were as yet ignorant of. Miracles were likewise wrought to confirm those that doubted of the Real Presence; but we do not find they disputed about it one against another. If the reason which I offer from the ignorance, and negligence of the one and the other does not well relish with Mr. Arnaud, let him give a better, I'll gladly receive it, provided he denies not certain matters of fact, against which no arguments must be offered.

THE Zeal, Fervour, Conversions and Reformations which he attri∣butes to the 10th. Century, hinder not the truth of what we observed con∣cerning the Religious living without Rule, their Abbots being married and Lay-men, the Bishops neglecting to instruct their Flocks, and an infinite number of either Sex and all Ages, being ignorant of the Creed and Lords Prayer, and living and dying in this ignorance. This is a matter of fact attested by Witnesses of that very Age. This does not hinder but the Ro∣man Church was for this whole Century in a fearful disorder, as speaks the Author of the Perpetuity, and Baronius too when he tells us, Our Sa∣viour * 1.351 Christ slept then in his Ship. He slept and made as tho he saw not these things, he let them alone, he arose not to take vengeance; and that which was worse, there were no Disciples who by their shrieks should awake the Lord sleeping, for they were all asleep themselves. What think you were the Cardi∣nals, Priests, and Deacons that were elected by these Monsters, seeing there's nothing more natural than for every thing to produce its like. Who doubts but they consented to all which they did who had chosen 'em, but that they imita∣ted 'em and trod in their footsteps, but that they all desired our Saviour should sleep on, and never rise to judg them, nor awake to call 'em to account for their wicked deeds. Luitprand produces a Letter of John the XIIth. to the Council, which the Emperor Otton assembled at Rome to depose him, which shews us how admirable the Popes were for Learning in those days. Joannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei omnibus Episcopis. Nos audivimus di∣cere quod vos vultis alium Papam facere, si hoc feceritis, Excommunico vos de Deo omnipotenti, ut non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare & missam cele∣brare. The Councils answer is as elegant. Est vestris in literis scriptum quod non Episcopum sed puerilem ineptiam scribere deceret, excommunicastis enim omnes ut non habeamus licentiam canendi missam, ordinandi Ecclesiasticas dispositiones, si al••um Romanoe Sedi constitueremus Episcopum. It a enim scri∣ptum erat, non habeatis licentiam ullum ordinare. Nunc usque putavimus, im∣mo credimus duo negativa unum facere dedicativum, nisi vestra autoritas pri∣scorum sententias infirmaret autorum.

THE Zeal, Fervour, frequent Conversions, and Reformations of those days could not hinder but that Symony was very frequent, as I proved in my Answer to the Perpetuity by the testimonies of Luitprand, and Glaber,

and by the very confession of the Author of the Perpetuity himself, which might be further made to appear were it necessary. Now judg I pray you what science and zeal there could be in a Church where the ministerial Of∣fice was upon sale to him that offered most. And moreover, the Arch-bishop∣ricks, and Bishopricks commonly bestowed on Children uncapable of dis∣charging those great trusts; which Baronius expresly asserts: for having told * 1.352 us from the testimony of Frodoart that Heribert Earl of Guyenne and Süel∣phus Arch-bishop of Rhemes were agreed, that after the death of Süelphus the Arch-bishoprick should come to Heribert's Son, he says, that Heribert to make quick work caused Süelphus to be poisoned, and his Son to be cho∣sen in his place, who was not above five years old; that the news of the Election being brought to the King, he confirm'd it, which was also done by Pope John the Xth. To which Baronius adds, That this example was quickly followed by several Princes, who promoted their own or relations Chil∣dren to the Episcopal Seats as oft as they became vacant, which, says he, was likewise done in Rome it self in those days, Constantinople, and other great Cities. And would to God, adds he, this custom had went no farther than those days, and that so detestable a wickedness against the Churches Canons were unknown to the following Ages. Let Mr. Arnaud himself judg whether ig∣norance and carelesness are not the natural effects of such disorders.

WHEREUNTO we may add the Tumults and continual Wars with which the West was afflicted during this whole Century; for 'tis cer∣tain that from the beginning to the end of it all Europe resounded with the noise of them. France was therein troubled by the League of Robert, and the dreadful consequences hapning thereupon, by the Wars against the Nor∣mans, Danes, and Germans, and by those which hapned upon the rejection of Charles Duke of Lorrain, and th' Election of Hugo Capet. England was therein disturb'd by divers Civil Wars, and the frequent Incursions of the Danes, Scotch, Irish, and other people still professing Paganism. Spain was also molested by the Moors, Arabians, and Saracens, by the Invasions of the Normans, and by the dreadful Divisions of the Christians.

GERMANY spent this Century in perpetual Confusions, the Danes, Sclavonians, and Huns ravag'd all things by their irruptions which often hapned. For Children to contrive the death of their Parents was ordinary, and Great Persons to rise up against their lawful Princes, (which commonly ended in bloody Battels) not to mention the cruel Wars which the Empe∣rors had to maintain in Italy against the Factious, and in Calabria against the Greeks and Saracens.) As to Italy she was throughout this whole Century, in the most deplorable state imaginable; on one hand by the Princes of Tuscany, on the other by the Wars of the Italian Princes one against another, and the Arms of the Emperors and neighboring Kings. In short, the confusions were then so general, that there was scarcely a corner in Europe wherein a man that loves quiet could obtain it. Now who is it but knows that times of War and Divisions are apt to introduce carelesness, looseness, and ignorance of the mysteries of Religion into the Church.

I CONFESS there were in this Age some endeavours after a Re∣formation; bu besides that they were but mere essays that proved ineffectu∣al, I deny they were strong enough, supposing they could have had a wi∣shed for success, to stir men up to search into the Controversie of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament. The most considerable were those made

in the Council of Trosly already mention'd by us, and it will not be amiss to make some remarks on what was resolved therein. Let us endeavour, * 1.353 say these Fathers which were not above twelve) by our own means and by the Priests under us, to avoid as much as in us lies, this terrible damnation, which we have drawn down upon our selves and the people committed to our charge. Let us instruct 'em both by our Doctrin and Example. Let us behave our selves as the Ministers of Christ, that our Office be not dishonored, and it be said of us, the Priests are without knowledg, those to whom the Law is com∣mitted have not known me, and lest we fall into the fault of Ely who corrected not the faults of his Sons. First then let every Christian ground himself well in the Christian Religion, which is the Catholick Faith, without which a man cannot be called a Christian. Let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one only true God, three persons in unity of substance. But yet know that the Son alone took on him our Flesh to save us, and thus suffered Death, rose again, ascended up into Heaven, and will come in the same Flesh to judg both quick and dead. Let him believe in the Holy Ghost, and that by him we have the remission of sins in our Baptism, and that thro his Grace our sins are continually pardon'd by the penitence and ministery of the Priests. Let him believe also a real and general Resurrection of the Flesh at the coming of Jesus Christ. This is the true foundation of Faith which must be adorned by Good Works; for as 'tis impossible without Faith to please God, so Faith cannot be persect if it shews not it self by Charity, for if it be void of works it's become dead in it self. They afterwards proceed to the rules of morality, recom∣mending Hope, Charity, Humility, Chastity, Temperance, Sobriety, and condemn Pride, Envy, Hatred, Variance, Drunkenness, Calumny, Magick, Divinations, &c.

HERE we have without question very commendable endeavours, but they reach no farther than the instructing of the people in the Articles of the Creed and the principal points of morality. These Fathers in their great∣est zeal to reform both themselves and others, make no mention of the Real Presence. 'Twas not then above fifty years when the Dispute was very hot on this subject, and Books were wrote on both sides. Yet it seems they took no notice of it, much less determin to instruct the people in what they ought to hold of it. All their care was to remove that ignorance of the Fundamentals wherein the people lay, and correct that fearful corruption of manners wherein the greatest parr spent their lives. Now this shews us that Mr. Arnaud can draw no advantage from these essays of a Reformati∣on, for supposing they had their whole effect, they extended not so far as the question of the Real Presence, because they suppose either that the peo∣ple were not ignorant of it, or that the Pastors were themselves so persua∣ded of it, that twas needless to instruct them in it, or exhort them to in∣struct their Flocks in it. But what likelihood is there that this in numer∣able multitude of people of both Sexes, and of all Ages and conditions of life, that knew not their Creed, nor the Lords Prayer, and lived without any knowledg of the Principles of Christian Religion should know the Do∣ctrin of the Real Presence. Were they all in those days born imbued with this Doctrin? What likelihood is there those Abbots that knew not the Sta∣tutes of their Monasteries, and who to excuse themselves from reading 'em when offered to them, were forced to say, nescimus literas, were not like∣wise greatly ignorant of the Mystery of the Eucharist? What reason is there to say the Pastors themselves were commonly instructed in it, seeing Odon. Abbot of Clugny, as we have already seen, testifies that those who

pretended to be learned yet had little knowledg of the Sacrament till they read Paschasus his Book.

THERE were likewise other Reformations made in this Century, but they served only to establish some order in the Monasteries, and the obser∣vance of particular Statutes under which the Religious are obliged to live by their profession; and this does not hinder but that ignorance and careles∣ness were very great in respect of the Mystery of Religion.

AS to the Conversions, 'tis certain there were some, but Mr. Arnaud knows very well the greatest part of 'em were wrought by force, or the in∣terests and intrigues of Princes. And thus those that were converted might well embrace their Religion implicitly or in gross, without troubling them∣selves with particular Doctrins, as the greatest part of the People of the Ro∣man Church do at present. In the year 912, according to Matthew of West∣minister, Rollon, or Raoul, Duke of Normandy embraced the Christian Religi∣on to espouse Gill the Daughter or Sister of Charles III. King of France. In the year 925, Sitricus King of Denmark caused himself to be Baptised to espouse Edgite the Sister of Etelstan King of England, but a while after he returned to Paganism. In the year 926, Elstan having vanquish'd in Battle several petty Kings which were then in England, obliged them and their Subjects to receive the Christian Faith. In the year 949, Otton King of Germany having subdued the Sclavonians, these people redeemed their lives and Country by being Baptiz'd. In the year 965, Poland was converted to the Christian Faith by the Marriage of Miezislaus its King with the Daugh∣ter of Boleslaüs Duke of Bohemia. John XIII. Anti-Pope to Benedict V. sent thither Gilles Bishop of Tusculum to establish under the Authority of the King his Religion in that Country. In the year 989, Adalbert Arch-Bishop of Prague went into Hungary to endeavour the conversion of those people; but this was under the authority and power of Geisa King of Hun∣gary, who was converted by commerce with Christians whom he freely per∣mitted to live in his Kingdom. So that all these conversions about which Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity make such a noise to advance the glory, zeal, and knowledg of the Bishops of the 10th. Century do not at all conclude what they pretend.

LET the Reader then joyn all these things together, and judg which of us two has most reason, Mr. Arnaud who maintains it to be impossible that the belief of the Real Presence, supposing 'twere a novelty in the Church, could make any progress therein in the 10th. Century without Disputes and Commotions, or I who maintain that these progresses were not only possi∣ble, but easie to be conceiv'd, First, There were Disputes on this subject in the 9th. Century, which is a matter of fact not to be denied. Secondly, Altho the question was therein agitated, yet was it not decided by any Council, nor by the Church of Rome, nor by any other publick Authori∣ty. Thirdly, Those of the 10th. Century fell into a very confused know∣ledg of the Mystery of Christian Religion, in general, the People, the Re∣ligious, and the greatest part of the Priests and Bishops, lived in very gross ignorance, and in a prodigious neglect of the chief Offices of their Charge, as we have fully proved. Fourthly, Ecclesiastical Discipline was wholly laid aside in this Age, and the temporal state of the Church lay in a perpe∣tual and general confusion. Fifthly, It appears that the Doctrin of Bertram which was contrary to the Real Presence was therein preached in several

places. Sixthly, It also appears that that of Paschasus was so too, and was endeavour'd to be under-propt by Miracles, and Pastors exhorted to read Paschasus his Book to be instructed in the Mystery of the Eucharist. Se∣venthly, To which we may add, that the persons that taught the Real Pre∣sence in this Century were people of great credit and authority. Odon that confirm'd it by Miracles was Archbishop of Canterbury, and was in great reputation. Th'other Odon who had such an esteem for Paschasus his Book was an Abbot of Clugny, a restorer and reformer of several Monaste∣ries, of whom Baronius says, That he was chosen by God as another Jeremiah * 1.354 to pluck up, destroy, scatte••, plant and build in that wretched Age.

ALL these matters of fact being clearly proved as they are, what im∣possibility is there that the Doctrin of Paschasus (which he taught in the 9th. Century, as an explication of the true Doctrin of the Church, con∣firming it as much as he could by several passages of the Fathers taken in a wrong sense, no publick Authority having condemn'd it) should have fol∣lowers in the 10th. That these his Disciples finding 'emselves credited and authoris'd by their Offices and Employs in a Church wherein ignorance, carelesness, and confusion reign'd, have themselves communicated and dis∣pers'd it in the minds of several, without resistance; and thus this Doctrin has made in the space of these hundred years insensible progresses, establish∣ing it self by little and little under the name and title of the Churches Faith, till having been at length directly and formally contradicted in the 11th. as an innovation, this Doctrin found it self the strongest, and triumph'd over the contrary Doctrin. What difficulty can be rais'd against this Hy∣pothesis, which may not be casily solved? If it be said that Paschasus did not propose any thing but what all the faithful already distinctly knew and believed, Paschasus himself will answer for me, that he has moved several persons to the understanding of this Mystery, which supposes that before his time 'twas not sufficiently known, and that he discovered things of which the people were ignorant. Odon will answer for me that the most learned had but little knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist if they had not read Paschasus his Book. If it be said his Doctrin met with no contra∣diction, Paschasus himself will tell you that some blamed him for attributing more to the word of Christ than the truth it self has promised us, and 'tis hereon he disputes against his Adversaries. Should a man deny that the two Doctrins, that of Paschasus, and that of his Adversaries were both taught in the 10th. Century, he will (I think) be convinced of the contrary by the proofs I have given; and in effect there's no great likelihood that the Do∣ctrin of John Scot, and Bertram, who wrote by the command of King Charles the Bald of France, and that of Raban, three persons of great note in the Church, should be thus extinct in so short a time, without any Coun∣cils condemning it, without the Court of Romes concerning her self with it, without the interposition of temporal Princes, and that there should, I say, remain no trace of it in the 10th. Century. He that shall think it strange that the people of the 10th. Century have taken for the Faith of the Church that which was in effect an innovation, need only call to mind the igno∣rance wherein the people lived; for when a man does not know what the Church believes, 'tis no hard matter for him to be deceived, and to take that which she does not believe for what she does. That man that questi∣ons this ignorance need only for his conviction to read the proofs I have gi∣ven of it. Should any man alledg it to be strange such men as an Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and an Abbot of Clugny should be deceived, 'tis easie

to shew the weakness of this objection by th' example of several that are men of better parts than those now in question, who now take for the Do∣ctrin of the Church what is not so. The Disciples of Paschasus found in his Book such specious Arguments as deceiv'd 'em, and 'tis a thing ordinary enough to be surprized by false colours. Should it be said to be impossible but that the Disciples of Paschasus (knowing Bertram's Doctrin was taught in several places) have openly condemned it and disputed against those that held it. First, I answer, I do not know whether we may absolutely say there was no dispute about it, for there may be disputes and we not know of 'em; but supposing there were not? I answer, that seeing 'tis no Miracle that disputation should cease sometimes in an enlightned Age, amongst lear∣ned and zealous men, without any Conversions on either side, 'tis much less one in a dark and troublesom Age wherein persons thought of nothing less than disputing. The Disciples of Paschasus thought they were oblig'd to be contented in recommending the reading of Paschasus his Book to all persons, and in confirming their Opinion by Miracles. If it be likewise said that those that followed the Doctrin of Bertram ought to dispute against those that follow'd that of Paschasus, I must say so too, but that men do not do always what they are obliged to do, because they have not always that zeal, knowledg, or industry which they ought to have. How should they dispute one against another, who left for the most part their Flocks without Pasture, without Instruction, without Preaching. Howsoever, this is as I said a thing certain, that there were persons in this Century, who held the Doctrin of Paschasus, and others that of Bertram. Whether they dispu∣ted or no, it concerns me not to know; 'tis sufficient for me that this Age held both these Doctrins, which I think cannot be denied. When two op∣posite Doctrins are taught, and both as the true Faith of the Church in an Age of Ignorance, to speak after the manner of men, and according to the terms of our Dispute, 'tis equally impossible either of them should get the upper hand; because they want that understanding which is requisite to to make aright judgment: and moreover, if the one be asserted by persons of Authority and great Reputation, it is almost impossible but this will carry it away from the other. Whence it follows the progress of the Real Pre∣sence in the 10th. Century has been not only possible, but easie, and even unavoidable. To which, if we add another matter of fact, which is that we do not find there were Disputes in this Century on this subject; whence we will conclude that these progresses we speak of have been made in an insensible manner, at least in our respect, which is to say, that if there were any noise or contests, the knowledg of 'em never came to us, which suffices to decide the question between us two.

AND this is what I had to say touching the state of the 10th. Century in respect of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. I take no notice of those violent accusations which Mr. Arnaud brings against our Morals, un∣der pretence we do not reckon Piety to consist in affected Penances, and out∣ward Mortifications, which for the most part have more shew than sub∣stance. We praise and recommend as earnestly as we can the practice of Fasting, but believe it better to abstain from Vice than Meats; the use of which God has given us with sobriety. We believe every man ought to be content with the condition wherein God has placed him, to make good use of his Estate, and endure Poverty without envy, murmurings, and repi∣nings; to live holily in Caelibacy, and chastly in Marriage; to carry our selves justly to our Inferiors, and obediently to Superiors. But we do not

approve of mens withdrawing themselves out of that rank and order where∣in providence has placed them, nor making of particular rules, and bind∣ing men to th' observance of 'em by Vows, nor that the Rich should ransom their sins by great offerings to Ecclesiastical persons who have no need of 'em, ••or of Voluntary Poverty, much less that men should imagin to satis∣fie the Almighty for their sins, and merit any thing of him by these kind of observances, 'Tis not from Seneca we have learn'd this Divinity, but S. Paul. This great Doctor would not have us to be concerned for these things, which he calls Commandments and Doctrins of men, which says he, have some appearance of wisdom in a voluntary devotion and humility of spirit, and in that they spare not in any kind the flesh. Let Mr. Arnaud extol as much as he pleases the glory of the 10th. Century by these mortifications, he shall never persuade reasonable people that an age wherein appears on one hand an almost universal ignorance of all that is good, a prodigious neglect of the mysteries of Religion, an almost universal corruption of manners, a strange kind of Devotion to all manner of Vices, a deplorable relaxation of Ecclesiastical Discipline; and on the other several Monasteries founded, and outward austerity practis'd, that this could be an Age of Benediction and Grace.

MOREOVER, what we have said of Edgar King of England, Dun∣stan Archbishop of Canterbury, and the quarrel of the Ecclesiasticks in Eng∣land, has been grounded on good Testimonies. William of Malmsbury tells us Edgar was reproached for dishonoring the first years of his Reign with Cruelties, and strange Pollutions, one of which was that being enamored with the Wife of Etelwold his Favorite, he got him out one day into the Forrest to Hunt, and there caused him to be cruelly murder'd. Another of his wickednesses was the forcibly carrying away a Maid that he loved, who to avoid his pursuits had cast her self into a Monastery, and taken therein the Vail. Another time falling in love with a Dukes Daughter, and ha∣ving given orders to have her brought to him, the Mother who would not consent her Daughter should be dishonored, substituted one of her Maids in her place, who was also very fair; which Edgar understanding, he was thereat so enraged that he changed their rank and quality, and made this Servant Mistriss over her own Mistriss. He a while after espoused Elfride, the Widow of his Favorite, whom he had caused to be slain.

IT is said that Dunstan Excommunicated him, because he had violated the respect due to a Monastery, and drew out thence a Woman who wore the Habit of a Religious, altho she was none, and abused her. It's certain, * 1.355 says he, that Wulfritte (for this was the Maids name) was not a Nun but a Laick, who fearing the King, had taken the Vail, which the King snatching from her abused her. At which Dunstan being offended in that he dared to lust, after a person that had only the Ʋmbra of Religion, made use of his Pon∣tifical power against him. Now as we must judg of the zeal of Dunstan from the Historians own words; so we cannot but say there was a great deal of hypocrisie in this action; for is it not an horrible hypocrisie to have less re∣gard to the Sacrament of Baptism, an Ordinance instituted by God him∣himself, than to this human institution. William of Malmsbury represents Dunstan displaying all his Pontificial Power to revenge the outrage offer'd to the shadow of Religion, Ʋnde offensum, says he, beatum Dunstanum quod il∣lam concupisset quoe vel umbraticè sanctimonialis fuisset, vigorem pontificalem in eum egisse, of the Consecration of Baptism, or the enormity of the acti∣on

he says never a word. Let not Mr. Arnaud take it ill that I call this hy∣pocrisie. He says my censure is unjust, because this Maid was Baptiz'd, and so Edgar had violated in her the character and the consecration of Ba∣ptism as well as in the others. But what signifies this remark? This Maid was Baptiz'd without doubt; and for that reason we esteem it ill that Dun∣stan grounded his severity, and his Episcopal fury on a bare shadow of Re∣ligion without any notice of her Baptism.

AS to the quarrel of the Ecclesiasticks and Monks in England, I have said nothing but what is grounded on the testimony of Polydor Virgil, as appears by what I related in my Answer to the Perpetuity. The Historian lays it upon the insatiable covetousness of the Monks, neither does he excuse * 1.356 the Priests from the same charge; and as to the image of the Crucifix that spake, he says expresly there were several people of good report that believed 'twas rather an Oracle of Phaebus, than an Oracle of God; which is to say, that this voice was uttered not by the will of God, but by the fraud of men. What I also said that their disputations were not concerning the Gospel, that they were all agreed to let that rest without understanding it, without preach∣ing it, and without reading it is grounded on the testimony of Elfric Arch∣bishop of Canterbury, who lived at the same time, for he was Primate of England in the year 989, a year after the death of Dunstan, according to the report of Matthew of Westminster. In these days, says Elfric, the Priests * 1.357 and Bishops are become so careless and idle, who ought to be the Pillars of the Church, that they regard not the holy Scriptures, nor instruct Disciples that may become their Successors: as we find several Holy men did who left behind 'em several good Disciples. Their minds are more taken up with worldly Ho∣nors, Concupisence and Covetousness than the Laicks: and what a sad exam∣ple do they give their Flocks, not daring to speak of Justice, because they nei∣ther love it, nor observe it.

CHAP. VII.

Mr. Arnaud's Objections against what he terms Machins of Forgetful∣ness, Examin'd. The Examples of the insensible Changes alledg'd in answer to the Perpetuity, Defended.

I SAID in my Answer to the Perpetuity, That if we had this Dispute * 1.358 with Greeks or Egyptians we should not perhaps take it ill for them to ask us how this change was wrought; but we cannot bear without some kind of regret and vexation these same Transubstantiators, this very party that made the change, who have used a thousand tricks insensibly to effect it, that have made use of Fraud and Violence, to hinder its being wrought with noise, that have taken infinite care to deprive posterity of the knowledg of the man∣ner how 'twas done, to come now to us and demand how this could be.

WHEREUPON Mr. Arnaud tells us first, That we have in effect to * 1.359 do with not only Egyptians and Greeks, but likewise Moscovites, Ethiopians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians and Indians; that all these people make the

same questions as the Author of the Perpetuity, and require the same satis∣faction. But that Mr. Claude cannot answer 'em, seeing they had no Pascha∣sus, nor Popes, nor Monks, nor Councils, nor Croisado's, nor Inquisitors to work this Establishment. In the second place he says that I am unjust in ac∣cusing * 1.360 the Catholicks of this Age for making the change in question, and em∣ploying Croisado's and Inquisitors against us. That these are not the same per∣sons that were in the 10th. Century, and that as to his part he has made use neither of Cheats nor Artisices to hinder this change's being made with noise.

THE first of these Answers is already refuted. We have nothing to do either with Greeks, or Egyptians, Moscovites, Ethiopians, Nestorians, Jaco∣bites, Armenians, nor Indians in the affair of Transubstantiation. Mr. Ar∣naud puts questions to us about them without their consent or order. The Doctrin of Transubstantiation has been a long time insinuating of it self amongst 'em, which when effected we shall have the Emissaries and Scholars of the Seminaries to be Witnesses of th' Innovation.

THE second Answer is frivolous. We neither accuse Mr. Arnaud nor his Friends personally for having done any thing to deprive us of the know∣ledg of the manner in which the change hapned: whatsoever they have thereunto contributed consists only in the false Citations, and Sophisms in their Books, but of these we will not here complain. We only complain here of their drawing advantage from the ill means that have been used by other persons on their side, whose Successors and Defenders they are, to de∣prive Posterity of the knowledg of th' Innovation in question, and I believe there's a great deal of Justice in this complaint. A Council has caused John Scot's Book to be burn'd, there are none to be had of 'em at this day. We have lost the Writings of Heribald Bishop of Auxerre, the Letter of Raban to Egilon, Eriger's Book against Paschasus, Berenger's Works, their Books who wrote in his favour in the 11th. Century. We know no more of this long History than what we can gather here and there in suspected Authors Adversaries to Berengarius and his Doctrin. Moreover there have been given the publick under the name of the Fathers false and supposed Books: their real Works have been alter'd, and false pieces inserted in them to make the world believe there were no Innovations in their Doctrin. I say * 1.361 nothing but what may be easily justified, and which I have already clearly proved elsewhere. If I complain of Mr. Arnaud's injustice who makes ad∣vantage of these frauds put upon us, and which he knows to be such, in like manner as what the Emissaries have done in the East, whence he would make us believe they of those parts have ever held Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. This is I think a complaint for which no rational person will condemn me.

I likewise proposed some examples of insensible changes which have hap∣ned in the Latin Church, whence I concluded 'twas not impossible one should have hapned by the introduction of the Doctrins of Transubstantia∣tion and the Real Presence. Mr. Arnaud to extricate himself out of the perplexity which these examples caused him, has devised some distinctions, some of 'em imaginary, and others unnecessary, by means whereof he has pretended to invalidate the change in question, and they are these diffe∣rences which we must now examine.

IT cannot be denied but that the custom of communicating of both kinds, that of giving the Communion to little Children, and that of Fast∣ing till the Evening, and some others have been chang'd in the Latin Church. Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it, but tells us these customs are still used in the Eastern Churches, so that the change has not been vniver∣sal, whereas if that of the establishment of Transubstantiation were true, we must suppose it hapned at the same time throughout all the world, and all Christian Churches. This is his first difference which he amplifies and ex∣aggerates after his manner. But the answer is not difficult, to wit, that there is not any Transubstantiation or Real Presence, such as the Roman Church holds in the Eastern Churches, or if there be, 'tis brought in by the Emissaries and Scholars of the Romish Seminaries: besides that a change is not ever the less insensible in respect of those that have admitted it, for its being less universal.

THE second difference is, that in the greatest part of th' expressions which I propose the point concerns some establish'd custom, whereas here the question is touching a new Doctrin universally establish'd, which is, says he, extremely different, a general inconveniency may universally abolish a custom; but when the question is touching the remedying of an abuse every man follows his particular judgment in the choice of remedies. And this especially shews us th' impossibility of the change in the subject of the Eucharist. For this must be said to be an universal establishment of an extraordinary Doctrin which cannot subsist with the infinite diversity of judgments, respects and inclinations which happen in so many different Churches, which being divided in such small matters, cannot be expected to unite in a Doctrin so offensive that 'tis strange it has found any followers, neither could it, had it not been authoriz'd by an universal consent.

I confess there's a great deal of difference betwixt an ancient custom that is abolish'd, and a new Doctrin that is establish'd. But this difference does Mr. Arnaud more hurt than good. For ignorant people are more ear∣nest to conserve their customs which they know, than they are to reject a Doctrin which they know but imperfectly, and concerning whose novelty they cannot judg. When an ancient publick and perpetual custom is abo∣lish'd, th' innovation is more manifest than when a new Doctrin is intro∣duc'd, for the novelty of it is conceal'd, 'tis offer'd as being the ancient Faith; and they that offer it pervert for this effect some ordinary expressi∣ons, turning 'em into another sense. Customs are of themselves popular, and when they are changed, people are apt to imagin their Religion is about being taken away from 'em: but as to Doctrinals, the people are wont to suffer those that have greatest authority in the Church to preach what they please, and obediently receive it without any examination. As to the rest, 'tis certain there has hapned something in reference to the Eucharist, which is like what Mr. Arnaud observes, that when we leave an ancient cu∣stom every man takes a different course, and follows his own particular judgment. For the Latins and Greeks in departing from the plain and ge∣nuine explication of the Ancients, which was, that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are figures and images of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, have faln upon different sentiments, the Greeks having taken the party of the union of the Bread with the Divinity, and augmentation of the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Latins that of Transubstantiation. But we must

not pass over in silence what Mr. Arnaud confesses, that the Doctrin of the Latins is so offensive that 'tis strange it has found any followers, had it not been authorised by an universal consent. This acknowledgment must at least shew the world how important it is to prevent being abused by this pretended universal consent, and engaging in a sentiment which moreover is so offensive. But as the discussion of this question touching the universal consent has no proportion with the capacity of most people, this very thing should shew, that to ground ones Faith on a solid foundation, wherein there's no deceit to be feared, the best which one can do, is to keep to the Word of God.

THE third difference which Mr. Arnaud remarks consists in that the changes which I alledg are changes of Practice and Discipline, whereas that in question is a change of Opinion and Doctrin. Now, says he, Discipline is a thing of it self liable to change, and the benefit of it depends on circumstan∣ces which are mutable; but Doctrins are immutable in their own nature: that which is true at one time being so always. Every body knows that Disciplin may be alter'd, and every one knows that Doctrins cannot change. So, adds he, to introduce a new Discipline, 'tis not necessary to deceive the world, nor shew 'tis ancient, but to introduce a new Doctrin the novelty must of necessity de dis∣guised, which is oftentimes impossible. In fine, the belief of a Doctrin neces∣sarily imports the condemnation of the contrary opinion, whereas one may em∣brace a Discipline different from another, yet without condemning that which one leaves.

THERE are several things to be said to this discourse. For first, It is not true that all the points of Practice and Discipline are mutable. The practices which our Saviour Christ himself has instituted in his Church with an express command of observing 'em are perpetual, immutable, and necessary, at least as to necessity of precept, and such is the Communion of both kinds. Secondly, There are few persons amongst the people that are prepossessed with this opinion that the points of practice and Discipline may be changed, the greatest part go not so far as this distinction of points of Practice, and Doctrins. The abolishment of a practice rather appears to them a change of Religion than an abolition or introduction of a Doctrin, because of two parts whereof a Religion consists, to wit, the Doctrins, and Practices, these last are most popular. Thirdly, There are practices which are so strictly joyn'd with Doctrins, and are in such a manner the dependan∣ces and consequences of 'em, that 'tis impossible to change them, with∣out also changing the Doctrins, and consequently without condemning all contrary Doctrins. Such is the practice of communicating under both kinds; for it was anciently grounded on this belief, that Christ's command belongs as well to Ministers as the People; as appears by Paschasus his own testimony, Drink ye all of it, says he, to wit, as well the Ministers as other * 1.362 Believers: and this was joyn'd with the condemnation of the contrary pra∣ctise. It is not well done, says the same Paschasus, to Communicate of the Flesh without the Blood: This Mystery, says Pope Gelasius, cannot be divided without committing a great Sacrilege. It is a mere abusing the world, says Mr. Arnaud, to pretend to establish an universal Doctrin which is received in the whole Church on a single passage of a Popes Writings, recited by Gratien, and to oppose this single passage against the constant practice of all the Churches in the world, who have given the Communion to the faithful under one species in sundry occasions. But of whom would Mr. Arnaud have us to learn bet∣ter

the belief of the Church in the time of Gelasius him∣self, who was at the head of the Church of Rome, who calls her self the faithful depository of Tradition? Is Mr. Arnaud so scandaliz'd at the pro∣ducing of a Testimony of a Pope? It is Gratien, says he, that relates it. Is it the less authentick for that? Gratien did not invent it to serve us, we did not inspire him with it; and the Correctors of Gratien have not so much as doubted of it. This passage, adds he, may receive several rational explicati∣ons. I know he endeavours to elude every thing by explications, but we should know whether these explications be just: Mr. Arnaud should pro∣pose 'em, and then we might examin 'em. This constant practice of all the Churches that have given the Communion to the faithful under one kind in several occasions is likewise a thing that ought to be proved. Mr. Arnaud knows he need not long stay for an answer, to what's alledg'd touching that subject.

THE Communion of little Children is likewise another practice appen∣dant to a Doctrin, for the ancient Church had this custom, because she be∣liev'd this Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of Infants. S. Austin says so in express terms. Ecclesioe Christi tenent proeter baptismum * 1.363 & participationem Dominicoe mensoe non solum non ad regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem & vitam oeternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire. Mr. Arnaud is angry with me for making this belief an universal Doctrin of the Church, To the end, says he, its authority may be (with plausible pretences) trampled * 1.364 under foot, and a Doctrin of Tradition rejected. But what have I done in this matter more than the Jesuite Maldonat (who was as much a Catholick as Mr. Arnaud) did before me? Missam facio, says he, Augustini & Inno∣centii * 1.365 primi sententiam quoe sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eu∣charistam etiam, infantibus necessariam. What have I done more than Binius in his Notes on Innocent's Letter to the Fathers of the Council of Mi∣levé. It appears, says he, that Innocent's opinion which has been in vogue for six hundred years, and which was followed by S, Austin was, that the Eucha∣rist is necessary to little Children. But seeing the command to receive the Eu∣charist does not oblige those that cannot receive it, and that we must reckon them unfit to receive the Eucharist that cannot receive it with the respect due to it, the Church, instructed by the use of several Ages, and the Decree of the Council of Trent has well determin'd, not only that the reception of the Eu∣charist is not necessary to Children, but that it ought not to be given 'em.

I know, adds Mr. Arnaud, that there are on this subject some passages of * 1.366 S. Austin and Innocent the First, which are difficult. But Mr. Claude knows very well that Fulgentius and Bede have explained these passages. He knows also that Cardinal Perron and several other Catholick Authors have solved them. To the passages of S. Austin, and Innocent, Mr. Arnaud might add others, which will admit of no explication, as those of Gelasius the First in one of his Epistles, of the Author of the Hypognosticks, of Gregory the Second, of the second Council of Toul, and some others. And as to the soft'ning Expositions of Fulgentius, they hinder not but that the opinion of the ancient Church was in effect what we now presented, as also the An∣swers of Cardinal Perron, which are for the most part but mere illusions.

WE may reckon amongst the practices depending on a Doctrin that of the relative adoration of Images which has insinuated it self into France, and Germany since the 8th. and 9th. Century. For it is certain that in all

the foregoing Ages and long after, France and Germany rejected this Adora∣tion as unlawful and contrary to true Piety. Which appears by the Coun∣cil of Francfort held under Charlemain, and consisting of above three hun∣dred Bishops, of France, Italy, Germany, and England, wherein the second Council of Nice was condemned. This moreover appears by the Book of Images of Charlemain, by the Testimonies of Agobard Bishop of Lyons, Jonas Bishop of Orleans, and Walafridus Strabo, by the Council of Paris, under Lewis the Debonnair, and by the Continuer of Climoinus. We find likewise in Nicetas Choniatus that the Germans in the 12th. Century persi∣sted in this opinion. The Germans, says he, and the Armenians agree in this, * 1.367 that they reject the worshiping of Images. Mr. Arnaud, who cannot deny so plain a matter of fact, says, that the Bishops of Francfort admitted the ado∣ration of the Cross, which is only an image of the true Cross, that they admit∣ted likewise the historical use of images; and that without doing violence to nature, the historical use of Images cannot be separated from the relative ado∣rations of the same images. But this is an impertinent disputing against the Fathers of Francfort, and the Churches that have follow'd them. The que∣stion is not whether they were contrary to themselves, or whether they did violence to nature. But whether it be true that the contrary belief and practice have insensibly crept into these very Churches, without noise, op∣position, and disputations. Now this is what cannot be denied.

IT is not at all strange, says Mr. Arnaud, that the particular opinion of these Bishops which is contrary to nature, reason, and the general consent of the whole Church should be laid aside, and that the Popes who used this condescen∣tion towards 'em did not openly oppose 'em, but tarried till time wore out this Error, whereby they have had the success which they expected from so chari∣table a conduct. So far is it from being strange that this should happen, that 'twould be a greater wonder if this has not hapned. This methinks is a dis∣posing too freely of the judgments and consent of rational people. It will not then be strange according to Mr. Arnaud that the Popes, and all this party that were in the opinion and practice of the relative adoration of Images should use any condescention towards three hundred Bishops assem∣bled in Council, the Kingdom of France; and all Germany which were in a contrary Belief and practice, that they should be cautious of opposing them in this particular, and patiently expect till time remedied this mistake. But according to the same Mr. Arnaud, this will be the greatest of all follies, and the highest extravagancy imaginable to suppose that some Paschasists, and Bertramists, which is to say, those that believed the Real Presence, and those that believed it not in the 10th. Century, did not dispute one against another: and altho that moreover they were not in a condition to dispute, and had other things to trouble themselves about, other interests to mind, yet must it be a folly to imagin they were of that patient and charitable disposition the Popes were of, who referred these things to be remedied by time. Mr. Arnaud forbids us to be astonish'd at France and Germanies in∣sensibly changing a Doctrin and a Rite; he forbids us to concern our selves about the questions of the birth and progress of this change, the stupidity of the Bishops on both sides, who look'd upon one another as Excommuni∣cated persons, yet without daring to speak to one another about it, being withheld by a holy condescention, and the hope of the good effects of time, and by the marvellous meekness of the Laicks, some of whom were wor∣shipers of Images and others not, and some of 'em consequently Anathema∣tiz'd by the Council of Nice, and others condemned by that of Francfort,

and yet lived in peace, without noise, without mutual oppositions, with∣out disputes. But if we will hear him on the other change touching the Eucharist, he commands us not only to be astonish'd, but to esteem it a fearful prodigy that the Doctrin of the Real Presence which sprang up in the 9th. Century, was taught and maintain'd as being the ancient and per∣petual Doctrin of the Fathers, should make insensible progresses during the darkness of the 10th. Century, and that there should have been per∣sons in the same Church that have believed it, and others that have not, without falling foul upon, and opposing one another. When the question of the adoration of Images was agitated in the East, it vehemently heated mens minds, so that each party proceeded to Anathema's, Banishments, and Blood-shed: and in the West, the contrary party to the Adoration wrote, and held Assemblies, whereas when the question of the Real Presence was handled, in the 9th. Century there were neither Councils called, nor Ana∣thema's pronounced, nor Banishments, nor any extraordinary matter. Yet in respect of the former, Mr. Arnaud will that by virtue of condescention and th' effects of time, the Party for the Adoration has insensibly fortifi'd themselves, and at length got the upper hand; but as to the other he will not grant that the Real Presence could advance and communicate it self to several persons, but the whole Universe must be shaken with it. Let the Rea∣der then Judg of Mr. Arnaud's equity.

NOTHING, says he, is more astonishing than this universal forgetful∣ness * 1.368 in the 11th. Century, whether there was therein any other Doctrin amongst Christians than that of the Real Presence. But who told him that they of the 11th. Century forgot the contest which had been in the 9th. Was not John Scot's Book burnt by a Council? Let him forget it if he will, there will redound no advantage to him by it, seeing 'tis certain that in the 9th. Century the Doctrin contrary to the Real Presence was taught; I mean, that which asserts the Eucharist not to be the Body of Jesus Christ, Christ born of the Virgin, and that 'tis only the Body of Jesus Christ Sacramen∣tally and virtually. Moreover, Mr. Arnaud does not observe that this ve∣ry thing is against him; for if it be true that those of the 11th. Century forgot such a matter of fact as that which is justifi'd by the testimony of Paschasus himself, this is a sufficient mark that the 10th. Century which holds the middle between the 9th. and 11th. was o'respread with thick darkness, seeing the ideas, and memory of a thing so considerable were therein lost.

BUT we must examin his fourth difference. A fourth circumstance, * 1.369 says he, which does further strangely distinguish this pretended change in the Doctrin of the Eucharist, from all these other changes, is the very nature of this Doctrin. (He means of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.) For it is clear, that had it been new it must have extraordinarily surpriz'd all those that never heard of it, which is to say the whole Church. I confess that in effect the Doctrin of the Conversion of Substances in the Eucha∣rist has something in it that is very surprizing and more offensive than what∣soever is done in other changes. But Mr. Arnaud knows very well that this quality of offensive and surprizing in a Doctrin, is not strong enough to produce actually of it self an opposition or a rejection; on the contrary, most people love in matters of Religion those things that are sur∣prizing and wonderful, of which we see examples in most Religions. But howsoever the Teachers of the Real Presence provided against this incon∣veniency

three ways, the first was the making 'em a Buckler of the Almigh∣ty power of God. The second, the publishing of Miracles which really hap∣ned about the Eucharist, to wit, visible apparitions of Flesh and Blood. And the third, the asserting 'twas always the Faith and belief of the Church, ac∣commodating to their sense some passages of the Fathers ill taken and ill explained.

HITHERTO we have had whatsoever Mr. Arnaud has said that is considerable on the question of the possibility or impossibility of the change in his 6th. and 9th. Book. Whatsoever is therein of moment we have considered and answer'd solidly and pertinently as Mr. Arnaud him∣self, I hope, will acknowledg. I should have been very glad if he would have told us his opinion on a passage, taken out of a Book, called, The new Heresie publickly maintain'd at Paris in the College of Clermont. The Author of this Book therein discovers the order and means which he pre∣tends his adversaries use to introduce Novelties insensibly into the Church, and he instances for this purpose the Parable of the Tares that were sown in the night, whilst men slept, which took root, and in time grew up, which is very near the manner after which, according to us, the change was wrought touching the Eucharist, This Author has well comprehended it, as judging it far from being impossible; but Mr. Arnaud thought meet to say nothing to this passage.

I should likewise been very glad, that having treated as he has done with great earnestness of the Doctrin of the Greek and other Eastern Churches, he had made reflection on several Doctrins and Practices which separate them from the Latins, and in which there have hapned of necessity, either amongst the one or the others, insensible changes. For example, how came it to pass the Greeks lost the belief of Purgatory, supposing this were a Doctrin of the first establishment of Christian Religion. How came they to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and also that unleaven'd Bread in the administration of the Eucharist is an abomi∣nation, and likewise that the Priests may as well as the Bishops administer Confirmation; and again, that the Church of Rome is not infallible in mat∣ters of Faith, and that the Saints enjoy not the beatifical vision of God till the Resurrection: and in short, how came they to believe all the rest of those opinions which they hold contrary to those of the Latins? There must of necessity have been a time wherein the Greeks and Latins were agreed in all these Articles, whether we conceive that then neither of 'em held them, which is to say, that these Articles be not of Apostolical Tradi∣tion, whether we suppose they held them in common since the first Preach∣ing of Christianity, which supposes that these Opinions were left 'em by the Apostles, or whether we imagin that the Greeks as well as the Latins have ever held what they now hold at this day, but that they supported mutually one another, which supposes that both of 'em held these Opini∣ons as needless ones, and regarded the contrary opinions as tolerable ones. Now in whatsoever sort we take it, there have of necessity hapned insensi∣ble changes without dispute, noise, and opposition, altho there may be the same objections brought against 'em, and the same questions started which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have urged against the change in question.

SHOULD we suppose a time wherein neither the one nor the other held these Opinions, how come they in fine to be imbued so generally with 'em, and so contradictorily, that a whole Church should hold the contrary of what the other believes? Is there not in this double change at least as much reason to be astonish'd and surpriz'd, as in that which has hapned ac∣cording to us, in respect of the Real Presence? Have both the Latins and Greeks faln asleep without knowing any thing of the fire of Purgatory, or Procession of the Holy Spirit, or quality which the Eucharistical Bread ought to be of, or th' administration of Confirmation, or Beatifical Vision of the Saints, nor th' Infallibility of the Church of Rome; and have they all together at the same time awaken'd possess'd with contrary opinions on each of these points? Whence had they their opinions? Did not he who first taught them 'em advertise 'em that he Preached Novelties to 'em which they never heard of? If he did tell 'em of this, 'tis strange he should be followed immediately by his whole Church, and that such new Doctrins should be so immediately and zealously embraced. If he did not tell 'em this, 'tis then very strange no body took notice of these Innovations, that the Bishops and Priests did not oppose 'em, and that of all that innu∣merable multitude of Religious persons not one of 'em has exclaimed against the Innovator. Had the Innovator made use of some expressions of Scri∣pture and of the Church to conceal the novelty of these Doctrins, and to make people believe that that was the ancient Faith, how can one conceive these terrible equivocations, that expressions have been taken in one sense during a certain time generally by the whole Latin Church, or generally by the whole Greek Church, and that immediately in another, they have been taken generally by the same Churches in another sense?

IF we suppose a time wherein both Greeks and Latins believed the same thing in respect of these points, the same difficulties and the same questions return in respect of that of the two Churches which has changed. Suppose for example that the Greeks and Latins both believed the Church of Rome is infallible, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that one may use indifferently in the Eucharist unleavened Bread, and that which is leaven'd, and that the Bishop alone has the right of Confirmation, how happens it the Greeks have pass'd into contrary Opinions without di∣visions amongst 'em till the Council of Florence? Has this hapned all at a stroke? Was this done insensibly and by succession of time? If this has hapned all at once, it must be granted this change is exceeding strange, that so many Bishops, Priests, and Religious should so suddenly renounce their former Opinions, and embrace contrary ones without any Divisions amongst 'em. But 'tis yet strange, they should change 'em without perceiving it, without acknowledging they had made great and considerable Innovations in their Church, and comparing their first and ancient Faith with this new one. For 'tis certain that in respect of all these Articles which are in con∣test, the Greeks positively maintain and have ever maintain'd they have not innovated in any thing. If this change was wrought by succession of time, let us be shew'd the Disputes and Divisions they have had amongst 'em since on these Articles they have separated from the Church of Rome, till the Greek Empire fell into the hands of the Latins, which is to say du∣ring above two hundred and fifty years. If it be alledg'd the change was made insensibly, we must return to the four times of the Author of the Per∣petuity, and apply to 'em the same difficulties and objections he has raised.

IN fine, if we suppose a time wherein the two Churches held each of 'em their Opinions, yet mutually bearing with one another without pro∣ceeding to an express condemnation of the contrary Opinions, besides that it is difficult to comprehend how the Latins believing the Roman Church infallible, and their Sacrifice with unleaven'd Bread good and lawful, could suffer the Greeks holding on the contrary that the Roman Church may err in matters of Faith. Besides this, I say, 'twill be demanded how they could change so suddenly their Opinion in reference to the controverted Articles, holding 'em before for unnecessary points, and afterwards for necessary ones, respecting before the contrary Opinions to theirs as tolerable Errors, and afterwards respecting 'em as abominable and intolerable ones: where∣upon one may make the same questions, how it could come to pass that the whole Greek Church has believ'd at one time that the Eucharist of the Latins with unleaven'd Bread was nevertheless the true Body of Jesus Christ, an object of supreme Adoration, and in another that 'twas only a dead Azym, a Jewish abomination; that she should respect it at one time with that Reverence and Devotion due only to the Son of God, and at another immediately succeeding the first, which is to say from night to morning, regard it with horror, washing and purifying the Altars whereon it had been celebrated as if they had been polluted.

WE may apply the same questions and difficulties to the Armenians, Jacobites, Coptics, Nestorians, in reference to several of their Opinions of which Mr. Arnaud cannot shew the original, nor tell us after what manner they were dispersed amongst these people, nor how they have left the con∣trary opinions which the Church of Rome still holds as being of Apostoli∣cal Tradition. How has it hapned for instance that the Nestorians have left the use of Confirmation, and that of Extreme Unction, that the Ja∣cobites have left that of Confession, and the belief of Purgatory, that the Coptics have laid aside the Doctrin of Purgatory, and use of Extreme Un∣ction, and so of the rest. For Mr. Arnaud, I think, would have me sup∣pose, that according to him these points have been heretofore held and pra∣ctis'd by all Christians.

THESE examples do clearly discover the vanity of these pretended moral impossibilities which the Author of the Perpetuity, and Mr. Arnaud have urged with such great exaggeration. For they may be all as strongly applied to the changes which have hapned in these Eastern Churches, and yet it must be granted that these changes hapned there. Mr. Arnaud may ar∣gue as long as he pleases, start questions, and raise difficulties, these insensi∣ble changes are more than possible, for they are come to pass either in these Churches, or in the Latin, which has Opinions, and contrary Customs, which shews that these Gentlemens whole Philosophy is but a mere Spe∣culation, proper only for persons that abound with leisure, which does not at all agree with the manner after which things are carried on in the world.

BUT in short the use which is made of the Seminaries, and Missions, and the course which the Emissaries take in the East, as we have observ'd in the second Book, with the project of Thomas à Jesu to make in a short time, all the Greeks, good Roman Catholicks, according as I have related in the fourth Book; all this I say shews clearly that at Rome, and elsewhere amongst the most zealous, it is not at all accounted impossible to introduce

insensibly, and without disturbance the Doctrins of the Romish Church amongst people that have 'em not, and in effect it must be granted that their present labors are not unsuccessful, and that time will probably finish the work.

CHAP. VIII.

That Paschasus Ratbert was the first that taught the Real Presence and Conversion of Substances. Mr. Arnaud's Objections An∣swered.

WE must come now to particular matters of fact which relate to the History of the Change. Not but to speak truly this dif∣cussion appears to me very needless, considering what we have already done. For if the principal question which respects the novelty of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence be ended, and moreover there re∣sults from our Dispute that the change was possible, and that there's no∣thing more vain than the objections which the Author of the Perpetuity and Mr. Arnaud have made on this subject, I see not any necessity there is of informing a man's self in what manner this change hapned. What matter is it to us who was the first Author of this Innovation, who the promoters of it, what facilities or difficulties were met with in the establishing of these Doctrins, whether Paschasus carried on his business with craft, or simplicity; whether John Scot, Bertram, and Raban wrote against him before or after his death? What signifies the knowing of these things provided we are certain not only that the change in question was possible, but actually hapned? And this does now appear so plainly as will satisfie every rational man. In examining Mr. Arnaud's 6th. and 9th. Book we have made it appear that his pretended impossibilities are mere chimera's. And as to the actual change, besides that we shall always have right to take it for granted by our proofs of fact, which is to say by the passages of the Fathers, which we have ci∣ted, till Mr. Arnaud and his friends have taken pains to answer 'em solidly: besides this, I say, what I shewed concerning the Eastern Churches not hold∣ing the Doctrins in question, neither in the 11th. nor following Centuries, and the Greeks and Latins not knowing 'em in the 7th. and 8th. Century, is more than sufficient for the concluding that these Doctrins are not of the first establishment of Christian Religion, and consequently that their introduction is an innovation. Yet will I not desist from examining the points of History which respect this change, because this change is indeed the first and principal subject of the Dispute between Mr. Arnaud and us.

Paschasus Ratbert, a Religious of Corbie that lived in the 9th. Century was (according to us) the first who taught the conversion of the substances of the Bread and Wine, and the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. He treats of these Points in three different places of his works, in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, in his Commenta∣ries on the 26th. Chapter of S. Matthew, and in his Letter to Frudegard. * 1.370 Mr. Arnaud calls our pretension on this subject a new Hypothesis and a

pure work of fancy. But, adds he, as mens fancies are very different, that of other Ministers who wrote besore Aubertin turn'd not on this hinge, as not thinking 'twere their interest to set 'emselves more against Paschasus than other Authors of that Century. So that this same Paschasus against whom they pro∣nounce such woes, was at first, in another course of fancy, one of their best friends. Henry Boxornius a fnrious and passionate Calvinist asserts, that he perfectly well explain'd the Doctrin of the Eucharist, and makes him a Calvinist by the common privilege of all the Ministers, to make Calvinists of whom they please. Hospinien likewise treats him very kindly, and takes him for one of the wit∣nesses of the true Doctrin of the Church during the 9th. Century. Blondel seems not to have any particular quarrel against him, but only charges him for following the innovations which he attributes to Anastasius Sinait and the Greeks, which he pretends were embraced by Charlemain, and the Council of Francfort, but does not think of making him an Author of any considerable change in the world.

IT must be acknowledg'd there is a great deal of rancor and injustice in this discourse. First, seeing Mr. Arnaud himself affirms that Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, why does he make it criminal in Mr. Aubertin and me to do the same? Does the aversion which he has to our persons transport him so far, that he cannot endure we should be agreed with him, no not in one point? I acknowledg that as oft as Mr. Aubertin and I affirm Paschasus taught the Real Presence and Transubstan∣tiation, we do at the same time add that he was an Innovator, wherein we are at odds with Mr. Arnaud. But why may we not at least agree with him in one Point, if we cannot in more? Let him oppose us as oft as he will touching th' innovation of Paschasus, we shall not dislike it, for he main∣tains his own sentiment; but let him give us leave to tell him that Pascha∣sus also taught the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, seeing that herein we say nothing but what he himself asserts, and all Roman Catholicks with him.

SECONDLY, 'tis not generally true that those who wrote before Mr. Aubertin did not acknowledg that the Doctrin of Paschasus was the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The Author of the Orthodox Trea∣tise * 1.371 touching the Eucharist, Printed at Lyons in the year 1595. expresly mentions that Paschasus laid the foundations of Transubstantiation, and Consubstantiation. Mr. Le Faucheur says he taught that the Eucharist * 1.372 was the proper Body and the proper Blood of Jesus Christ residing substan∣tially in the Bread and Wine. Du Plessis ranks him amongst those that * 1.373 have proposed a contrary Doctrin to that of the Fathers and the Church. And long before them Berenger himself attributed to Paschasus the Doctrin of the conversion of the substances as well as we. Sententia, said he, accord∣ing * 1.374 to Lanfranc, imo vecordia vulgi, Paschasi, atque Lanfranci minime super∣esse in altari post consecrationem substantiam panis & vini.

BUT 'tis needless to cite Authorities, when the point concerns a matter which may be clear'd by reading Paschasus himself. He that takes pains to read exactly his Book De Corpore & sanguine Domini, his Commentaries on the 26. of S. Matthew, and his Letter to Frudegard, will find, First, That he held and taught the substance of the Bread and Wine was changed abso∣lutely into the same Flesh which is born of the Virgin, which died, and rose again, altho the colour, and savor of Bread and Wine still remains. Secondly,

That he held and taught that the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our flesh, and that as he has joyn'd our substance to his Divinity, so he will have his substance to be in our flesh. Thirdly, That he held and taught, that the words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, must be understood neither of the figure of his Body, nor his Body in the Sacrament, nor of his Body in virtue, but of his Body born of the Virgin, Crucified and Risen, in propriety of nature. Fourthly, That he disputed as strongly as he could against those that held the contrary. Fifthly, That there were made against his Doctrin such objections as naturally arise from the Real Presence, such as the Roman Church does at this day believe it to be. Sixthly, That he endeavoured to answer these objections on the Hypothesis of the Roman Church.

IT hence, methinks very clearly results that Paschasus held and taught the same Real Presence, and the same substantial conversion, as Gregory VII. and Innocent III. establish'd since in the Latin Church, and that this truth can∣not be call'd in question. Yet must what I observed in my answer to the Perpetuity be remembred, that the Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini does not every where contain the Doctrin of the conversion of substances in a manner so express, or uniform, but that there are here and there seve∣ral passages which seem at first to favour the subsistence of the Bread, and several others that are capable of a Sacramental sence, or may be turn'd to the union of the Bread with the Divinity, acording to Damascen's Doctrin. Mr. Arnaud must grant me this, seeing he sometimes alledges Paschasus his expressions, t'elude such kind of ones which are to be met with in the Fa∣thers. Now hence it has hapned that several Protestants having been de∣ceiv'd by these passages, have reckon'd this Author amongst the number of those that held not Transubstantiation. But their error having sprang from the want of attentive examining the depths of his Doctrin, Mr. Arnaud does not do right in drawing hence advantage against those that have en∣tred into a more exact scrutiny of him, especially considering that this opi∣nion justifies it self by the bare reading of Paschasus his Writings, and that this is moreover Mr. Arnaud's own sentiment, and that also of his whole Church.

WE need only now see whether Paschasus in teaching the Real Presence and Transubstantiation has been an Innovator, that is to say, whether he first taught a Doctrin which no body ever before him did teach. Mr. Arnaud affirms, that according to my proper Principles this would be impossibly human. His reason is that I said in some places of my answer, That the expressions of the Fathers were not of themselves capable to give rise to this opinion, and therefore the idea of it must come from elsewhere. That suppo∣sing these expressions and a thousand such like were every day uttered by the Fathers, they could never form in the peoples minds the idea of a Transubstan∣tiation, or a Real Presence, such as the Roman Church teaches, unless they were propossessed with it by some other means. That there's no likelihood that before Paschasus made this first explication, men abandoned their senses and reason to conceive the Real Presence, and that certainly no place but the soli∣tary and idle Convent of Corbie could bring forth such an extravagant fan∣cy. Let a man upon this judg, says Mr. Arnaud, what kind of blade this * 1.375 Paschasus must be according to Mr. Claude, seeing that on one hand he was able to invent an opinion which could never come into any bodies head but his own; and further had the power and good luck to persuade the whole world in∣to the belief of it with circumstances which are yet more admirable. Certainly this is beyond the reach of man.

I ANSWER, that Mr. Arnaud draws his consequences always ill. We said that the people who usually follow the lights of nature and common sense, and whose meditations are not strong enough of 'emselves to invent this pretended manner of making the Body of Jesus Christ to exist in Heaven and on Earth both at a time, could not raise the idea of this from the expressions of the Fathers, and Mr. Arnaud hence concludes 'tis impos∣sible that Paschasus has invented this opinion, or been able to persuade others to embrace it. This consequence is absurd, for we have examples of such kind of persons as Paschasus who have wandred from the true lights of na∣ture, and faln into remote imaginations, which no body ever had before 'em, and which the people were (certainly) never capable of. I confess that in some respect one may marvel at these figuaries of human invention, because they are irregularities, it being likewise astonishing to see men ca∣pable of so many disorders; but it must not be hence concluded that these disorders are more than human, or that 'tis impossible for a people who did did not invent an opinion themselves, to follow it when 'tis well contrived and coloured. We see this happens every day, and Mr. Arnaud should propose something more solid.

THE true way to know whether Paschasus was an Innovator or not, is to enquire whether those that went before him taught the same Doctrin, for if they did, we are to blame in charging him with an innovation; but if on the contrary we find their Doctrin different from his, we cannot doubt but he innovated. And this is the course Mr. Aubertin has taken; for he offers not the history of the change, of which he makes Paschasus the first Author, till he shew'd by an exact discussion of each particular Century, that till Paschasus his time no body ever spake like him; whence it follows of necessity, that he was an Innovator. It belong'd therefore to Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity (had they design'd to deal sincerely) to take this course, and shew that Paschasus said nothing but what others said before him. This would have been an easie and direct method, supposing Paschasus had not been an Innovator, but Mr. Arnaud does not like the engaging in these kind of discussions.

HE thought it more for his purpose to fall upon a fruitless criticism by which he pretends to conclude, That no body publickly declared himself * 1.376 against Paschasus his Book all the time he lived, That no body wrote against him, That no Bishop, no Abbot of his Order reproached him with it, That there were only some persons who shew'd in secret they were frighted at these truths, and said not in writing, but in particular discourses, that he had gone too far, and yet this was not till three years after he had publish'd his Book.

SUPPOSING this remark to be as certain, as Mr. Arnaud has made it, what advantage will he pretend hence? Will Paschasus be ever the less an Innovator for his not finding any thing publish'd against him during his life? All that can be concluded hence is, that his Book was but little known at first, and afterwards but of small esteem with great men; and that if they believed themselves oblig'd at length to write against his Doctrin, 'twas on∣ly because they saw several follow'd it, whom 'twas necessary to undeceive. For to imagin that John Scot, Bertram, and Raban shunn'd the opposing him during his life, that they might not bring upon 'em so terrible an Adversary, must proceed from th' ignorance of what these three great men were, who

had another kind of esteem amongst the learned than Paschasus. 'Tis al∣so a ridiculous conjecture to imagin they lay quiet during his life, because his Doctrin was then the common Doctrin of the Church, which they da∣red not oppose. For if this reason hindred 'em from writing against Pas∣chasus during his life, why did it not do the same after his death, seeing the common Doctrin of the Church was still the same, and Paschasus carried it not away with him into his Grave?

BUT at bottom there's nothing more uncertain than this remark of Mr. Arnaud. For as to John Scot, there's not the least reason to guess he wrote since Paschasus his death. We know he wrote of the Eucharist by the command of Charles the Bald, and consequently whilst he was in France, whether this was before or after the year 852, 'twill be in my opi∣nion hard to determin. As to Raban we cannot be certain whether this Egilon to whom he wrote his Letter against Paschasus, was either Egilon Abbot of Fuldad, who died in the year 822, or another Egilon Abbot of Prom, who succeeded Marquard in the year 853. For as to what is said by the anonimous Treatise which Father Celot publish'd, which is, that Raban was Archbishop of Mayence when he wrote this Letter, is very weak. It's true it terms him Raban of Mayence, but upon another occasion, to wit, when the Author accuses him to have taught, that the mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is exposed to the common condition of aliments; whereas when he mentions the Letter which he wrote against Paschasus, he calls him only Raban, and hence can be nothing certain gather'd. As to Bertram, Mr. Arnaud alledges no other reason but this, That there's little * 1.377 likelihood he would write against his Abbot whilst he was under his Jurisdicti∣ction, and that Paschasus who believed his Doctrin could not be attack'd with∣out a crime, must have complain'd of this attempt. But is Mr. Arnaud igno∣rant of what the President Maugin has written touching Bertram, that he was not only a very learned but a very honest man; a bold defender of the * 1.378 Catholick Faith against all Innovators, and that he wrote against Hincmar his own Bishop, altho he was upheld by the Kings Authority. What likeli∣hood is there that a man who scrupled not to write against his Metropoli∣tan and such a man as Hincmar, who was countenanced by the King, would stick to write by the Kings order too against Paschasus altho he was his Ab∣bot.

IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say, That Paschasus clearly testi∣fies that his Doctrin was only attack'd by private Discourses and not by Books. For this cannot be collected from his expressions, unless we read 'em with glosses and interpretations of Mr. Arnaud. Let those, says Paschasus in his Commentary on the 26th. of S.Matthew, that will extenuate the term of Body, hear me; those that say, that 'tis not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church, and that 'tis not his true Blood, imagining they know not what, that 'tis in this Sacrament the virtue of the Flesh and Blood, and make the Lord a lyar, saying, that 'tis not his true Flesh, nor his true Blood, by which we declare his true death; whereas truth it self says, This is my Body. And a little lower, I am astonish'd at some peoples saying 'tis not the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ in the same thing, but that it is Sacramentally so, a certain virtue of his Flesh, and not his Flesh, the virtue of his Blood, and not his Blood, the figure and not the truth, the shadow, and not the Body. And in another place a little further, I spake of these things the more largely and more expresly, because I understand that some re∣reprehend

me as if I would (in the Book which I wrote concerning the Sacra∣ments of Christ) attribute to these words more than the truth it self promises. And in his Letter to Frudegard, Sed quidam, says he, loquacissimi magis quam docti dum hoec credere refugiunt, quaecunque possunt, ne credant quoe veritas repromittit, opponunt, & dicunt nullum corpus esse quod non sit palpabile, & visible, hoec autem inquiunt, quia mysteria sunt videri nequeunt, nec palpari, & ideo corpus non sunt, & si corpus non sunt, in figura carnis & sanguinis hoec dicuntur, & non in proprietate naturoe carnis Christi & sanguinis, quoe caro passa est in cruce, & nata de Maria Virgine. Ecce quam bene disputant contra fidem sine fide. It appears from these passages that Paschasus his opinion was contradicted, That he was accused for taking Christs words in a wrong sence, That he had several clear and solid objections offered him, whether by word of mouth, or writing, or by Books, or bare discourses, he does not inform us. But one may well conclude hence that this opposition consisted not in secret discourses, as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe. Are we wont to call private discourse a formal opposition by way of objection, dis∣pute, censure, and clear and precise explication of the contrary opinion? Opponunt, says he, quoecunque possunt, Ecce quam bene disputant, dicunt non in se esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis, sed in Sacramento virtutem car∣nis non carnem. Audivi quosdam me reprehendere, &c. Do men thus ex∣press themselves when they would represent private discourse? But, says * 1.379 Mr. Arnaud, Paschasus in his Letter to Frudegard, assures, that altho some are deceived thro ignorance, yet there is no body that dared openly contradict what the whole earth believes and confesses of this mystery. I answer, that the sense of Paschasus is, that no body dared contradict openly what the whole Earth believes and confesses of this mystery, to wit, that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, according as 'tis express'd in this clause of the Liturgy which he alledges, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nistri Jesu Christi; and by the words of Christ, This is my Body. Now what he says is true in the sense which we suppose must be given to the words of Christ, and to the terms of the Liturgy, but it does not hence follow that those that opposed the sence which Paschasus gave to these very words of the Liturgy, and to those of Christ, explain'd themselves very plainly against him, for there's a great deal of difference between acknowledging the truth of these words, and acknowledging the sense which an Author would give 'em, They confessed that the words were true, and could not be question'd without a crime; but yet this hindred 'em not from setting 'emselves against the sense of Paschasus. Paschasus pretends to draw advan∣tage against 'em by their acknowledging the words, imagining the words were plainly for him; but he does not at all say they dared not to dispute openly against him, nor against the sense he gave these words. This is a delusion of Mr. Arnauds, just as if any one having said that there's no body yet amongst the Protestants that has openly denied the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ, Mr. Arnaud would thence conclude that there's none of 'em then that has yet openly contradicted the sense in which the Roman Church understands it, and that they explain themselves about it only in secret discourses. But pray why must these be secret discourses during Pas∣chasus his life, seeing Mr. Arnaud is obliged to confess there were after his death publick Writings which appeared against his Doctrin? Is not this a silly pretension which at farthest can only make us imagin Paschasus as a formidable man who held the world in awe during his life, and against whom no body dared open his mouth till after his death.

BUT laying aside this imagination of Mr. Arnaud come we to the prin∣cipal question, to wit, whether Paschasus was an Innovator. Mr. Arnaud to defend him from this charge has recourse to the Greek Church, which gives, says he, such an express testimony to his Doctrin of the Real Presence * 1.380 in the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Centuries, that it must needs shame those who out of a rash capricio have the boldness to affirm that Paschasus was the inventer of it. He adds, That all the principal Authors of the Latin Church of the same time who clearly taught it in such a manner as they ought to teach it ac∣cording to the state of their time, do overthrow this ridiculous Fable. To pass by Mr. Arnauds expressions which are always stronger than his reasons, we need only send him to th'examination of the Greek Authors of the 7th. 8th. and 9th. Centuries, and Latin Authors of the 7th. and 8th. for he will therein find wherewithal to satisfie himself above his desires. Let's only see whether he has any thing better to offer us.

HE has recourse next to his great common place of moral impossibilities, and supposing that according to us none of the Clergy, or Laity imagin'd that Jesus Christ was really present in the Eucharist, that they all took the Eucha∣rist for Bread and Wine in substance, that they knew the Bread and Wine were signs and Sacraments of the Body of Jesus Christ by which we obtain his Graces, and that we must meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ in receiving them; that Paschasus very well knew that his opinion was opposite to that of the Church, and that he remain'd in her external Communion only out of a car∣nal motive, lest he should find himself too weak if he departed out of it; sup∣posing I say this, he thus reasons, Let us imagin a Religious under a Regular Discipline, and him so young that he calls himself a Child, and who thinks he has discovered this marvellous secret, that Jesus Christ is really present on Earth in infinite places, that all Christians receive him really every time they partake of the Eucharist, but that by a deplorable blindness they are ignorant of this happiness, do not know the Saviour whom they have often in their hands and which they receive into their mouths, and take his real Body for an image and simple figure; that he is the only man that knows the truth of this Mystery, and is destin'd to declare it to the world. This conceit is already very strange and contrary to the idea which a man necessarily forms on Paschasus from his Writings, there being nothing more remote from the humility and simplicity appearing in 'em than this prodigious insolency with which Mr. Claude char∣ges him, so that we may truly say he could not worse represent the character of his mind. He afterwards says, that this enterprise of Paschasus of instructing all people in this new opinion was the greatest enterprize that ever any man un∣dertook far greater than that of the Apostles when they determin'd to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout all the world. For in fine they were twelve, they wrought Miracles, had other proofs than words, they made Dis∣ciples, and establish'd them Doctors of the truth which they preach'd. Pascha∣sus had nothing of all this. He triumphantly fills five great pages with this discourse.

TO answer this with somewhat less heat, we'l reply that these argu∣ings would have been perhaps of some use had Mr. Arnaud liv'd in Pas∣chasus his time, and was oblig'd to make an Oration before him in genere deliberativo to dissuade him from making his Book publick. But who told him at present that Paschasus must necessarily have all these things in his mind, and studied 'em neither more nor less than Mr. Arnaud has done in

his Closet? Who told him that all those who teach novelties think throly on what they do? When Arius a simple Priest of Alexandria troubled the Church, by teaching this dreadful novelty that the Son of God was but a Creature, there's no great likelihood he proposed to himself at first the chan∣ging of the Faith of the whole world, for instructing the people, and every where overthrowing what the Apostles had establish'd, or compared his design with that of the Apostles, and examin'd what there was more or less in it? 'Tis the same in reference to Eutychius and other teachers of new Doctrins, their first thoughts were presently to set forth what they ima∣gin'd most consonant to truth, leaving the success to time, and mannaging themselves afterwards as occasion required. The greatest affairs do usually begin after this manner, men enter upon 'em without much reflection, and afterwards drive 'em on thro all that happens unforeseen.

2. TO discover the vanity of Mr. Arnaud's arguings, we need only ap∣ply them to John Scot, or Bertram. Suppose we then as he would have us, that in their time the whole world believed firmly and universally the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, and all the Faithful had a distinct know∣ledg of it, knew all of 'em that the substance of Bread and Wine no longer subsists after their Consecration, that what we receive in the Communion is the proper substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, the same numerical sub∣stance which was born of the Virgin, dead and risen, and is now sate at the right hand of God, that the same Body is in Heaven and on Earth at the same time. John Scot a simple Religious undertakes to disabuse all the peo∣ple, to persuade them that what they had hitherto taken for the proper substance of the Son of God was a substance of Bread, that thro a deplo∣rable error they had hitherto worship'd an object which deserv'd not this adoration, and that henceforth by his Ministry and at his word all the Earth should change its Faith and Worship. Does this design appear less strange to Mr. Arnaud than that he imputes to Paschasus, upon our supposition? All the difference I find is, that Scot's enterprize would be greater and harder than that of Paschasus; for 'tis difficulter to root ancient and per∣petual Opinions out of mens minds, than to inspire them with new ones; to make 'em lay aside their Rites, Altars, th'object of their supreme Adora∣tion and Piety, than to make 'em receive new Services in reference to a sub∣ject for which they have already a great respect. Howsoever 'tis certain that John Scot wrote a Book against the Real Presence, and according to Mr Arnaud's Hypothesis, this Book was an innovation contrary to the common Faith of his Age. A thousand Arguments will never hinder but that according to him this is true. Why then will he have it to be impos∣sible for Paschasus, who wrote a Book touching the Real Presence, to ad∣vance any novelty with which the Church before that time was unacquain∣ted? Why must there be in Hypothesis's which are alike facilities on the one side, and impossibilities on the other? Paschasus and John Scot wrote, one for the Real Presence, and the other against it. This is a fact which is uncontroulable. One of 'em must necessarily have offered a new Doctrine contrary to the general belief, and consequently one of 'em must be an Innovator. If it be possible that 'twas John Scot, it is yet more pro∣bable 'twas Paschasus; if it be impossible that 'twas Paschasus, it is yet more impossible to be John Scot. Mr. Arnaud then need not so warm himself in his consequences, seeing 'tis his interest as well as ours to acknowledg the nullity of 'em; and we may truly affirm without doing him wrong, that never man spent his pains to less purpose, than he has done in this occasion.

3. ALL that can be reasonably said of Paschasus, is, that being yet young, and imagining the substances of Bread and Wine did not subsist in the Eucharist, but were chang'd into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, he thought this marvail was not enough known, and that 'twas necessary to explain it. And therefore he undertakes to instruct his Disciple Placidus in it, to whom he dedicates his Book, and the rest of his Scholars. This appears from the reading of his Preface, and second Cha∣pter. Placuit, says he in his Preface, ea quoe de Sacramento Sanguinis & corporis tibi exigis necessaria, quoe tui proetexantur amore ita tenus perstrin∣gere, ut coeteri vitoe pabulum & salutis haustum planius tecum caperent ad medelam, & nobis operis proestantior exuberaret fructus mercedis pro sudore. And in the second Chapter, Tanti Sacramenti virtus investiganda est, & disciplina Christi fides erudienda, ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni si non sa∣tis discernimus illud, nec intelligimus mysticum Christi Corpus & sanguis quan∣ta polleat dignitate quantaque proemineat virtute—ideo timendum ne per ignorantiam quod nobis provisum est ad medelam fiat accipientibus in ruinam. There cannot be gathered any more than this touching the first design of Paschasus. His designs without doubt extended not so far as the whole Universe, they only respected Placidus and some other Scholars which he taught, and the end he proposed was to give 'em the knowledg of this my∣stery which he had obtain'd, believing 'twas not sufficiently known. His Book which was design'd only for young people was yet read by many others, it excited the curiosity of several, as he himself tells us in his Let∣ter to Frudegard, Ad intelligentiam, says he, hujus mysterii plures ut audio commovi: I have stirred up several people to understand this mystery. 'Tis likely several became of his mind, and 'tis certain others condemned his opinion: Audivi, says he, quosdam me reprehendere, and that others in fine remain'd in suspense and uncertainty. Quoeris, says he, to Frudegard, de re ex qua multi dubitant, and lower, Multi ex hoc dubitant quomodo ille inte∣ger manet, & hoc, Corpus Christi & Sanguis esse possit. This first success so little advantageous obliged him to write his Commentary on the 26th. of S. Matthew, where he urges the words of Christ, This is my Body, and argues as strongly as he can against those that say 'tis the Body of Jesus Christ in a Figure, in a Sacrament, and in Virtue. In fine, Frudegard having offered him a passage of S. Austin out of his third Book, De Doctrina Chri∣stiana, wherein this Father says, that to eat this Flesh and drink this Blood is a figurative locution, which seems to command a sin, but which signi∣fies to meditate on the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ for us, he thence takes occasion to write the Letter to Frudegard, wherein he endeavours by all means to defend his Doctrin, pressing again the words of Jesus Christ, and relating some passages of the Fathers, and Liturgy which he imagin'd were on his side, And this is all that can be said historically touching Pas∣chasus his fact, in which I think there's nothing that hinders us from be∣lieving he was an Innovator, that is to say, that the Doctrin he offered was not that of the Church, as will be made plain by what we shall alledg anon. Mr. Arnaud should argue from these matters of fact, and not from imaginary suppositions.

PASCHASƲS, says he, proposes immediately his Doctrin without * 1.381 any Preface, or insinuating address, without supposing any other Principle than that God can do what he pleases. His Doctrin then was not new. This consequence is too quick. He does not mention that horrid blindness where∣in

he must suppose the world. Altho he does not speak of it, what can be thence concluded, those that propose novelties as the perpetual Faith of the Church are cautious of absolutely acknowledging that in this respect the world lies in an error. Yet does Paschasus insinuate in his Book that this mystery was unknown, that is to say, that men knew not yet his Doctrin, as I have already shew'd, and in his Letter to Frudegard he formally acknow∣ledges that several were ignorant of it. Quamvis, says he, plurimi ignora∣verint tanti mysterii Sacramenta. He does not trouble himself, adds Mr. Ar∣naud, to confirm what he says by proofs sufficient to dissipate this error. What follows hence? He proves it as well as he can, that is to say ill; yet does he advertise his Placidus in his Preface that he took what he offer'd out of the principal Authors of the Church, and he names S. Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, Augustin, Chrysostom, Jerom, Gregory, Isidor, Isychius and Bede: Now here are, I think, great names enough.

Mr. Claude, adds further Mr. Arnaud, would persuade us that a young Re∣ligions * 1.382 having taught in a Book a Doctrin unheard of contrary to sense and rea∣son, and having taught it without proofs, living in a great communalty, having commerce with a great number of Religious, Abbots, and Bishops, was yet ad∣vertised by none of 'em that he offered an error contrary to the Doctrin of the Church, and that not only he escap'd unpunish'd, but for thirty years together no body testifi'd any astonishment at his Doctrin; so that he only learn'd from other peoples report, and that thirty years after he wrote his Book that there were some persons who found fault with it. Mr. Arnaud's prejudice puts him upon strange things. Does he not see we need only turn his reasoning on John Scot and Bertram to expose the weakness of it? They wrote against the Real Presence: who told them they offer'd an error contrary to the Do∣ctrin of the Church? who punish'd 'em for it? what Popes, what Councils condemn'd 'em? who, setting aside Paschasus, stood up against those that af∣firm'd the Eucharist was not the Body of Jesus Christ otherwise than Sa∣cramentally, figuratively, and virtually, and not really, Non in re esse veri∣tatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis, sed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem, virtutem Sanguinis & non Sanguinem? Supposing no body did address themselves to Paschasus himself to charge him with the publishing in his Book a new Doctrin, what can be rationally inferred hence, but that his Book was at first but little known by learned men who were fit to judg of it, because a Book design'd for Scholars does not usually make any great noise, or because perhaps that it was despised, seeing that in ef∣fect there was little in it to the purpose. But, says Mr. Arnaud, at least the Monks of the Convent of Corbie must oppose him, Had they done it, they had done no more than they ought. But Paschasus was their Master that taught 'em, and the Disciples are not wont to contradict their Masters. Paschasus had immediately won to his interests Placidus, who was a person of Quality and a Dignitary in this Convent, as appears by the terms of Pas∣chasus himself, for thus does he bespeak him. Dilectissimo filio, & vice Christi proesidenti, Magistro Monasticae Disciplinoe, alternis successibus veritatis discipulo. Again, who told Mr. Arnaud that no body for thirty years re∣prehended Paschasus to his face? how knows he this, that he can be so con∣fident of it? Does Paschasus himself positively assure him of it? No. But 'tis because Paschasus says, Audivi quosdam me reprehendere. I am inform'd that some blame me. Every man sees that this expression is not sufficient for the drawing of this consequence, and that an Author may speak thus, altho he was told of his fault to his face. In fine, who inform'd Mr. Ar∣naud

that the contradictions which Paschasus met with did not happen till thirty years after the publishing of his Book? Because he complains of this in his Commentaries on S. Matthew, which were publish'd not till thirty years after. A frivolous reason, as if the censures which were made of his Doctrin, must needs be of the same date as his Commentaries wherein he mentions 'em, and endeavours to defend himself. It must be acknowledg'd that never man argued more unhappily than Mr. Arnaud.

NOT only, adds he, he was not reprehended by any of his Superiors, * 1.383 Friends, and Brethren, but he still believed the whole Church was on his side. For in his Papers which he wrote not long before his death he presses his un∣known adversaries of whom he had notice, by the Authority of the whole Church, and clearly affirms a man cannot oppose his Opinion without contradict∣ing the Faith of it. Videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum, & contra omnem Ecclesiam. He says that no body dared yet openly contradict this Doctrin which he taught, nor oppose what the whole world own'd to be true. Ideo quamvis quidam de ignorantia errent, ne∣mo tamen adhuc est in aperto qui ita hoc esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit & confitetur. In short he accuses those as highly criminal, who using the common Prayers of the Church explain'd them in a sense of figure and virtue, contrary to the consent of the whole Earth. Nefandum ergo scelus est orare cum omni∣bus, & non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur, & ubique omnes universaliter ve∣rum esse fatentur.

I answered the Author of the Perpetuity, That Paschasus did not say the whole world was formally of his opinion, but that this was a consequence which he would draw from the whole worlds believing to be true and above all questi∣on the words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, which he imagin'd contain'd his Belief, and from the Churches saying in her Canon, Ʋt fiat Corpus & Sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, to which the people answered, Amen. That there's a great deal of difference betwixt positive assuring that the whole Church believes by a distinct and unquestionable Faith a Doctrin, and th' iutroducing of it by consequences drawn from some expressions which a man believes to be favorable to this Doctrin, but which are not so greatly fa∣vorable but that they may be of use to those who believe a contrary Doctrin.

HERE, says Mr. Arnaud, is a distinction well worthy of Mr. Claude's in∣vention who admirably well pretends to answer a matter when he does nothing less, and to distinguish by terms which have no sense, that which reason can∣not distinguish. Let us in good time see then whether my distinction be as extravagant as Mr. Arnaud would make it. When a man maintains against an opponent a Doctrin which is said to be the common Doctrin of the Church, either this proposition that 'tis the common Doctrin of the Church, is so clear and evident, that the Adversaries themselves must grant it, or it is not so clear nor evident but that 'tis questionable. As to the first case, a man need not trouble himself to prove it: for its taken for a Principle, and such consequences are thence drawn as are judged fitting. For instance, When the Gentlemen of the Roman Church teach that our Saviour Christ died not only for the Elect, but also for all men in general; that all Gods Commands are possible to be kept by the Just, according to the present condition of their ability; that the substance of Bread is really converted into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ; that the Wicked receive the Body of Jesus Christ, and eat it with their bodily mouths in the act of

the Communion; it is so evident that these are the common Doctrins of this Church, that there needs no proving 'em; and should any one in the bosom of the Roman Church oppose these Articles, there's no body would take pains to prove to him that they are the Faith of the Church, for they would be supposed to be undeniable Principles, and he would have only hence con∣sequences drawn against him. As to the second case, that is to say when 'tis not clear that this is the Faith of the Church, and that this point is in dis∣pute, both parties apply themselves to the bringing of proofs, and each commonly endeavours to authorise his Opinion under the specious name of the Faith of the Church.

BUT as this question touching the common Doctrin of the Church may have two senses, one which regards precisely the present Church, which is to say, the Church in the time of the contest, the other which re∣spects the Church in the preceding times, which is to say, before the con∣troversie, it may also receive two sorts of proofs, some which refer to the present time, others which refer to the Ages which have preceded us. When a man proves for the time present, he alledges testimonies of the mo∣dern Church, when he proves for the past time, he alledges 'em of those that have lived before us, and the question determins it self according as the proofs are good, or bad, conclusive, or not conclusive.

TO apply this to the matter in hand, I say, That Paschasus never ad∣vanc'd for an undeniable Principle, that his Doctrin was the Doctrin or com∣mon belief of the Church in his time; on the contrary he has formally ac∣knowledg'd that there were in his time three sorts of persons in the Church; the first reprehended him for mis-understanding the words of Christ. Au∣divi quosdam me reprehendere quasi ego in eo libro quem de Sacramentis Christi edideram aliquid his dictis plus tribuere voluerim quam ipsa veritas repromit∣tit, and affirm'd on the contrary that the Eucharist was the Body of Jesus Christ in figure and virtue. Non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel San∣gainis, sed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem. Others that doubted of the truth of his Doctrin, multi dubitant, says he, several times. And in fine, others that erred thro ignorance, which is to say, that had not yet heard of these marvails which he proposed. Quamvis plurimi, says he, dubitaverint vel ignoraverint tanti mysterii Sacramenta. And a little lower, Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent. He was then far from vaunting that his Doctrin was undeniably the common Faith of the Church of his Age.

I say in the second place, that whatsoever design Paschasus had to make people believe that he taught nothing but what was according to the Doctrin of the Church; yet did he never alledg for this effect the men of his time, nor ever said the Bishops which then governed the Churches, the Abbots, Priests, Religious, and all learned men held the same language as he did, and all of 'em unanimously confess'd, that the substance of Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin according to the propriety of his nature. Neither did he ever aver he held his Doctrin from Masters that taught it. Paschasus was far from asserting this.

HE keeps to three things, to some passages of the Fathers, to the words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, to a clause of the Liturgy, which says, Ʋt fiat Corpus & sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi: And

as to the passages of the Fathers having proposed 'em, he concludes, That from thence one may know that what he wrote was not an effect of Enthusiastical rashness, nor a young man's vision; but that he offered these things (to those who were desirous of 'em) from the authority of the Word of God, and the Writings of the Holy Fathers. Now seeing, adds he, it appears that all men have not Faith, yet if they cannot understand, let 'em learn to believe with the Fathers that there's nothing impossible with God, and acquiesce in the Di∣vine words without the least doubt of 'em. For we never as yet read any have erred in this point, unless those that have erred touching the person of Jesus Christ himself, altho several have doubted, or been ignorant of the Sacra∣ments of so great a mystery. Is this the language of a man that loudly glo∣ries in the consent of the whole Church? Were he assur'd he wrote nothing but what was according to the common belief, what need he justifie him∣self from the suspicion of Enthusiasm and pretences to Visions? Are we wont to suspect people in this sort who say only what the whole world says and believes? And designing to justifie himself, why must he rather betake himself to some passages of the Fathers, (whose sense and terms he may justly be said to have corrupted) than to the testimony of persons in his own time, and to say if he was an Enthusiast or Visionary, all the Bishops, Ab∣bots, Priests, Religious, Doctors, and Christians in general were so too, see∣ing they all believ'd and spake as he did? But instead of this he complains that his Doctrin which he term'd that of the Fathers was not kindly re∣ceived: Nunc autem, says he, exinde quia claruit quod non omnium est fides. He exhorts those who reprehended him, to believe with the Fathers that nothing is impossible with God, and to acquiesce in the words of Jesus Christ. Discant quoeso cum talibus credere, si adhuc nequeunt intelligere, quod Deo nihil est impossibile, discant & verbis divinis acquiescere, & in nullo de his dubitare.

WHEN then he adds that hitherto 'twas not heard that any person er∣red on this subject, unless 'twere those who had erred touching Jesus Christ himself. Quia usque ad proesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui & de Christo er∣raverunt. He would say that till then no body had contradicted the Do∣ctrin of the Fathers, leaving it to be understood that then 'twas contradi∣cted, because they contradicted his, which he maintain'd was that of the Fathers. So far we do not find him boasting of the consent of the Church in his time, for we see on the contrary several things which sufficiently de∣note that he was far from doing it.

AS to the passages of the Liturgy, and words of Christ, he says, that the Priest prays in the Canon in these terms, Ʋt fiat Corpus Jesus Christi, that all the People cry Amen, and so the whole Church in every Nation and Language confesses that 'tis this she desires in her Prayer. Whence he draws this consequence, Ʋnde videat qui contra hoc venire voluerit magis quam credere quid agat contra ipsum Dominum & contra omnem Christi Ecclesiam. Nefarium ergo scelus est orare cum omnibus, & non credere quod ipsa veritas testatur, & ubique omnes nniversaliter verum esse fatentur. Let those then that had rather contradict this than believe it, consider what they do against the Lord himself and his whole Church. It is then a great fault to pray with all people, and not to believe what the truth it self attests, and what all do universally, and every where confess to be true. His Argument is a Sophism which amounts to this, Our Saviour Christ says 'tis his Body, and the whole Church confesses the same. But they that at this day deny that 'tis his Body

in propriety of nature deny that 'tis his Body. Therefore they contradict Jesus Christ and his Church. Who sees not but there is a great difference between reasoning in this manner, and positively assuring, that the whole Church believes 'tis his Body in propriety of nature? I will have this, says Mr. Ar∣naud * 1.384 to be only a consequence. Are not Authors persuaded of the truth of the consequences which they draw, and do they not offer them for true as positive∣ly as their principles? Mr. Arnaud gives an exchange. The question is not whether Paschasus was persuaded of the solidity of his consequence or not, but whether we ought to be persuaded of it our selves, and take it for a testimony touching the publick belief of his time. Mr. Arnaud should know that when a man testifies of a matter of fact, and afterwards draws thence by way of argument, and consequence another fact, he is no farther cre∣dible in respect of this latter, but only as his argument or consequence ap∣pears just to us. If I say for example that Mr. Arnaud confesses in the first edition of his Book, That 'tis possible the faithful knew not always so expresly, * 1.385 and universally, whether the Bread did or did remain in the Sacrament, and I from hence draw by way of argument and consequence this proposition, That Mr. Arnaud acknowledges Transubstantiation was not anciently an Ar∣ticle of Faith in the Church. My testimony in respect of the latter fact will be no farther credible than my consequence will be good. 'Tis the same here. Paschasus assures us, that the whole Church in his time called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, saying these words, Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui. So far he acts as a witness, we must believe him. Whence he draws this consequence. That those that do not be∣lieve it to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature, but only in Sa∣crament contradict the Church. Here he acts the part of a Disputer, if his ar∣guing be good, we will believe him, if it be a Sophism, we'll not matter it. Now 'tis a sophism; for according to the maxim of S. Augustin, The Sacra∣ments assume the names of the things of which they are Sacraments, so that to deny the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in propriety of nature, it does not follow a man thereby contradicts the Church which calls it the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ.

BƲT, adds Mr. Arnaud, 'tis moreover false that this is only a consequence. * 1.386 For this proposition that the whole Church believ'd the Real Presence was in∣cluded both in the Principle and Conclusion of Paschasus his argument. He concludes, That those who deny the Real Presence commit an horrid crime in opposing the Faith of the Church. Here we have it comprehended in the con∣clusion. Did ever man hear such kind of reasoning? 'Tis false that this is only a consequence, because 'tis a proposition contain'd in the conclusion. This is just as if a man should say 'tis false that it is day. Why? Because the Sun is at his heighth, for for to be day, and the Sun to be at its heighth, are not more the same thing, than to be a consequence, and to be a proposition contained in the conclusion of an argument. Are these the prodigious ef∣fects of Mr. Arnaud's Logick? And the Principle of this conclusion is, adds he, not that the Church simply recites these words; Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui, but understands them in the sense of the Real Presence. Which is what I deny. The Principle whereon Paschasus argues is no other than this, That the Priest says, Ʋt fiat Corpus dilectissimi filii tui, and the People an∣swer, Amen. That the Church did, or did not understand this of the Real Presence, is what Paschasus does not touch on. He is careful not to advance so far, Had he known, says Mr. Arnaud, that the Church took these words in another sense, he must needs be a mad man to reproach as he does these persons

for being contrary to the sense of the whole Church. He supposes then this for a Princile, that the whole Church took them in the sence of a Real Presence, and consequently supposes she held entirely this Doctrin. This is mere wrang∣ling. Paschasus does not say that these persons against whom he inveighs were contrary to the sense of the Church, but only, that they went against the Church, to wit, inasmuch as they went, according to him, contrary to the terms of the Liturgy. Secondly, Whether he did or did not know that the Church took these terms in another sense, 'tis not necessary to en∣quire, seeing he does not explain himself therein, and speaks neither far or near of the sense of these terms. And 'tis likely he knew there were at least three sorts of persons in the Church, the doubters, the ignorant, and formal adversaries of his Doctrin who took 'em not in this sense. Thirdly, Supposing we say not that Paschasus was mad, but argued like a Sophister, what inconvenience will follow, and what shall we say more than appears from the bare reading of his discourse? He would have the Church on his side, what could be more easie, supposing at that time the conversion of substances, and Real Presence were believed, than to proclaim clearly and plainly that the whole Church, Bishops, Religious, the Doctors, and gene∣rally all the faithful believed his Doctrin neither more nor less, and there only needed them to be consulted. Articles of Faith of this nature cannot lie hid in a Church which holds them. His Adversaries could not have denied this truth, and had they the impudence to do it they might easily be con∣vinc'd by a million of persons then living. Why had he recourse to arguing and consequences? Why must this consequence be drawn by the hair out of a passage of the Liturgy, which may receive I know not how many ex∣plications? Why did he not at least say 'twas certain the Church under∣stood this clause in the sense of a Real Presence? Wherefore was he silent touching the sense, and argued only from the force of these terms, Corpus dilectissimi filii tui, &c. as if all those that utter these terms, or add to em their Amen, believ'd the Real Presence? Which shews us two things, the first, that Paschasus acted like a Sophister, sheltering himself as well as he could under the Authority of the Church, against the reproach objected against him of being a Visionary, and an Enthusiast; and the other, that in effect he was an Innovator that had broached a Doctrin unknown to the Church of his time; for had he the advantage which Mr. Arnaud suppo∣ses he had, which is, that the whole Church was of his opinion, and the people commonly believed the Real Presence and conversion of substances of Bread and Wine, he would not have fail'd to make the best of it, and o'rewhelm his adversaries with it.

Mr. ARNAƲD will now then perhaps comprehend that there's a difference between a man that affirms a thing for certain, and of which he himself is a witness, and one that draws a consequence, and perhaps will no longer say, That my distinction separates by terms which have no sense, that which reason cannot separate. And at the same time acknowledg, that never pretension was worse grounded than that of the Author of the Per∣petuity, and his own. They affirm the whole Church was of Paschasus his mind. But whereon do they ground their supposition? Were the Adver∣saries of Paschasus agreed about it? No. Does Paschasus himself expresly affirm it? No. But 'tis because Paschasus insinuates it by an equivocal term which the Church made use of. But does Paschasus formally assert, that the Church understood this term in the sense which he gave it? No. But 'tis because Paschasus must thus understand it, says Mr. Arnaud, to make his

reasoning just. Take away then from Paschasus his reasoning the justness which Mr. Arnaud would give it, the subint••lligitur is annull'd, and these Gentlemen bare of proofs.

THESE words of Paschasus, says Mr. Arnaud, Miror quid volunt qui∣dam nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis, sed in Sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem, furnish us with another proof of the same nature. For they shew that this solution of virtue was new, and that Paschasus had not learn'd it but of late. Mr. Arnaud does well to advertise us that 'tis a proof of the same nature as the others, for 'tis so in ef∣fect, that is to say, a very slight one, and scarcely worth offering. Pascha∣sus is astonish'd at what his Adversaries say in reference to virtue, not that this solution appears to him new. He says nothing of it in this respect, but because it does not appear to him conformable to these words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, nor to these others, The Bread which I shall give is my Flesh, nor to these, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him. Let but Mr. Arnaud read Paschasus his Text, and he'l find what I say to be true. Jesus Christ, says he, did not say, this is, or in this mystery is the virtue or figure of my Body, but he has said without feign∣ing, This is my Body. S. John introduces likewise our Lord, saying, the Bread which I shall give is my Flesh, not another than that which is for the life of the world. And again, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me and I in him. Ʋnde miror, adds he, quid velint, &c, What can be con∣cluded hence for the novelty of this solution of virtue?

IN fine, Frudegard himself, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, to whom Pascha∣sus * 1.387 wrote about the latter part of his life to remove some doubts he had on this mystery may serve further to confute the falsity of Mr. Claude's fable, who pretends no body could have the idea of the Real Presence unless he took it from Paschasus his Book. Dicis, says Paschasus, to him, te sic antea credidisse, & in libro quem de Sacrament is edidi ita legisse, sed profiteris postea te in libro ter∣tio de doctrina Christiana B. Augustini legisse quod tropica sit locutio. Mr. Arnaud will have these words, Dicis te sic antea credidisse, to denote that the Doctrin of the Real Presence was the Faith in which he had been brought up, and that the following, Et in libro quem de Sacramentis edidi ita legisse, denote that the reading of Paschasus his Book had confirm'd him in it. But who knows not that in these kind of discourses the Particle Et, is very often a Particle which explains, or gives the reason of what was be∣fore said, and not that which distinguishes, as I have already observ'd in an∣other place. He would only say that before he thus believed it, having so read it in Paschasus his Book. And that Mr. Arnaud's subtilty might take place, he must have said, not that he had thus believ'd it before; but thus believ'd it from the beginning, in his youth, that he afterwards thus found it in Paschasus his Book, who had confirm'd him in his belief, but that after∣wards he had found in S. Austin that 'twas a figurative locution. In this manner he had distinguish'd the three terms of Mr. Arnaud, whereas he di∣stinguishes but two, antea, and postea, and as to the first, he says he had thus believ'd it, and thus read it in Paschasus his Book, denoting by this second clause the place where he drew this Faith.

AND these are Mr. Arnaud's objections, but having examin'd them, 'twill not be amiss to represent the conclusion he draws from 'em. I do not believe, says he; that having considered all these proofs seriously one can ima∣gin,

that Paschasus in declaring the Eucharist to be the true Flesh of Jesus Christ assum'd of the Virgin, has proposed a new Doctrin. Neither can I be∣lieve that amongst the Calvinists themselves any but Mr. Claude will be so obsti∣nate as to maintain so evident a falsity, and one so likely to demonstrate to the world the excessive boldness of some of their Ministers. Thus does Mr. Ar∣naud wipe his Sword after his victory. Can you but think he has offered the most convincing proofs imaginable, oblig'd us to be everlastingly silent, and that the Minister Claude must be a strange kind of a man, seeing he alone of all his party will be able to harden himself against such puissant demon∣strations and clear discoveries.

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 * 1.388 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 * 1.389 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 * 1.390 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 * 1.391 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 * 1.392 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 * 1.393 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, * 1.394 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, * 1.395 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 * 1.396 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. * 1.397 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 * 1.398 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 * 1.399 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 * 1.400 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 * 1.401 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 * 1.402 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 * 1.403 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 * 1.404 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, * 1.405

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 * 1.406 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, * 1.407 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 * 1.408 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.

CHAP. X.

Of Authors in the Ninth Century, Walafridus, Strabo, Florus, Remy of Auxerre, Chstriian Drutmar.

WE may now say (I hope (with some kind of confidence, notwith∣standing Mr. Arnaud's insultings, that Paschasus was an Inno∣vator. This is a truth sufficiently clear'd by what I have al∣ready done in the two preceding Chapters. But to make this (if possible) more plain, we must make some few reflections on the Authors which were of the same Century as Paschasus, besides what I already said of 'em in my Answer to the Perpetuity. For if it appears that these Authors have not held the same language as he did; if it appears on the contrary that they have express'd themselves on the Eucharist quite otherwise than he has done; if one party of 'em have formally declared themselves against his Doctrin, I see no reason why any man should still obstinately maintain that Paschasus has said or wrote nothing but what the Church of his time believed and taught with him.

FIRST 'tis certain we shall not find the Authors of that Century, al∣tho they were not inconsiderable for their number, and almost all of 'em wrote something on the Eucharist, have delivered themselves on so great a subject in the manner Paschasus has done, neither in respect of the sense, nor terms. Let any man shew us for example they have asserted that the sub∣stance of the Bread is converted into the Body of Jesus Christ, in such a man∣ner that it does not any longer remain, altho the savour and colour still re∣main,

or taught that the substance of the Flesh of Jesus Christ enters into our Body, that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin, which died and was buried, and that 'tis this Flesh in propriety of nature; or have said that this Flesh of the word pul∣lule (this is the expression Paschasus uses) which is to say, that it multiplies it self, and that this multiplication is made in the Sacrament, and yet the same Flesh of Jesus Christ, and that yet he remains wholly entire. Let any one shew us any thing like this in these Authors. Mr. Arnaud ought to have employed himself in this, instead of expatiating as he has done up∣on vain arguments. Twenty whole Chapters will not so well satisfie ra∣tional persons, as twelve clear passages out of Authors of the 9tth. Centu∣ry, did they contain the same Doctrin which Paschasus has set down in his Writings; for this would shew the conformity there was between him and his Contemporaries, and at the same time discharge him from the accusati∣on of novelty, which we lay against him. But there is no danger of Mr. Arnaud's taking upon him this task, because he knows 'tis impossible to ac∣quit himself well of it.

IN the second place 'tis certain these Authors have not only not spoke of the Eucharist as Paschasus has done, but on the contrary, have spoke of it in a very different manner from his: whence we may easily collect that his Doctrin agreed in no sort with theirs. I shall begin with Walafridus Strabo, whose words may be seen more at length in my answer to the Per∣petuity. We shall find him thus speaking, That Jesus Christ has establish'd * 1.409 the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the substance of Bread and Wine. That our Saviour has chosen the Bread and Wine, to wit, the same species which Melchisedec offered, to be the mystery of his Body and Blood: That in∣stead of this great diversity of Sacrifices which were in use under the Law, the Faithful must be contented with the simple Oblation of Bread and Wine. Mr. Arnaud may talk as long as he pleases, that these are expressions which do naturally link themselves with the belief of the Real Presence. Which is what we deny him. These expressions do naturally signifie nothing else, but that the Sacrament is real Bread and real Wine, and if any use these kind of expressions in the Church of Rome, they do it merely by constraint to ac∣commodate themselves in some sort to the expressions of the Ancients. Mr. Arnaud again tells us that Walafridus says, That the mysteries be really the Body and Blood of our Lord. But we have already several times told him that Walafridus explains himself in the same place, and refers this really to the virtue, not the substance of Christs Body, which also appears from the title of his Chapter, which is, De virtute Sacramentorum.

FLORƲS, an Author of the same Century, who has wrote a kind of * 1.410 Commentary on the Liturgy, says, That the Oblation altho taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made to the Faithful, fidelibus, the Body and Blood of the only Son of God. After which, borrowing the words of S. Au∣gustin, he says, That the Consecration makes us this Body and this mystical Blood. And the better to explicate what he means by this Body and this mystical Blood, he adds, That the Creature of Bread is made the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, that 'tis eaten Sacramentally, that it remains wholly entire in Heaven, and is so in our hearts. And again a little further, Whatsoever is done in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is a mystery. We see therein one thing, and understand another; what we see has a corporal species, what we understand has a spiritual fruit. What

he says of this mystical Body and Blood which he explains afterwards by the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, in referring to this alone the effect of the Consecration sufficiently denotes he had not in his view either change of substance, or any Real Presence. The opposition likewise which he makes of Jesus Christ eaten in parts in the Sacrament, to himself who remains entire in Heaven, and who enters entire into our hearts does no less denote it; for to what purpose is this distinction? If our Saviour Christ be really in the Sacrament, is he not eaten entire in the same manner in our hearts, and wholly entire in Heaven? The former words, that whatsoever is done in the Eucharist is a mystery wherein we soe one thing, and understand another, testifie the same thing; for what is this thing which we see, but the Bread and Wine, and what is this other which we understand but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which are the ob∣ject of our understanding? He explains himself immediately afterwards, The mystery, says he, of our Redemption was Wine, according to what our Saviour himself says. I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine. And again, Our Lord recommends to us this mystery, saying, Do this in remem∣brance of me, which the Apostle explaining, says, As often as yee eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, yee shew forth the Lords Death till he comes: The Oblation then of this Bread, and this Cup is the Commemoration, and an∣nunciation of the Death of Jesus Christ. That which is most considerable is his making this Commentary on the very words of the Consecration, with∣out adjoyning a word either of the conversion of substances, or substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Mr. ARNAƲD, who oft loses his time in vain contests, leaves all these principal passages which I come now from relating, and sets himself only against the translation of these words, Oblatio quamvis de simplicibus terroe frugibus sumpta, divinoe benedictionis ineffabili potentia efficitur fide∣libus Corpus & Sanguis. I said that this fidelibus must be rendred, to the Faithful, and not for the Faithful; and for this I alledged some reasons. This is a thing, says Mr. Arnaud, which I could willingly grant him, did he ask it with a better meen: for either translation is indifferent to me. But seeing he's resolv'd to carry it away by force, I think I'm oblig'd to tell him that he is unjust. So that here Mr. Arnaud has a quarrel with me for my carriage.

Si natura negat facit indignatio versum.

Truly I'm sorry I cannot make my self agreeable to him, I do what I can, as much as reason and truth will permit; but there are some persons so unhap∣py that they cannot give content do what they can.

I am to Mr. Arnaud, what Sabidus was to Martial. I cannot help it. But had he been pleased to take his eyes off my person, and considered the rea∣son, he had seen, that these two translations are not in effect indifferent, be∣cause that which says, for the Faithful, seems simply to denote that the Eu∣charist is naturally design'd for the use of the Faithful, and not for that of the wicked; whereas the other denotes that 'tis the Body and Blood of Je∣sus Christ, only to the Faithful, and not to the wicked; which is wholly different. Secondly. That that which says, to the Faithful, is more con∣formable to the Rules of Grammar, according to which commonly, fideli∣bus signifies, to the Faithful, and pro fidelibus, for the Faithful. Thirdly, That the sequel of Florus his discourse denotes his sense to be that the Eu∣charist

is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but only to the Faithful, because he immediately adds, that as we eat Jesus Christ by pieces in the Sa∣crament, he is wholly entire in our heart, which can only respect the Faithful to the exclusion of the wicked; and because he says, that we see in the Sacrament one thing, and understand by it another which has a spiritual fruit, which moreover appertains only to the Faithful. What he alledges from Remy of Auxerre, who explains this clause, Ʋt nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui, by these words, id est ad nostram salutem fiat Cor∣pus & Sanguis, is invalid, because we may tell him, that had Florus de∣sign'd to say the same thing as Remus, he would have explain'd himself like to Remus; which he has not done; besides that the explication of Remus is not contrary to that of Florus: for it does not follow from the Sacraments being made the Body of Jesus Christ for our Salvation, that it be made his Body and Blood to the Wicked. All the difference there is between these two Expositions is, that that of Florus is more clear and express than the other. We can conclude very clearly from that of Florus that the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ only to the Faithful, but not to the wicked, but one cannot draw this consequence from that of Remus, neither can one draw a contrary one.

THIS conclusion which I draw from the passage of Florus offends Mr. Arnaud; By the like argument, says he, he will prove that Paschasus did * 1.411 not believe the Real Presence, for this Author says as well as Florus that Je∣sus Christ grants us by his grace, that the Eucharist be to us his Body and Blood. He will prove, adds he, That all the Catholick Priests do no more believe Transubstantiation, seeing they say this Prayer, in the Canon of the Mass. Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quoesumus adscriptam, ratam, ra∣tionabilem, acceptabilemque: facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui filii Domini nostri Jesu Christi. I answer there is a great deal of difference between Florus and Paschasus. Paschasus formally teaches the Doctrin of the Real Presence and conversion of substances. Florus does not do any thing like this. When then we judg of Florus his expression, rea∣son requires us to judg of it according to the sense which it naturally has; but when we judg of that of Paschasus, we must judg of it according to the forced and violent sense which is given to this expression to make it agree with Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, because it appears to us elsewhere that Paschasus believed these Doctrins. When Paschasus speaks of what the Wicked receive in the Eucharist, he speaks of it in a manner so intricate and confused, that it visibly appears he affects to be obscure. Explaining these words, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood * 1.412 dwells in me and I in him, he introduces our Saviour saying, If he does not first dwell in me and I in him, he cannot eat my Flesh nor drink my Blood. And what then is it which men do eat: Do not all indifferently take the Sacraments of the Altar? They take 'em without doubt, but one eats spiritually the Flesh of Jesus Christ, and drinks his Blood, and the other not, altho he seems to take the morsel from the Priests hand. And what does he then receive, there being but one Consecration, if he does not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Truly because the Wicked receive unworthily, they eat and drink their own damnation, acccording to the saying of the Apostle; for they do not try themselves before they come, nor discern the Lords Body. And this is what the Wicked eat and drink. They do not profitably receive the Flesh and Blood, but their own damnation. This plainly appears to be the discourse of a man that hides himself, and durst not say openly the wicked receive the Body

and Blood of Jesus Christ, and seems to insinuate the contrary; but yet still contains himself within these terms of spiritually and profitably that he may save himself by distinctions. Paschasus then is not to be offered as an instance. As to what Mr. Arnaud alledges out of the Canon of the Mass, I acknowledg it cannot be concluded thence that the Priests of the Roman Church in our times do not believe Transubstantiation, because as I have already said, it clearly appearing elsewhere that they believe it, we must not judg of the terms of the Canon according to their natural sense. But a man may conclude thence that those who at first made this Liturgy, had not the same belief with those at this day; for they spake then naturally, and according to the common belief of their Church: Now it is certain that on the Principle of Transubstantiation one must desire of God not that the Bread be made to us the Body of his Son, but that it be made the Body of his Son absolutely. There is a great deal of difference between these two, for if the Bread be transubstantiated it is made the Body of Jesus Christ in it self, to all respects, and beyond all respects; but if it be only made to us the Body of Jesus Christ, it is made so only in our respect, which is to say that 'tis to us instead of the Body of Jesus Christ, and communicates the virtue and efficacy of it. 'Tis in this sense that the Faithful say in the 84. Psalm, That God is to 'em a Sun and a Shield. And David in the 119. Psalm, That the Statutes of God have been to him as so many musical songs. And in the 41. Psalm, according to the vulgar Translation, Fuerunt mihi lachrymoe panis die ac nocte. This way of speaking is very usual amongst the Latins, as appears by these examples of Virgil, Erit ista mihi genetrix, eris mihi magnus Apollo, erit ille mihi semper Deus, Mens sua cuique Deus, Dextra mihi Deus. And so far concerning Florus.

WE must now pass on to Remy of Auxerre, to whom as Mr. Arnaud * 1.413 says, is attributed not only the Exposition of the Mass which goes under his name, but also the Commentary of S. Paul, which others refer to Haymus Bi∣shop of Alberstat. They that will take the pains to examin the Doctrin of this Author, not in the declamations of Mr. Arnaud, but in the passages themselves, wherein 'tis found explain'd, will soon find that he held the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks, which is the union of the Bread with the Divinity, and by the Divinity to the natural Body of Jesus Christ, and that by means of this union, or conjunction, the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ, and is made one and the same Body with him. Which does manifestly appear by what I have related of it in my Answer to the Perpe∣tuity. The Flesh, says he, which the Word has taken in the Womb of the Vir∣gin * 1.414 in unity of person, and the Bread which is consecrated in the Church, are the same Body of Christ. For as this Flesh is the Body of Christ, so this Bread passes to the Body of Christ, and these are not two Bodies, but one Body. For the fulness of the Divinity which was in that Body, fills likewise this Bread, and the same Divinity of the Word which is in them, fills the Body of Christ which is consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the whole world, and makes it one only Body of Christ. He does not say as Paschasus, that 'tis entirely the same Flesh born of the Virgin, dead and risen, nor that 'tis the same Flesh, because it pullules, or multiplies: But he makes of this Flesh, and Bread, the same Body by an unity of union; because that the same Divinity which fills the Flesh, fills likewise this Bread. And elsewhere, Altho this Bread be broken in pieces, and Consecrated all over the world, yet * 1.415 the Divinity which fills all things, fills it also, and makes it become one only Body of Christ. It lying upon him to give a reason why several parts of the

same Bread, and several loaves consecrated in divers places were only one Body of Jesus Christ, there was nothing more easie than to say on the hy∣pothesis of Transubstantiation that 'twas one and the same numerical sub∣stance, existing wholly entire under the species in each part, and on every Altar where the Consecration is perform'd. But instead of this he falls up∣on enquiries into the reason of this unity in the Divinity which fills both all the Loaves of the Altars, and all the parts of a Loaf. Again in another place, As the Divinity of the Word which fills the whole world is one, so al∣tho * 1.416 this Body be Consecrated in several places, and at infinitely different times, yet is not this several Bodies, nor several Bloods, but one only Body, and one only Blood, with that which he took from the Virgin, and which he gave to the Apostles. For the Divinity fills it, and JOYNS it to it self, AND MAKES THAT AS IT IS ONE, SO IT BE JOYN'D TO THE BODY OF CHRIST, and is one only Body of Christ in truth. To say still after this that the Doctrin of Remy is not that this Bread is one with the natural Body of Jesus Christ, because 'tis joyn'd with it, and that 'tis joyn'd with it, because one and the same Divinity fills them, this is methinks for a man to wilfully blind himself, seeing Remus says it in so many words. He teaches the same thing a little further in another place, As the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he took of the Virgin is his true Body which was put to death for our Salvation, so the Bread which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples, and to all the Elect, and which the Priests Consecrate every day in the Church, with the virtue of the Divini∣ty which fills it, is the true Body of Jesus Christ; and this Flesh which he has taken, and this Bread are not two Bodies, but make but one only Body of Christ. We may find the same Doctrin in his Commentaries on the 10th. Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This Host, says he, speaking of the Eucha∣rist, is one and not many, as were the ancient ones. But how is it one and not many, seeing 'tis offered both by several persons, and in several places, and at several times. A person that had the hypothesis of Transubstantiation in his mind, would not have stuck to say, that it is in all places and at all times one and the same numerical substance, the same Body which pullutes, or multiplies it self, as Paschasus speaks. Whereas Remy betakes himself to another course without mentioning a word, either of this unity of sub∣stance, or this pullulation. We must, says he, carefully remark that 'tis the Divinity of the Word, which being one, filling all things, and being every where, causes these to be not several Sacrifices, but one, altho it be offered by many; and is one only Body of Christ with that which he took of the Virgin, and not several Bodies.

IT cannot be denied but this Opinion of the unity of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ by way of conjunction, and by means of the Di∣vinity which fills the one and the other, got some footing in the Latin Church, even since Damascen's time. We find it in the Book of Divine Offices falsly attributed to Alcuinus, almost in the same terms wherein we have seen it in Remus; so that it seems that one of these Authors only co∣pied out from the other. As the Divinity of the Word, says this supposed Alcuinus, is one, who fills the whole world, so, altho this Body be Consecrated * 1.417 in several places, and at an infinite number of times, yet are not these seve∣ral Bodies of Christ, nor several Cups, but one only Body of Christ, and one only Blood with that which he took of the Virgin, and which he gave to his Apostles. For the Divinity of the Word fills him who is every where (which is to say, that which is Consecrated in several places) and makes, that as it is one, it be also joyn'd to the Body of Christ, and that it be but one only Body in truth.

WE find this same opinion in another Book of Divine Offices, which * 1.418 some attribute to Rupert, and others to Walramus, This Body which is ta∣ken from the Altar, and that which is taken from the Virgin, are not said to be, nor indeed are, two Bodies, because one and the same Word is on high in the Flesh, and here below in the Bread.

IT is likewise very likely, that in the 11th. Century during the greatest heats of the Dispute of Lanfranc against Berenger, there were several adver∣saries of Berenger who followed this Opinion. Which may be manifestly collected from an argument which Lanfranc attributes to the Berengarians in these terms: If the Bread be changed into the true Flesh of Jesus Christ, * 1.419 either the Bread must be carried to Heaven to be changed there into the Flesh of Christ, or the Flesh of Jesus Christ must descend on the Earth, to the end that the Bread may be changed into it. Now neither of these is done. This Argument necessarily supposes that the Berengarians did set themselves against persons, who thought the Bread was changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction, or as speaks Damascen, by way of addition, as the food is changed into our body. On this Hypothesis they had some reason to say, that either the Body which is above must come down here below, or that the Bread which is here below must be carried above; for it does not seem immediately that the conjunction can be well made otherwise: But they could not have the least reason, or likelihood of reason to form this objection against the Doctrin of Transubstantiation in the manner wherein the Church of Rome understands it. For if the sub∣stance of Bread be converted into the same numerical substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven, the distance, or proximity of this Bread, and of this Body, make not this conversion, either more easie, or more difficult. Tho the Bread here below be carried up into Heaven, tho the Body of Jesus Christ which is above in Heaven descends here below on Earth, this contributes nothing to the making of the one to be converted into the other. For the conversion of one substance into another, speaks quite another thing than a kind of local motion, as is that of ascending or descending. It is then evident that the opinion which the Berengarians op∣posed was that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union.

WE may moreover justifie the same thing by a passage of Ascelinus, one of Berenger's adversaries; for observe here in what manner he explains his sentiment in his Letter to Berenger himself, Neque vero mirari, vel diffidere * 1.420 debemus Deum facere posse ut hoc quod in Altari consecratur virtute Spiritus Sancti, & ministerio Sacerdotis, uniatur corpori illi quod ex Maria Virgine re∣demptor noster assumpsit, quippe utrumque substantia corporea, utrumque visi∣bile, si reminiscimur nos ipsos ex corporea, & incorporea, ex mortali, & im∣mortali substantia esse compactos, si denique firmiter credimus divinam huma∣namque naturam convenisse personam. 'Tis neither a matter of admiration, nor of doubt for God to make that which is consecrated on the Altar by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and ministry of the Priest to be ƲNITED TO THIS BODY which our Redeemer took of the Virgin. Both one and the other being a corpo∣real substance, both one and the other visible, if we consider that we our selves are composed of a corporeal substance, and of another that is incorporeal, of a mortal substance, and of another that is incorporeal, of a mortal substance, and of another that is incorporeal; and if in fine we firmly believe that the two natures, the Divine and Humane, are joyn'd together in unity of person.

IT is necessary to relate these passages to shew the Readers how greatly Mr. Arnaud deceives them when he would persuade 'em that this opinion of the conjunction of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ, by means of the same Divinity which fills them, is a chimera of the Ministers invention. It appears on the contrary that 'tis a sentiment which has been in effect held by divers Authors in the Latin Church, not to mention here that 'tis the Doctrin of Damascen and the Greeks which have followed him. And this is the first conclusion which can be drawn hence; but from hence al∣so follow several other most important matters. For first, by this we see that the sentiment of Paschasus was not that of the Church of his time, as some would persuade us, seeing those very Authors which Mr. Arnaud alledges in his favour, and who seem to come the nearest to Paschasus his expressions, are at bottom, and in effect infinitely distant from his Doctrin. Secondly, Hence it appears there was nothing regular in the Latin Church touching Transubstantiation, neither in the 11th. nor 12th. Century, seeing consider∣able Authors then publickly explain'd their belief concerning the Eucharist in a manner which suffers the Bread and Wine to subsist in their first sub∣stance. In the third place, from hence is apparent how little certainty and confidence a rational man can put in the principle of the Author of the Per∣petuity and Mr. Arnaud, who suppose it as a thing certain, that in the time when Berenger was first condemned, that is to say in the year 1053. the whole Latin Church was united in the Faith of the Real Presence, and Tran∣substantiation, seeing the contrary may be justifi'd, as well by the argument which Lanfranc relates of the Berengarians, as by the passage of Ascelinus. In fine, it may be seen here how frivolous and vain Mr. Arnaud's negative arguments be, who would prove that the Greeks believ'd in the 11th. Cen∣tury Transubstantiation, because they did not take Berengarius his part, nor disputed on this Article against the Latins. For if Transubstantiation was not then determin'd in the Latin Church, if one might therein make a free profession to believe the union of the Bread with the Body of Jesus Christ, by means of the Divinity, as appears from the example of Asceli∣nus, Berenger's great Adversary, what reason could the Greeks have to dis¦pute and make oppositions?

IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to raise objections against the senti∣ments of these Authors whom I last mention'd; and to say, that if the ha¦bitation * 1.421 of the Divinity in the Body of Jesus Christ remaining in Heaven, and in the Bread remaining on Earth, and conserving its nature, and the appli∣cation of this Bread to serve for an instrument to communicate the graces me∣rited by the Body of Jesus Christ, rendred the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ; the same habitation of the Divinity in the Water of Baptism, and the use which God makes of it to communicate his graces, would render it likewise the Body of Jesus Christ, and give occasion to say, that altho there be different Waters to Baptize in, yet these Waters make but one and the same Body of Je∣sus Christ, that they are changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, that they pass into the Body of Jesus Christ, that altho they appear to be Water, yet in truth they are the Body of Jesus Christ. Besides that it does not follow that Au∣thors have not had a sentiment, that one may form objections to the con∣trary, there being no opinion so clear against which we may not raise diffi∣culties. One may moreover answer him from the part of Remy and others, that the habitation of the Divinity does not always produce this effect in all the material things which it makes use of whereby to communicate the

graces merited by the Body of Jesus Christ, to unite them to the Body of Jesus Christ, and to make them become this Body by way of conjunction and addition. 'Tis an habitation and a particular union of the Divinity to the Bread of the Eucharist which produces in it alone this effect, which must not be extended to other things which Jesus Christ did not say were his Body, as he said of the Bread. All that can be hence concluded then is that according to these Authors there must be some difference allowed between the habitation of the Divinity in the Bread, and the habitation of this same Divinity in other things, as there is between the habitation of the Divinity in the Faithful and Saints; and the habitation of this same Divi∣nity in the human nature of Jesus Christ, seeing this difference appears in the difference of the effects which they produce. Now this is a thing which these Authors would gladly allow. One may say the same thing touching the Soul and Body of Jesus Christ, which are filled with the same virtue of the Divinity, and yet of which it cannot be said that one is the other. For altho the same Divinity dwells in the Body, and Soul of Jesus Christ, yet this is another kind of habitation, design'd to produce not the above-men∣tion'd effect, but another. The Divinity dwells in all things, and fills them with its virtue, but in a different manner, and this difference discovers it self only by the difference of the effects which it produces in the things themselves.

THIS is near what these Authors would have answer'd had any body offered them these objections. But I am persuaded they would never have approved of this new Philosophy, by which Mr. Arnaud endeavours to ac∣commodate their expressions to the sense of the Roman Transubstantiation. Remy, says he, tells us that the Divinity which is in the Body of Jesus Christ, * 1.422 and in the Bread joyns them together, but not by a simple habitation; for it would thus joyn all the creatures where it resides, but by a true operation which renders them not distant, but immediately united. And this union does not determin it self to a simple conjunction, but makes that the Bread passes into the Body of Jesus Christ, that it becomes the Body of Jesus Christ, as wax becomes fire, according to the comparison of S. Chrysostom and as the Bread eaten by Jesus Christ became the Body of Jesus Christ, according to the compa∣rison of other Fathers. This union then is only the way to Transubstantiation. Remy and other Authors who have followed this opinion, explain the man∣ner how the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and they say that 'tis inas∣much as 'tis joyn'd to this Body. 'Tis, says Remy, one only Body and Blood with that which he took of the Virgin, for the Divinity fills it, and joyns it to it self, and makes that as it is one, so it must be joyn'd to the Body of Je∣sus Christ, and be one Body of Jesus Christ in truth. The Divinity of the Word (says the pretended Alcuinus) fills this Body which is every where, (which is to say, that which is Consecrated in an infinite of places) adding it to self, and makes that as it is one, it be also joyn'd to the Body of Jesus Christ, and be one only Body in truth. These words do not put us upon imagining they thought of laying open a certain way to Transubstantiation, nor a pream∣bulatory or preparative union to the conversion, as Mr. Arnaud would have us believe. This is a mere illusion. 'Tis clear they teach in what manner the Bread is the same Body with that which he took of the Virgin, and settle here, to wit, inasmuch as 'tis joyn'd to it by the link of the same Divi∣nity, which fills both the one and the other. Which is what appears from the bare reading of their passages, and especially that of Ascelinus. Beren∣ger had told him, that if he follow'd the opinion of Paschasus, he went con∣trary

to all the laws of nature. And Ascelinus answers him that 'tis neither a subject of admiration, nor a subject of doubt that God can make that which is Consecrated on the Altar to be united to this Body which our Saviour took of the Virgin; which shews he made the ground of his sentiment to consist in this union; and that he respected it not as a way to Transubstantiation, but as that which formally made the Bread the Body of Jesus Christ. The ex∣amples which he adds of the Soul and Body which are joyned together and of the two natures united in Jesus Christ confirm the same thing; for the union of the soul and body, and the union of the two natures are not in any wise ways, and preparations to any Transubstantiation; they are on the contrary unions, wherein the two things united subsist, and on which the mind settles. What Mr. Arnaud says, that this union does not termi∣nate it self to a simple conjunction, but makes the Bread pass into the Body of Jesus Christ, is equivocal. For if he means that the formal effect of this union is, that the Bread remaining what it was, becomes the Body of Je∣sus Christ, we will grant him, that this was in effect the sentiment of these Authors; but if he'll have the Bread, ceasing to be what it was, to become really the same numerical substance which was the Body of Christ before this change, we deny that these Authors have taken it in this sort. The comparisons which he alledges of Wax which becomes Fire, and Bread eaten by Christ which became his Body do contradict this last sense; for the Wax devoured by the Fire becomes not the same substance of Fire in number that it was before; and the Bread which our Saviour aet became not likewise so properly the same substance in number, which was before his Body. So what he says afterwards, That to joyn the Bread to the Body of Jesus Christ, * 1.423 and to make it to be the Body of Jesus Christ, and pass into the Body of Jesus Christ, signifies to transubstantiate in all the languages of the world, is a matter ill offered and evidently unjustifiable. For if the Bread becomes the Body of Jesus Christ formally by reason of the union, as the sense of these Au∣thors is, in the same manner as the food we receive becomes our body by the union which it has with it, it is made the Body of Jesus Christ, not by any real conversion into this same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which was before, but it becomes it by way of addition to this substance, or according to the precise explication which Damascen gives of it by way of augmentation and growth of the natural Body of Jesus Christ, as we have already seen in the third Book, when we treated of the opinion of the Greeks.

THIS being thus clear'd up, 'tis no hard matter to answer the passages of Remy, which Mr. Arnaud alledges with so great confidence, Seeing that a * 1.424 mystery, says he, is that which signifies another thing, if it be the Body of Jesus Christ in truth, why call we it a mystery, 'Tis because that after the Consecration it is one thing, and it appears another. It appears to be Bread and Wine, but 'tis in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. For God ac∣commodating himself to our weakness, seeing we are not used to eat raw Flesh, and drink Blood, makes these gifts remain in their first form, altho they be in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I answer that Remy means that the gifts appear to be after the Consecration what they were before; to wit, simple Bread and Wine, that the change which they have received, be∣ing become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by their union with the natural Body, is an invisible thing, and that this union does not change any thing of their first form, altho it seems it should do it seeing the Bread which our Saviour aet, and which became likewise his Body by union, took the

form of Flesh. That God deals otherwise in the Eucharist by way of con∣descention to our weakness, because we cannot suffer this form of Flesh, but yet the union ceases not to be true, and consequently the Bread is in truth the Body of Jesus Christ, altho it does not appear to be so. This is the true sense of Remy grounded on his own Hypothesis, and not that which Mr. Ar∣naud imputes to him.

THE second passage as Mr. Arnaud alledges it, is conceived in these terms, As the Divinity of the Word is one which fills all the world, so altho the Body be consecrated in several places, and at infinitely different times, yet this is not several Bodies of Jesus Christ, nor several Cups, but the same Body and the same Blood, with that which he took in the Virgins Womb; and which he gave to his Apostles. And therefore we must observe that whether we take more, or less, all do equally receive the Body of Jesus Christ entire. But first I demand of Mr. Arnaud who gave him that liberty to retrench from this passage a whole sentence, to alledg what goes before, and what follows, and leave out a whole period in the middle, without any other reason than that it solves the difficulty, and clearly shews Remy's sense? Is it fairly done in these kind of disputes to maim passages of Authors which do not make for us? Moreover were it some words either before or after, we might perhaps suppose in his favour, that 'twere only an omission, or neglect, and that he did not mind that what he left out belonged to the same pas∣sage, but to retrench a whole sentence from the middle of a discourse, is I think a thing without example. Here then is what Remy says, 'Tis one and the same Body, and the same Blood with that which he took in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he gave to his Apostles. FOR THE DIVINITY FILLS IT, AND JOINS IT TO IT SELF, AND MAKES, THAT AS IT IS ONE, IT BE LIKEWISE JOIN'D TO THE BODY OF JESƲS CHRIST, AND THAT IT BE ONE ONLY BODY IN THE TRƲTH. This period eclips'd leaves all the rest of the passage favourable to Mr. Arnaud, and therefore he has thought fitting to lay it aside accord∣ing to the liberty which he allows himself of removing whatsoever offends him; but this same period re-establish'd shews clearly the sense of Remy, which is, that all the Loaves consecrated in several places are one and the same Body of Jesus Christ with that which he took of the Virgin, not be∣cause they are transubstantiated into it, but because they are joyn'd with it by means of the Divinity which is one in all these Loaves.

THE third passage has these words, That as the Flesh which Jesus Christ has taken in the Womb of the Virgin, is his true Body crucified for our salvation, so this Bread which Jesus Christ has given to his Disciples and to all those which are predestinated to eternal life, and which the Priests conse∣crate every day in the Church, WITH THE VIRTUE OF THE DIVI∣NITY WHICH FILLS THIS BREAD, is the true Body of Jesus Christ. And this Flesh which he has taken, and this Bread are not two Bodies, but make one only true Body of Jesus Christ, so that when this Bread is broken and eaten, Jesus Christ is sacrificed and eaten, and yet remains entire and living. And as this Body which he deposed on the Cross was offered for our Redemption, so this Bread is offered every day to God for our Salvation and Redemption, which altho it appears to be Bread, is yet the Body of Christ. For our Redeemer having regard to our weakness, and seeing us subject to sin, has given us this Sacrament, to the end that being now incapable of dying, al∣tho we sin every day, we may have a true Sacrifice by which our iniquities may

be expiated. And because all these Loaves make but one Body of Jesus Christ and are offered for our Redemption, he has said, This is my Body which shall be given for you, and added, do this, which is to say, Consecrate this Body, in remembrance of me, to wit, of my Passion, and your Redemption, for I have redeemed you by my Blood. Our Lord leaving this blessed Sacrament to all his faithful servants to engrave it in their hearts and memories has done like a man who drawing near the time of his death, sends to his friends a great pre∣sent for a remembrance of him, saying, Receive this gift, my dear friend, and keep it carefully for my sake, to the end that every time you see it, you may think on me. There is nothing in all this but what may very well agree with the Hypothesis of Remy, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ by way of union and conjunction with the natural Body. This Bread with the virtue of the Divinity which fills it, is the true Body of Jesus Christ, because an ad∣dition made to the natural Body becomes the true Body. And these are not two Bodies but one only Body, because that according to the argument of Damascen an augmentation or a growth of a Body does not make another, but the same Body. When this Bread is broken and eaten, Jesus Christ is immolated and eaten, to wit, in this Bread which is joyn'd to him, and yet he remains entire and living, to wit, in his natural Body. This Bread is of∣fered for our Redemption, inasmuch as 'tis a commemoration of it, and an application made to us of the price of our Redemption on the Cross. And in this sense 'tis a true Sacrifice which expiates us because it does represent and apply to us the true Sacrifice of the Cross of Jesus Christ, as Remy thereupon formally explains himself in these words, Do this, that is to say, Consecrate this Body in remembrance of me, to wit, of my Passion and your Redemption, for I have redeemed you by my Blood. Here are the objections which Mr. Arnaud has made on Remy, let any one judg whether he has had reason to make such a bustle with this Author and say, That it appears strange any man should question the sentiment of an Author which speaks in this sort. For in fine; a body would think the license of contradicting every thing should have its bounds. 'Twere well if Mr. Arnaud would accustom himself to judg of things with less prejudice.

WE must now pass on to Christian Drutmar, of whom I had alledged a very considerable passage taken from his Commentary on the 26. Chapter of S. Matthew, that is to say, from an explication which he makes precisely of th' institution of the Holy Sacrament. The Author of the Perpetuity had cavil'd on this passage as much as 'tis possible, sometimes saying that the translation which I made of it was not faithful, sometimes that the Text it self was corrupted, sometimes that the words of which it consists had no coherence, sometimes that the passage was question'd by Sixtus of Sienne, and that there was a Manuscript of Drutmar in the Convent of Grey-Friers at Lyons which instead of this explication, Hoc est Corpus meum. Id est in Sa∣cramento, contain'd these words, Hoc est Corpus meum. Hoc est in Sacramento vere subsistens, And I know not how many other frivolous evasions which may be seen fully refuted in my answer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud did * 1.425 not think it necessary again to engage himself in this dispute. He only tells us that 'tis the direct attention to the Sacrament, and external vail which makes Drutmar to explain these words; Hoc est Corpus meum, by these, id est in Sacramento. For when a man directs his mind to the Sacrament, and that * 1.426 which strikes our senses, one cannot say strictly that 'tis the Body it self of Je∣sus Christ. It is apparent Bread, 'tis the sign, the similitude, the Sacrament of this Body which is the Body of Jesus Christ only in Sacrament, as Drutmar

says. This is not the point in question. But the question is to know in what sort the people of those days believed the Body of Jesus Christ was joyn'd to this Sacrament and Vail. 'Tis by this we must supply Drutmar's expression; for no∣thing can be more unjust than to judg of his sentiment by a word which he spake cursorily, and by an abridged expression.

IT must be acknowledg'd no easie matter to sound the bottom of these Gentlemens minds; who ever could imagin that after so many attempts to elude the passage of Drutmar, Mr. Arnaud finding his labour in vain should betake himself to the direction of attention? Drutmar writes an express Commentary on the institution of the Eucharist. He explains these words of our Saviour, This is my Body, in this sense, that is to say Sacramentally. And Mr. Arnaud comes and tells us by his own Authority that he minded directly only the vail and appearances of Bread which cover the Body of Christ; as if Drutmar did not design to give the true sense of our Saviour in the explication of these words, or as if our Saviour meant only by these words that the appearances of Bread signifie his Body; or as if a Com∣mentator were not obliged to direct his attention to the principal, natural and essential sense of the words he explains, without falling into forein and fantastical senses which no body could imagin but himself. For I do not be∣lieve it has ever yet entred into any man's thoughts that these terms, This is my Body, signifie, that the accidents of Bread, or the vail of the appearan∣ces of Bread which cover the Body of Jesus Christ are this Body only in sign and Sacrament. Neither must Mr. Arnaud tell us that this is a word which Drutmar spake transiently and for brevity sake; for 'tis an express and for∣mal explication of our Saviours words. Supposing people commonly be∣lieved Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, as Mr. Arnaud would have it, what likelihood is there that in an age wherein people could not be ignorant, that this Doctrin met with much contradiction in the person of Paschasus, that Drutmar (who was a Religious of the Convent of Corbie, which is to say of the same Convent as Paschasus was Abbot of) would de∣ceive the world, betray the publick Faith of the Church, favour those that opposed it, scandalize his own proper party, and give way to an here∣tical explication of Christs words, and this by the rule of direct attention, and by the means of abbreviated expressions. In truth Mr. Arnaud shews what kind of opinion he has of us, when he supposes such kind of answers as these will satisfie us.

CHAP. XI.

Of other Authors in the Ninth Century, Amalarius, Heribald, Raban, Bertram, and John Scot.

AFter Drutmar, we must examin Amalarius. If we believe what An∣drew du Val the Sorbonist Doctor says of him in his Notes on the Treatise of the Church of Lyons, entituled, De tribus Epistolis, the question will be soon decided. For having related on the testimony of Flo∣rus a passage of Amalarius he concludes in these terms, Ex quo conjecturae locus relinquitur Amalarium istum una cum Joanne Scoto fuisse Berengarii prae∣cursores & veluti ante signanos, Hence we may conjecture that this Amalarius, with John Scot were Berenger's fore-runners. If we believe M. the Presi∣dent Maugin, Amalarius was only a Stercoranist, of whom we shall speak hereafter. If we will believe the Author of the Perpetuity, Amalarius was Paschasus his Adversary; for he strongly assures us, That Bishop Usher was * 1.427 mistaken when he thought Amalarius's error consisted in holding the Doctrin of the Roman Catholicks, not only because this supposition is without any ground, but also because the Epitomy of William of Malmsury joyns Amala∣rius with Heribald and Raban who were Paschasus his Adversaries. But in short, if we will consult Mr. Arnaud, he will tell us on the contrary, * 1.428 that Amalarius and Heribald were in no wise adversaries to Paschasus. That the Author of the Perpetuity granted it because he believed William of Malmsbury said it, but that this does not appear to be true. That Ama∣larius indeed was a Sterconarist, but yet never any body taught more expresly the Real Presence. Thus these Gentlemen, who so greatly insult over us, when they find any difference amongst us Ministers in the least point of History, or conjecture, do not always agree among themselves, one says, Amalarius was the fore-runner of Berenger, the other maintains that never any man taught more formally the Real Presence; the one makes him to∣gether with Heribald and Raban a bitter enemy to Paschasus, and th'other protests 'tis not likely to be true.

TO clear up this confusion, we must have recourse to the passages of Amalarius, and judg of his Doctrin from it self. He tells us then first, That those things which are done in the celebration of the Mass, are transacted * 1.429 as in a Sacrament of our Lords Passion, as he himself commands us, saying, Every time you do this, do it in remembrance of me; and therefore the Priest who immolates the Bread and Wine, is in Sacrament of Christ, the Bread, the Wine and Water and Wine are for Sacraments of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The Sacraments must have some resemblance with the things of which they be Sacraments. Let the Priest then be like our Saviour Christ, as the Bread, the Wine and Liquors are like the Body of Jesus Christ. It appears from these words, that in the stile of Amalarius, to be a Sacrament of a thing is to represent it, and hold the place of it, for this is precisely what these terms signifie, The things of the Mass are done IN SACRAMENT of our Lords Passion, and these other terms, the Priest is in Sacrament of Christ. When then he adds, that the Bread, the Wine and Water are in SACRAMENT of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, it is clear he means they stand in stead of it, and represent them, and this resemblance which

he inserts afterwards between the Bread, the Wine and the Water, and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they are the Sacraments of 'em, confirm the same thing, and at the same time formally distinguishes them from the Body and Blood themselves.

Mr. ARNAƲD answers that Amalarius has follow'd the language of * 1.430 sense, and that the question here was not to explain the nature of the Eucha∣rist, but the mysterious references which God would engrave in the symbols which he has chosen in this mystery. But what reason has Mr. Arnaud to make Amalarius to have follow'd the language of sense in opposition to that of Faith, seeing Amalarius does not mention any thing that leads to this di∣stinction, and that on the contrary it appears by the terms which he makes use of, that he honestly meant the Eucharist was real Bread and Wine in substance. Who told Mr. Arnaud that Amalarius made not the nature of the Eucharist to consist in the whole action's being a Sacrament of our Lords Passion, that the Priest immolates the Bread and Wine, that he represents therein our Saviour Christ, and that the Bread and Wine stand for his Body and Blood? We must judg of Amalarius his Doctrin by his expressions. To be in Sacrament, according to him, is to represent and stand for, the Bread and Wine are in Sacrament of the Body and Blood, as the Priest is in Sacrament of Jesus Christ, they are not then really this Body and Blood.

AMALARIƲS himself does clearly explain his mind in another * 1.431 place, saying, That the Priest bows himself, and recommends to God what is immolated in the stead of Jesus Christ. Hoc quod vice Christi immolatum est Deo patri commendat. Mr. Arnaud says this is not an expression contrary to the Real Presence, because Agapius has made use of it, and that in effect this expression is grounded on the different state wherein Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist, and that wherein he has been in his Passion, and that wherein he now is in Heaven. For this diversity distinguishing him to our senses, it makes one distinguish him likewise in the expressions, But all this is but a mere evasion, Amalarius does not say that Jesus Christ in one state, holds the place of himself in another state. He ingenuously says, that which is immo∣lated in the stead of Jesus Christ; and if you would know what he means by what is immolated in the place of Jesus Christ, he has already told you that 'tis Bread and Wine which are immolated, and which are in Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

HE says moreover the same thing elsewhere, The Oblation and the Cup * 1.432 signifie our Lords Body, and when Jesus Christ has said, This is the Cup of my Blood, he meant his Blood which was in his Body, as the Wine was in the Cup. And a little further, By this particle of the Oblation which the Priest puts in the Cup, he represents the Body of Jesus Christ, which is risen from the dead, by that which the Priest or the People eat, is represented this Body of Jesus Christ, which is still on the Earth (to wit his Church) and by that which remains on the Altar, is represented this other Body which is still lying in the Sepulchre (to wit, the faithful dead.)

IT is in vain that Mr. Arnaud opposes to these passages what the same Amalarius says, That the Church believes this Sacrament ought to be eaten by * 1.433 men, because she believes 'tis our Lords Body and Blood, and that in eating it the Souls of the Faithful are fill'd with benediction. For 'tis true that the reason for which the Church recommends to the Faithful the eating of the

Eucharist, is because 'tis the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, this is not a matter in contest, the question is only to know in what manner this is.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud urges these other words, Cre∣dimus * 1.434 naturam simplicem panis & vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, scilicet Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. We believe that the simple nature of Bread and Wine is changed into a reasonable nature, to wit, of the Body and Blood of Christ. For his sense is not that there's made a real conversion of one nature into another, but that there's made a mystical conversion by which 'tis no longer mere Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, or as himself says elsewhere several times the Sacrament of the Bo∣dy and Blood of Jesus Christ.

'TIS also no less in vain that Mr. Arnaud endeavours to make advan∣tage of some terms of Amalarius his Letter to Guntard, which may be seen in Spicilege's seventh Volume. Guntard was a young man that was scanda∣liz'd at his seeing Amalarius spitting without any scruple immediately after his receiving the Communion, Amalarius answers him that this was a thing natural and necessary to the preservation of health, and that he thought he did nothing herein which cast any dishonor on the Body of Christ, that if he imagin'd he cast out, in spitting, the Body of Christ, he was deceived. That he would say to him touching the Body of Jesus Christ which we receive, what the Emperor Valentinian said to his Army. 'Twas in your power to choose me Emperor, but now 'tis in mine to choose whom I please for my Collegue. 'Tis the same here, for 'tis your part to have a pure heart, and to beseech God to give it you; but 'tis his to disperse his Body throughout our members, and veins, for our salvation. For 'tis he who in giving the Bread to his Apostles has said, This is my Body which shall be given for you. His Body was on the Earth when he would, and it is there when he pleases; yea, after his Ascension he has not disdain'd to shew himself to S. Paul in the Temple of Jerusalem which was on earth. His sense is, that we ought not to trouble our selves about what becomes of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ which we receive in the Eucharist, that 'tis our part to purifie our hearts, and his to give us his Bo∣dy in the manner which he thinks fitting; because 'twas he that said of the Bread of the Eucharist, that 'twas his Body. What he adds concerning his Body being on the Earth, &c. he says it not with respect to the Real Pre∣sence, as Mr. Arnaud imagins, but in reference to the right which our Sa∣viour has to make his Eucharistical Body what he pleases. For 'tis an ar∣gument à pari (as we call it) by which he undertakes to prove that Jesus Christ is the master of his Eucharistical Body, as well as the master of his natural Body, having left it on Earth as long as he thought fitting, and af∣ter his Ascension was not so taken up with his abode in Heaven, as not to shew himself to his Apostle in the Temple of Jerusalem. And this appears from the sequel of his discourse. I say this, says he, to the end that if thro ignorance, or without my consent there should proceed out of my mouth any part of the Lords Body, you may not believe presently hereupon that I am void of Religion, and that I despise my Lords Body, or that this Body be carried in∣to any place where he would not have it come. Our Soul lives by this Body, as the Lord himself says, If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man, nor drink his Blood, you have no life in you. If then this Body be our life, it will not lose being separated from us what it has in it self, and what we receive from it. My Son, desire your Priests to take heed they lose not out of their hearts any of those words which the Lord has spoken in the

Gospel, for they are likewise our Life, as well as the Consecrated Bread. He means, that altho he casts out of his mouth in spitting some part of the Eu∣charistical Body, yet we must not believe this Body is carried to any place where our Saviour would not have it, or this Body being in this place lies stript of the advantage which it has to be the life of our souls, no more than the words of the Gospel, which altho neglected, be yet also our life. What signifies this to the Real Presence? Will not his discourse be every whit as coherent and as well followed if we suppose that the consecrated Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ in Sacrament as he teaches elsewhere, as if we suppose it to be so in propriety of substance, which we believe that Amalarius never taught.

THE conclusion which he draws from all this is yet (if you will) less favourable to Mr. Arnaud. Thus, says he, having taken with an honest and faithful heart the Lords Body, I have nothing to do to dispute whether it be in∣visibly carried up into Heaven, or reserved in our Body till the day of Judgment, or whether exhaled up in the Air, or whether it flows from our Body with the Blood when our Veins be opened, or issues out thro the Pores, the Lord saying, Whatsoever enters by the mouth into the belly goes into Excrement. Which is to say, that it belongs not to us to make all these questions about the Sacra∣ment, because our Saviour does with it what he pleases. As to our parts, adds he, we ought only to have a care lest we receive it with a Judas's heart, lest we despise it; but on the contrary discern it salutarily from other common aliments. I confess Mr. Arnaud has some reason to conjecture hence that Amalarius was of the number of those which they call Stercoranists, but on what side so∣ever he turns himself, he cannot conclude he held the Real Presence, and this very thing that Mr. Arnaud believes Amalarius was a Stercoranist ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or conversion of the substance in the Eucharist.

HAD Mr. Arnaud consulted the Letter of the same Amalarius to Ran∣gar, which is within two pages of that which he wrote to Gruntard, he had seen that Amalarius expounds these words of Jesus Christ, This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you, in this manner, This Cup is a figure of my Body, in which is the Blood which shall issue from my side to accomplish the ancient Law, and when 'tis spilt it shall be the New Testament, because 'tis a new and innocent Blood, the Blood of the Man without Sin, which shall be spilt for the Redemption of Mankind. Explaining aftetwards what is said in the Liturgy, Mysterium fidei: This Blood, says he, is called the mystery of Faith, because it profits to the Salvation and Eternal Life of him that believes himself Redeemed by this Blood, and makes himself an imi∣tator of our Lords Passion. And therefore the Lord says, If yee eat not the Flesh of the Son of man, nor drink his Blood, yee will have no life in you. Which is to say, if ye partake not of my Passion, nor believe that I died for your salvation, yee will have no life in you. The mystery is Faith, as S. Au∣gustin teaches in his Epistle to Boniface, as in some manner the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of the Blood of Jesus Christ is the Blood of Jesus Christ, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. 'Tis plainly seen this is not the stile of a man that believed the Real Pre∣sence.

BUT before we leave Amalarius, we must joyn him to Heribald and Raban, for they stand all three accused by several Authors with Stercora∣nism,

which is to say, they believ'd that what we receive in the Sacra∣ment, is digested and subject to the necessity of other food which passes in∣to Excrements. William of Malmsbury in his epitomis'd Manuscript, as the Author of the Perpetuity acknowledges, attributes to all three of 'em this opinion. The President Maugin affirms the same thing of Amalarius, and Mr. Arnaud says his proofs be good. And the anonymous Author publish'd by Cellot the Jesuit, attributes the same sentiment to Heribald, and Raban, without any mention of Amalarius, Et his quidem, says he, qui dixerunt secessui obnoxium (quid nunquam antea auditum est) id est, Heribaldo Antisio∣dorensi Episcopo qui turpiter proposuit, & Rabano Moguntino qui turpius assum∣psit, turpissime vero conclusit, suus ad respondendum locus servetur. Thomas * 1.435 Waldensis attributes it in like manner to Heribald and Raban, Heribaldus, says he, Altisiodorensis Episcopus & Rabanus Moguntinus posuerunt Euchari∣ristoe Sacramentum obnoxium esse secessui. Mr. Arnaud endeavours to sub∣stract Raban from this number, The single testimony, says he, of an Author so little judicious as this anonymous, is not sufficient to impute this sentiment to Raban, there being elsewhere nothing in his works but what may receive a good sense. But has he so soon forgotten what he himself wrote eight lines above. Raban is accused of the error of the Stercoranists by an anonymous Author, and by William of Malmsbury. This anonymous is not the only Author that gives this testimony, William of Malmsbury asserts the same: why then does Mr. Arnaud say eight lines after, The single testimony of this anonymous Author is not enough? If his single testimony be not sufficient that of William of Malmsbury will confirm it; and if these two be not suf∣ficient, Thomas Waldensis will give 'em his suffrage as I now mention'd. Even Raban himself sufficiently explains his own sentiment, without any need of other witnesses; for observe here what he writes in his fifth Book, De naturis rerum; The Lord would have the Sacraments of his Body and Blood to be received by the mouths of the Faithful, and serve 'em for food (in pastum eorum redigi, others read in partem eorum redigi) to the end this visible effect should represent the invisible effect. For as material food nou∣rishes and strengthens the Body, so the Word of God inwardly nourishes our souls. And in his Book of the instruction of Ecclesiasticks, he formally * 1.436 teaches, that the Sacrament is taken with the mouth, reduced into nourishment for our Bodies, and converted or changed in us when we eat it. There is no explication can shift the force and consequence of these terms.

THE question is now whether the opinion of these persons, who have been since odiously called by way of reproach Stercoranists, be consistent with the Real Presence, or whether it supposes that the substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist. If we consult Durand of Troarn to know what these Stercoranists were, he will tell us that in his time they were accoun∣ted the same persons who maintain'd that the substances of Bread and Wine remain'd after the Consecration. They say, says he, that the gifts of Bread * 1.437 and Wine which are laid on the Altar remain after the Consecration what they were before, and are yet in some sort the true Body and true Blood of Je∣sus Christ, not naturally, but in figure, And that the substances of the Divine Oblation are corruptible and digested with other meats. He says the same thing afterwards in two or three several places, and calls these people Ster∣coranists, without mentioning several kinds of 'em, as that some of 'em are for having the substance it self of Christ's Body to be subject to these acci∣dents, and others who understood it of the substance of Bread.

IT also appears from the Dispute of Guitmond, that this was the senti∣ment of Berenger and his followers, for he introduces 'em thus arguing, 'Tis absurd t' expose the Body of Jesus Christ to the necessity of Excrements. * 1.438 Yet whatsoever enters into the mouth, as our Saviour says, descends into the stomach, and is cast into the draught. From this visible and corporeal mandu∣cation in the Sacrament, says Algerus, has sprung the filthy Heresie of the * 1.439 Stercoranists. For they say that so great a Sacrament being eaten corporally is likewise subject to Excrements. Which they endeavour to strengthen by seve∣ral arguments, and especially by the words of Jesus Christ, who says in the Gospel, Whatsoever enters into the mouth, descends into the stomach, and is cast forth into the draught.

'TWILL be said it hence plainly appears that the Berengarians were Stercoranists, seeing they believ'd that the substance of Bread remain'd af∣ter the Consecration, but that it does not hence follow that all the Sterco∣ranists, and especially Heribald and Raban held in like manner the sub∣sistence of the Bread and Wine. I answer, It belongs to Mr. Arnaud to shew us that there were two sorts of Stercoranists, the one who held the Real Presence, and others that did not believe it. For why must we be led by his authority? we show that those who were accused of Stercoranism are the same as were opposed for not believing Transubstantiation. If Mr. Ar∣naud will needs have that there were two sorts, 'tis his part to prove it, for as long as he supposes this without proof, we have right to deny it him. Yet will it be no hard matter to convince him that this same Stercoranism which Authors attribute to Heribaid and Raban, is nothing else than the belief of the subsistence of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, which is to say in a word that 'tis exactly the opinion of Berenger, and that 'twas only to render it odious that their adversaries exposed it under this idea, or repre∣sentation of Stercoranism. Which is what justifies it self from the testimo∣ny of Thomas Waldensis, who tells us that a subtil Doctor of his time said, We should interrogate the Priests, whether they did not think that this thing * 1.440 which they believ'd to be the Flesh of Christ was tasted with ones bodily mouth, and whether being received into the stomach it went into the draught, according as, adds he, the vile Sect of the Heribaldiens and Lollards taught, for they say ALL, that this Bread which they imprudently call THE NATƲRAL BREAD, is the august Sacrament and consecrated Host. Here I think we have the Heribaldiens who formally say that the Sacrament, the consecra∣ted Host, which according to them passes into Excrements, is, The natural Bread. The aforesaid Waldensis disputing in the sequel against Wicliff, says, * 1.441 that Wicliff proved that the Eucharist was Bread by the experience of nature, because a man may be fed with Hosts. Whence, adds he, I conclude that as he admits the digestion of the Eucharist, he must likewise grant that it passes into Excrements. And thus is he agreed with Heribald and Raban of Mayence, who have taught that the true Sacrament was subject to the casualty of other food. 'Tis plain he puts no difference between the Stercoranism of these two Bishops, and the subsistence of the Bread of Wicliff. Elsewhere he al∣so more clearly proves that Honorius of Autun believed that the substance of Bread remained, or as he speaks, that he was of the Sect of the Panites, because he alledges the passage of Raban, which bears that the Sacrament passes into our food. Et ipse enim, says he, de secta Panitarum, Rabani ver∣sum * 1.442 ponit infra ubi agit de partibus Missoe, Sacramentum, inquiens, ore perci∣pitur, & in alimentum corporis redigitur.

BUT if we will besides the testimonies of these Authors hearken more∣over unto reason, we shall find that there is nothing more inconsistent with the belief of the Real Presence than this pretended error of the Stercoranists; and that those who will have these two opinions agree together, have never well considered what they undertook to establish. It is not possible to be∣lieve the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, I mean of this same numerical substance which was born of the Virgin, and is now in Heaven, without believing at the same time that this substance is not sen∣sible in it, palpable, visible, extended, capable of being divided in the same manner as 'twas when our Lord conversed on Earth. 'Twill be the greatest folly imaginable to impute to persons that have eyes, and see the Eucharist, and have some remains of common sense to make therein exist this Body without making it therein exist insensible, indivisible, impalpable after the manner of spirits, as they also do of the Church of Rome. Now with what likelihood can one make this opinion agree with that of Stercoranism, which asserts that this Body is digested into the stomach after the manner of other meats, that one part of it passes into our nourishment, and the other is subject to the common necessity of aliments. What is digested is touched by the substance of our stomach, penetrated by our natural heat, divided and separated into several parts, reduced into Chyle, then into Blood, distributed thro all the several parts of our Body, and joyn'd im∣mediately to 'em, after it has been made like 'em, whilst that which is most gross and improper for our nourishment passes into Excrement. What like∣lihood is there that persons who are not bereft of their senses can subject to these accidents, an indivisible and inpalpable substance, which exists af∣ter the manner of Spirits? Moreover they were not ignorant that the Bo∣dy of Jesus Christ is animated with its natural Soul, and that what passes into our nourishment is animated by ours, what a monstrous opinion then is it to imagin that the same numerical Body can be at the same time anima∣ted with two Souls, with that of Jesus Christ and ours, to be united hy∣postatically to the Word, and hypostatically to us? On what hand soever we turn, 'tis certain that 'tis an inexpressible chimera to say that those which were called Stercoranists believ'd the Real Presence in the sense which the Roman Church understands it. It must be acknowledged that they were Panites, as Thomas Waldensis calls them, that is to say, they believ'd that the Eucharist was a Real Substance of Bread. And seeing we shew'd that Amalarius, Heribald, and Raban were of the number of these pretended Stercoranists, it must be necessarily acknowledged that they were contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus, whence it evidently follows that this Doctrin was not commonly held in the Church then, as Mr. Arnaud pretends it was. For these three great men held in it too considerable a rank to permit us to believe they were contrary to the publick Belief in a point so considerable, and Mr. Arnaud himself will not have us think thus of 'em. One of 'em, to wit, Amalarius, was sent to Rome by the Emperor Lewis to seek the Anti∣phonaries, as he himself testifies. The other, to wit, Heribald, was Bi∣shop of Auxerre, and reputed a Saint after his death, as appears from the Inscription of his Sepulchre, Here lies the Body of S. Heribald; and the last, to wit, Raban, was Abbot of Fulde, and afterwards Arch-Bishop of Mayence, accounted one of the most learned men of his Age, as appears by the testi∣monies of Baronius and Sixtus of Sienne.

TO these three we must add Bertram, for it cannot be doubted but that he was also one of those who were afterwards called Stercoranists, which is to say, he believ'd that this substance which we receive in the Sacrament was subject to digestion, and passed into our nourishment. He clearly shews his sense in several places of his Book. For having related these words, of Isidor, The Bread and Wine are compared to the Body and Blood of Jesus * 1.443 Christ, because that as the substance of this visible Bread and Wine inebri∣ate the outward man, so the Word of God, which is the living Bread chears the faithful Soul, when she participates of it, he makes this remark. Say∣ing this he clearly confesses, that whatsoever we take outwardly in the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood, is used for nourishment to our Body. And a little further, Secundum visibilem creaturam, corpus pascunt. And speaking afterwards of the Eucharistical Body of Jesus Christ, Negari non potest cor∣rumpi, quod per partes comminutum disparitur ad sumendum & dentibus com∣molitum in corpus trajicitur. And again, Non attenditur quod corpus pascit, quod dente premitur, quod per partes comminuitur, sed quod in fide spiritua∣liter accipitur.

THESE two last Authors, to wit, Raban and Bertram, besides this Doctrin which is common to 'em with the rest, have especially this, that they have formally opposed the novelties of Paschasus by publick Wri∣tings. Which is what appears by the testimony of the anonymous Author whose words we have already related; for he says in proper terms, that Raban and Ratram wrote against Paschasus; to wit, Raban a Letter to the Abbot Egilon, and Ratram a Book dedicated to King Charles, and that they defamed him for offering this proposition, that what we receive from the Altar is nothing else but the same Flesh which was born of the Virgin, and suffered on the Cross, and rose again from the Sepulchre, and is at this day offered for the sins of the world.

WE have no reason, says Mr. Arnaud, to believe that Raban attack'd Pas∣chasus * 1.444 otherwise than Bertram. Now Bertram does not any where name Paschasus, and not only, he does not attack him openly, but shuns to appear contrary to him, so that it cannot be concluded from the testimony of this Au∣thor, that Raban was an adversary to Paschasus his Book. Why can it not be concluded from the testimony of this Author, seeing this Author for∣mally says it? Can Mr. Arnaud that never saw this Letter to Egilon better judg of it, than this Author that did see it? Supposing Raban did not name Paschasus, it will not follow that he did not attack his Book; for a man may write against a Book, and yet not name the Author of it. 'Twas a sufficient attacking the Book to combat precisely and directly the funda∣mental and essential proposition which Paschasus came from establishing in it, which was, that what we receive in the Communion is the same Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin.

THIS anonymous Author, says moreover Mr. Arnaud, is the only per∣son * 1.445 that speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon. 'Twas never cited either by Berenger, nor by any other Author, 'twas unknown to all the Writers of the 11th. Century. Supposing what Mr. Arnaud says were true, yet would it not be sufficient for the calling in question the sincerity of this anonymous Author who speaks of this Letter as of that which he saw. But besides this Mr. Arnaud hazards himself too much when he positively affirms that this,

is the only Author who speaks of this Letter of Raban to Egilon. He may be convinced of the contrary by Raban himself who acknowledges it, and makes express mention of it on the same subject of Paschasus his Doctrin, and in the same sense which the anonymous does, excepting the name of Paschasus which he does not express, which plainly defends the sincerity of this nameless Author, Quidam nuper de ipso Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis * 1.446 Domini non rite sentientes dixerunt hoc ipsum Corpus & Sanguinem Domini quod de Maria Virgine natum est, & in quo ipse Dominus passus est in cruce & resurrexit de Sepulchro; cui errori quantum potuimus ad Egilum Abbatem scribentes de corpore ipso quid vere credendum sit aperuimus.

BƲT supposing 'twere true, says Mr. Arnaud, that Raban did in effect * 1.447 contradict Paschasus, this will be but of small advantage to Mr. Claude. Which he endeavours to prove afterwards by the example of several great Wits, and famous Bishops who have attack'd the Divinity of Jesus Christ. He adds, That Raban was as other men are, as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons refuted, that it cannot appear strange he should fall into an error touching the Eucharist, and that the qualities of a Philoso∣pher, Rhetorician, Astronomer, and Poet, could not render him incapable of being deceived. Supposing we had only Raban to oppose against Paschasus, the advantage would not be inconsiderable. Paschasus was only a mean Re∣ligious, when Raban was Abbot of Fulde, and when Paschasus came to be Abbot of Corbie, Raban was Arch-Bishop of Mayence; whence it follows that the authority of the one was far greater than that of the other. As to knowledg, it cannot be denied but Raban infinitely excelled Paschasus, not in the mere qualities of a Philosopher, Rhetorician, Astronomer and Poet, altho these qualifications do much set off a Scholar: but by the Epi∣thet which Baronius gives him, Audi, says he, quid vertex hujus temporis * 1.448 Theologorum Rabanus decreverit. Mr. Arnaud cannot propose Paschasus but only as the single person of his Party; now were it the same with us in re∣spect of Raban, 'tis certain that the presumption would be wholly for this last, and that 'tis apparently better to bring the Church on Raban's side, than on Paschasus's. But we are not in these Circumstances. The Doctrin of Raban agrees very well with that of other Authors, his Contemporaries; that of Paschasus agrees with none of 'em. The Doctrin of Raban has di∣sturb'd no body, but that of Paschasus set several persons against him of his own time. There's not the least reason for accusing Raban of Innova∣tion, but there are very strong proofs whereby to conclude that Paschasus was an Innovator. It signifies nothing to say, that Raban was as other men are, as appears by one of his Letters which the Church of Lyons has refuted: for should a man rigorously examin Paschasus his Writings, he will find more marks of human weakness than in those of Raban: besides that from this very thing that Raban had the Church of Lyons for his Adversary, one may hence conclude, according to Mr. Arnaud's way of reasoning, that his Do∣ctrin on the Eucharist differed not from that of his time; for otherwise 'tis likely that the Church of Lyons would not have spared him on such an im∣portant Article: and yet instead of this we find on the contrary that when this Church her self spake of the Eucharist, it has been in terms which do not at all favour the Real Presence. When our Saviour Christ, says she, gave * 1.449 to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, he says, Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you: which insinuates that she understood these words, This is my Body, in this sense, This is the Sacrament of my Body. And a little further, The Oblation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is

to say, the mystery of his Passion and Death. The example of these great Wits and Bishops that have attackt the Divinity of Jesus Christ, does in∣deed shew that 'twas not impossible for Raban to fall into error, which is what we do not at present dispute, for there's no body infallible, no not Mr. Arnaud himself: but this example concludes the same thing of Pascha∣sus, who was no more infallible than others. So far they stand upon equal ground, both men, and both liable to error. It remains to know which of the two actually fell into error, and that this example of the Bishops does not decide.

IT signifies nothing, adds Mr. Arnaud, to say that no body ever reproach'd * 1.450 him with this error, for it does not appear that any other Author, save the Anonymous, saw this Letter to Egilon, so that the only person that had know∣ledg of it has condemned it. Raban did not keep this Letter secret, seeing he has himself made mention of it in his Penitentials, and says he did it against the error of those who say that the Sacrament was the Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin. Those who saw not his Letter might easily comprehend by these words the substance of it, and for what end he design'd it, if they have not condemned it 'twas their fault. Yet do we not pretend to draw hence any great advantage. But moreover, says Mr. Arnaud, how many errors are there in Authors which have been never taken notice of by any person, nor reproached to those that taught 'em? There are strange instances of this, and here is one from amongst the rest which is singular in its kind. Photius testifies that Theodorus Mospueste wrote a Book against the Doctrin of Original Sin. Both East and West have been as greatly animated against this Author as can be imagin'd. He was condemned even af∣ter his Death in the fifth Council: There was never then any person to be less favoured than he. Yet we do not find that this Capital Error observed by Photius has been Animadverted by any Author of the 6th. Century in the very time when Theodorus was used with most severity. We must acknow∣ledg with Mr. Arnaud that these kind of arguments by which we conclude that if a Doctrin has not been condemn'd by a Church, it follows that this Church has held it and approved it, are not convincing, and what he re∣lates of Theodorus of Mospueste is a considerable argument of it. But it must also be granted that never man was more at variance with himself than Mr. Arnaud; for what he now said overthrows the better part of his Book. Those that have read it may remember that the greatest part of his dispute touching the Greeks is reduced to negative arguments, perfectly like unto those which he now condemns. The Greeks, says he without ceasing, have not condemned then Transubstantiation of the Latins. Therefore they believed it with 'em. Cerularius did not concern himself at Berenger's con∣demnation, he believed the Transubstantiation. Humbert did not reproach the Greeks with their not believing the Real Presence, and Nicetas did not reproach the Latins with their believing it; therefore they were agreed in this Article. We can scarcely meet with any thing else but these kind of conclusions in every page. He does the same on the subject of the other Schismatical Churches, he argues from the silence of the Emissaries, the si∣lence of the Popes, the silence of the Armenians, and that of the Nesto∣rians and others. When the question concern'd the 12th. Century, how many times has he remembred th•• necessity of the Disputes of the Pascha∣sists and Bertramists; how many prodigious exclamations has he made at their not being condemned, at their not baiting one another? And when the discourse was about Paschasus, and the Innovation which we charge him

with, with what exaggerations has he not urged this argument, That Pas∣chasus was not publickly reprehended by any person for thirty years, was never punish'd, nor admonish'd that he offered a Doctrin contrary to the Church. Apply I pray you to this Rhetorick, what he says now of this great number of errors in Ecclesiastical Authors which have been never ani∣madverted by any body, nor reproach'd to those who have taught 'em. Add hereunto his example of Theodorus of Mospueste, and that of John Scot, of whom he says likewise afterwards, that it does not appear that these errors have been condemned by any Ecclesiastical Censure of that Age, and that of Raban; for he supposes he might have erred on the Eucharist by a capi∣tal Error in denying the Real Presence, and he affirms that in this case 'twill not be strange that never any body reproach'd him with this Error: lay I say all this together, and make a reform on this ground of Mr. Arnaud's Book, retrench whatsoever agrees not with this rule which he here gives us, and I am sure you'l reduce his Volume into a less compass by half.

AFTER these first Answers with which Mr. Arnaud was not perhaps * 1.451 well satisfi'd, he hazards another, which is, that this proposition, That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Real Body born of the Virgin, may have two senses, the one that the external part of the Sacrament, which is to say the visible vail is not really the Body of Jesus Christ, that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really white, round, and has not in it self all these sensible acci∣dents which appear to us; the other, that the Body of Jesus Christ is not really contain'd in the Sacrament. He pretends that Raban denied this propositi∣on only in the first sense, and not in the second. But this answer has neither sincerity nor truth in it. First, it confounds what ought necessarily to be distinguish'd. For 'tis not the same thing to believe that the visible Vail, which is to say, the accidents of Bread, are really the Body of Jesus Christ, and to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round, and has in it self all the sensible accidents which appear to us. There is a great deal of difference between these two, as any man may see. Supposing a man believed that the Body of Jesus Christ is white and round, 'twill not hence follow he must say that this whiteness and this roundness, which are the Vail which Mr. Arnaud speaks of, were really the Body of Jesus Christ. In the second place, I do not think that ever any body imagin'd that these sensible accidents of whiteness and roundness in abstracto, as they term it, are really the Body of Jesus Christ, and whosoever imputes to Raban the combating of this fancy, charges him with opposing such an imagination as never yet entred into any bodies mind.

AS to the other proposition, That the Body of Jesus Christ is really white and round, as 'tis not customary to express it in these terms, That the Eucharist is the same Body which was born of the Virgin, so 'tis not usual to refute it in these, That the Eucharist is not the same Body which was born of the Virgin; and this explication of Mr. Arnaud is so forced, and remote from the natural sense of Raban his words, that there are few reasonable persons to whom 'twill not appear a pitiful evasion.

YET does Mr. Arnaud earnestly urge not only that 'twas the sense of Raban to attack this Proposition, but likewise that of Bertram, in his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini. And altho the anonymous Author, who according to all probability lived about the 9th. Century, expresly says, that Raban and Bertram refuted Paschasus. Yet does Mr. Arnaud affirm the

contrary, and says that he demonstratively proves it. He says for this ef∣fect, That there were people in that time who grosly said that the Body of Je∣sus Christ was such as the Sacrament appeared to be, which is to say, that the Body of Jesus Christ has really the form of Bread. That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius, that 'tis from thence he concluded that the Body of Jesus Christ issued thro the pores, and applied unto it these words, Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit, & in secessum emittitur. That it is apparent from the accusation which Florus forms against him of ha∣ving corrupted France by these fantastical opinions, that Amalarius had his Disciples. Here then, adds he, we have people, who said in the time of Charles the Bald, and who must say according to their Principles, That the Body of Jesus Christ has all the external accidents which appear to our sen∣ses, and that there was no difference between the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin, and the Sacrament. So that here are persons against whom may be maintain'd in an Orthodox sense, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ born of the Virgin. He afterwards endeavours to shew that Bertram's Book directly attacks only these persons.

TO solve this difficulty, it must first be supposed as a thing already pro∣ved, that those who have been since called (by way of reproach) Stercora∣nists, cannot be those of whom Mr. Arnaud here speaks; who according to him believing the Real Presence, yet affirm'd that the Body of Jesus Christ had all the sensible accidents which appear in the Eucharist, and that Mr. Arnaud could say nothing less to the purpose than what he has offered, That this opinion was a necessary consequence of that of Amalarius, that 'tis from thence he concluded the Body of Jesus Christ issued out thro the pores, ap∣plying to it these words, Omne quod in os intrat, in ventrem vadit & inseces∣sum emittitur. We have already seen from the testimony of Tho. Waldensis, that these Stercoranists were Panites, which is to say, that they conserved the substance of Bread in the Sacrament, and said all of 'em that the Sacra∣ment was natural Bread. We have already seen that in effect the belief of the Real Presence is absolutely inconsistent with this opinion, that the Sa∣crament passes into our nourishment, that it is digested, that one part of it is changed into our flesh, and another part into Excrements.

SECONDLY, we must observe that supposing 'twere true the Ster∣coranists believ'd, as Mr. Arnaud would have it, that the sensible accidents really affect the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, there could be no∣thing more absurd than to imagin they were those whom Raban and Bertram opposed. For as to Raban it appears as well from the testimony of the anonymous Author, as by that of Waldensis, that he was himself a Ster∣coranist. The same thing appears from the proper passages of Raban, which I have already related. Whereunto I shall add another, taken out of his Pe∣nitential, Touching what you have demanded of me, whether the Eucharist * 1.452 when it has been consum'd, and pass'd into Excrements like other meats, re∣turns again to its first nature which it had before 'twas Consecra∣ted on the Altar. (This opinion is contrary to that of Pope Cle∣ment, * 1.453 and several other Holy Fathers, who say, that the Body of our Lord does not go into the draught with other meats.) Such a question is superfluous, seeing our Saviour says himself in the Gospel, Whatsoever enters into the mouth descends into the stomach and is cast into the draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood is made of visible and corporeal things, but ope∣rates

invisibly our sanctification and salvation of both Body and Soul. What rea∣son is there to say that what is digested in the stomach, and passes into Ex∣crements, returns again to its first state, seeing no body ever maintain'd that this happens. I think we have clearly here the opinion of Raban on this subject, and that now it cannot be any longer question'd whether he was a Stercoranist. As to Bertram, the passages which I related out of his Book do clearly shew that he was of the same sentiment. What can be more un∣reasonable and worse contriv'd than this thought of Mr. Arnaud, that Ra∣ban and Bertram have combated the opinion of the Stercoranists, which is to say, that they have fought against themselves, and wrote Books against persons without knowing they were themselves of their party. Mr. Arnaud could not say any thing more unlikely, and therefore we see that great Wits who believe 'emselves able to overthrow every thing, do oft-times over∣throw themselves, and fall into labyrinths whence they cannot get out.

IN the third place, how little soever we consider this opinion, mention'd by Mr. Arnaud, and the manner in which he conceives it, we shall find 'tis impossible it should ever come into any bodies mind unless he were ex∣cessively extravagant. Not to mention how difficult it is to state how the natural accidents of Bread do unloose themselves from their proper and natural substance to fasten on that of the Body of Jesus Christ, nor how the same numerical substance can be above in Heaven indued with its own pro∣per accidents, and here below indued really with the accidents of Bread and Wine. I shall only say, that unless a man doats extremely, he cannot imagin that the same numerical Body which is above, exists on Earth in a corporeal and material manner, as a subject ought to exist that has accidents really inherent; and yet is there in the natural manner of a real substance of Bread. For every substance that receives and really sustains the accidents of Bread, must receive and sustain them in the manner of a true substance of Bread to accommodate it self to the nature of these accidents. A substance which receives really the accidents of Bread, must have all its parts in or∣dine ad se, as the Schools speak, made as the parts of real Bread, to the end there may be some proportion between them and the accidents which it receives. And is it not an extravagancy to say that the parts of the hu∣man body of Jesus Christ, to wit, his head, his arms, and other members do exist inwardly in ordine ad se in the manner of the parts of Bread, as little crums. Who ever saw any thing more hollow than this Philosophy, a human Body really divisible, really palpable, really sensible of a divisibility, a palpability, and a sensibility, which is proper to it, and yet is not natural to it, but borrowed of another subject? This divisibility and this palpability of the Bread which reside really in the same substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, made it capable of all the changes which the Bread suffers, it was digested by the natural heat in the stomachs of the Communicants, and one part was reduced into their proper substance animated with their soul, li∣ving with their life, and united to them personally. What did they then be∣lieve, did they imagin that this same Body of Jesus Christ, was at the same time animated with two souls, and living with two lives, or to speak better with an hundred thousand souls, and an hundred thousand lives, to wit, that of Jesus Christ, and of those of all the Communicants of the world, per∣sonally united to the Son of God, and personally to an hundred millions of men at a time; or do they imagin that the Body of Jesus Christ is loosed from his proper and natural Soul, and dis-united hypostatically from the Word? Believe me, a man must be fallen into a dreadful disorder of mind

to be guilty of these kind of fooleries. But if these persons of the 9th. Century against whom Raban and Bertram wrote, believed in effect all these matters, how happens it, there's no such thing to be found in Authors of those Ages, nor the following ones; and that to establish this fact, to wit, that there were persons who believ'd that the proper Body of Jesus Christ, the same numerical substance which is in Heaven, is here below really endued with the accidents of Bread, Mr. Arnaud could offer nothing but some few conje∣ctures impertinently drawn from a Principle of Amalarius?

BUT you will say, how happens it that the passages which Mr. Arnaud alledges out of Bertram seem not directly to oppose the Doctrin of Pascha∣sus, and that sometimes they both meet in their expressions? Bertram de∣clares his design was against people who maintain that the mystery of the Body of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Church is not made under any figure, nor under any vail, but that the truth appears therein naked and manifest. He makes to himself the questions, Whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is received in the Church by the mouth of the Faithful, be made as a mystery, or as a truth, which is to say, Whether it contains any thing conceal'd which is only perceiv'd by the eyes of Faith, or whether without the vail of any mystery the sight of the body sees outwardly that which the sight of the mind sees inwardly; so that whatsoever is done in this mystery is discovered to the view of sense. And in the second place, Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that suffered and died. Paschasus on the other hand declares, That it ought not to be denied that this Sacrament is a figure. He distinguishes that which is felt outwardly from that which is hid inwardly; and teaches that one is the figure of the other, Est autem figura vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur sed totum veritas, & nulla adumbra∣tio quod interius percipitur.

ALL the force of this objection consists in an equivocation. Paschasus takes the term of figure in one sense, Bertram takes it in another. Bertram affirms that the Eucharist is a figure in a sense which Paschasus denies. So that their Doctrins in the main cannot be more opposite than they are. And of this the readers needed not to have been ignorant, had Mr. Arnaud been pleased to relate in what manner Bertram explains himself. For having pro∣posed two questions in the terms which we have seen, he adds, Let us exa∣min the first of these questions, and to clear it from all ambiguity define what we mean by a figure, and what by truth; to the end, that having something that is certain before our eyes, we may better find the reasonable way which we ought to follow. The figure is a kind of shadow, which by means of some vails, shews us what it proposes to shew us. As for example, when we would sig∣nifie the Word we call it Bread, as in the Lords Prayer, where we ask our daily bread, or as our Saviour says in the Gospel, I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven. Thus does he call himself a Vine, and his Disciples the Branches. I am, says he, the true Vine, and you are the Branches. In all which there is one thing said, and another signified. The truth on the con∣trary is a manifest demonstration of the thing without using either shadow, image, or vail, it being discovered by simple and natural expressions, there being no∣thing to be understood but what is contained in the terms. 'Tis not the same in these other examples, for our Saviour Christ is not substantially either Bread, or Vine, nor the Apostles Branches, Here then we have a figure, but in the last examples, the truth is uttered in plain and open terms. Now to apply this to the things in question, to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ. Were this my∣stery

celebrated without a figure it could not be call'd a mystery: for one can∣not call that a mystery, wherein there is nothing secret, nothing remote from the corporal senses, nor hid under any vail. Yet this Bread which is made the Body of Christ by the ministry of the Priest, shews another thing outwardly to the senses, and offers another thing to the intelligence of the Faithful. Out∣wardly one discovers the form of Bread, its colour and savour, such as it was before. But there is another thing far more precious and excellent which is taught inwardly, a divine and heavenly thing, to wit, the Body of Jesus Christ which is therein represented, and 'tis not by the corporal senses, but by the spi∣ritual intelligence of the Faithful that this thing is considered, taken and eaten. He says the same of the Vine, and concludes, seeing no body can deny but this is so, 'tis manifest that this Bread and this Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ figuratively.

A man must shut his eyes if he cannot see he means that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are a mystery which represent to us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that when they be called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 'tis a figurative locution, like in some sort to these others in the Gospel, where our Lord is called Bread, a Vine, and his Apostles Branches. Now 'tis precisely in this sense that Paschasus denied the Eucharist was a fi∣gure. When our Saviour, says he, brake and gave the Bread to his Disciples, * 1.454 he does not say that this, or there is in this mystery a certain virtue, or a fi∣gure of my Body, but he says plainly, This is my Body. And a little lower, I marvail at some peoples saying 'tis a figure, and not the truth, a shadow and not the Body. And in his Letter to Frudegard, Sacramentum Corporis Christi & Sanguinis quamvis Sacramentum dicatur non est aliud quam veritas & quod ipsa veritas repromisit, which he proves by the same examples which Bertram alledges of simple locutions, to wit, of the Birth, Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour. These things, says he, which our Saviour did as God and Man, be Sacraments of his Grace and a mystery of Faith, and yet are they nothing but the truth, altho they be called Sacraments. And he after∣stards makes this objection. These things being mysteries cannot (to wit in this quality) be either seen, or toucht, and consequently this is not a Body, and if it be not a Body, they are a figure of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, and not this Flesh and this Blood in propriety of nature. Then answering this objection, Totum, says he, quod est Christus proedicatur, non in figura, sed in re, & in proprietate, atque in natura. 'Tis then plain that Paschasus and Bertram are directly opposite not only as to sence but terms. So that when Paschasus acknowledges there is a figure in the Eucharist, meaning by this figure, either the accidents of Bread and Wine which cover the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, or the representation of the Passion of Jesus Christ, this expression in this sense does not hinder, but Bertram formally contradicted it, and that the testimony of the anonymous is true. For Pas∣chasus expresly denies the Eucharist to be the Body of Jesus Christ in figure, and Bertram expresly affirms it.

AS to wherein both of 'em seem to agree in saying that our senses shew it to be Bread, but that inwardly our Faith discovers therein the Body of Jesus Christ, this is but an equivocation. Paschasus means we must not refer our selves to the testimony of our senses in respect of the substance hid∣den under the accidents, and by the term of inwardly he means this sub∣stance covered with accidents which he would have us believe to be the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ. Bertram on the contrary argues

from the testimony of our senses, and concludes that 'tis real Bread and real Wine in substance. For he maintains from the evidence of sense that there happens no real change. According to the species of the creature; says he, and the form of visible things, the Bread and Wine do not suffer any change. And if they do not suffer any change, they are not any thing else but what they were before. And in another place, We see not any thing that is changed in these things corporally. We must then confess, either that they be changed in another respect than that of the Body, and consequently that they are not what appears in truth (which is to say, they are not the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ in truth, because 'twould be then invisible were it there) but that they are another thing which yet we plainly see they are not by their proper existence. Or if this will not be acknowledg'd, it must of neces∣ssity be denied that they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which will be impious to say or think. And immediately after he concludes that the change which happens to the Bread and Wine is a change of figure; Ʋt jam, says he, commutatio figurate facta esse dicatur. He also proves there that the change which happens to the Eucharist does not make the Bread and Wine cease to be in truth what they were before. We do not find, says he, that such a change happens here, but we find on the contrary that the same spe∣cies of the creature which was before remains still. And a little lower, in re∣spect of the substance of creatures they are after the Consecration what they were before; they were before Bread and Wine, and we see they remain in the same kind, altho they be consecrated. And again he concludes that 'tis not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie, but in virtute, because our eyes do not see it, 'Tis Faith, says he, that sees whatsoever this is, the eye of the flesh discovers nothing therein, these visible things then are not the Body of Jesus Christ in specie, but in virtue. He understands then that the testimony of our senses which shew us that they are still Bread and Wine in substance, are true, and that were the substance of the Body therein, our senses would discover it. Now this wholly contradicts the sense of Paschasus.

I will not examin, says Mr. Arnaud, whether Bertram understands these * 1.455 words in another sense than Paschasus. But why will not Mr. Arnaud do this, seeing on it depends the real opposition which is between these two Authors? They that will contradict an Author, says Mr. Arnaud, directly, do oppose not only his sense but his words, and they never borrow the words of those whom they combat to express their own opinion. Whosoever designs to contradict an author solidly minds particularly his sense, without trou∣bling himself about his expressions. 'Twas enough for Bertram to refute the new Doctrin of Paschasus, and this very thing, that he uses his expres∣sions, only more shews their opposition; for Bertram does not speak of the testimony of our senses on the subject of the Eucharist in the same terms of Paschasus, but to draw thence arguments to overthrow the pretended change of substance, and the Real Presence which Paschasus had advanced; so that this apparent conformity is no less in effect than a real contradiction.

THIS contrariety of sentiment appears still more in the second question which Bertram discusses, which is, Whether what the Faithful receive with the mouths of their bodies in the Communion, is this same Body which was born of the Virgin, that has suffered for us, died and rose again, and is now at the right hand of the Father. Paschasus affirms it, and endeavours to establish it by his Book. Bertram denies it and proves most strongly his negative. The one says that these things nourish in us that which is born of God, and not

that which is born of Flesh and Blood. The other answers us, that in respect of what we see, and receive corporally, which is bit with the teeth, swallowed and received into the stomach, they do not communicate eternal life; for in this respect they nourish our mortal flesh, and do not communicate any corru∣ption. The one says, That we must not stop at the savour, nor colour of Bread; for were it changed into flesh (to wit, visibly and sensibly, as he explains himself in the same place) 'twould be no longer the Flesh of Jesus Christ. The other teaches, That seeing 'tis Faith, and not the eye of the Body which discovers the Bread to be the Body of Jesus Christ, we must hence conclude that 'tis not so in specie, but in virtute. The one ever says, that what we receive from the Altar is this same Flesh which is born of the Virgin. The other says, that this Flesh which was Crucified, and born of the Virgin consists of bones and sinews, distinguish'd into several members, and enliven'd by the spirit of a rea∣sonable soul, having his proper life and motions. Whereas this spiritual Flesh which nourishes spiritually the Faithful in respect of its outward species, con∣sists of grains of Wheat and is made by the hands of man, that it has neither nerves, nor sinews, nor bones, nor different members, that 'tis animated with no rational soul, nor can exercise any vital functions. Whence he concludes that 'tis not then this Flesh of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin. In a word, the opposition therein is so formal, and so evident, that it cannot be more plain.

WHAT we have hitherto seen touching Authors Contemporary with Paschasus, yields us a demonstrative proof that Paschasus was an Innova∣tor; for the rest do not speak like him, there are two of the famousest of 'em, viz. Raban and Bertram, who have expresly applied themselves to the refuting of his Doctrin.

TO these two we may add a third, which is John Scot, who wrote also by the command of Charles the Bald against the novelties of Paschasus. His Book was burnt in the Council of Verseil, and we understand from the testimony of Ascelinus in his Letter to Berenger, that the end which he proposed was to shew in this Book that what is Consecrated on the Altar is neither the true Body, nor the true Blood of Jesus Christ. Toto nisu totaque intentione ad hoc solum tendere video, ut mihi persuadeat hoc videlicet quod in Altari Consecratur neque vere Corpus, neque vere Christi Sanguinem esse, hoc autem astruere nititur ex Sanctorum Patrum opusculis quae prave exponit. The Author of the Dissertation which Mr. Arnaud has inserted in his 12th. Book, pretends that the Book which we have under the name of Bertram, and that of John Scot are the same. He endeavours likewise to lessen as much as in him lies the authority of this Adversary to Paschasus, and I had not finish'd this Work without examining his Conjectures, had not one of my Friends inform'd me that he had eas'd me of this pains, as well as this Author has help'd Mr. Arnaud. I hope this friend of mine will soon publish his Piece, which will (or I am greatly deceived) fully satisfie every unprejudic'd man that seeks the truth.

CHAP. XII.

Of Personal Differences which Mr. Arnaud has treated of in his Eleventh Book.

HAving satisfied whatsoever respects the matter of this Dispute, my design wherein I am engaged of returning an exact answer to Mr. Arnaud's volume seems to require, I should now pass to the discussion of his eleventh Book which he has entituled personal differences between the Author of the Perpetuity and me. The interest also of my de∣fence against Mr. Arnaud's injustices obliges me to this. Yet can I not wholly keep within this Province, for there are several reasons hindering me, which I hope judicious persons will not disallow.

FIRST, these personal differences are handled in so sharp and hot a manner, so full of animosities that 'twere better a thousand times to pass 'em over in silence, and offer 'em as a Sacrifice to Piety, Patience, and Christi∣an Charity, than to endeavour to treat of 'em exactly, and repel Mr. Ar∣naud's outrages, which cannot be well done without sometimes exceeding the bounds of Christian moderation.

MOREOVER, altho I do not doubt but Mr. Arnaud and the Author of the Perpetuity have reason to believe that the publick will take part with what respects their persons, yet I cannot pretend 'tis the same with me. These Gentlemen have made a noise in the world, they have drawn upon 'em the expectations of all France, Spain, and Italy. Whereas I am person obscure enough, and whose name is only known by my interest in this Dispute; so that 'twill be a presumption in me to believe the publick will concern it self in my respect. Should I then here begin with a long discussion of our com∣plaints, and reciprocal defences, the readers might well say to one another that they have nothing to do with this, and that 'tis an abuse of their patience after a long discourse of things which relate to the cause, to engage them further in a tiresom discourse of Personal Differences.

IN the third place Mr. Arnaud has introduced amongst his Personal Dif∣ferences several things to which 'tis impossible to answer without engaging in tedious prolixities in matters which of 'emselves have no coherence with that of the Eucharist. I place in this rank the defence which he makes of a cruel invective of the Author of the Perpetuity against the first Reformers, which yet Mr. Arnaud maintains in a more fierce manner, grounding it on Facts, and Principles, some of which are false, others taken in a wrong sense, and others invidiously perverted. How can we handle in a few words so important a subject when the question concerns the justifying the inno∣cency of several great men, and to shew at the same time the justice and ne∣cessity of our separation from the Roman Church? 'Tis plain this cannot be done in one or two Chapters, and that this is matter for a great Volume. I reduce under this head these passionate expressions which begin the 9th. Cha∣pter of this 11th Book, and which I design to relate here, that the world may judg of 'em. We demand justice, says Mr. Arnaud, speaking of me, for the excesses of which he has been guilty contrary to all rules of honesty and

truth, which even Pagans would blush to violate. We would gladly know of him whether his morals will give him this license. We are already satisfied that the Maxims of their new Divinity promise impunity to all manner of crimes, provided they be of the faithful Calvinists who commit them; and we do not question him whether he fears to be damn'd by calumniating his Adver∣saries. We know the solutions of his Doctors deliver him from this fear, con∣trary to what S. Paul says, who tells us, that slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdom of God. But that which we desire to know is, whether they have of late taken away from Crimes, the name of Crimes, and stript them of the ge∣neral infamy which accompanies 'em, whether the name of a Slanderer be no longer odious amongst Calvinists, and whether they have sanctified this name, which is so horrible amongst men that they could not find a blacker, to shew their detestation of it, than to call such Devils. I design not to repel these discourses to be met with scattered throughout his whole Book, any other∣wise than by reciting 'em, or at most by censuring 'em as excesses, which do not at all become a person, who pretends to correct our morals, and teach us virtue and moderation. I shall not retort upon him several things in my turn, which a just and natural defence seems to permit, and enjoyn me to tell him. But I pretend to justifie so well our Morals as will make Mr. Arnaud blush for shame that he has attackt them with such an outragious and malicious air. And this we cannot do here transiently, nor by way of answer to ten or twelve hot periods, which like lightning have more fire than matter. 'Tis necessary for this purpose to be disengaged from all other subjects; for there needs more time to remedy an evil than to do it, to cure a wound than to make it.

AND these are the reasons which withhold me from entring into an ex∣act discussion of Mr. Arnaud's eleventh Book. But because there are in these Personal Differences some Articles which I cannot wholly pass over in silence, having too near a relation to the things which we treat of, the Read∣ers I hope will not take it ill, if I design this whole Chapter to answer them. This Book consists either of passionate invectives against me, or defences against some of my Complaints, or accusations against me. As to the pas∣sionate expressions I concern not my self with 'em, I leave 'em to the publick judgment, and Mr. Arnaud's private conscience. It belongs to him to look whether he has form'd his stile according to the lovely idea which he him∣self has given us of the true Eloquence, which is, says he, discreet, modest, * 1.456 judicious, sincere, true, which serves to disentangle things, and not to confound 'em, which clears truth, and offers it in such a manner as is proper to introduce it into the mind and heart, which inspires motions that are just, reasonable, proportionable to the things which we handle, which has no other lustre but what serves to discover truth, no strength but what is borrowed from her. He will examin, I hope, at his leisure, whether he has observed all these grave characters, and whether his eagerness to overcome has not transported him sometimes into such strange convulsions as are wholly contrary to all mora∣lity and decency.

AS to his defences, I can with confidence affirm there are none of 'em which be just and warrantable; but to the end it may not be said I desire to be believed on my own bare word, let a man judg of 'em by these examples. The Author of the Perpetuity to prove that Bertram was not clearly of our opinion, alledged this reason, that Trithemus praised this Author. To this I answered, that he praised him because in effect he deserved it, and that

this only increased his authority. My sense is plainly that he prais'd him be∣cause he knew his reputation was great in the 9th. Century, that his Book was therein well entertain'd, and his memory honored in the following Ages. For this is what must be understood by being in effect praise-worthy, and this is likewise what the terms of my answer insinuate, having added that this only increased his authority, which is to say, that this testimony of Trithe∣mus shewed that Bertram was authoris'd in the Church of his time. Where∣upon the Author of the Perpetuity concealing this true sense of my words, imputes to me another, which is that I said, Trithemus, who believed the Real Presence, praised Bertram for opposing it, which is a ridiculous sense, and infinitely distant from mine. This is the subject of my complaint, and here is the defence of Mr. Arnaud, What is, says he, the sense of these words, * 1.457 Trithemus praised Bertram, because he was indeed praise-worthy? Do they signifie that he praised him from his own knowledg, or from the opinion of others? It is clear they have only the first sense, and not the second. All is clear which Mr. Arnaud speaks, but let us see how he proves it. To com∣mend any one from the testimony of another, is not to commend him because he is in effect praise-worthy, seeing there are several people which we do not in effect judg to be praise-worthy, altho thought worthy of praise by others. To commend a man because he is in effect worthy of commendations, is proceeding on a just and true ground, and on the reality of things, and not on reports, and popular opinions. This is a pitiful defence, for 'tis certain there are people who are not judged to be praise-worthy altho they be praised by others: but I say that there are others which are deemed praise-worthy in effect, only because we find 'em generally commended in the Age wherein they lived, and in the following ones, without being blamed by any body. Do not most people thus believe S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and S. Augustin praise-worthy, not for having read their Books, nor examin'd their Doctrins, but as know∣ing they were esteem'd by their own and following Ages, and that their memory was never withered in the Church? Now this is what I say, that Trithemus might know of Bertram without examining his Book, to wit, that he had the esteem of his Age, and that his memory was respected in the following ones.

IT signifies nothing for Mr. Arnaud to say, that I ought not to suppose without proving it that such an Author as Trithemus, who writes a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, and gives particular praises to an Author, does it barely from the relation of others, and that the presumption is on the contra∣ry, that he has read his Book and speaks of it from his own proper knowledg. This I say is to no purpose, for it belongs to the Author of the Perpetuity that argues, and would draw a conclusion from the praises of Trithemus, to establish well his Principle, to prove that Trithemus has praised Bertram after he had read and examin'd his Book, De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, and not to me who answer, to prove that he has praised him, because he acknowledges his Fame was great in the 9th. Century. Were a man to judg hereof by presumptions, they would be rather for my supposition than for that of the Author of the Perpetuity; for we know very well that those who make Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Authors do not always take the pains to read exactly all the Books they mention. The Commendations of Ratram, whom we affirm to be Bertram, could not be unknown to Trithemus, and we have right to suppose that Trithemus has not distinguish'd Bertram and Ratram as two different persons, till the Author of the Perpetuity has shew∣ed us the contrary.

THE second complaint whereon Mr. Arnaud endeavours to defend the Author of the Perpetuity, respects Mr. Blondel, whom this Author imper∣tinently accuses to have fallen into contradiction in that he supposes on one hand that Amalarius was a Calvinist, and on the other that the Synod of Cressy, which condemned Amalarius was of the same mind; which accord∣ing to the Author of the Perpetuity is a manifest contradiction. Observe here his words. Usher an English Protestant, supposes that Amalarius held * 1.458 the Doctrin of the Catholicks, and therefore would have it thought that 'twas the Doctrin of the Real Presence which was condemned in Amalarius, by the Synod of Cressy, and by Florus Deacon of Lyons. And a little lower, Blon∣del suffering himself to be deceived by the desire which he had to raise up ad∣versaries against Paschasus, fell on this subject into one of the most palpable contradictions imaginable: For finding on one hand advantage from Usher's * 1.459 opinion, who makes the whole Synod of Cressy who condemned Amalarius to consist of Calvinists, he takes this part, and supposes with him that the Coun∣cil of Cressy held the Calvinists Doctrin, and were contrary to Paschasus. But finding elsewhere in the epitomiz'd Manuscript of the Book of Divine Of∣fices of William of Malmsbury, that Amalarius, Raban, and Heribald wrote against Paschasus, not considering that this supposition was contrary to that of Vsher, he makes Amalarius again an adversary to Paschasus; so that by a manifest contradiction, he pretends that the Council which condemned Amala∣rius, and Amalarius who was condemned by the Council, were of one mind, and equally contrary to the Doctrin of Paschasus on the subject of the Eucharist. So far is what the Author of the Perpetuity says.

TO answer this accusation, I said that this pretended contradiction was * 1.460 a fable, That Mr. Blondel did not so much as think of Bishop Usher, and that the part which the Author of the Perpetuity gives to this Bishop in this ad∣venture, was a mere Romantick whimsie. That in the main, there was no contra∣diction in what Mr. Blondel said; for asserting on one hand that Amalarius was censured by the Synod of Cressy for writing that the Body of Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite, and on the other that Amalarius had been one of those that contradicted the novelties of Paschasus, and in fine that he does not separate the Fathers of Cressy from the number of these Opponents, these three things were very consistent together, because it did not follow from the Synod of Cressy's condemning the triform and tripartite Body that they adopted for this all Paschasus his Fancies touching the Real Presence.

LET us now see Mr. Arnaud's defence. He assures us that what the Au∣thor * 1.461 of the Perpetuity has asserted touching Bishop Ʋsher is a very likely conjecture, that if it be a Romantick whimsie 'tis not an impossible one. For 'tis more than probable that Blondel, who was a man of great reading, writing on a matter, was not ignorant of the opinion of a person so much esteemed by his own Party, as Bishop Usher deservedly was: that moreover 'tis a Ro∣mance that tends only to excuse Blondel, and not to criminate him; for it being certain that he has contradicted himself, 'tis always better that this has been done with some appearance of reason, as is that of following the opinion of a famous Author, than without any probability.

IS not this a mere mockery of us, or of the Author of the Perpetuity, to defend him after this rate? This Author relates to us as a matter of fact, that Ʋsher believ'd such and such a thing, that Blondel finding advantage in

the opinion of Ʋsher, has taken part of it, that he has joyn'd this part with what he likewise found in the Epitomy of William of Malmsbury not con∣sidering that the one was contrary to the other. Now we demand of him where he found this fine History, seeing there appears nothing of it in Blon∣del's Book. And Mr. Arnaud answers that 'tis a conjecture very likely, that if it be a Romance, 'tis a Romance that is possible to be true, and one which tends to excuse Blondel, because 'tis better he be deceived with some pretext than without any.

LET Mr. Arnaud tell us, if he pleases, in what Morals he has found 'twas permitted the Author of the Perpetuity to pay us with his conjectures, and his possible Romances, instead of true Histories, and to tell stories at ran∣dom to render Mr. Blondel ridiculous, because 'tis better he should be ri∣diculous for some reason than for none. We thank him for his Charity, but 'tis excessive, and unnecessary; for what need was there he should charge his Conscience with this pious fraud to extenuate a chimerical dishonor, seeing the pretended contradiction of Mr. Blondel is but a mere imagination.

SƲPPOSING, says Mr. Arnaud, we have no other ground to prove * 1.462 that the Council of Cressy were Calvinists, but their condemning of Amalarius, to suppose hereupon Amalarius was a Calvinist, this is a contradicting of a man's self, and this is what Blondel does. How ill does Mr. Arnaud defend his Friend. 'Tis not true that Blondel grounded himself on what he says of the Synod of Cressy, in that this Synod has condemned Amalarius. We shall find nothing of this in his Book. And supposing he did ground him∣self on it, he might do it without falling into contradiction, and without giving occasion to the accusation of the Author of the Perpetuity; for he might draw a negative argument thence in this sense. That this Synod which could not be ignorant what was the Doctrin of Amalarius touching the Real Presence contented themselves with censuring in him some expres∣sions, as that of Corpus triforme & tripartitum, without handling his Do∣ctrin at bottom; which is a mark that in this respect they were agreed with him, and consequently that they rejected the Real Presence as well as Amalarius. Now in this case one might well dispute the force of this proof, but there is no likelihood of making a contradiction of it. But in fine to decide clearly this question, and to shew Mr. Arnaud how dangerous it is for a man to give himself over to too great desires of finding fault, and to de∣cry Authors, I need only say that when Mr. Blondel reckons the Synod of Cressy amongst the number of those that have followed Paschasus, he does not speak of that Synod which condemned Amalarius, but of another that was held ten years after. In effect he formally distinguishes these two Sy∣nods, saying of one, That this conception of Amalarius, that the Body of * 1.463 Jesus Christ was triform and tripartite, was improved in the year 848. by the Council of Cressy; and on the other, that several contradicted Paschasus, as Amalarius, Raban, Heribald, Bertram, or Ratram. John surnam'd Eri∣genus, from whom, says he, I do not separate Walafridus Strabo, Abbot of Richeneau, nor Florus a Divine of Lyons, nor the Body of the Bishops as∣sembled in the year 858. at Cressy. These are then two different Synods, the one held in the year 848. and the other in the year 858. Of the one he says that it condemned the Corpus triforme & tripartitum of Amalarius, of the other that he does not separate them from those who contradicted Paschasus: what contradiction is here? Had these Gentlemen, who have faln no less than three times on this affair of Mr. Blondel, taken the pains

to read over the place of his Book here in question, they would have found what I now tell 'em touching the distinction of these Synods, and desisted from maintaining their fabulous History, and imaginary contradiction.

THESE two examples suffice to shew the weakness of Mr. Arnaud's defences. We must now come to his complaints and accusations, and dis∣cover the injustice and unreasonableness of 'em in few words, which will be no hard matter to do.

FIRST, he complains that I offered some lessening expressions in refe∣rence to the Author of the Perpetuity on the subject of Bertram, or Ratram, that I opposed the praises which the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers gives this person, and thereupon remark'd that these Gentlemen praise or dispraise people, raise or depress 'em, according as their interests and designs require, according as they oppose or favour their Opinions. First, Mr. Arnaud assures us that I falsified the words of the Author of the * 1.464 Perpetuity. Secondly, He says I expounded his intentions according to my own fancy. Thirdly, He will not allow I had any reason to draw from his words compared with these of the Apology for the Holy Fathers, the conclusion which I drew thence. We must satisfie him in these three points.

AS to the pretended falsification, observe here in what manner I related in short the discourse of the Author of the Perpetuity. He says that 'twas * 1.465 one call'd Ratram, or Bertram, an obscure and intricate Divine, who adjoyn'd his reasonings to the ordinary expressions of the Church, and expounded them according to his fancy, that as he was a Divine, he might argue as he pleased on this Faith, and that we can easily conceive a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings. There needs only the reading of the Author of the Perpetuity's discourse to acknowledg this to be a just abridgment of it. Mr. Arnaud does not gain-say it, but he says, I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram a frivolous and passionate Reasoner, and for having * 1.466 said absolutely of him that one may well conceive that a Divine might easi∣ly fall upon frivolous reasonings, whereas he said this only conditionally, to wit, supposing 'twere granted he was effectually in an error: and this is what he calls a manifest falsity. But Mr. Arnaud complains impertinently: For I did not say that the Author of the Perpetuity has thus spoken of Bertram absolutely, and this Mr. Arnaud acknowledges, to wit, that sup∣posing 'twere granted that Bertram had effectually erred, this would not at all hurt the Church, that 'tis no wonder that one man has erred, that a Divine should fall into frivolous reasonings. This I say is sufficient for my design. For what signifies this but that in case Bertram cannot be brought over to them and made to speak for the Real Presence, he must then be a frivolous Divine, one who has faln into frivolous reasonings. Now this is precise∣ly what I said, that these Gentlemen praise, or dispraise Authors according to their interests. If Bertram be for 'em all is well, they find no fault in him; but if it must be granted he is against 'em, then one may easily con∣ceive that a Divine may fall into frivolous reasonings. And thus Mr. Ar∣naud's illustration only confirms my remark. 'Tis the same in respect of what he adds that I charge the Author of the Perpetuity with calling Bertram an obscure and intritate Divine, which is not thus set down in his Book, and that there is only that the greatest advantage which the Calvinists can pre∣tend to touching this Author is, that he be set aside as a perplext and in∣tricate

Author which can be profitable neither to one side nor the other. I de∣sire no more; for this is almost in so many words to say, that if they can∣not have Bertram on their side, he must be put by as an obscure and intri∣cate Divine whom both Parties endeavour to explain in their favour, but who at bottom favours neither by reason of his perplexity: If he be for them all is well, if he be not he shall be laid aside for a mystical Divine. This falsification then which Mr. Arnaud imputes to me is groundless, see∣ing he himself justifies me from it, and he confirms himself the truth of my reflection.

NEITHER has he more reason in what he says afterwards, that I * 1.467 explain the intentions of others according to my own fancy, and raise up tro∣phies to my self on imaginary conjectures. These are angry expressions, I pretend not to dive into the intentions of the Author of the Perpetuity, neither do I think of raising trophies to my self at his cost. My way of pro∣ceeding is frank, natural, and simple, and if I commit faults, I can sincerely protest 'tis against my will. I have said nothing concerning the Author of the Perpetuity, which I have not proved, not by making conjectures on his hidden thoughts, but arguing on his Writing, which is a kind of conjectu∣ring very lawful in disputes.

BUT in fine Mr. Arnaud will not allow I had reason in comparing the words of the Author of the Perpetuity touching Bertram, which those of the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers to draw thence the con∣clusion which I drew. He says my arguing supposes that these two Authors * 1.468 are but one and the same person. For if they be two different Authors, what wonder can it be they have had different sentiments on another Author. I answer, my reasoning supposes only that the Author of the Perpetuity is one of the friends of the Author of the Apology, and that what's said abroad in the world of these Gentlemen is true, that they publish nothing but what has been seen and approved of commonly amongst 'em, which being so, I had right to draw my conclusion from the comparison of the words of these two Authors, as nearly as if they were but one and the same person.

'TIS in vain for Mr. Arnaud to say that an Author may be praise-worthy in one piece, and blameable in another. I grant it, but I say that when one praises, or blames an Author, to raise up or depress any of his works, 'tis ab∣surd to say that one praises him, or blames him in this work. for we praise or blame absolutely his person, to give hence afterwards more or less Au∣thority to the work in question. When we depress or extol the person for the work sake, then we praise or blame a man in his work: but when on the contrary we depress or extol the work by the person, then his praise or blame respects absolutely the person, and then we draw this consequence, that the work in question is, or is not considerable. Now we are in this last circumstance, the Author of the Apology commends Ratram to give the greater weight to his Books of Predestination, and the Author of the Per∣petuity depresses him to take away all authority from his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, so that their praise and dispraise respect directly his person.

'TIS moreover in vain that Mr. Arnaud remarks that the Author of the Perpetuity did not suppose the Book which goes under the name of Bertram * 1.469

was Ratram's a Religious of Corby Author of the Books of Predestination, and of the refutation of the errors of the Greeks. That seeing he testifies on the contrary to incline to the opinion of Mr. Marca, who will have this Book of Bertram and that of John Scot to be the same. That it appears at least from his Book that he had no fixt sentiment that Ratram was the Author of it. This is nothing but powder thrown into the Readers eyes; for suppo∣sing 'twere true that the Author of the Perpetuity were of the opinion of Mr. De Marca, which is, that this Book which bears the name of Bertram is John Scot's, and not Ratram's; yet 'tis certain what he says of the per∣son of this Bertram, or Ratram (for he proves that these two names are but one and the same name) is on our supposition that 'twas the Religious of Corby. Whether he admits our supposition as believing it, in effect to be true, or whether he admits it merely thro condescention, 'tis needless to inquire: for supposing he admitted it only thro mere condescention, the least his words could signifie will be that supposing he held our supposition to be true, which he does not, he will have these objections or reproaches to offer against the person of this Author, to wit, that he is a Divine who departs from the common belief of the Church by vain Speculations, a Divine who falls into frivolous reasonings, which suffices to justifie the con∣tradiction between him and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers.

Mr. ARNAƲD's second complaint is, that I ridicul'd the Author of the Perpetuity on the means he proposed whereby to make Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece, which is to change the Objections of it into Proofs, and his Proofs into Objections. Mr. Arnaud who has been toucht to the quick with it, thought he was oblig'd to defend himself by heaping up of words, intermixing several common places of raillery, alledging instances which have no relation to the point in question, to distinguish and argue in mood and figure, and thereupon conclude with authority the sentiment of the Perpetuity is most just and reasonable.

WERE it worth our while 'twould be easie to shew he deceives him∣self in whatsoever he offers. But it being unjust to hold the Readers any longer on trifles, we shall only say, if either he, or the Author of the Per∣petuity have been offended at a very innocent raillery, it does not follow that others have been so too. We may tell him that his way of changing Proofs into Objections, and Objections into Proofs, is a conception so rare and well express'd, that 'tis hard to hear it offered without finding in it mat∣ter of laughter. Moreover, there's a great deal of difference between say∣ing that to discover the falsities of a Book, we need only to confront the passa∣ges of it with the Originals, and to say that to make of Mr. Aubertin's Book an excellent piece in the sense of the Catholicks, there need only be changed the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs. The confrontation of passages, is the juster means, the most natural and most ordinary to disco∣ver falsities: but the change of Proofs into Objections, and Objections in∣to proofs, is a kind of world turn'd upside down. We may answer him that were his pretended method receiv'd, 'twould be applicable to all sorts of Books of Controversie on either side, there being few of them but what con∣sist of Proofs and Objections, and each Party pretending still there is more light in his Proofs than in the Proofs of his Adversary, which are called Objections. We may tell him in fine that Mr. Aubertin's Book consists not only of Proofs and Objections, but also of Instances or Replies against the ordinary Answers which are made to Proofs, and of Answers to Ob∣jections;

and this is what cannot be changed, so that when a man should turn the Proofs into Objections and the Objections into Proofs, yet would he be perplexed by these instances, and answers, and consequently must ac∣knowledg he has lost his time and pains, and that the Author of the Perpe∣tuity has abused him.

Mr. ARNAƲD's third complaint is an accusation couch'd under this title, A bitter Calumny against the Author of the Perpetuity. He proposes it in his 9th. Chapter with an impetuosity beyond example, and which shews he wrote it in the most cholerick temper imaginable. He ascends his tribunal, and thence, pronounces this sentence against me, that I am guilty * 1.470 of an heinous crime, such a one as obliges me both by the Laws of God and men to publick satisfaction. I is, says he again, a detestable calumny, an abomin∣able crime, the most base and unjust proceeding a man can be capable of. Let not Mr. Claude marvel at these reproaches, this is no jesting matter. He must not abuse persons of Honor for to fill up a sentence. If he has express'd him∣self thus thro incogitancy, I cannot but affirm him to be the most imprudent man in the world, and if he has done this with mature deliberation, I must declare him one of the boldest Calumniators as ever was, and am certain there's no honest man of his Communion but will grant what I say of him and condemn this his proceeding.

I protest before God with a sincere heart, that I am in no wise concern'd at what Mr. Arnaud tells me. I have answer'd his Book, and am therewith content. But I am troubled he should spoil this Dispute, which the pub∣lick of either side might read perhaps with profit and pleasure, and having discrediied it, I say, with passionate and violent expressions which cannot but disgust every man, he should moreover finish it with rash transports wholly unbeseeming him. What reason has he for such a passion? I wrote these words in my Book, God will one day shew, who they are that wrong his * 1.471 Church, the light of his judgment will discover all things, yea, and I hope before this comes to pass men will break thro this ignorance, and then 'twill be no longer necessary to write in favour of Transubstantiation. There will be no need of this course for a Reconciliation with Rome, and regaining peoples favour; for when the face of things shall be changed, this worlds wisdom will be useless. Here is my crime, this the spark that has set all on fire. We * 1.472 understand, says he, this language, and Mr. Claude knows well enough what he has said himself, and what interpretation his words will bear. He means then the Author of the Perpetuity wrote not of Transubstantiation by persua∣sion, but out of policy, and for worldly respects. For when a Catholick Divine defends the Church to which he is united, if he believes what he says, we must not search for other reasons of his undertaking the common cause of the Church in whose truth he places his hope of Salvation deserves sufficiently to be defen∣ded. So that to charge the Author of the Perpetuity to write only out of po∣litical and worldly respects, is to charge him with not believing what he writes, and to give this account of it.

THIS passion is a strange thing. Had Mr. Arnaud considered these words with less heat, he would have found nothing in 'em of what he saw at first. I confess they may be understood in this sense that this affair was politically manag'd, and with respect to the obtaining the favour of the Court of Rome, and regain the peoples good will, and that this is a world∣ly wisdom: But 'twill not be found in 'em, That the Author of the Perpe∣tuity

did not write by persuasion, but only thro policy, as Mr. Arnaud ima∣gin'd. This he will not find. Why then does he extend my words be∣yond their natural signification, and why does he wrong a man so scanda∣lously on the imagination he said what he did not? We understand, says he, * 1.473 this language. He shews plainly he does not understand it, seeing he char∣ges me with saying what I did not, and draws his Commentary only from himself, and not from my words. Had I reproach'd Mr. Arnaud with the publick Writings printed against him, wherein he is accused for formally opposing the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence by a proposition to be met with in his Book of the frequent Communion? Had I told him that of late his opinion on the Eucharist has been publickly in a Letter treated as suspicious, that he has been told, That if he be unwilling, * 1.474 together with his friends to be of intelligence with Geneva, he must change the act of the adoration which they perform assisting at the Mass to the Eleva∣tion of the Host; for they say only, I adore thee raised on the Cross, at the general judgment, and at the right hand of the Father, without any mention of adoring him being present in the Church. Had I severely applied my self to what he says somewhere in his Book, on the Principles of Des Cartes his Philosophy, That God sees in the matter, in the figures and forms only a dif∣ferent order of parts, to conclude thence that this proposition overthrows the existence of accidents without a subject in the Eucharist, and conse∣quently that 'tis contrary to the common Doctrin of the Church of Rome, as it has been observ'd in a Letter Printed not long since, what tempests must I not have expected, seeing for having only hinted that there might be some policy in the Author of the Perpetuity's works I have raised such a great disturbance?

Mr. ARNAƲD protests he will never for my sake dispense with the * 1.475 rules of Justice, that he will never devine my secret intentions. Let him not then pretend to read in my heart, nor attribute to me a mystical sense which I never intended, nor is contained in my words. All those that believe Transubstantiation are not in a capacity of writing in its favour. Amongst those that are, how many do betake themselves to other matters? Is it not then a very likely matter that a person who is at liberty to write on any subject, but pitches upon Transubstantiation, is it not, I say, very likely his choice of this point is grounded on some worldly policy and carnal consi∣derations? In attributing this to him we do nothing but what is very just and innocent. And this is all that my words signifie, to pretend to know more of my mind, is to attempt a thing which is possible only to God, and yet this Mr. Arnaud would do, that he might have some colour for his pas∣sion.

Mr. ARNAƲD I hope will suffer me likewise to tell him that what I said touching some words of the Author of the Perpetuity, which I believed were not very advantageous to the common mysteries of our Religion, do neither respect his person nor the main of his sentiments which I never pretended to handle, but only his expressions which I judged, and still do judg to be too rough and vehement on points to which we can∣not shew enough respect. We ought all of us to be very circumspect in our ways of speaking, to give no oecasion to the open enemies of the Go∣spel truths which we joyntly profess. This is my opinion, and my words will not admit fairly of any other explication. Can Mr. Arnaud wonder we should be offended to hear these questions, Why are the immortality of

the soul, and everlasting bliss so hidden, and as it were so buried in the Books * 1.476 of the Old Testament which are receiv'd into the Canon of the Jews? Why did not Jesus Christ declare his Divinity in such clear and precise terms that 'twere impossible to elude them? What may the Pagans say on what the Church teaches concerning Original Sin, and this inconceivable transmission of a crime, which is a spiritual and voluntary action, to all the Sons of him that committed it, altho they could not have any part in his action, and of this dreadful condem∣nation of all humane nature for the fault of one man? Can he think it strange we have been troubled to hear the difficulties which the mystery of the Trinity contains called dreadful difficulties, and to find 'em exaggerated in this manner: Were a man in this point to be guided by his reason, he must needs start back at these inconceivable verities. Should he pretend to make use of its lights to penetrate them, she will only furnish him with arms to combat them. Who can but be offended at the propositions which are in this last work of Mr. Arnaud on the subject of proofs which I alledged out of the * 1.477 Holy Scripture for the Trinity. That this will be very rational in the mouth of a Catholick, because he accompanies these proofs with the publick intelligence of the whole Church and of all tradition. But that these same proofs are in∣finitely weak in the mouth of a Calvinist without authority, without possession, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. That Mr. Claude, * 1.478 (who alledges the best part of what there is in the Scripture concerning the Tri∣nity and Divinity of Jesus Christ) overthrows the Socinians beyond all remedy, yet in such a manner as is more likely to make 'em laugh than to convert 'em. I do not believe these questions or propositions are justifiable, take 'em how we we will; but supposing they were, it must be granted they are con∣ceiv'd in such rough, dangerous, and excessive terms, that 'tis for the pub∣lick edification to avoid 'em, yea and to censure 'em.

BUT in fine, we must leave these Personal Differences which cannot but be displeasing. And therefore we will come to the Preface of my An∣swer to Father Noüet, which seems to have much incensed Mr. Arnaud, and seeing he seems to be much concerned at it, we will endeavour to satisfie him about it. What then does this Preface contain which is so troublesom and grievous? I confess we have mention'd a matter of fact in it wherein these Gentlemen have been concern'd; to wit, that their Book was refused an Approbation: but this was a point which shew'd the reason why this An∣swer was publish'd against Father Noüet, a fact moreover that was true and known by every body. We have drawn thence a consequence which was not advantageous to Mr. Arnaud, 'tis true; but a consequence which is ve∣ry natural: for that Gentleman whose approbation was sought for to this last work of Mr. Arnaud, and who refused it, is a publick person who gives not his Approbations as a private man, but as holding a rank and very considerable employ in one of the most famous Universities in Europe. If the face of things has been since altered, Mr. Arnaud knows the reason of it; and we too. We have used some expressions of raillery, and this per∣haps has most troubled Mr. Arnaud; but who ever told him that raillery ought to be wholly banish'd from a Dispute. Not to fetch examples else∣where, we know very well that these Gentlemen have oft used it in their Writings, and not without success; and not to go further, Mr. Arnaud him∣self has not abstain'd from it in this last Book he wrote against me. I do not take it ill, for I had rather at any time see him merry than angry.

I complain'd in this Preface of my being brought in impertinently into the abuses and nullities against the order of the Arch-Bishop of Paris. But I believe 'twill be now acknowledg'd that I had reason to admire what was said therein of me, in charging me with inconceivable boldness in denying the most evident matters, and maintaining the most false ones. This has oc∣casion'd my making a more general complaint, which is, that these Gentle∣men omit no occasion of testifying their aversion to us in a very sharp and severe manner, and many times without any pretence or cause. To say here∣upon, as Mr. Arnaud does, that they never speak otherwise than truly and * 1.479 justly, and herein only observe the Principles of their Religion, this is to te∣stifie further his passion, and assert a thing the least favourable imaginable to the Church of Rome. For here the question is not concerning the main of our Controversies, nor whether we have reason or not. This is a mat∣ter which we do not pretend to meddle with in a Preface, and when this shall be the point we shall be able to shew that 'tis neither with truth, nor reason that these Gentlemen speak of us as they do. The question here is touching the manner after which they speak, ever rending us with injurious expressions? To say that 'tis their Religion which inspires them with these motions, and persuades them this way of proceeding is just and reasonable, is to impute to their Religion a thing which will render it odious, and of which I believe 'tis no wise guilty; for how many persons do we see who are no less Roman Catholicks than these Gentlemen, who speak and write as well as they, and yet do not use their way of proceeding. If I have at∣tributed their affected animosity to the desire they have of freeing them∣selves from all suspicions that they held intelligence with us, what is there in all this which may justly offend them. Have not these suspicions been made publick, and have we not seen Books Printed whose Titles declared more than bare suspicions? This is a thing which I did not invent at leisure, neither one of my conjectures, nor a possible Romance, nor a particular secret which I have imprudently divulged, but a matter of fact which others be∣sides my self have publish'd, and which is known by every body. Is Mr. Arnaud offended at my imputing to him the desire of clearing himself from this suspicion? I wish with all my heart this were the occasion of his wrath, neither would I complain in this case, to be its sacrifice. But I am afraid that in turning things on this side, I shall pull on my self a new quarrel more terrible than the first. What reason has he then to be angry? We are the only sufferers in all this, we suffer in the suspicion, we suffer in the justification, we suffer in the manner of the justification. But God give us grace to suffer patiently, and we hope he will not refuse us that of perseve∣ring in our duty to him, and pursuing to the last truth with love, till we arrive at his Kingdom, where we shall find rest after our labors, and where our reproach will be turn'd into glory.

AND here I shall finish this Chapter and Book, and intreat Mr. Arnaud not to take any thing ill which I have said to him, and to consider that I maintain my Cause, a Cause of whose Goodness and Justice I cannot in the least doubt. Let him not think I have been set on work by a spirit of con∣tention, I naturally hate it, and several persons of Honor and Probity know I engaged in this Controversie much against my will, my temper in∣clining me rather to live retired and quiet. Neither let him think I thought of diminishing in any sort the Reputation which he has acquired in the world. I take it as a great honor to be found in the lists with him; and as

to his person, whatsoever sharpness he has used towards me, he shall al∣ways find me respecting his ingenious qualifications. If he be displeased to find himself deceived in the great hopes which he conceiv'd touching the Greeks, Armenians, and other Eastern Churches, this will shew him he must not always judg of things from their first appearances. That which deceived him is, that he has taken for the true Greek Church a Party of Greeks which has been a long time a forming and which the rest call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is to say, those who are in their hearts and opinions Latins, altho outwardly professors of the Greek Rites, and live amongst the rest in the same Communion. 'Twas this Party who for so long a time opposed Meletus the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Cyril his Successor, afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople, and who in fine o'rewhelm'd Cyril by the assi∣stance of the Court of Rome, as I have elsewhere said that Allatius him∣self has acknowledged, and as I proved in the 12th. Chapter of the said Book. Since this great Victory which was follow'd by the promotion of Cyril of Beroe the Jesuits Disciple, and a great favorer of the Latins, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, I do not doubt but this Party has mightily strengthen'd it self, and that several amongst 'em have declared themselves more loudly and openly than they did before. In effect 'twas about this time that a certain Greek of this Party called Meletus Syrigus wrote a Ca∣techism which was sign'd in the two pretended condemnations of Cyril Lu∣car, the one under Cyril of Beroe, and the other under Parthenius, with this Title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is to say, An Orthodox Confession of the Catholick Apostolical and Eastern Church, in which he asserts the conversion of the substances of Bread and Wine into those of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, with the subsistence of accidents without a subject, and uses the very term of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If Mr. Arnaud has meant by the Greek Church the persons of that Party, I have already declared to him, and again tell him that I have not disputed against him. We do not pretend to dispute the Conquests of the Missions and Seminaries, let him peaceably enjoy 'em, we mean only the true Greeks, who retain the Doctrin and ancient expressions of their Church. And as to those, we are certain of two things, the one that they hold not the Transubstantiation of the Latins, which I believe I have clearly proved; and the other that they alone ought to be called the true Greek Church, altho the contrary Party were the most prevalent, and pos∣sessed the Patriarchates. Mr. Arnaud himself has told us that these Seats are disposed of by the sovereign authority of the Turks to those that have most money, and we know moreover the great care that has been taken to establish the Roman Doctrins in these Countries, thro the Neglect and Ig∣norance of the Prelates, Monks, and People, whether by instructing their Children, or gaining the Bishops, or filling the Churches with the Scholars of Seminaries, and other like means which I have describ'd at large in my second Book. Mr. Arnaud perhaps will answer that he likewise maintains on his side, that this Party which teaches Transubstantiation is the true Greek Church, and the other but a Cabal of Cyril's Disciples. I answer, that to decide this question, we need only examin which of these two Par∣ties retains the Doctrin and Expressions of the ancient Greeks; for that which has this Character must be esteem'd the true Greek Church, and not that which has receiv'd novelties unknown to their Fathers. Now we have clearly shew'd that the conversion of Substances, Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, are Doctrins and Expressions, of which the Greeks of for∣mer Ages have had no knowledg; whence it follows that the Party which

admits these Doctrins and Expressions, are a parcel of Innovators which must not be regarded as if they were the true Greek Church. Let Mr. Ar∣naud, and those who read this Dispute, always remember that the first Pro∣position of the Author of the Perpetuity is that in the 11th. Century at the time of Berenger's condemnation, the Greeks held the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, that this is the time which he chose, and term'd his fix'd point, to prove from hence that these Doctrins were of the first esta∣blishment of Religion; and consequently perpetual in the Church. Which I desire may be carefully observed to prevent another illusion, which may be offered us, by transferring the question of the Greeks of that time to the Greeks at this, and to hinder Mr. Arnaud and others from triumphing over us when it shall happen that the Missions and Seminaries, and all the rest of the intrigues which are made use of shall devour the whole Land of Greece. For in this case the advantage drawn hence against us will be of no value; 'twill neither hence follow, that the Doctrins in question have been perplex'd in the Church, nor that the Greek Church held 'em in the time of Berenger's condemnation; and what I say touching the Greeks, I say likewise touching the other Eastern Churches over which the Roman Church extends its Missions and Care as well as the Greeks.

AS to what remains, let not Mr. Arnaud be offended that in the refu∣tation of his Book in general, I have every where shewed the little justice and solidity of his reasonings, and especially in the refutation of his first, sixth, and tenth Book. I acknowledg he has wrote with much Wit, Ele∣gancy, and polite Language, and attribute to the defect of his subject, what∣soever I have noted to be amiss, either in his Proofs, or Answers: but 'tis very true, the world never saw so many illusions and such great weakness, in a work of this nature; and all that I could do was to use great con∣descentions, in following him every where to set him strait. I have only now to beseech Almighty God to bless this my Labor, and as he has given me Grace to undertake and finish it, so he will make it turn to his Glory and the Churches Edification. AMEN.

Notes

• * 1.1

  lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.
• * 1.2

  Voyage into Moscovia, lib. 3. p. 234.
• * 1.3

  Possevin Bibl. sel. lib. 6. C. 5. and lib. de reb. Moscov. Thom. a Jesu. Lib. 6. C. 5. Olearius voyage Mosc. Lib. 3 p. 237. 234.
• * 1.4

  Possev. ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.5

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 234.
• * 1.6

  Olear. Lib. 3 p. 237.
• * 1.7

  Possev. ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.8

  Relation of the Ambassag. of the Earl of Carlile.
• * 1.9

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.
• * 1.10

  Olear. Lib. 3. p. 261.
• * 1.11

  Olear. p. 249.
• * 1.12

  Lib. 5. C. 1. p. 423.
• * 1.13

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. p. 24.
• * 1.14

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. p. 1.
• * 1.15

  Ibid. p. 38.
• * 1.16

  Elucid. error. ritus. Ruth. Joan. Sacra.
• * 1.17

  Possev. de reb. Mosc Com. 1. & 2 Chap. 4.
• * 1.18

  Paul Jov. Lib. de Legat Mosc.
• * 1.19

  Arcud. Epist. dedicat. ad Sigism.
• * 1.20

  Possev. Bibl. select. Lib. 6. C. 1.
• * 1.21

  Possev. Bibl. select Lib. 6. C. 1.
• * 1.22

  Possev. de reb. Moscov. Comm. 1.
• * 1.23

  Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 425.
• * 1.24

  Sigism. Com. rer. Mosc.
• * 1.25

  Lib. 5. c. 1. P. 427.
• * 1.26

  Ibid. p. 426.
• * 1.27

  P. 428.
• * 1.28

  Paul Jovius Com. de legat. Mosc.
• * 1.29

  Possevin Com. 1. de reb. Mosc.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 5. c. 1. p. 431.
• * 1.31

  Ibid.
• * 1.32

  Moscovit. Re∣ligion.
• * 1.33

  Possevin Com. 2. de reb. Mosc.
• * 1.34

  Perpe. of the Faith Part 3. C. 8.
• * 1.35

  Lib. 5. C. 3. P. 438.
• * 1.36

  Answer to the Perp. Part 3. C. 8.
• * 1.37

  Relat. of the Ambas. of M. Carlile.
• * 1.38

  Lib 12. P. 75.
• * 1.39

  Answer to the P. 3. C. 8.
• * 1.40

  Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448s
• * 1.41

  Joan. Lazic. Relig. Arm.
• * 1.42

  Lib. 5. C. 4. P. 448.
• * 1.43

  Thom. Sum. 3. Part. Quaest. 75. Art. 2.
• * 1.44

  Lib. 5. C. 1. Pag. 432.
• * 1.45

  Lib. 5. C. 5.
• * 1.46

  Relat. of Mis∣sionarys and Voyage of French Bishops by M. Francis Pallu. Bish. of Heliopolis.
• * 1.47

  Epist. Viror. Eruditor. Epist. 2. Cy∣rill. ad Wy∣tenbog.
• * 1.48

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 454.
• * 1.49

  Epist. John. 2. Episcop. Rom. ad Arien. &c. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. edit 4.
• * 1.50

  Harmenop. de Sect. Ar•• 5. Nicephor. Callist hist. Eccles. L••b. 18 C. 48. Raynald. ad an. 1341.
• * 1.51

  Cyril. Epist. 2. ad Witem. in Epist. viror, eruditor.
• * 1.52

  Itinerar. Hier. & Syria Auct. Joanne Cotto∣vico. Lib. 2. C. 6. P. 202.
• * 1.53

  Gelas. Episc. Rom. advers. Eutych. & Nest. ibid.
• * 1.54

  Vigil. Lib. 5. contra Eutych.
• * 1.55

  Theodoret Dial. 2.
• * 1.56

  Euthym. Parop. Tit. 20.
• * 1.57

  Du Perron of the Euch. Lib. 2. C. 12.
• * 1.58

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 455.
• * 1.59

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 456.
• * 1.60

  St. Nicon Epist. ad Eu∣chistium. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. edit. 4.
• * 1.61

  Nicephor. Cal. hist. Eccles. Lib. 18. C. 53.
• * 1.62

  Guido Car∣mel summam de haeres. de haer. Arm. C. 22.
• * 1.63

  Raynald. ad an. 1341.
• * 1.64

  Ad Calcem Concil. Florent.
• * 1.65

  Spondan. an∣nal. Eccles Tom. 2. ad Ann. 1434.
• * 1.66

  Prateol. E∣lench. Haeret. de Armen.
• * 1.67

  Cottovic-Itiner Hieros. et Syri. Lib. 2. de Armen.
• * 1.68

  The Voyages of Pietro Del∣la Vallé. Tom. 3. P. 107.
• * 1.69

  Epist. 2. ad Wy. temb.
• * 1.70

  Thom. a Jesu. de procuranda salute omn. Gent. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17. Letters from forrein Countries to the Procur. of the Missions.
• * 1.71

  Euthym. pan. tit. 20.
• * 1.72

  Lib. 5. C. 6. P. 3. 455.
• * 1.73

  Ibid. P. 456. Breerewoods. inquirys. C. 24.
• * 1.74

  Theorien. Dial. advers. Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco. lat. tom. 1.
• * 1.75

  Guido Carmel. suma de Heres. de Her. Arm. Cap. 12.
• * 1.76

  Raynald. ad ann. 13. 18.
• * 1.77

  Perp. of the faith part. 3. Ch. 8.
• * 1.78

  Lib. 5. Ch. 6. p. 469.
• * 1.79

  Raynauld. ad Ann. 1341.
• * 1.80

  C 9. 348. & 485.
• * 1.81

  Raynald. Ibid.
• * 1.82

  Ra••nald. Ibid.
• * 1.83

  Lib. 5. C. 9. P. 4••4.
• * 1.84

  C. 9. P. 48.
• * 1.85

  Ibid
• * 1.86

  Ibid.
• * 1.87

  Ibid.
• * 1.88

  Ibid.
• * 1.89

  Ibid.
• * 1.90

  Raynald. ubi supra.
• * 1.91

  Raynald. ad ann. 1346. Num. 67. 68. &c.
• * 1.92

  Raynald. ad ann. 1310. Num. 37.
• * 1.93

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1351. Num. 31
• * 1.94

  Lib. 5: C. 9. pag. 488.
• * 1.95

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb 17.
• * 1.96

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 18.
• * 1.97

  Raynald. ibid. Numb. 15.
• * 1.98

  Raynaldus ibid. Numb. 2.
• * 1.99

  ibid. Numcr. 11.
• * 1.100

  ibid. Num. 15.
• * 1.101

  Raynaldus ibid Numer. 18.
• * 1.102

  Eugen. ad Calcem Concil. Flore••
• * 1.103

  Thom. Vald. Tom. 2. Cap 30.
• * 1.104

  Prateolus Elench. haeret. pag. 63. in Armen. art. 12.
• * 1.105

  Bzoviusad. an. 1318. Num 16.
• * 1.106

  Coccius. Thes. Cathol. tom. 2. pag. 601.
• * 1.107

  Thomas à Jesu. Lib. 7. part. 1. C. 17.
• * 1.108

  Dr. Avily Tom. 1. of Ancient and Modern Heresies p. 349.
• * 1.109

  Joann Lazi∣cius de Rel. Armeni.
• * 1.110

  Lib. 5. C. 4. p. 449.
• * 1.111

  Ibid.
• * 1.112

  Lib. 10. C. 8.
• * 1.113

  Breerewood's Inquiries Ch. 24.
• * 1.114

  View of Reli∣gions Printed at Amsterdam Gallice 1666.
• * 1.115

  Herberts Voy∣ages Lib. 2. q. 244
• * 1.116

  Lib. 5. C. 8. p. 481. First Edition.
• * 1.117

  Lib. 5. C. 8. 2. Edition.
• * 1.118

  C. 8. 2. Edition.
• * 1.119

  Chap. 8. first Edition.
• * 1.120

  Lib. 5. C. 6. p. 457.
• * 1.121

  Ibid.
• * 1.122

  Ibid. p. 459.
• * 1.123

  Baron ad. con. 114.
• * 1.124

  Ibid. p. 460.
• * 1.125

  Theorien. Dial. adver. Armen.
• * 1.126

  Ibid. pag. 462.
• * 1.127

  Ibid. p. 46•• 466.
• * 1.128

  Jacob a Vitriuco histor. Orient. cap. 79.
• * 1.129

  The Am∣bassage of Dr. Garcias de Sylva Figueroa Translated by Mr. de Vicq∣fort. p. 193.
• * 1.130

  Anthony de Goureau's Relation, Book 3. Ch. 3.
• * 1.131

  Lib. 5. C. 10. p. 491.
• * 1.132

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.
• * 1.133

  Raynaldus ad ann. 1445.
• * 1.134

  Du Jarric's History of the East Indias.
• * 1.135

  Leontius Biz. advers. Nest. & Eutych. Lib. 3. Bibl. patr. tom. 4.
• * 1.136

  Apud. Cyrill. alex. contra Nest. Lib. 4. Cap. 6. See the Eight Chapter wherein are several pas∣sages of the Liturgy of the Nestorians, and Indians. Lib. 5. C. 12. p. 508.
• * 1.137

  Damascen. Lib. 4. de fide Orthodox. C. 14
• * 1.138

  Lib. 7. C. 4
• * 1.139

  Cyril Hie Cal. myst. 4. Epiphan. in Anapc••hal.
• * 1.140

  Origen. Comm. in Matt. 1••.
• * 1.141

  Raynald. ad. ann. 1442.
• * 1.142

  Nicephor Cali. Eccles Hist. Lib. 18. Cap. 52. The wonder∣full H••••t. of the Great Cham of Tartar.
• * 1.143

  Raynald ad ann. 1••26. num. 28.
• * 1.144

  Guid. Car. sum. de bae••••s tit. de Jacob. Barth. a Salignaico itiner. terrae Sanctae fol. 31. de Jacobitis. Pratcol. E∣lench. haret. Lib. 7. de Jacob. art. 3. Joann. Cotov. Itiner Hieros. & Syriac. Lib. 2. Cap. 6.
• * 1.145

  Cottovic. Ibid. Voyages and Observ. of the Sicur de la Boulay le Goux 3. part. ch. 12. pag. 371
• * 1.146

  Thevenot's Voyages part 2. Ch. 75. p. 501.
• * 1.147

  Thomas à Jesu. Lib. 7. p. 1. C. 13.
• * 1.148

  The Contents of this Letter are thus elated by Mr. Ar∣naud in his 12 Book.
• * 1.149

  Mr. Arnaud Lib. 5. C. 13. p. 518.
• * 1.150

  Answer to the Perp. part. 2. C. 8. Lib 5. C. 13. p. 516.
• * 1.151

  Missa sive Canon uni∣vers. Aethiop. Bibl. patr. tom 6.
• * 1.152

  Faucheur on the Lords Supper. Book 3. C. 6.
• * 1.153

  Missa Christi∣an apud. Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6. ed. 4. Ibid bibl. patr. tom. 6.
• * 1.154

  Ibid.
• * 1.155

  Lib. 8. Ch. 1. pag, 736.
• * 1.156

  Augus. serm. ad Infunt.
• * 1.157

  Book 8. Ch. 2. p. 739.
• * 1.158

  Ch. 2. p. 742.
• * 1.159

  Chap. 2. pag. 743.
• * 1.160

  p. 743.
• * 1.161

  Lib. 8. Ch. 3.
• * 1.162

  Honor. August. de Script Eccl. Joan. Morin. Exercit. 9. de Diacon. cap. 1. pag. 169. col. 2. s. 5.
• * 1.163

  Menard Praef. in lib. Sacram. Gregor.
• * 1.164

  Isid. hisp. Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. De Officii Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 18. Beda Comment. in Marc. 14. & in Luc. 22. Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom.
• * 1.165

  Isidor Com. in lib. 1 Reg. cap. 20.
• * 1.166

  Bela hom. estiu. de temp. Dom. 13. & Dom. 17. & Dom. 24. & alibi passim id Expos. Alleg. in Cantic. Cantic. cap. 3. & de tab. lib. 2. cap. 3. Aug. in Psal. 3.
• * 1.167

  Isidor. in lib 2. Rog. cap. 3. Bed. quest in 2 Reg & in Ps. 3.
• * 1.168

  Aug. contr. Adimant. c. 12.
• * 1.169

  Ch. 3. p. 749, 750.
• * 1.170

  Ch. 3. p. 751, 752.
• * 1.171

  Hom. 15. in Rom.
• * 1.172

  Hom. 89. in Matt.
• * 1.173

  Hom. in Eli. & vid. Valerian. Hom. 7.
• * 1.174

  De Sacerd. l. 4.
• * 1.175

  Augustin in Ps. 87. Serm. 49. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.176

  Serm. 53. De verb. Dom.
• * 1.177

  Sedul. lib. 5. oper. Pas. 6. 13.
• * 1.178

  Damas. l. 4. de fid. Orthod. c. 12. Alcuin. lib. 2. in Joan. Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.179

  Orig. in Mat. hom. 35.
• * 1.180

  Hesych. in Lev. lib. 7.
• * 1.181

  Greg. Nyss. Or. 1. 〈…〉〈…〉r. am.
• * 1.182

  Aug. con. Faust. lib. 13. cap. 16.
• * 1.183

  Clemens Alex. Strom. lib. 3. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 2. in illud faciamus homi∣nem, &c. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. lib. 1. Epist. 397.
• * 1.184

  Origen Hom. 1. in Mat. Greg. Nyss. hom. 7. in Cant.
• * 1.185

  Ch. 5. p. 781.
• * 1.186

  p. 780.
• * 1.187

  Ether. & Beat. lib. 1.
• * 1.188

  Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.189

  Chrysost. hom. 11. in Rom.
• * 1.190

  Com. in Gal. c. 1. Beda expl. all••∣gor. in Tobiam.
• * 1.191

  Cyril. Hieros. Catech. myst. 1.
• * 1.192

  Basil. in Ps. 14. Theophyl. in Joan. 10. Cyril Hieroscal. myst. 3. Hierom in Epist. ad Gal. c. 4.
• * 1.193

  Ch. 5. p. 780.
• * 1.194

  Tertul. de Ba∣ptismo. Ch. 5. p. 783.
• * 1.195

  P. 774.
• * 1.196

  Page 783.
• * 1.197

  Pallad. Hist. Laus. cap. 75.
• * 1.198

  Apud, Vict. Ant. Miss.
• * 1.199

  Elias Cret. in Greg.
• * 1.200

  Valafridus Strabo, de rec. Eccles. cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10.
• * 1.201

  Apud Cassand. i•• Liturgicis.
• * 1.202

  Book 5. Ch. 10. p. 500.
• * 1.203

  Missae Christ. apud Indos Bibl. patr. tom. 6.
• * 1.204

  See Ethe. and Beatus, who relate this passage, Bibl. patr. tom. 4.
• * 1.205

  Tertull. de re∣sur. car. c. 37.
• * 1.206

  Origen. hom. 7. in Levit.
• * 1.207

  Athanas. in il∣lud si quis di∣xerit, &c.
• * 1.208

  Euseb. lib. 3. de Theol. Eccles. cap. 12.
• * 1.209

  Author. oper. imperf. in Mat. hom. 11.
• * 1.210

  Ambros. lib. 1. de officiis, c. 48.
• * 1.211

  Aug. contr. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21.
• * 1.212

  Aug. in Ps. 98.
• * 1.213

  Aug. Serm. 2. de ver. Apost.
• * 1.214

  Hieronym. Com. in Psal. 147.
• * 1.215

  Facundus def. trium capit. l. 9.
• * 1.216

  Raban in paeni∣tent.
• * 1.217

  Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 2.
• * 1.218

  Greg. Mag. Isidorus. Beda Haymo & alii passim. Beda in Ep. ad Heb. c. 7. Idem in Ps. 3. & in quest. in 2 Reg. cap. 3. & in Marc. 14. Carol. Mag. ad alcuin. de Se∣ptuagint. Isidor. in alleg. Vet. Test. Idem Orig. lib. 7. Idem Comment. in Genes. cap. 12. Idem Comment. in Genes. c. 23.
• * 1.219

  Beda Expos. al∣leg. in Sam. c. 5. Idem Expos. al∣leg. in Prov. lib. 3. c. 31. Idem de Taber. lib. 2. c. 2. Idem Hom. est in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt.
• * 1.220

  Idem hom. de sanctis in Epi∣phan.
• * 1.221

  Idem Comm. in Psal. 33.
• * 1.222

  Idem Comm. in Luc. 22.
• * 1.223

  Book 8. Ch. 4. p. 75 5.
• * 1.224

  Gregor. Mag. Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58.
• * 1.225

  Isidor. de Offici. Eccles. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.226

  Beda Comm. in Psal. 21.
• * 1.227

  In Esdr. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.228

  Isidor. in Gen. cap. 1. Idem in Exod. c. 23. Beda in Genes. & Exod. Exposit. in Exod. c. 12.
• * 1.229

  Beda in Cor. 11. Beda & Alcu. in Joan. 6.
• * 1.230

  Isidor. lib. 1. sentent. cap. 14.
• * 1.231

  Beda Expos. al∣legor. ipsam, lib. 1. cap. 12.
• * 1.232

  Idem Comm. in Mare. c. 13.
• * 1.233

  Idem in Luc. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.234

  Idem Exposit. alleg. in Job, lib. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.235

  Idem Hom. ast. de temp. feria 6 Paschal.
• * 1.236

  Alcuin. in Joan. lib. 5. cap. 28.
• * 1.237

  Idem in Joan. lib. 6. cap. 34.
• * 1.238

  Ibid. cap. 35.
• * 1.239

  Lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 737.
• * 1.240

  Lib. 8. cap. 4. p. 755, 756.
• * 1.241

  Isid: lib. 1. de Offic. Eccles. cap. 18.
• * 1.242

  Ibid.
• * 1.243

  Ibid.
• * 1.244

  Greg. Mag. Hom. 22. in Evangel.
• * 1.245

  Book 10. ch. 1.
• * 1.246

  In the Re∣marks on the request of M. D' Ambrun, 9th. Remark.
• * 1.247

  Ambros. Cat••••r, Tract. de verb. quibus confici∣tur, &c.
• * 1.248

  Book 10. Ch. 2.
• * 1.249

  Lib. 10. cap. 3.
• * 1.250

  Book 10. Ch. 4.
• * 1.251

  Answer to the Perpetuity. part 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.252

  Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.253

  Answer to the Perpetuity, p. 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.254

  Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34.
• * 1.255

  Book 10. ch. 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38, 39.
• * 1.256

  Cajetan. in 3. Thoma quest. 75. art. 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem, 1588.
• * 1.257

  Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30.
• * 1.258

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Per∣pituity, part 1. ch. 3.
• * 1.259

  Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43.
• * 1.260

  Ch 6. p. 44, 45.
• * 1.261

  Aug. lib. 3. cont. Maxim. cap. 14.
• * 1.262

  Chap. 8.
• * 1.263

  Perp. Faith, pag. 14.
• * 1.264

  Refutation, Part. 2. Ch. 2.
• * 1.265

  Lib. 6. cap. 3.
• * 1.266

  Lib. 6. cap. 3. p. 577.
• * 1.267

  A Peaceable Method by Father Main∣bourg, ch. 3. page 108.
• * 1.268

  Lib. 6. cap. 2.
• * 1.269

  Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag 564, 565.
• * 1.270

  The first Treatise of the Perpetuity.
• * 1.271

  Lib. 6. cap. 2. pag. 5.
• * 1.272

  Aug. de Utilit. Cred. c. 1.
• * 1.273

  Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550.
• * 1.274

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 2. chap 3.
• * 1.275

  First Treatise of the Perpe∣tuity, page 37.
• * 1.276

  Answer to the first Treatise, page 12.
• * 1.277

  Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.
• * 1.278

  Page 562.
• * 1.279

  Page 563.
• * 1.280

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 2. chap. 3.
• * 1.281

  Lib. 6. ch. 5. pag. 560.
• * 1.282

  Lib. 6. ch. 6. pag. 563.
• * 1.283

  Refutat. part 2. chap. 2.
• * 1.284

  Answer to the second Treat. part 2. ch. 2.
• * 1.285

  Aug. lib. 3. de Trin. cap. 4.
• * 1.286

  Tatian. in Diacess.
• * 1.287

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.288

  Ambros. de iis qui myst. init. cap. 9. lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 3. Aug. Serm. ad infr. Serm. de quarta feria.
• * 1.289

  Page 573.
• * 1.290

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise of the Perpetuity part 2. ch. 2. page 259. In Quarto Edit.
• * 1.291

  Lib. 6. ch. 7. pag. 575.
• * 1.292

  Lib. 6. ch. 1. pag. 529.
• * 1.293

  Serm. ad i••s.
• * 1.294

  Theophyl. in Joan. 6.
• * 1.295

  Lib. 6. cap. 7. p. 575.
• * 1.296

  Page 576.
• * 1.297

  Page 577, 578.
• * 1.298

  Page 580.
• * 1.299

  Page 580.
• * 1.300

  Page 583.
• * 1.301

  Page 582.
• * 1.302

  Book 6. ch 8. pag. 586.
• * 1.303

  Page 587.
• * 1.304

  Cyril Hieros. Catech. myst. 1.
• * 1.305

  Serm. ad inf.
• * 1.306

  Page 602.
• * 1.307

  Serm. ad inf.
• * 1.308

  In his Preface.
• * 1.309

  Page 197.
• * 1.310

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, Part 3. ch. 6. Book 9. ch. 3. p. 886.
• * 1.311

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, Part. 3. ch. 6.
• * 1.312

  Book 9. ch. 3. p. 890.
• * 1.313

  Refut part 3. ch. 6.
• * 1.314

  Book 9. ch. 3. pag. 890.
• * 1.315

  Ibid
• * 1.316

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, Part 2. chap. 3.
• * 1.317

  Chap. 4. page 891.
• * 1.318

  Page 892.
• * 1.319

  Chap. 4. page 829.
• * 1.320

  First Answer near the end.
• * 1.321

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, Part 2. ch. 3. and Part 3. ch. 7.
• * 1.322

  Page 892.
• * 1.323

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, Part 2. chap. 7.
• * 1.324

  Book 9. ch. 5. page 899.
• * 1.325

  Lib. De Corpore & Sang. Dom. cap. 2.
• * 1.326

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.327

  Book 9. ch. 6. page 913.
• * 1.328

  Book 9. ch. 5. page 900.
• * 1.329

  Ibidem.
• * 1.330

  Page 901.
• * 1.331

  Book 9. ch. 6. page 902.
• * 1.332

  Book 9. ch. 6. page 907.
• * 1.333

  Ibidem.
• * 1.334

  Page 9 8.
• * 1.335

  Page 914.
• * 1.336

  Lib. Catholicor. Serm. ad Bed. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. Abraham Ve∣loci.
• * 1.337

  Ibidem.
• * 1.338

  Serm. Elfrici apud Eund. Voloc.
• * 1.339

  Mss. in Colleg. S. Bened. Cant.
• * 1.340

  In eod. Mss. Eccl. Vigorn.
• * 1.341

  Sig de Script. Eccles. cap. 137. de Cest. Abb. Lob. tom. 6. Spicil. p. 591.
• * 1.342

  Book 9. ch. 6. p. 909.
• * 1.343

  William of Tyr. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• * 1.344

  Pr••f. ad Con∣cilium Trosl.
• * 1.345

  Concilium Trosl. cap. 3.
• * 1.346

  Ibid. in Epil.
• * 1.347

  Book 9. ch. 7. pag. 915.
• * 1.348

  Page 916.
• * 1.349

  Book 9. ch. 9. page 957.
• * 1.350

  Book 9. ch. 7. page 947.
• * 1.351

  Bayon. annal. Eccles. Tom 10. ad ann. 612.
• * 1.352

  Baron. ad ann. 925.
• * 1.353

  Concil. Trost. n Epilog••.
• * 1.354

  Baron. ad an. 938.
• * 1.355

  Guilliel. Malm. lib. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.356

  Polydor. Virg. Hist. Ang l. 6.
• * 1.357

  Elfric Ser. ad Sacerd. Miss. in Bibl. Colleg. S. Bened. Cant.
• * 1.358

  Answer to the second Treat. ch. 1.
• * 1.359

  Book 9. ch. 8. page 9••3.
• * 1.360

  Page 954.
• * 1.361

  Answer to Noüet.
• * 1.362

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Domin. c. 15. &c. 19. Gela. apud Gra. Canon. Compe∣rimus de cons. dist. 2. Lib. c. cap. 10. p. 989.
• * 1.363

  Aug. de Peccat rear. & remiss. lib. 1. c 24.
• * 1.364

  Page 990.
• * 1.365

  Maldon. in Joan. 6. Binn. not. in Epist. Innoc.
• * 1.366

  Page 990.
• * 1.367

  Nicet. Choni. l. 2. Page 986.
• * 1.368

  Page 287.
• * 1.369

  Page 960.
• * 1.370

  Book 8. ch. 8. page 36.
• * 1.371

  Page 479.
• * 1.372

  Lib. 9. Ch. 6.
• * 1.373

  Book 4. of the Sacrament pretended in the Mass. ch. 8
• * 1.374

  Lanfranc de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.375

  Book 8. ch. 8. p. 839.
• * 1.376

  Book 8. ch. 8. p. 841.
• * 1.377

  Book 8. ch. 8. p. 842.
• * 1.378

  Dissert. c. 17.
• * 1.379

  Book 3. ch. 8. p. 843.
• * 1.380

  Book 8. ch. 9.
• * 1.381

  Book 8. ch. 8. p. 848.
• * 1.382

  Page 850.
• * 1.383

  Page 850, 851.
• * 1.384

  Page 852.
• * 1.385

  Book 6. ch. 1.
• * 1.386

  Book 8. ch. 9. p. 852.
• * 1.387

  Page 857.
• * 1.388

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.389

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 860.
• * 1.390

  Paschas. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. cap. 2.
• * 1.391

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.392

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 852.
• * 1.393

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 859.
• * 1.394

  Comment in Matth. 26.
• * 1.395

  Ibid.
• * 1.396

  Epist. ad Frud.
• * 1.397

  Lib. 8. Ch. 10. p. 861, 862.
• * 1.398

  Page 868.
• * 1.399

  Poenitent. Rab. cap. 33.
• * 1.400

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.401

  Book 8. ch. 10. p. 865.
• * 1.402

  Page 868.
• * 1.403

  Page 866.
• * 1.404

  Book 8 ch. 10. page 867.
• * 1.405

  Invita pasch.
• * 1.406

  Apud Lanfranc. lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.407

  Tom. 2. Spic. in not. advitam Lanfran. ad Luc. D' Actery.
• * 1.408

  Cellot in ap∣pend. ad Hist. Cottesch.
• * 1.409

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 3. ch. 2.
• * 1.410

  Florus magister in Exposit. Missae.
• * 1.411

  Book 8. ch. 7. p. 822.
• * 1.412

  Lib. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. cap. 6.
• * 1.413

  Book 8. ch. 7. page 824.
• * 1.414

  Comment. in 1 Cor. 10.
• * 1.415

  Ibid. in c. 11.
• * 1.416

  In Exposit. Can.
• * 1.417

  Cap. 40.
• * 1.418

  Rupert lib. 2. de Divin. Off. cap. 2.
• * 1.419

  Lanfran. de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.420

  In notis d' A∣cheri in vitam Lanfr.
• * 1.421

  Book 8. ch. 7. p. 828.
• * 1.422

  P. 832.
• * 1.423

  p. 842.
• * 1.424

  Page 832. Book 8. ch. 7.
• * 1.425

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 3. ch. 2.
• * 1.426

  Book 8. ch. 4. p. 797.
• * 1.427

  Perpetuity of the Faith, page 83.
• * 1.428

  Book 8. ch. 11. Page 870.
• * 1.429

  Praesat. ad lib. de Offic. Eccl.
• * 1.430

  Book 8. ch. 4. p. 783.
• * 1.431

  Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 25. Book ••. ch. 7. page 834.
• * 1.432

  Lib. 3. de Off. cap. 26.
• * 1.433

  Book 8. ch. 4. p. 785.
• * 1.434

  Ibid.
• * 1.435

  Tom. 2. cap. 19. Lib. 8. cap. 12. p. 874.
• * 1.436

  In instit. Cleric. c. 31.
• * 1.437

  Durand. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. part. 1.
• * 1.438

  Guitmund. de verb. Euchar. lib. 2.
• * 1.439

  Alger. de Sac. lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.440

  Thom. Valdens. tom. 2. cap. 52.
• * 1.441

  Ibid. cap. 26.
• * 1.442

  Ibid. cap. 90.
• * 1.443

  Bertram de Corp. & Sang. Dom.
• * 1.444

  Book 8. ch. 12. p. 874.
• * 1.445

  Ibidem.
• * 1.446

  Poen. Rab. c. 33.
• * 1.447

  Page 875.
• * 1.448

  Baron. ad ann. 847.
• * 1.449

  Lugd. Eccles. de tenend. ver. Script.
• * 1.450

  Book 8. ch. 12, p. 875.
• * 1.451

  Page 876.
• * 1.452

  Cap. 33.
• * 1.453

  This Period which I have in∣cluded in this Parenthesis has no coherence with the discourse of Raban, and my conjecture is, that it is a remark which some body put in the Margin, and which has been afterwards for∣ced out of the Margin into the Text.
• * 1.454

  C••mment. in Mat. 26.
• * 1.455

  Page 881.
• * 1.456

  Book 11. ch. 8. page 1128.
• * 1.457

  Book 11. ch. 3. p. 1105, 1106.
• * 1.458

  Perpetuity of the Faith, sect. 2 p. 80.
• * 1.459

  Page 82.
• * 1.460

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 3. ch. 1.
• * 1.461

  Book 11. ch. 4. p. 1108, 1109.
• * 1.462

  Page 1110.
• * 1.463

  Illucidations on the Eucha∣rist, ch. 18. p. 421, 422. Ibid. p. 427.
• * 1.464

  Chap. 6.
• * 1.465

  Answer to the second Tome, part 3. ch. 1.
• * 1.466

  Book 11. ch. 6. p. 116.
• * 1.467

  Page 1117.
• * 1.468

  Page 1118.
• * 1.469

  Page 1119.
• * 1.470

  Ch. 9. p. 1130, 1131.
• * 1.471

  Answer to the second Trea∣tise, part 2. ch 3. at the end of the Chapter.
• * 1.472

  Book 11. ch. 9. page 1131.
• * 1.473

  The Book en∣tituled, The Port Royal and Geneva of In∣telligence a∣gainst the most holy Sacrament of the Altar.
• * 1.474

  Answer to the request pre∣sented to the King, &c. Book 2. ch. 6. p. 187.
• * 1.475

  Book 11. ch. 9. p. 1132.
• * 1.476

  Perpetuity of the Faith re∣futed, part 1.
• * 1.477

  Book 10. ch. 6. p. 1042.
• * 1.478

  Page 1043.
• * 1.479

  Chap. 11. p. 1162.