The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.

CHAP. II.

That the Author of the Perpetuity's Method may be justly Suspected to be deceitful, and that his manner of assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenuous.

THE Method the Author of the Perpetuity makes use of to make us confess, as he says; that the Doctrine of the Roman Church, touching the Eucharist, is the same with that of all Antiquity, hath appeared so strange and irregular to me, that I have made these following Reflexions thereupon.

I. That it may be justly suspected of Artifice and Illusion.

II. That this way of Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book is Disingenious and Indirect.

III. That the Author hath bin to blame in pretending to shew the Inva∣lidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs by Arguments which at most do amount but to mere Conjectures.

IV. That to confute at once all these Arguments, we need but oppose against them these same Proofs of matters of Fact, and by gathering them into an Abridgment, to give a general view of them.

Mr. Arnaud confesses that I were not to be blamed for having in my Answer * 1.1 fall'n first upon the Faults which I pretend to discover in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, provided, saith he, that I maintained Equity and Truth; It may be, I think, then supposed I have so far done nothing con∣trary to Rule, it only remains I make good the four above-mentioned Re∣flections.

I shall not insist long upon the first of these, because Mr. Arnaud hath al∣ledged * 1.2 nothing against it, appearing undenyable in it self. It is grounded on this, That when the Question concerns what we ought to believe touch∣ing the Eucharist, the Author of the Perpetuity would have this Question decided, not by the word of God, but the Churches Consent in all Ages, and Depositions of the Fathers, and when it comes to the Enquiry after this Consent of the Church, he would have this second Question resolved not by Passages taken out of the Writings of the Fathers, but by Arguments. Now this is certainly a most tedious and preposterous Course; it being a Principle of common Sense, that Questions in matters of Right ought to be naturally de∣cided by the Rule of Right, then when the Rule determining that Right is distinct and separated from matters of Fact, and that again naturally the

Questions in matters of Fact ought to he decided by an exact Consideration of the Facts themselves, or by Witnesses who can make a lawful Depo∣sition.

Seeing then the Christian Religion offers us a distinct Rule, and that too as it lies separate from matters of Fact; (which is that holy Scripture, wherein God hath made a full Revelation of his Will;) it is in it we must search for what we ought to believe, and not in the consent of the Church in all Ages. For as the Fathers thought they were obliged to ground their Belief on the Scriptures, so likewise we, who have the same Faith with them, ought to ground our Faith on the same Principle. The Scripture hath been given us to determine thereby our Apprehensions of the Mysteries of Reli∣gion, but their Belief who preceded us can be no more at farthest, than an Example for us to Imitate, and an Example too submitted to the same Rule, which requires no farther our Approbation than it agrees with that; so that to decide Questions of this Nature by the Examples of former Ages, is to pervert the natural Order and Design of things.

IT will be to no purpose to alledge The Church of Rome will not allow the Scriptures to be the only Rule of our Faith, seeing it likewise taketh in Tradition. Yet this Answer will not clear the Author of the Perpetuity from that Reproach with which I shall charge him: For when a man lays down a Method in a Controversie, and proposes it as sufficient to convince those who are not of his own Opinion, he must ground this Method on Principles grant∣ed by both Parties; for if his Positions are such as may be questioned, he is then obliged to a solid Proof of them, before he can suppose them. For if he take not this Course, he will quickly be at a loss, and his whole Work soon rendred ineffectual. Now this the Author of the Perpetuity has not done, for he has not proved that the Consent of all Ages ought to be our Rule in matters of Faith. 'Tis true he has told us of the ill Consequences which would follow the condemning the Antient Fathers, and that we should do, if we suppose them guilty of an Idolatrous Worship. But this reaches not our Question: for it doth not hence follow that their Writings are the Rule of our Faith, neither in the matter of our present Debate, nor in any other: For the Fathers may be free from damnable Errors in any Article of our Re∣ligion, by the agreement their Doctrine hath with that Rule which enjoyn∣eth us to believe, without becoming a Rule themselves and without arroga∣ting this supreme Authority over mens Consciences, which ought to decide all Questions of this Nature.

But perhaps it will be replyed that, provided we attain the knowledge of the Truth in what we ought to believe concerning so important a Subject as that of the Eucharist, what need we matter, by what means we obtain it, whether by means of the holy Scripture, or by Consent of the antient Church? If we follow not the Fathers as the Rule of our Faith, let us follow them then as an Example held out for us to imitate. To which I answer, That the cause which I have taken upon me to defend would in the main lose nothing, though we should take the Belief of the Antient Church in this matter for the Model and Rule of ours, so that this doth not at all trouble us.

BUT be it as it will, we must not forsake the Word of God, nor wholly build our Faith on any other Principles but those which are drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Our Faith would not then be what it ought to be, that is

to say, A Divine Faith, were it but an imitation of the Belief of the Fathers. This Maxim of regulating our Religion by an Imitation of them who have preceded us, without having any fixed Principle, is certainly of very dan∣gerous Consequence. For 'twould happen at length after some Ages, that the last would have no resemblance with the former, because that humane Imperfections which commonly mix themselves in such an Imitation, would never be wanting to disorder and corrupt it, as is commonly seen in the drawing of a Picture, Draughts of which being taken one from the other, become still every time less Perfect, as they are farthest distant from their Original.

THE Author then of the Perpetuity cannot be excused for his perverting the order of the Dispute with which I charge him, that he would decide this Question of Right by matters of Fact; Neither is he less inexcusable when he would have the Question of matter of Fact, to depend on the force of his Reasoning. The matter before us is to know what has bin the Opinion of the Fathers touching the Eucharist, and he pretends to decide this Question not by the Testimony of the Fathers themselves, but by certain Impossibilities he imagines in the change which we suppose. I know very well that there are sometimes Enquiries made into matters of Fact, the Truth of which can∣not be attested by any Witness, and I confess in this case, no man can be blamed for having recourse to Reasonings, because there being no other E∣vidence to help us in our Search, even Necessity warranteth this way of Pro∣ceeding, altho it be indirect. But we are not in these Circumstances, see∣ing we have the Writings of the Antients, and those no less considerable for their Number than for the many clear Passages they contain touching the Eu∣charist; which if we will apply our selves unto, we shall soon discover their Opinions about it. What need is there then, for us to leave our enquiries into the Opinion of the Fathers, to hearken to the Author of the Perpetui∣ty's Arguments? May we not now justly complain of him, and answer him, this is the way of Inquiry which Nature it self hath prescribed us, and comparing these two ways, the more natural appeareth to us to be the more direct and certain. From whence it immediately follows, That his manner of proceeding, may well be suspected as artificial and deceitful, for it is u∣sual with us to suspect that Person who leaves the common Road, to walk in by-Paths.

MY second Observation on the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, re∣spects * 1.3 the manner of his Assaulting Mr. Aubertin's Book. And seeing Mr. Arnaud hath charged me with falsity, for affirming Mr. Aubertin's Book hath chiefly occasioned this Controversie, and that the Author of the Perpetuity hath set upon it after an indirect manner. I am thereupon obliged to divide the Subject of my justification under two Heads. I shall first then make it ap∣pear that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, and hath bin the first oc∣casion of this Debate. Secondly, that his Book has bin Assaulted after an unjust manner.

THE first of these Particulars shall be dispatched in two Words, for on one hand I have no more to do, but only desire the Reader himself to peruse the second Section of the first Treatise of the Perpetuity, where he shall find that in fifty one Pages which it contains, his whole design is only to re∣fute Mr, Aubertin's Account of the Innovation which hath hap'ned touching Transubstantiation: And on the other, I have no more to do but declare to

the World, That from the first Moment of our Debate, which was precisely then when I began to answer this Treatise, I proposed to my self not only particularly to maintain the Truth of this Account, but defend in general the whole Book, against the indirect attempts of that Treatise. Now if this may not be called the first occasion of this Contest, I know not any long∣er how to name things. For what is there which maketh a Book the first occasion of a Debate, which is not here? Must a Book be assaulted? this hath bin so. Must it be defended? this hath bin so. Ought he who takes upon him the Defence of it, to do it with a design of keeping up its Credit? This hath bin likewise my Design, because its Interests have appeared to me to be the same with those of the Truth. Where then is this notorious Falsity with which Mr. Arnaud chargeth me?

THE Author of the Perpetuity, saith he, never pretended his Treatise was * 1.4 a refutation of that Ministers Book, and in a matter as this is, which dependeth on the Intention of a man yet living, it were sufficient to convince Mr. Claude of rashness to tell him, as from him, he is mistaken, and that this Author never designed what he charges him with. Moreover he adds, That this Treatise was primarily intended only as a Preface to the Office of the blessed Sacrament: and that we seldom find any man undertake to refute a Book in Folio, in a Preface: That he handleth the Question of the Impossibility of an Innovation: That he refuteth Blondel and Aubertin by the way, who had imposed fabulous Relations on the World: And that he directly indeed argueth against Mr. Aubertin's pre∣tended Innovation, but medleth farther with no other part of his Book.

Mr. Arnaud I hope will pardon me, if I affirm that there's not one word of Truth in all this. For, to speak properly, the occasion of this Contest can be no other but that taken from the Obligation I had to enter into this Dis∣pute, seeing our Debate began but from that time I interposed. For had I not stept in between, the Author had talked only to himself, and when a man does so, we are not wont to say, such a one is in a Dispute. To find then the real Occasion, Mr. Arnaud should have sought it in the causes mov∣ing me to interpose, and not in the Author of the Perpetuity's Intention. Mr. Arnaud hath not considered there is a Difference between the Occasion of a Debate, and whether the Subject of it be real or imaginary. For to de∣cide the latter of these Particulars, we must look back to the Author of the Perpetuity, and consider what he has done, and what he would do, but to be ascertained in the first of them, I ought thereupon to be consulted: and when it shall appear I was deceived by a groundless Imagination that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath bin assaulted, then it might be truly affirmed I raised a Quarrel to no purpose, seeing the occasion of it only sprang out of my own Fancy, but yet what I have said since cannot be charged with notorious Falsity, viz. That this Book was the first occasion of the Debate betwixt us, seeing that in effect I only engaged in this Controversie to defend it.

THERE is moreover in Mr. Arnaud's Discourse a false Supposition in the Term of Refuting, for he supposeth I charge the Author of the Perpetui∣ty with a design of formally and directly refuting Mr. Aubertin's whole Book, and 'tis thereupon he tells us, that seldom any man undertakes to refute a large Folio in a Preface. But he does not consider, that I did not for this reason use the Term of Refuting, but Assaulting, and that far from charging the Author of the Perpetuity with this Design of a Refutation, my complaint hath bin on the contrary, that he has not refuted this Book, and which

hath been grounded on the Necessity urging him to have done it, as I shall shew hereafter. Now to justifie what I said, that Mr. Aubertin's Book hath been the first Occasion of this Debate, and at the same time, that this is not an ill grounded Supposition, I need not repeat that the Author of the Treatise designed to refute that whole Book, it appears to me sufficient he hath assaulted the last part of it, and undertaken to answer it throughout the second Section of his Treatise. It sufficeth me that his first Section tendeth to render incredible Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation. It sufficeth me, the drift of his whole Work is to make Mr. Aubertin's Proofs of matters of Fact altogether useless to us. And this is more than need to be said to refute this fierce Accusation of notorious Falsity, with which Charge Mr. Arnaud hath begun his Book. Now this is apparently true, and a man needs but his Eyes and common Sence to be satisfied in it.

Mr. Arnaud may tell us what he pleases concerning the Author of the Per∣petuity's real Design. Yet shall I answer him, that when men judge of a Work, their Judgment is guided by what appears in the Work it self, and not by the secret Intentions of its Author. For mens Designs many times lye hid, but the drift of their Work lies open. I do not pretend to penetrate into mens Hearts, yet cannot I be withheld from judging of the Treatise of the Perpetuity, because 'tis before my Eyes.

THAT this Treatise was at first, but a simple Preface, or that it was not, it avails me little to know, for I am not usually so much in Love with Rari∣ties, as to extend my Curiosity into the Author of the Perpetuity's disavowed Designs. If this Work hath been heretofore but a Preface, and that it hath been since raised to the dignity of a Treatise, there hath been reason perhaps for its ennobling, its Desert hath made it worthy of this Honour; and they are at this day to blame who have reproached it with the meanness of its for∣mer Condition, in an occasion, which called for the establishment of its Glo∣ry. But be it what it will, Preface, or Treatise, it is all one to me, it assault∣eth never the less for this Mr. Aubertin's Book.

BUT saith Mr. Arnaud, he refutes it by the way. By the way, of four score and eight Pages which it contains, there are one and fifty of them imployed in a formal Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's account of an Innovation, and the drift of the rest, as I have already said, is to shew that this Account is incre∣dible, because tis impossible, and indirectly to overthrow the whole Work. So that here I think the charge of our first notorious Falsity, appears to be un∣true. Let us see the second, which is that I affirmed, The Author of the Per∣petuity hath assaulted Mr. Aubertin's Book after an indirect manner. But to apprehend throughly the truth of this Observation, Mr. Aubertin's whole Book must be granted to be a Discourse only touching the Eucharist, and which is divided into three Parts. In the first he handleth this Subject by Arguments drawn from Scripture, and humane Reason. He produceth the Passages thereof, and Arguments fetched from thence, and refutes the An∣swers made thereunto, nay he near upon answereth whatsoever Controver∣tists have stated hitherto considerable on this Subject. In the second, he ex∣amines the Churches Belief, during six Centuries, by an exact Discussion of all Passages produced on either side, makes it plainly appear that Transub∣stantiation, and the real Presence are Doctrines which have bin unknown during all that time. And in the third, he gives an account after what man∣ner their Doctrines have been introduced.

THE first part treateth of the Question of Right, shewing the true Rules of it, and serves as a Foundation to the second. The second Part handleth the Question of matter of Fact, by a faithful deposition of Witnesses, that is to say, by the Fathers from Age to Age, and serves as a Foundation to the third. And the third Part shews the Degrees of this Innovation, the Time when it begun, its Authors, and the Opposition which it hath met with.

THIS being so, I say, it is an indirect Proceeding, to single out this last Part from the second, and attempt the refuting of it alone, as the Author of the Perpetuity hath done. And the Reason is manifest, because the on∣ly Foundation on which the last Part is built, and which communicateth to it all its force of Perswasion consisteth in its second. For wherefore do we believe, for Example, what it saith concerning the Innovation which Anastasius Sinaite hath introduced, in reference to Expressions, he having bin the first that rejected the Terms of Type or Figure on the Subject of the Eucharist? It is because he shews us in his second Part, that the Fathers who preceded Anastasius, ever made use of this manner of Expression, for we find not any one of them who rejected them. Wherefore do we take Paschasius to be the first who ever thought of the real Presence? The Rea∣son, is because we never meet with any before his time, who thus deliver themselves. So that the second Part of Mr. Aubertin's Book does necessari∣ly prepare the Reader for the third. In the second Part he sheweth the State of the Church, for the six first Ages, to be quite different from what is seen at present in the Church of Rome: The Reader then thereupon finds there has bin an Innovation, and supposes it to be not only possible, but that it hath actually hap'ned, so that it only remains to know, when, by whom, and by what Degrees this Change has bin introduced, and this is suffici∣ently set forth in the third Part. It cannot therefore be singled out from the second to be opposed alone, without the greatest Injustice and Disinge∣nuity; for this is to strip it of all its Strength, and to deal with it, as the Philistims did with Samson, cut off his Hair before they set upon him.

Mr. Aubertin offered not his Account to the Reader till he had prepared him by a necessary Premonition to receive it; Whereas the Author of the Perpetuity would have it considered and examined with an unprepared Mind, or rather, to speak better, with a Mind fill'd with contrary Dispositions. Now this is not fair Dealing. For to proceed orderly, he ought to have be∣gun with these first Preparations; and made it appear (if he could) that they were fallacious, and so discover the unjustice, falsity, or weakness of them, and afterwards set upon the Account he gives us. Had he taken this Course, we should have had nothing to charge him with, touching his Me∣thod; but to stifle these Preparations, and cut 'em off from the Dispute, and fall immediately upon his Account of the Innovation, is that which will ever deserve the name of indirect Dealing.

AND if we consider likewise the manner after which the Author of the Perpetuity hath endeavoured to overthrow this Account, it will be found his Proceedings are in this Respect as disingenious as in the former. As for Instance, Mr. Aubertin observes that Anastasius Sinaite hath bin the first who varied from the common Expressions of the Antients, in saying, The

Eucharist is not an Antitype but the Body of Jesus Christ. Now to refute directly this Historical Passage, (being agreed as we are in this Particular relating to Anastasius) there ought to have bin the like Passages produced of them who preceded him, and to have made it thence appear he was not the first who thus expressed himself. But instead of this, the Author of the Perpetuity takes another Course, for he demands, how this can be, That * 1.5 Anastasius, who could not be ignorant of the Churches. Belief in his time, should offer an Opinion which would be formally opposed, and this without acknowledging, he proposed a contrary Opinion? He indeavours to shew this Innovation could not overspread either East or West, and that Anastasius's real meaning, and that of them who spake like him in this particular, could not be the Impannation of the Word with which Mr. Aubertin seems to charge them. And the same doth he, in respect of Paschasius, whom Mr. Aubertin Affirms to be the first Author of the Real Presence, for instead of shewing others held the same Opinion, and that he did not teach a new Doctrine, he sets himself upon shewing, that if Paschasius had bin an In∣novator, he would have bin taken notice of in some one of the Councils held in his time, that he would have bin opposed, and never offered his Opinion as the received Doctrine of the Church, as he has done. I will not now enquire into the strength of his Arguments, neither will I say they ought to be re∣jected for this Reason alone, that they are indirect, The Question is here whether this course of refuting Mr. Aubertin's Book be warrantable, and it must be granted, it is not; for the chief design of this his Account be∣ing only to demonstrate, that Anastasius, and Paschasius introduced Innova∣tions; Now to make it appear they were not Innovators, there ought to have bin produced several Passages out of the Writings of those who pre∣ceded them, which should come near the same Expressions, or at least a∣mounted to the same Sence as that of theirs, which the Author of the Per∣petuity hath not done.

LET Mr. Arnaud consider again then, if he pleases, the Question, and whether I have broached two notorious Untruths, the one, that Mr. Auber∣tin's Book was the first occasion of this Contest, the other, that the Author of the Perpetuity hath attacked it after an indirect manner. Now to the end I may have from him a second Sentence more favourable than the former; it will not be amiss to answer his Objections, and shew him first, That I pretend∣not to hinder any Person from choosing those Points or Matters for which he hath the greatest Inclination: for, provided he handles them in a regular manner, he will thereby oblige the publick. Secondly I do not so much as pretend to hinder any man from refuting part of a Book, and leaving the other, provided this Part may be well refuted alone, and there be no cause to complain that the force of the Arguments is spoiled by such a separati∣on. Thirdly, Neither do I take upon me to call the Author of the Perpetui∣ty to account about his employing himself, and require of him two Volums in Folio. For I am willing to believe his Employs are great and difficult, and therefore afford him not time enough to make a direct and compleat Refutation of Mr. Aubertin's Book.

AND as to what he tells us, that we cannot reasonably require more from * 1.6 a Person who handleth any Subject, than that he suppose nothing which is False, or Obscure, and draw not from thence ill Consequences, seeing the truth and clearness of Principles, and the justness of their Consequences are in them∣selves sufficient, to assure us of the Truth, and gives us a clear and perfect

notion thereof. To which I answer, This is true, when Persons are agreed to treat on this Subject, and do take this course to decide the principal Questi∣on of it, for in this case, only the Principles and their Consequences ought to be examined. But if this be not consented to, but on the contrary there are general Observations made upon the Method, then it is not particularly minded Whether the Principles are disputable or not, nor Whether their Consequences are true or false, for this follows afterwards. The Method of handling the Subject is only considered, without regard to the Princi∣ples or Conclusions; That is to say, Whether 'tis direct or disorderly, na∣tural or against Nature, sufficient to perswade, and end the Controversie or not, and on this account, it may be justly expected from a Person that he take a right Method rather than a wrong, one which is a Natural, ra∣ther than that which is not so. For such a one may well be told, He spends his time to no purpose, that takes not a right way to obtain the end of what he designs. Now this is exactly what we have to alledge against the Author of the Perpetuity, as will appear in the following Chapter. We have rea∣son to wonder that Mr. Arnaud should deny us the liberty of making these general Reflexions, he I say, who confessed in the second Period of his first Chapter, that I am not to blame for having grounded my chief Accusa∣tions against the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, upon the Defects I found therein, provided I establish Truth and Reason. But this doth not well a∣gree with what he saies here. That there cannot be any thing justly required of a man who treateth on any Subject, but only this, That he lay down good Prin∣ciples, and draw thence true Conclusions. For the falsity of Principles, or Con∣sequences, proceeds rather from a defect in the Matter, or Form of an Argu∣ment in Particular, than in a Method in General.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 1. ch. 1. P. 1.
• * 1.2

  The first Obser∣vation justified.
• * 1.3

  The second Observation justified, Lib. Chap. 1. p. 4.
• * 1.4

  Lib. 1 Chap. 1 Pag. 4.
• * 1.5

  Perpetuity of the Faith, P. 50. 51. &c.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 1. Ch. 1. Pag. 7.