The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 5 · Chapter 11
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 Catholicks 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 demonſtrations 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 hinder our reaſon from acquieſcing in them.
The firſt Reflection.
THE firſt of theſe two reaſons whereon Mr. Arnaud grounds his pretenſion 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 ſymbols, 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 contrary 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 reference 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 into 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 Centuries, 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 Body, 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 general 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 determinate 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 prejudicate they held this Doctrine.
THE better to acknowledg the unreaſonableneſs of Mr. Arnaud's pretenſions, 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 underſtood 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 demonſtrations ſufficient to vanquiſh this prejudication. This here is our pretenſion; it remains only now to be obſerved how we prove it: and having 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. Chapter 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 granted me that common ſenſe does not teach 'em. We have then right to ſuppoſe without proof, that the Fathers did not believe them, and conſequently that their expreſſions muſt not be taken in this ſenſe: And 'tis Mr. Arnaud'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 Fathers alone in the ſtate of nature and common ſenſe.
SECONDLY, The matter in debate does of it ſelf form our prejudice. The point in hand is touching a Sacrament, and in Sacramental expreſſions 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 underſtood 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 determination, that is to ſay, in applying their conceptions preciſely to the ſubſtance; and 'tis not likely they have thus conceived it without explaining themſelves ſometimes in a manner that anſwers exactly to their opinion. 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 reaſon 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 underſtand 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 overthrown; 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 nature 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 prejudication. 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 particular 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 Tranſubſtantiation or Real Preſence; yet in the anſwers we make, we do not abſolutely make uſe of this right. For before we return our anſwers we eſtabliſh 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 Euchariſt Anſwer to the Perpetuity. part 2. ch. 2.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 Sacrament 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 ſeparate from the proof which authoriſes it to declaim afterwards, that I return Anſwers without grounding them on proofs, is a thing that is neither honeſt nor ingenuous. Moreover, what I ſaid touching theſe Hereticks believing 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 opinion to Marcion, who (as every one knows) follow'd in this the ancient Hereticks; 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 Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 1. c. 1.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 Bellarmin.
THE ſame thing may be ſaid touching the Anſwer I return'd to a paſſage Anſwer to the Perpetuity, p. 2. ch. 2.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 celebrated 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 Experience, Lib. 10. cap. 5. p. 34.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 declaration of the Doctrines of Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence in the Scripture, and that they are not diſtinctly aſſerted therein. He ſays every Book 10. ch. 5. pag. 34. Ch. 6. pag. 38, 39.body knows that the firſt notion of the Evangeliſts words concerning the inſtitution 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 Saviour, 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 concludes, 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 Doctrine 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 diſpute; '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 evidence in them for Tranſubſtantiation, but only for the Real Preſence, with which he was much prepoſſeſſed. One may oppoſe againſt Luther's prejudice, the judgment which Cardinal Cajetan made of them who has found no Cajetan. in 3. Thoma queſt. 75. art. 1. Lugduni apud Stephanum Machaelem, 1588.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 cannot be inferred thence, and that there is nothing which obliges 'em to believe 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 Euchariſt. Bellarmin reckons up ſix beſides others, namely, Biel, Cuſanus, Cajetan, Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 5. Albertin de Sac. Euch. l. 1. c. 30.Tapper, Heſſelius, and Janſemius, but Mr. Aubertin has computed 'em to be about thirty three, which is in my mind ſufficient to make Mr. Arnaud 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 according 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 Tranſubſtantiation.
WHAT he ſays touching Zuinglius is not at all to the purpoſe, Zuinglius was not ignorant of the ſenſe of our Saviours words, but he was ignorant 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 herein 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 prejudice, I grant. But let a man take off this vail from his mind, and repreſent to himſelf our Saviour in his natural Body on one ſide, and the Euchariſtical Bread on the other, two viſible objects really diſtinct and locally ſeparate 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 matter 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. Arnaud 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 figurative 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 favourable 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 Tranſubſtantiation 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 ſubſtantial 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 Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe of the Perpituity, part 1. ch. 3.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 declaration 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 towards 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 Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence were to be found DISTINCTLY ASSERTED. 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 believe 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 Tranſubſtantiation? 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 Lib. 10. cap. 6. pag. 43.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 ſuppoſitions without proof. This is certainly abſurd enough to call proofs, and ſuch Ch 6. p. 44, 45.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 Calviniſt, without authority and poſſeſſion, and who renounces Tradition and the Churches Authority. This propoſition ſurprizes me. The proofs of Scripture 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 Aug. lib. 3. cont. Maxim. cap. 14.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 authority 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 Reaſon. 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 Tradition, and wholly betake himſelf to the Holy Scripture, ſeeing the proofs taken thence concerning the Trinity, are weak, yea even infinitely weak, ſeparated from Tradition and the Churches Authority. What anſwer will Mr. Arnaud make a Socinien when he ſhall ſay we muſt not value this publick 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 neither 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 extreme weak? Mr. Arnaud does not conſider that he not only gives the Sociniens an unjuſt advantage, but likewiſe ruines himſelf his own Principle, as faſt as he thinks he eſtabliſhes it.
HE ſays, that I ſuppoſe my paſſages concerning the Trinity are unanſwerable. 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 anſwers 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 Doctrines 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 objections, 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 Article, 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 terrible one as this is, without grounding it at leaſt on ſome proofs, That reaſon 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 exaggerates 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 contrary formally acknowledged them. But to ſay no more, there needs only 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 Sociniens 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 conſequences 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, according 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 conſequence of congruity, which has not an abſolute neceſſity. We muſt either oppoſe againſt it contrary proofs that are ſtronger, and which cannot be confuted 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 Argument 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 Doctrine do not appear at certain times, or in certain places, there muſt therein 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 Controverſies 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 ſubject, till Paſchaſius's time, altho there were otherwiſe, Controverſies touching 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 conſequence 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 docility 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 after 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 natural 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 Argument to ſay this is not a conſequence abſolutely neceſſary; for altho this be true, yet that is a conſequence natural enough, being grounded on experience.
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 participation of the Cup. As we find not this conſequence in the firſt Centuries, and it appearing in the latter, we may make hence a probable conjecture concerning the change that has been introduced in reſpect of this Doctrine. 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 Adoration, 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 teſtifie 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 conſequences, 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 ſhunned 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 Arguments 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 Chap. 8.Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation does not of it ſelf lead a man to the diſcourſing 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, Armenians 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 adoration 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 effectually hapned.