The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Book 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The pretended Advantages of Mr. Arnaud attributeth to the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity Examined.
ALTHO the Conclſion which I have drawn from Mr. Arnaud's Confeſſion, in the preceding Chapter, is clearly enough eſtabliſhed, yet do I not think he will be ſatisfied, till I have examined what he ſaith in the fifth and ſixth Chapters of his firſt Book. He will tell us without doubt, that it doth not hence follow we ſhould defer the rendring our ſelves up to the Arguments in the Perpetuity, altho I have ſtill the liberty of oppoſing againſt them our Proofs of Fact, and that this he hath clearly ſhewed in theſe two Chapters I laſt mentioned. Let us then ſee what he ſaies in them; and judge of them without Partiality.
Mr. Arnaud imediately meets with a Difficulty, For I much marvel, ſaith he, Mr. Claude has not obſerved when a point of Doctrine, as this in Queſtion, Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 32.is eſtabliſhed on one ſide by conſiderable Proofs, and on the other by Proofs which are believed to be valid, that we muſt if we intend to judge aright, compare theſe contrary Proofs together, and prefer the ſtrongeſt before the other; from whence we may conclude, that it will always be neceſſary to come to that which the Author of the Perpetuity will not yield to, which is, to examine our Proofs of Fact; For to ſolve this Difficulty, he ſuppoſeth; firſt, that they who read the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, have their Sentiments already wholly formed on the Proofs of Fact, produced by Mr Aubertin and other Miniſters; but that theſe Sentiments are not Uniform, becauſe ſome judge of them from what they are in themſelves, others by what they have heard of them, and by external Circumſtances, which give them to underſtand what they ought to believe concerning them. That ſome do eſteem them, others on the contrary ſlight them, and others again are in a Diſpoſition of Indifferency, He afterwards repreſents us with a Calviniſt or Religionary, (for ſo is he pleaſed to call us) who being diſſatisfied with the Scripture and Fathers, by reaſon of the uncertainty wherein he findes himſelf, by harkning to different Voices, which call to him from all ſides; and moreover leſs ſatisfied with the Divines of either Party, who cannot content him in the Solutions which they give to the Paſſages of their Adverſaries; he thereupon turneth himſelf towards the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, which ſhews him, that the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation and the real Preſence, have bin received by the Greek and Latin Churches, and in all other Societies, which are equally Enemies both to the Latins and Greeks, together with the Impoſſibilities which are in this inſenſible Change, which the Miniſters have invented; whereupon this Calviniſt determines, in forſaking all theſe Doubts, to believe the ſame which is believed thro out all the Earth, ſeeing the whole World would never believe it, if it had not derived this Faith from the Channel of Tradition. And for as much as this Contrivance could not be well ended, unleſs I were brought in as a Party, he therefore introduces me, with my Aubertin in my hand oppoſing this Reſolution. But my Mouth is imediately ſtopt, being told, that theſe Proofs are Unſatisfactory, and thus am I ſent away with my Rhetorick and Enthuſiaſmes.
BUT this being no more than a Suppoſition, it muſt be eſtabliſhed. And for this Effect, Mr. Arnaud calls to his Aſſiſtance ſeveral learned Divines from Germany, Switzerland, France, and Holland, by whoſe Suffrage he concludes, that the Fathers are rather againſt us than for us, in what concerns the Euchariſt, or that at leaſt, the Proofs taken from Paſſages out of their Writings are very uncertain. And ſo here is already the underſtanding People among us convinced, and as for others that are not able to make a Judgment themſelves, they muſt have recourſe to Perſons of greater Knowledg, by which means both the one, and the other, are obliged to render themſelves up to that Evidence which appears in the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, becauſe our Proofs of Fact cannot be accounted by them, but as unevident and uncertain▪ and moreover this Treatiſe being fitted to all Capacities, and grounded on the Light of common Sence, it may be underſtood by all in general. This is the Summary of the fifth Chapter.
IN the ſixth Chapter, he extends his Pretention a great way farther, for having gained the Learned and Unlearned to his ſide, he will not ſuffer even thoſe who are obſtinate amongſt us to eſcape his Hands, It not Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 53.being neceſſary for this, ſaith he, to enter into an Examination of all thoſe Paſſages, without which Mr. Claude would make us believe that the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity can prove nothing. But leſt this Pretention ſhould at firſt amaze People, obſerve after what ſort he declares his meaning. He ſaith then, that our Proofs of Fact appearing to us evident on one hand, and the Proofs of the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity on the other; theſe two contrary Evidences neceſſarily cauſe a ſuſpenſion of our Judgments, and hinder us from determining, and throw us upon Doubts and Uncertainties. And thus far tends the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, which leading us hither, Mr. Arnaud takes us in hand and tells us, we cannot any longer refuſe to leave our Sect, and paſs over to the Catholick Religion, firſt becauſe the Church of Rome is the Maternal, Original, Succeſſive, and Catholick Society, from which we muſt never make aſchiſme. Secondly, becauſe we muſt ever be fully convinced of this Churches Errors, before we ſeparate from it, and at the ſame time have a full certainty of the Purity of that Society we are of, to keep in it. Thirdly, becauſe the Church is in Poſſeſſion of the Miniſtry, of the ordinary Vocation, and Authority, and that the Miniſters who have not been above a hundred years ſtanding, have none of theſe things. Fourthly, becauſe that People of ordinary Capacities amongſt us, being obliged to yield themſelves to the Proofs of the Perpetuity, and conſequently to return to the Church of Rome, they ought to ſerve for Examples to the Judicious, it being impoſſible for us all not to return to this Society, to which the greateſt part of Men muſt neceſſarily belong. Laſtly he confeſſeth, that all theſe Arguments ſuppoſe the Proofs of the Treatiſe are clear and ſubſtantial, and maintains that be may reaſonably make this Suppoſition, to convince me I have no other way left to defend my ſelf, than by ſhewing theſe Proofs of the Treatiſe are Invalid, and ſo by conſequence I ought not to beat the Ayr as I have done, by declaming againſt the Author of the Perpetuity's Method.
AND thus have I Epitomiz'd theſe two mighty Chapters, in which Mr. Arnaud hath taken care to illuſtrate the glorious Deſigns of the Author of the Perpetuity, and this perhaps being one of the moſt important Points in his whole Work, he has therefore ſpent thereupon the greateſt part of his Wit and Eloquence. Yet howſoever it comes to paſs I know not, we are ſo different in our Apprehenſions, that having beheld the explication of all this curious Project, I have found nothing at all therein of Reaſon, nor coherence of Parts, neither in his Suppoſitions nor Conſequences, and this I ſhall briefly and clearly manifeſt.
FIRST, methinks that Mr. Arnaud impoſes on the World, in propoſing as it were from us, a Difficulty, which weakens our Cauſe, altho it do's not concern us. For I do not pretend that one of our Communion, into whoſe Hands ſhall be put the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity, and who is able to read it, is abſolutely obliged, before he forms his Judgment thereupon, to make a particular Compariſon of our Proofs, with thoſe of that Treatiſe; I maintain that he may reject theſe laſt, by the general Conſideration alone which he may make, without entring into the Examination of each Particular, becauſe that in this general View he will find ſufficient Grounds for rejecting them, viz. That they amount to no more but bare Probability, nor cannot equal our Proofs of Fact in Clearneſs and Solidity, which are grounded on common Sence. Whence it follows that the Proofs of this Treatiſe ought not to be admitted, and that if we take the trouble to examine them, 'tis out of Condeſcenſion, not Neceſſity.
IN the ſecond place Mr. Arnaud has not exactly reckoned up the ſeveral ranks of Men, who may profitably read the Treatiſe of the Perpetuity. For the greateſt part of them in our Communion, judging this Peruſal needleſs, will not mind it, for they will neither have Leaſure nor Curioſity enough for this; the Title alone will diſguſt them without proceeding any farther. But then he will ſay that theſe are unjuſt and obſtinate Perſons. We believe it a Point of Raſhneſs to judge of a piece of Ground before we have Lib. 1. C. 6. P. 26.heard the Owners Experience of it; would it not then be a more inexcuſable Raſhneſs to pretend to judge of a Difference which reſpects our Salvation, by Arguments offered only on one ſide, in ſuffering our ſelves to be tranſported by the firſt Impreſſions? The leaſt which ought to be done by them, who pretend to judge of Differences in Religion; is to hear both Parties, and weigh their Reaſons. I anſwer, that theſe Perſons I mentioned, will act very Juſtly and Reaſonably in doing what I ſaid. For there being two Queſtions, the one touching what we ought to believe concerning the Euchariſt, and the other touching what has bin believed by the Primitive Church. The firſt Queſtion being once diſpatched, we need not trouble our ſelves about the ſecond. Now as concerning the Perſons in our Communion, the firſt Queſtion is ſolved to them by the Word of God. For this is the Fountain and Rule of our Faith. This is it which judgeth us all, and had the Author of the Perpetuity guided his Reaſonings by this Principle, there is not one of us but would gladly hearken to him; but inſtead of this, he immediately tells us of nothing but the Conſent of all Ages, and perſwades himſelf, that henceforward the Miniſters will be no more hearkened to, when they ſay in general, that we muſt only apply our ſelves to the Word of God.
THIS Queſtion touching the Conſent of all Ages, may be decided three ways; Firſt, by the Rules of Chriſtian Charity; Secondly, by the Confidence we ought to have in our Saviours Promiſes, and cares of his Providence; Thirdly, by an exact Knowledg of the Hiſtory of all Ages. Now this laſt means being above the Capacity of moſt People, is needleſs. It is enough to a well meaning Perſon, that he ſees in Scripture what he ought to believe, touching the Eucharist, and thereupon charitably preſumes, that the Fathers have not deviated from this Faith into Capital Errors. It ſufficeth him to believe that our Saviour's Promiſes to the Church, that he would never forſake it, have had their accompliſhment, and whatſoever Clouds have fallen on the Miniſtration of it, by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlaſting Truths, yet has our Saviour taken care to preſerve the Faithful, and execute the Decree of his Election. So that ſuch a one has no need to perplex himſelf with Hiſtory, nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums, which will not yield him the leaſt Satiſfaction, much leſs need he entangle himſelf in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method, which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with. When ſuch a Perſon hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book, and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned, I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way, which is only proper to the Learned, the Truth he believes has bin illuſtrated, neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith, what is told him concerning it; but we muſt not imagine that his Belief touching the Euchariſt hath changed its Foundation, and left its Relyance on the Word of God, for it remaineth ſtill where it was; ſo that when he ſhould be queſtioned concerning the ſolidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs, or that of any other Miniſter, relating to this Subject, he will not be troubled about it, nor farther concern himſelf in theſe Debates, for he knows his Incapacity. He will content himſelf with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers, and with his Confidence in God, leaving theſe Debates to thoſe that have Skill to manage them.
NOW as to ſuch as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book, I know none in our Communion of that number, and perhaps in the Church of Rome, there will be found as few of that Mind, if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends, who have given their Judgments about it, after a very ſlighting and peremptory manner. But I ſhall not take any farther Notice of this here, but continue my Obſervations. I do affirm then, I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calviniſt whom he has deſcribed in ſuch pittiful Strains. I was never yet told, That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts, Lib. 1. C. …. P. 34.which it doth not reſolve, and that ſuch a Perſon finds the Writings of the Fathers Obſcure, and that the Divines of either Party could not ſatisfy him, and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart. Is not this ſuch a Model of Calviniſm as Mr. Arnaud deſires, drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving, and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proſelytes. But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud, or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proſelyte, would Sacrifice the Scriptures, Fathers, and Divines of both parties to them. What Probability I ſay is there that their Pretention ſhould ſo far prevail upon any man? Howſoever it be, it's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Perſon who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition, and thereupon take up a Reſolution of changing his Belief; and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty, for it can at fartheſt but conclude an Uncertainty, touching the Fathers, but not at all as it relates to the Word of God, from which a good man will never depart, even when he ſhall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers.
BUT let us ſee who theſe Perſons are, who are repreſented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples. They are two ſorts of Perſon, the moſt knowing Miniſters on one hand, and all the unlearned Calviniſts on the other. It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36.moſt Falſe, ſaith Mr. Arnaud, that the moſt able Miniſters are perſwaded the Fathers are manifeſtly for them. To which he addeth, that all Proteſtants of mean Capacities, who are not able to make this Search, are raſh in believing it, and cannot be perſwaded of it but by a fond Humor. The former of theſe Points is grounded on ſlight Proofs. Obſerve here the firſt of them. Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence, in reading St. Auſtins Works; that he was ſtrengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangeliſts; that he immediately rejects his firſt Thoughts, by conſidering theſe Doctrines were generally entertained; yet being willing to overcome this weakneſs of Mind, he applyed himſelf to the reading of the Fathers; but could not be fully ſatisfied by them, becauſe he oftentimes met in their Writings, with the Expreſſions of the Body and Blood of Chriſt in the Sacrament. Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men, he wholly applied himſelf to the Word of God, and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him. This Teſtimony concludes nothing unleſs it be this, that it is not eaſy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romiſh Church from his Infancy, to diſcover immediately the Truth, ſeeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the firſt Beams of it ſhining in St. Auſtins Works, and afterwards received deeper Impreſſions by reading of the Holy Scriptures, was puzled by reading the Fathers, till ſuch time as he wholly applyed himſelf to the ſtudying of the Word of God, by which he was put out of Doubt, and afterwards came more eaſily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers, whoſe Writings from that time he vehemently urged againſt all oppoſers of the Truth. This ſhews us the ſtrength of Prejudice, and how neceſſary it is for the Underſtanding of the Fathers, to become firſt well exerciſed in the Holy Scriptures.
AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg, it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confeſſion, and taught the Doctrine of the Real Preſence, and conſequently are not competent Judges in this Controverſy. For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their ſide, ſome of them chooſing rather to impoſe the Sence of Tranſubſtanciation on the indefinite general Expreſſions, which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, or that it is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, rather than to underſtand them in a myſtical Sence, which would overthrow their Doctrine. Howſoever it be, they are not of the number of our Miniſters, and Mr. Arnaud ought not to ſtray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controverſy.
THAT Paſſage of Scaligers which he urgeth againſt us, is taken out of one of the moſt impertinent Books as ever was written, and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leaſure than he pretends, ſeeing he ſets himſelf upon inquiring after ſuch kind of Proofs. This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have diſcourſed in a familiar Colloquy, which is ſtuffed with all manners of Fooleries, and Abſurdities. For the School Boyes, from whoſe Memoirs theſe Exercitations were committed to the Preſs, have inſerted whatſoever came into their Heads, after a childiſh and inconſiderate manner, which ſhews us they had not yet arrived to years of Diſcretion. Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himſelf that one of theſe Youths who helpt to make this Rhapſody, turned Roman Catholick, which might well tranſport him by a Zeal common to young Converts, to make his Maſter ſpeak a word or two in favour of Tranſubſtantiation, Mr. Arnaud ſeems moreover to ſpeak of Miniſters, but it is known by every one that Scaliger was none.
WITEMBOGARD was one of the chief of the Arminian Party, intereſſed againſt the French Miniſters, neither is he a Witneſs to be fully believed in what he tells us concerning Caſaubon; yet if what Spondanus has written of Caſaubon; be true, we muſt acknowledge that this Perſon, who altho otherwiſe was extraordinarily learned, did not excel in Judgment. He was a man, ſaith he, of a fickle Mind, and ever wavering in maters of Religion, Annals Eccl. ad An. 1600, art. 12.he was willing to pleaſe both Parties, and by that means pleaſed neither. It is very likely that near Familiarity he had with Cardinal Perron, drew him into this ambiguos Humour, which ought not to be made uſe of againſt us, much leſs to be propoſed as an Example for the regulating of our Conduct. And beſides he may more juſtly be ſaid to be Critick than a Miniſter.
I ſhall not here trouble my ſelf with what is alleaged concerning Socinus and his Followers; for there is a great deal of Paſſion and Injuſtice ſhewed, in Confronting them with us, ſeeing the Point here in Queſtion is what our moſt knowing Miniſters hold about this matter; I confeſs the Socinians reject Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence, but it is moreover ſo much their intereſt to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers, that 'tis no marvel if they ſpeak ſo unjuſtly of them. They have built on the antient Hereſies of Photinus, Macedonius, and Pelagius, and ſeeing themſelves oppoſed by Councils, and by the writings of the Fathers, this hath moved them not only to have no reſpect for them; but likewiſe to lay to their charge things which they never believed; to the end they might render them odious, and marr their Credit. So that Mr. Arnaud, impoſes on us (when he tells us) that the Socinians have no intereſt in acknowledging that the Writings of the Lib. 1. C. 5. Pag. 41.Fathers favour the Catholicks, and that it would have bin more to their Advantage to deny this. The contrary of which is apparent.
WHEN he ſhould produce ſome of our Miniſters who doubted whether the Writings of the Fathers favour us in the point of the Euchariſt, or who even believed they were againſt us, ſhould this appear ſo ſtrange to us? It is not an eaſy matter for a man to diſentangle himſelf out of all the corrupt paſſages which are faſly attributed to the Fathers, and ſet forth under their Names, and from all the Artifices made uſe of to diſguiſe their Doctrines. I have written a Chapter on purpoſe in my Anſwer to Father Noiiet, wherein I produce ſeveral Examples of this, which the Readers may peruſe at their Leaſure. Even Caſaubon himſelf whom I now mentioned, is one of them who hath fallen into this Snare, for he hath taken two preparatory Prayers for the Maſs, to be the true and undoubted Works of St. Ambroſe, altho that in effect, they are compoſed by Anſelme Biſhop of Canterbury. Now if any Perſon has bin deceived like Caſaubon, and doubted whither the Fathers were for us, muſt this be uſed as a Proof againſt us, ought ſuch a ones Miſtakes to be the Rule of our Thoghts, this certainly is contrary to reaſon.
BUT for one Miniſter or two whom Mr. Arnaud can bring againſt us, we can produce a great number who have not heſitated in this matter. Calvin himſelf, who lived in a time when theſe Fopperies were ſcarely diſcovered, yet aſſerts that the Fathers have retained the pious and orthodox Sence of this Myſtery, and affirms, that not having found them at all to derogate Inſt. Lib. 4. C. 18.from the only Sacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt, he could not therefore conſent to the charging of them with Impiety, altho he doth not think them wholly excuſable in the form of the Action. To Calvin we may add Cook (who was Tutour to King Edward of England, and ſuppoſed to be Author of a Book intit'led Diallacticon;) Thomas Crammer Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury; Bp. Jewel, Peter Martyr; the Author of the Orthodox Treatiſe; Andrew Volan, the Divines of the Univerſity of Heydelberg; Du Moulin, Chamier, Rivet, Faucheur, Meſtreſat, and Blondel; not to mention Du Pleſſis, and Mr. De Saumaiſe, nor ſeveral others who have written on this Subject, by the Teſtimony of the Fathers; which ſheweth with how great precipitation Mr. Arnaud hath aſſerted: that it is moſt falſe, the moſt knowing Miniſters are perſwaded the Fathers are manifeſtly for them, and the Solutions they give their Paſſages are good and Solid.
WHAT he mentions concerning Mr. Daillé, is taken in a contrary Sence; for he never deſigned to deny the Advantage we have in the Fathers touching the Euchariſt, nor leave it to be queſtioned. His Book againſt Mr. Adam, and Cottiby is an authentick Proof of this, and being as yet thro Gods Grace, in a Capacity to declare his own Thoughts, there needs no more but to ask his opinion touching this Point, and ſee what Anſwer he will make. There will appear no Difference betwixt his Opinion and mine, provided his Words are underſtood as he meant them.
Mr. Daillé ſais, 'tis a hard matter to gather from the Writings of the Fathers, De uſu Pat. C. 2their Opinions touching thoſe Articles in Religion, about which we differ, becauſe the matters they treat of are for the moſt part very remote. His meaning is that it is a hard matter to find a formal and expreſs Declaration of their Sence in theſe matters; which ſhould be declared in ſuch Terms as theſe, I deny, or affirm, I approve, or condemn, I reject, or receive; and the Reaſon he alleages do's ſufficiently confirm this: for he ſaies, That the Matters they treat of are remote from our Controverſies, and that they thought not of us when they wrote.
MY Sence differs not from his, and therefore I ſhall not fear to ſay with Ibid.him, that they that expect to find the Belief of the Fathers clearly ſet down in their Writings, are generally miſtaken, even as he who thinks to meet with the Affections and Deſires of his Mind amongſt the ſound of Bells. And indeed, if we expect to find a poſitive and preciſe Rejection of the Romiſh Doctrine in the Writings of the Fathers, like unto that which is at this day amongſt us, we ſhall be much miſtaken, and the Reaſon is apparent, in as much as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome being not extant in the time of the Fathers, they have not expreſly condemned it, for men are not wont to condemn Opinions before they appear. Yet do's not this hinder but that the Fathers are againſt Tranſubſtantiation, by way of Negation, that is to ſay by their Silence, becauſe they never inſerted it amongſt the Articles of their Faith, they never propounded it to their Hearers, nor unfolded the Myſteries of it, nor defended its Conſequences, as doth the Church of Rome, as they had without queſtion done, had they believed it. And this is what I ſay; and Mr. Daillé dos not gainſay it; but on the contrary a few lines after what Mr. Arnaud has recited, he lays down this general Propoſition: That the ſilence of the Fathers on the controverted Points which they ſo much value, is of ſome weight, and amounts perhaps to a clear Proof; but ſurely not in favour of them Ibid.who hold the Affirmative. So far Mr. Daillé and I ſpeak preciſely the ſame language. But I affirm likewiſe, that beſides the ſilence of the Fathers there is to be found ſeveral things in their Writings; inconſiſtent with the Belief of Tranſubstantiation, and the Real Preſence, and I hold this Proof doth evidently conclude they did not believe theſe Doctrines; Mr. Daillé ſpeaking in general of this Order of Proofs, ſaith, he freely confeſſeth that every wiſe mans Faith is as a Body, whoſe parts have a dependance on each other. So that we Ibid.may know by the things he expreſſeth, what he thinks of thoſe which he expreſſeth not, whether he doth believe them or not, it being unlikely he would admit what doth evidently oppoſe his Opinions, or reject their neceſſary Conſequences, to which he addeth, that he does acknowledg that this way of handling the Writings of the Fathers would be moſt profitable, and more proper to dive into their bottom, than any other, provided we ſuppoſe two things, the one, that the Belief of the antient Doctors is all of a Piece, and does no way contradict it ſelf, and the other, that he who would judge after this manner, muſt have a piercing Wit, a good Memory, and a Judgment free from Prejudice.
AS to the firſt of theſe Suppoſitions, he ſaith, that it is not abſolutely out of doubt; and as to the other, that all theſe Qualities do ſeldom meet in one man. What he ſaies is true, in this general Conſideration. But this does not hinder me from adding, that in the particular caſe of Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence, the firſt ſuppoſition is out of doubt; and the ſecond is not abſolutely neceſſary. To make this apparent, we need but conſider, on one hand the rank theſe Doctrines hold in a Church which believes them, and on the other, the number and nature of thoſe things which oppoſe them in the Writings of the antient Fathers. The Example of the Church of Rome ſhews us, that they that believe them, reſpect them as inviolable Myſteries which muſt not be called in queſtion, and ſuch as are of greateſt Importance in Religion, and which muſt be defended againſt the Contradiction of Senſe and Reaſon, and for which we ought to be armed with the greateſt Caution; as being in ſhort, Myſteries which are daily repreſented us, in their Celebration and Participation of them, which ſhould be diſtinctly known by all the Faithful, and cleerly and plainly taught the People, to the end every one may know that what he receiveth is the proper Subſtance of his Saviour, and give him the Worſhip due to a Creator. Whence it follows, that if the antient Church believed theſe things, it has believed them in this Degree, and that 'tis not poſſible but the Fathers in general would take ſuch care as not to maintain things which overthrow them, or reject others which are the neceſſary Conſequences of them. It is not poſſible I ſay, that they ſhould all of 'em be thus inconſiderate as to aſſert ſeveral things which may juſtly ſcandalize their Followers and that in ſo tickliſh and well known a Point, as is that of the Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt, which they every day received. On the other hand, if we conſider the Nature and Number of things to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers, contrary to Tranſubſtantiation and the Real Preſence, we ſhall obſerve they are contrary to them by a primary, immediate and evident contrariety, for which there is no need of a ſharp Wit, nor great Memory, but a ſound underſtanding, and diſintereſſed Judgment: we ſhall find that theſe things are in great Number, and as well prevail over a mans Mind by their Multitude, as their Quality. And this Mr. Daillé has not denyed, ſo that as I do not thwart his Rule, ſo he does not oppoſe my Exception, therefore there is no Contradiction betwixt us.
BUT Mr. Arnaud will reply, Mr. Daillé do's oppoſe our Exception, for he applies his Rule to the Subject of the Euchariſt, acknowledging that as there are Paſſages in the Fathers Writings, which ſeem to be inexplicable, in C. 1.the Church of Romes Sence, ſo there are likewiſe ſome which can in no wiſe admit the Sence of the Proteſtants, as them which expreſly import that the Bread changes its Nature, that by the Almighty Power of God it becometh the Fleſh of the Word: and ſuch like. If Cardinal Perron, ſaith he, and other ſublime Wits on both ſides, proteſt they find no Difficulty, we muſt acknowledg they ſaid it only out of a Bravadoe, turning the beſt ſide outwards, or elſe that the reſt of the World are very dim ſighted to perceive nothing but Darkneſs, where theſe People behold nothing but Light. And elſewhere, taking notice of ſome Paſſages (which ſeem to deny the Conſubſtantiality of the Son, determined in the Council of Nice,) which are to be met with in the Writings of the Fathers who preceded that Council. Let the Fathers, addeth he, affirm or deny that the Euchariſt is really the Body of Chriſt, they will not for all this contradict thy Opinion, whoſoever thou art, whether Romaniſt or Proteſtant, more ſtrongly than the Fathers of Antioch did in appearance contradict them of Nice. To which we may now add, that as the Arians had no reaſon to draw to their Opinion, and alleage, as deciſive parts of their Queſtion, ſuch tranſient Diſcourſes as were innocently meant by the antient Fathers, without any Deſign of treating on this: ſo likewiſe we have no cauſe, neither thou I ſay nor I, to alleage as Sentences pronounced in our caſe, which has bin ſtated but of late, the ſayings of the Fathers, which were written by them on other matters, ſeveral Ages before our Controverſies began, concerning which they have expreſſed themſelves very differently and obſcurely, and even ſometimes in appearance contradictorily. Having ſhewn afterwards that the Fathers deſigned to be obſcure in their Diſcourſes concerning the Euchariſt, to hide this Myſtery from the Catecumeniſts.
SEEING then, ſaith he, that in this and other Matters, they deſigned to conceal their Thoughts, we muſt not therefore wonder, if their Expreſſions have bin oftentimes obſcure, and that which commonly is an effect of Obſcurity, if they ſeem ſometime to differ and contradict one another.
I anſwer that this being well underſtood, doth not at all obſtruct my Exception, nor what I ſaid in my Anſwer to the Perpetuity. Mr. Daillé ſpeaks of the particular Judgment which we may make of ſome Paſſages of the Fathers produced by both Parties; and I ſpeak of the general Judgment which ought to be made on the whole Body of our Proofs, and Difficulties brought againſt them; and as to what Mr. Arnaud alleageth concerning my Anſwer, wherein I ſpeak touching the Sence which People Aſſiſted by the light of Anſwer to the Perpetuity P. 192.Scripture, ſtrength of Reaſon, and plain Inſtructions of their Miniſters, may give to the myſtical Expreſſions, which were then in uſe. Theſe are things wholly different. I do not deny but that there are ſeveral difficult Places in the Writings of the Fathers. Some of which Mr. Daillé has taken Notice of. He needed not be brought in queſtion for this, ſeeing I plainly delivered my Mind touching this matter, in the beginning of my Anſwer. I affirm that the way of ſeeking the Truth touching the Euchariſt, by the Doctrine Anſwer to the Prpetuity P. 34.of the Fathers, is in it ſelf a way which is indirect, prepoſterous, and very tedious, wherein we have great cauſe to fear Miſtakes and Wandrings. Theſe are my Words, and Mr. Daillé has ſaid no more, and I do ſtill affirm, that if a man examines theſe Paſſages apart, and proteſts he finds no obſcurity in them, we cannot but take theſe his Proteſtations for Bravadoes. But this does not hinder but that the general Judgment we ought to make of the Belief of the Fathers touching the Euchariſt, and which reſulteth from an exact conſideration of the Proofs relating both to one ſide and the other, is undoubtedly on our ſide, whether theſe particular Paſſages, which ſeem at firſt to be difficult, are illuſtrated by others which ſhew the real Sence of them, or when their Difficulty ſhould remain, it is overcome by the Number and Evidence of the contrary Proofs. The Conſiderations which Mr. Daillé makes on theſe difficult Places, do in themſelves contribute to the Eſtabliſhment of the certitude of this general Judgment, which I mentioned: for they diſcover to us the Cauſes of this Obſcurity, they give us the like Examples in other Matters, and by this means leſſen the Offence which may be taken at them, and ſatisfy a mans Mind.
BUT he ſaith, that neither the Romaniſts, nor the Proteſtants have any reaſon Ibid.to alleage as Sentences pronounced on our Differences which aroſe but of la…e, the Diſcourſes of the antient Fathers, written by them upon other matters, ſeveral years before. What he ſaith is true, for we ſhould be to blame, ſhould we take them for declaratory Sentences. But this hinders not but we may ſtill conclude, they held not Tranſubſtantiation, and the Real Preſence, becauſe that if they had held theſe Doctrines, they would not have expreſſed themſelves as they do. Neither doth this deprive us of the Liberty of proceeding by way of Negation, which is to conclude by their Silence in theſe Doctrines, that they held them …ot. Neither does this moreover hinder, but that after a due Conſideration of all theſe affirmative and negative Proofs, we may make a certain and deciſive Judgment on the Queſtion touching the Doctrine of the antient Church in our own Favour. So that Mr. Arnaud has ſpent his time to no purpoſe, when he undertook to ſhew this pretended Contrariety, which he affirms to be between Mr. Daillé and me.
But Mr. Daillé's Deſign, ſaith he, is to ſhew in general, that we muſt not take the Fathers for Judges of Controverſies, and eſpecially in that of the Euchariſt. Lib. 3. C. 5. P. 47.I acknowledg it, becauſe theſe Difficulties he mentions, do ſhew this way is long and troubleſom; and that we meet in it ſuch Entanglements as are hardly to be ſurmounted, and therefore this is not a proper means for all ſorts of Perſons, but only for thoſe that have time and all other neceſſary helps. This I do not deny, but on the contrary do ever affirm, that the holy Scripture is the only certain Rule, and our having recourſe to the Fathers is but by way of Condeſcenſion. I ſay farther that if they to whom this way does properly belong, would proceed in it with that Sincerity and Diligence which is neceſſary, they would eaſily be able by the Guidance of common Senſe, to make this Evident and certain Judgment; That the antient Church believed not what the Church of Rome does at this preſent: and this Mr. Daillé will acknowledg as well as I.
IF I have inſiſted too long on this Subject 'tis becauſe I believed I ought to reprehend Mr. Arnaud for his Injuſtice towards two Perſons whom he would fain ſet at Variance, by making of them contradict one another. But return we to the reſt of our Obſervations.