The Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist in All Ages, Part · Book 6 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
General Conſiderations on Mr. Arnaud's Ninth Book. An Examination of the Objections which he propoſes againſt what he calls Machins of Abridgment, and Machins of Preparation.
HAVING conſider'd Mr. Arnaud's 6th. Book, we muſt now in order paſs on to the 9th. whoſe running Title is, The impoſſibility of the pretended Change of the Churches Belief in the Myſtery of the Euchariſt. 'Tis certain the genuine ſtate of the queſtion is only, whether this change has really hapned; this other, whether 'twas poſſible or impoſſible, is a frivolous queſtion tending to fruitleſs Speculations and tedious Debates; which is what I clearly ſhew'd when I treated of the method of the Perpetuity. And which likewiſe ſeveral Roman Catholicks have acknowledg'd, who have written on this Subject ſince the Author of the Perpetuity, Father Noüet was of opinion he had better lay aſide all this part of the In his Preface.Diſpute, and comprehend it under the Title of Particular Debates wherein the Church of Rome is not concerned, nor ought to be mention'd. Mr. De Bauné in that elegant Letter which he publiſh'd under the name of an Eccleſiaſtick to one of his Friends, diſtinguiſhes likewiſe two quarrels wherein he ſays I have engaged my ſelf, the one againſt the Real Preſence in the Euchariſt, and the other againſt the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith: and he adds, that in this latter I only encounter with a particular perſon. Mr. Pavillon, a Prieſt and Almoner to his Majeſty ſpeaks his mind more fully in his triumph touching the Euchariſt. The queſtion is not t'examine whether Page 197.the Church could change her belief, and how this change could happen; for this is a going about the buſt, and running upon whimſies. The queſtion is only to enquire whether this pretended change has effectually hapned. He calls all theſe pretenſions of impoſſibility frivolous queſtions, and mere whimſies; for theſe Gentlemen do one another right now and then. But howſoever Mr. Arnaud has his maxims apart, and he obliges us to diſtinguiſh on this ſubject two queſtions; the one, whether the change before us has been poſſible; and the other whether it has really hapned. 'Tis certain that the firſt appears already very clear by the refutation of the pretended diſtinct knowledg of the Preſence, or Real Abſence, as we lately obſerved: for altho Mr. Arnaud has treated of it only in reference to the eight firſt Centuries, without troubling himſelf with the following; yet 'tis eaſie to perceive that if it could not have place in thoſe Centuries, wherein there was greater light, it could not by ſtronger reaſon in the others, wherein there was a far greater and more general ignorance. Yet for better information in this matter, we muſt ſee what Mr. Arnaud has offer'd touching this pretended impoſſibility of the change. We ſhall here then diſcuſs again the queſtion, whether in ſuppoſing that Paſchaſus an Author of the ninth Century was the firſt that propoſed the Doctrin of the ſubſtantial inviſible Preſence of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, it might happen that this opinion in ſucceſſion of time has been receiv'd and eſtabliſh'd amongſt Chriſtians. For this is in fine what Mr. Arnaud handles in his 9th. Book, and which we ſhall now examine. We ſhall not in truth find he has made uſe therein of great Arguments to confirm his Opinion, for he ſeldom troubles himſelf about that; nor has he exactly endeavour'd to refute the means of the poſſibility which I alledged, nor defended the Anſwers of the Author of the Perpetuity. Mr. Arnaud does not care to take ſo much pains. But we ſhall find he has taken care to collect here and there ſeven or eight paſſages out of my Book, and of them joyn'd together made a body, which he calls my Machins, and divided them into five orders, with titles according to his own fancy. He calls the firſt, The Machins of Abridgment; the ſecond, The Machins of Preparation; the third, The Machins of Mollifications; the fourth, The Machins of Execution; and the fifth, The Machins of Forgetfulneſs. Now altho we may ſay in general that Mr. Arnaud's mind abounds with pleaſant fancies, by which he can eaſily find out odd names to make ſerious matters look ridiculous; yet t'excuſe him, we may ſay that in this occaſion he has follow'd, not his own natural inclination, but that of the Carteſian Philoſophy, with which his mind is ſaid to be extremely taken up; for you muſt know this Philoſophy makes Machins of every thing. But howſoever let's ſee what work Mr. Arnaud makes with mine.
THE firſt which he calls the Machin of retrenchment is taken out of two of my paſſages; the firſt of which bears, That the queſtion is not of the Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, Part 3. ch. 6. Book 9. ch. 3. p. 886.whole world, but of the Weſt, on which Mr. Arnaud makes this Commentary in my name, That is to ſay, ſays he, I will not have the queſtion concern it, I will not take the trouble t' explain how the Doctrin of the Real Preſence and Tranſubſtantiation has introduc'd it ſelf into the Eaſt, into the Patriarchats of Conſtantinople, Alexandria, Jeruſalem, and Antioch, into the Churches of the Armenians, Neſtorians, Jacobits. I do not care to trouble my ſelf with gueſſing how it has penetrated into Ethiopia, Moſcovia, Meſopotamia, Georgia, Mingrelia, Moldavia, Tartaria and the Indies. 'Tis better to ſay, 'tis not there, this is ſooner done; and by this means I ſhall free my ſelf out of a great perplexity. But, ſays he, Mr. Claude will give us I hope leave to tell him, that he is a man and not God; ſo that neither his words nor his will are always effectual. He would not have the Doctrin of the Real Preſence to be in all theſe great Provinces. But it is there, and will be maugre him. The matter depends not on him, and we have demonſtrated it by proofs which I hope he will not queſtion. He fills five great pages with this kind of diſcourſe, ſaying over and over again the ſame thing.
Mr. ARNAƲD muſt pardon me if I tell him he has gotten a little too high. Is he ſo poſſeſs'd with the charms of his own Eloquence, and force of theſe illuſions touching the Greeks, Armenians, and other Eaſtern Chriſtians to imagin a man muſt be a God to cope with him? I think conſidering what we have obſerved, a man need neither be an Angel nor an extraordinary perſon to demonſtrate again clearly that the queſtion concerns not theſe Churches, becauſe they do not at all believe the Roman Tranſubſtantiation: and ſuppoſing they did believe it, which they do not, 'twould be no hard matter to find they had received it from the Latins by means of the Croiſado's, Seminaries, and Miſſions, which is ſufficient t' exclude them from this Diſpute.
THE ſecond paſſage from whence Mr. Arnaud has taken my pretended Machin of Retrenchment, is this, The queſtion concerns not all thoſe in the Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, Part. 3. ch. 6.Weſt, who profeſs themſelves Chriſtians, but only one party that have grown prevalent, and endeavoured to get the Pulpits to themſelves, thereby to become Rulers over the whole Church. Whereupon he cries out, Did ever any Book 9. ch. 3. p. 890.body affirm that the common people of the 11th. Century held not the Real Preſence, and had only a confuſed knowledg of this Myſtery? But Mr. Arnaud does not mind what he writes. We ſpeak of the firſt fifty years of the 10th. Century, and he comes and alledges to us the common people of the 11th. Century. 'Tis ſufficient we tell him, ſays the Author of the Perpetuity, that Refut part 3. ch. 6.this change cannot be attributed to the firſt fifty years of this Century, to wit, of the 10th. ſeeing 'tis incredible that the Faithful of the whole Earth having been inſtructed in the diſtinct belief of the Real Abſence, ſhould have embraced an Opinion quite contrary in condemning their firſt ſentiments, and without this change's having made any noiſe. Theſe are the very words I recited, and on which having ſaid, that the queſtion concerned not a change begun, and finiſhed in the 10th. Century, but the progreſs of a change begun eighty two years before the 10th. Century, and finiſhed by the Popes towards the end of the 11th. I added, that our Debate was not about all thoſe in the Weſt that profeſſed themſelves Chriſtians, but only about one party that ſtrengthned themſelves, and endeavour'd to become maſters of the Pulpit, that they might afterwards be maſters of the whole Church. It evidently appears the queſtion was about the firſt fifty years of the 10th. Century. And thereupon Mr. Arnaud tells us by way of exclamation, Is there any one that affirms the common people of the 11th. Century held not the Real Preſence, and had only a confus'd knowledg of this Myſtery? No, Berenger himſelf acknowledges the contrary in calling this Doctrin the Opinion of the people, ſententia vulgi, and in maintaining the Church was periſhed. It muſt be acknowledg'd there's a ſtrange diſorder in this kind of diſputing. I will grant that the common people of the 11th. Century held the opinion of the Real Preſence, thro the labours of Paſchaſus his Diſciples; but it does not follow 'twas the ſame in the firſt fifty years of the 10th. for when a new Doctrin diſperſes it ſelf in a Church, an hundred and fifty years make great alterations in it. When we ſpeak of the time in which Paſchaſus wrote his Book of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, 'tis not likely we ſuppoſe the people to be in the ſame ſtate they were in two hundred years after the opinion of the Real Preſence had made conſiderable progreſſes. Neither will we ſuppoſe 'em to be in the ſame ſtate the firſt fifty years of the 10th. Century; for when we ſpeak of a change which was made in the ſpace of near three hundred years, common ſenſe will ſhew there was more or leſs of it according to the diverſity of the time. It is then reaſonable on my hypotheſis to conſider in the beginning of the 10th. Century thoſe that held the Real Preſence, only as a party that ſtrengthened themſelves, and endeavour'd to make 'emſelves moſt conſiderable in the Church, but 'tis in no ſort reaſonable t' oppoſe againſt this the common people of the 11th. Century, ſeeing that in eighty, or an hundred years the face of things might be eaſily changed.
'TIS moreover leſs reaſonable to ofter us the diſcourſes of Lanfranc, Book 9. ch. 3. pag. 890.who bragg'd, that in his time all the Chriſtians in the world believed they receiv'd in this Sacrament the true Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, born of the Virgin. For ſuppoſing what Lanfranc ſays were true, the ſence he gave to theſe words, the true Fleſh, and the true Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, underſtanding them in a ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation was falſe, as we have ſufficiently ſhew'd. Has any body charged this teſtimony to be falſe? ſays Mr. Arnaud, No; there's no one but Mr. Claude who does it ſix hundred years after without any ground. But does Mr. Arnaud know all that Berenger anſwer'd, and thoſe that adher'd to him? And ſuppoſing they were ignorant of the true belief of the other Churches ſeparate from the Latin, does it hence follow that in effect they believed Tranſubſtantiation, and that the proofs I have given of the contrary be not good?
DOES Reaſon, adds he, ſhew that in this point, the Faith of the Paſtors Ibidwas not that of the People? No; it proves the quite contrary, it being incredible that Miniſters who are perſuaded of the truth of the Real Preſence ſhould not take care t' inſtruct them in it, whom they exhorted to receive the Communion, to whom they ought to judg this belief to be abſolutely neceſſary to make them avoid the unworthy Communions. Mr. Arnaud fights with his own ſhadow. We never told him that thoſe who believe the Real Preſence did not endeavour t' inſinuate it into the peoples minds, according as they were more or leſs prejudiced, or zealous in the propagation of this belief, and more or leſs qualifi'd to teach it, and more or leſs again according to the circumſtances of times, occaſions, perſons. But how does this hinder me from ſaying that during the firſt fifty years of the 10th. Century it was not all them that made profeſſion of Chriſtianity in the Weſt, but a party that ſtrengthened themſelves, and endeavour'd to render themſelves the moſt conſiderable.
IS this, ſays Mr. Arnaud again, a ſufficient reaſon to ſhew that the people were not perſuaded of the Real Preſence, becauſe ſome Hiſtorians who tell us that Berenger troubled the Church by a new Hereſie, do at the ſame time likewiſe inform us that he perverted ſeveral perſons with his novelties? But we did not offer this alone as a ſufficient reaſon to perſuade him the people did not believe the Real Preſence in the beginning of the 10th. Century. I confeſs that upon this alone one may juſtly ſay either that thoſe who follow'd Berenger, follow'd him in leaving their firſt Belief, and embracing a new Opinion, or that they follow'd him becauſe he Preach'd only what they believ'd before, or that they adher'd to him becauſe they were further inſtructed in a myſtery of which they had but ſmall knowledg, or little certainty. So far every man is at liberty to take that part which he ſhall judg the moſt reaſonable: but ſhould I ſay there were ſeveral that follow'd him upon the account of their knowing what he taught was the ancient Doctrin, I ſhall ſay nothing but what's very probable, having ſhew'd, as I have done in my anſwer to the Perpetuity, that Bertran's Doctrin was publickly taught in the 10th. Century; for it follows hence probably enough, that this Doctrin was not then wholly extinct, that is to ſay, in the beginning of the 11th. Century, when Berenger appear'd.
THESE are Mr. Arnaud's firſt objections, which as is plainly ſeen, are not over demonſtrative, that the change we ſuppoſe is impoſſible. Thoſe which follow are not much better, as will appear from the reflections we ſhall make on 'em. The ſecond order of theſe pretended Machins which he attributes to me, is what he calls Machins of Preparations, and he draws theſe from two paſſages, the one of my firſt anſwer, and th'other from my ſecond. The firſt is contain'd in theſe terms; In this dark Age, that is to ſay in the 10th. the diſtinct knowledg of the true Doctrin was loſt, not only in reference to the Sacrament, but almoſt all other Points of the Chriſtian Religion. The ſecond ſpeaks of the Ages which followed the firſt eight in theſe terms. The firſt light which was taken from the people to keep 'em in ignorance Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, Part 2. chap. 3.was God's Word. The ſecond was the clear and ſolid Expoſitions of the Writings of the Holy Fathers in reference to the Sacrament. The third, the knowledg of other Myſteries of Chriſtianity which might ſtrengthen mens minds, and encourage their zeal for the truth. The fourth was ſuffering natural reaſon to decay and fall into a kind of languiſhment. And as to their ſenſes they had open War declar'd againſt 'em.
THOSE that ſhall take the pains to read the 4th. Chapter of Mr. Arnaud's Chap. 4. page 891.9th. Book, which has for its title, The Machins of Preparation Examin'd, will find therein a prodigious profuſion of words, much heat and vehement declamations, but very few things worth regarding; wherefore paſſing by, as I ſhall do whatſoever is uſeleſs and redundant, the reſt will not take up much time. Firſt he charges me with offering things without any foundation, proof, or reaſon. I anſwer then Mr. Arnaud has forgot the proofs Page 892.we brought touching the diſorders of the 10th. Century, and according to his reckoning the teſtimonies of Guitmond, Verner Rollevink, Marc Antony Sabellic, John Stella, Polydor Virgil, Elfric Arch biſhop of Canterbury, Edgar King of England, Genebrard, Bellarmin, Baronius, Nicolas Vignier, and the Author of the Apology for the Holy Fathers the defenders of the Doctrin of Divine Grace, ſhall be eſteem'd as nothing. The one tells us, That the truths of Religion were vaniſh'd away in this Age from men. The other, That therein was a total neglect of all ingenious Arts. The third, That all perſons in general ſo greatly indulged 'emſelves in idleneſs, that all kinds of Virtues ſeem'd to be laid aſleep with 'em. The fourth, That the Monks and Prieſts minded only th' enriching 'emſelves. The fifth, That the Biſhops and Prieſts neglected the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and inſtructing the people out of 'em. The ſixth, That the Church-men ſpent their lives in Debauches, Drunkenneſs, and Ʋncleanneſs. The ſeventh, That 'twas an unhappy Age, an Age void of excelling men either in Wit or Learning. The eighth, That there were no famous Writers in it, nor Councils, nor Popes that took care of any thing. The ninth, That Barbariſm and ignorance of Learning and Sciences either Divine or Human reigned more in it than in the former Ages. The tenth, That 'twas an iron and leaden Age, an obſcure and dark Age. And the eleventh, That 'twas an Age of Darkneſs and Ignorance, wherein excepting ſome few Hiſtorians, there were no famous Writers on the Myſteries of Faith. Mr. Arnaud knows all this, and that we might increaſe the number of theſe Teſtimonies with ſeveral others, were it neceſſary, yet tells me with the greateſt tranſport, That I offer things without any ground, proof, or reaſon, things which I know to be falſe, and mere imaginations.
HE ſays, adds he ſpeaking of me, that the diſtinct knowledg of almoſt all Chap. 4. page 829.the other Myſteries but that of the Euchariſt was loſt in the 10th. Age. Now he knows the contrary of this, and is perſuaded of it, ſeeing that as to the common Myſteries, and ſuch as are believed by both Parties, and contained in the ancient Symbol, it cannot be ſaid they of the 10th. Age were ignorant of 'em; and yet as to the points controverted between the Calviniſts, and the Roman Church, excepting that of the Euchariſt, all the Miniſters his Brethren do frankly acknowledg, that long before the 9th. and 10th. Century the whole Church believed what the Roman Church does believe at preſent of 'em. Let him tell us then what are theſe truths of Faith, the diſtinct knowledg of which were loſt in the 10th. Century.
'TIS no hard matter to ſatisfie Mr. Arnaud. Theſe truths the diſtinct knowledg of which was loſt in the 10th. Century are the ſame which are contained in the Symbols. Does he imagin that if a man be not ignorant of the Symbols, that therefore he muſt know diſtinctly the Myſteries therein contained; and does he put no difference between being ignorant of a thing, conſuſedly knowing it, and diſtinctly knowing it? Do all thoſe that know the Creed, diſtinctly underſtand the Myſteries contained therein? Certainly a mans mind muſt be ſtrangely benighted that reaſons after this manner. They were not ignorant of the Myſteries contain'd in the ancient Symbols, they had then a diſtinct knowledg of 'em. If this Argument holds good we may attribute the diſtinct knowledg of the principal Points of Chriſtianity almoſt to all kinds of perſons, to Artificers, Husbandmen, Women, yea Children; for there are few in either Communion but have heard of them, and know ſomething in 'em, and yet it muſt be granted there are few of theſe who can be properly ſaid to know them diſtinctly. I pretend not to treat here on the common place of the confuſed knowledg, and the diſtinct knowleſs. This is needleſs. 'Tis ſufficient to obſerve that the term of diſtinct knowledg is equivocal; for 'tis ſometimes taken for the formal and expreſs knowledg of a thing, in oppoſition to the ignorance of this ſame thing, or to what the Schools call an implicit knowledg; and ſometimes 'tis taken for a clear and full knowledg, in oppoſition to a confuſed and perplex'd one. When the Author of the Perpetuity ſaid that all the Faithful ought always to have a diſtinct knowledg of the Preſence, or Real Abſence, he took the term diſtinct knowledg in the firſt ſenſe; for he did not mean that all the Faithful muſt know clearly and fully the Doctrin of the Real Preſence in every reſpect, but that they had a formal, expreſs and determinate thought of rejecting or admitting it. But when I ſaid that the diſtinct knowledg of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt, and almoſt all the other Myſteries of Chriſtian Religion was loſt in the 10th. Century, I took this term in the ſecond ſenſe, meaning not that there was no more formal knowledg of theſe Myſteries; that is to ſay, that they form'd no more any expreſs and determined thought on the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, and that Jeſus Chriſt is God and Man, that he was born of a Virgin, died for us, roſe again and aſcended up into Heaven, and that there is an Euchariſt; but meaning that they had only a very ſmall knowledg of them, ſuch as is common to perſons unlearned, and who rarely apply themſelves to meditate on matters of Religion; who go indeed for Chriſtians, but trouble themſelves with no more knowledg than barely to learn the Creed, and receive ſome other general Inſtructions. 'Tis eaſily perceived that this was my ſenſe, and that the ignorance I attribute to theſe perſons of the 10th. Century, from the concurrent Teſtimony of all Hiſtorians, was not ſo great as to keep 'em abſolutely from all knowledg of the principal Points of Chriſtian Religion, as if they were become Pagans, or Atheiſts, or bruit Beaſts, but that it hindred them from having that clearneſs of apprehenſion and diſtinct knowledg, which comes by ſtudy and pains, and the hearing of able Preachers. Which will evidently appear upon conſulting the particular places of my Anſwer, wherein I treat of the 10th. Century; for I attribute to it a confuſed knowledg of the Myſteries of Religion. Now a confuſed knowledg is moreover a formal knowledg. Elſewhere I compare their knowledg to that of a Child who is wont to ſee Firſt Anſwer near the end.his Nurſe, ill dreſt, lean and ſick, which ſtill ſuppoſes he ſees her, altho he ſees her not in her uſual condition. In another place I ſay the Paſtors grew Anſwer to the ſecond Treatiſe, Part 2. ch. 3. and Part 3. ch. 7.careleſs of inſtructing the People, and the People likewiſe of informing themſelves in matters of Religion; that there were few perſons that applied themſelves to the meditating on the Chriſtian Myſteries; that the Paſtors extremely neglected th' inſtructing of the People, and that the People grew as careleſs as they in matters of their ſalvation. Now the meaning of all this is not that they wholly loſt all kind of knowledg, but that it was very ſcanty. In fine, 'twill appear this is my ſenſe to him that ſhall caſt his eyes on the uſe I pretend to make of the obſcurity of the 10th. Age, which was to ſhew that the people of it had not light enough to diſcern whether the Doctrin of the Real Preſence was an innovation in the Chriſtian Religion, or whether 'twas a Doctrin of the Fathers. Now this does not oblige a man to ſuppoſe an abſolute ignorance of the Chriſtian Myſteries, but that the knowledg of them was very confuſed. Which Mr. Arnaud could have well enough ſeen, if he pleaſed; but he thought 'twere better to betake himſelf to Sophiſms, imagining they would not be laid open, and that he might ſo diſguiſe the ſubject that few perſons ſhould be able to underſtand it. And 'tis on this Principle which is neither true, nor ſincere, that he has grounded this reaſoning, the common Myſteries held at this day by both Parties, and contained in the ancient Symbols were not unknown in the 10th. Century; therefore they of that Age had a diſtinct knowledg of the truths of the Chriſtian Doctrin.
WHATSOEVER follows in his fourth Chapter turns upon the ſame equivocation. Did they leave off, ſays he, reading the Holy Scripture Page 892.in the Churches and Cloiſters? Did they give over explaining of it to the People and teaching it in the Schools? Do not the writings of thoſe Authors which we have that lived in that Century, ſuch as thoſe of S. Odon and Raterius Biſhop of Verone make it appear that the Scriptures and Fathers were ſtudied. Why does he ſay that the people had concealed from 'em the clear and ſolid expoſitions of the Fathers. Was not the Euchariſt therein called the Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, the Myſtery of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, Bread and Wine? But all theſe interrogations are needleſs. A man may ſay they did not abſolutely give over the reading of the holy Scripture, and expounding it. Perhaps Odon and Raterius were a little ſtudious. Perhaps the Euchariſt was called a Sacrament, a Myſtery, Bread and Wine; and yet it may not follow the People had a diſtinct knowledg of the points of Religion. The Greeks, Armenians, Moſcovites, Ethiopians, Jacobites, Neſtorians did not wholly lay aſide the reading of the Holy Scripture, and of ſome Fathers in their Church, and Cloiſters; and yet is it true that all theſe people, yea their very Monks and Prelates lived in a very confuſed knowledg of the myſteries of the Goſpel.
WHAT he adds touching ſome Hiſtorians, and Biſhops that wrote Books, is built on the ſame foundation. Beſides that there appears not any thing in theſe Authors but what is very mean, their ſmall number does well warrant our ſaying this Age was void of Learned men, and that people had but a very confuſed knowledg of the myſteries of the Goſpel.
'TIS falſe, ſaith he, that in this Age open War was denounced againſt the ſenſes. If this be falſe, how does he himſelf underſtand they taught Tranſubſtantiation in it? For can this Doctrin be taught without oppoſing the teſtimony of our ſenſes, ſeeing they ſhew us it is Bread and Wine?
BUT theſe ſmall objections are very inconſiderable in compariſon of Mr. Arnaud's grand pretenſion, which is, that this confuſed knowledg which I attribute to the 10th. Century, is but a mere empty ſound, whoſe ſenſe I my ſelf do not underſtand. In ſearching his Book, ſays he, in what ſenſe he took it, I found that confuſed knowledg and diſtinct knowledg are one and the ſame thing in his language, which is to ſay, that the knowledg which he calls confuſed is every whit as clear as that which he calls diſtinct. This diſcovery would be a very fine one indeed, were it not merely imaginary. 'Tis grounded on that deſcribing ſome-where the inſtructions of the Fathers of the eight firſt Centuries, I ſay, that they taught therein the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine, that this Bread and Wine were the ſigns and Figures of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, that they loſt not their natural ſubſtance, but were called the Body and Blood of Chriſt, becauſe they were the Sacraments of 'em. He hence concludes that 'tis in theſe Articles wherein conſiſts according to my way the diſtinct knowledg of the Myſtery of the Euchariſt. He afterwards obſerves that in another place ſpeaking of the trurh of the Euchariſt which have been always popular, I ſay, That the Myſtery of the Euchariſt has been always popular in the outward form of its celebration, and in the general acts which Chriſtians ought to perform in it. To take Bread, to drink Wine in remembrance of the Death and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, to receive theſe things with a religious frame of mind as a great Sacrament which the Lord has ordained, to raiſe up ones Faith to the Body and Blood of our Saviour, to find therein the conſolation of our Souls; this without doubt is popular. It is popular to hearken to the teſtimony of ſenſe which tells us that 'tis Bread, and yet to hear that 'tis the Body of Chriſt, the Sacrament of the Body of Chriſt, its pledg, its memorial. It is popular to know that Jeſus Chriſt is in Heaven, and that from thence he ſhall come to judg both the quick and dead. Whence he concludes with Authority that the diſtinct knowledg which I give to the firſt Ages, and the confuſed one which I attribute to the 10th, are but one and the ſame thing.
IT muſt be allowed that never any conſequence was more violently drawn than that of Mr. Arnaud's. Firſt, It is not true that the Articles which I give of the diſtinct knowledg, are the ſame with thoſe of the popular knowledg. Among the firſt is found, That the Bread and Wine loſe not their natural ſubſtance. That they are called the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they are the Sacraments of 'em, which is not found in the Articles of the popular knowledg. How will he have this to be then one and the ſame thing. There is a great deal of difference between harkning to the teſtimony of ones proper ſenſes which ſhew the Euchariſt to be Bread and Wine, and learning from the inſtructions of Paſtors that the Euchariſt is Bread and Wine. The firſt induces a man to believe that to judg of it by ſenſe 'tis real Bread and Wine, but the ſecond goes farther; for it ſhews this very thing which the ſenſes depoſe, to be the true belief of the Church. Now theſe two things are wholly different as any man may ſee. The firſt does not diſpoſe men to reject Tranſubſtantiation as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church, for it remains ſtill to know whether the Faith of the Church be not contrary to the teſtimony of ſenſe. The ſecond does diſpoſe 'em to it; for it ſhews that the Doctrin of the Church is according to the depoſition of the ſenſes. Now the firſt is according to my rule belonging to the popular knowledg; and the ſecond belongs to the diſtinct knowledg. What reaſon is there then in having theſe two knowledges to be the ſame. Thirdly, Mr. Arnaud has not obſerved that when I ſpake of the diſtinct knowledg of the eight firſt Centuries, I did not pretend exactly to denote all the Articles of it, this was not my buſineſs in that place. But only t' obſerve ſome of the principal ones which were ſufficient to make known the ſenſe of theſe Propoſitions, The Bread is the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, it is changed into the Body of Jeſus Chriſt. But it does not hence follow but that there were therein ſome others very conſiderable ones, which may be gathered from the paſſages of the Fathers, which I produc'd in my firſt part, as that the change which happens in the Euchariſt is not a change of Nature, but an addition of Grace to Nature; that Jeſus Chriſt, as to his human Body, or human Nature, is ſo in Heaven that he is no more on Earth; that the manducation of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt is ſpiritual and myſtical; that we muſt not underſtand it literally, it being a figurative expreſſion; that the Sacrament and the verity repreſented by the Sacrament are two diſtinct things: and ſeveral others which are not neceſſary to be related. Suppoſing it were true that the Articles of the popular knowledg were the ſame with thoſe I mark'd of the diſtinct knowledg, which is evidently falſe, yet would it not follow that theſe two knowledges according to my ſenſe would be the ſame thing, ſeeing I never pretended to make an exact enumeration of all the points of the diſtinct knowledg, nor exclude them which I now denoted, which are no wiſe popular. In fine, Mr. Arnaud has not conſidered that of the ſame Articles, whether popular, or not popular, a man may have a diſtinct knowledg and a confuſed one, according as he makes a greater or leſſer reflection on them, according as they are reſpected with more or leſs application, according as each of thoſe that has the knowledg of 'em has more or leſs underſtanding, natural or acquired; ſo that ſuppoſing we attributed to the diſtinct knowledg of the eight firſt Centuries only the Articles which I ſpecifi'd, ſuppoſing theſe Articles were the ſame as thoſe I attribute to the popular knowledg, which is not true; ſuppoſing again there were no difference in 'em, as there is in reſpect of ſome of theſe Articles, between the knowing of 'em popularly, that is to ſay, either by the help of the Senſes, or by the natural motion of the Conſcience; and to know them by the inſtruction of the Paſtors, as a thing which the Church believes, and from which a man muſt not vary, it would in no wiſe thence follow that the confuſed knowledg were according to what I laid down, the ſame thing; the object of theſe two knowledges would be the ſame, but the knowledges would be diſtinct. And thus have we ſhewed Mr. Arnaud's ſubtilties.